Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

Senate · Republican

Bruce E. Tarr

Current member · First Essex and Middlesex

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Gloucester

First elected

House 1990; Senate 1994

Occupation

Attorney

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
189th (2015–16)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2011 lines
190th (2017–18)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2011 lines
191st (2019–20)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2021 lines
194th (2025–26)SenateFirst Essex and Middlesex2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Bruce E. Tarr was paid $657,078 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
189th (2015–16)Minority Leadernot available$22,500
190th (2017–18)Minority Leader$22,500$22,500
191st (2019–20)Minority Leader$64,992$64,992
192nd (2021–22)Minority Leader$68,170$68,170
193rd (2023–24)Minority Leader$81,872$81,872
194th (2025–26)Minority Leader; Ranking Minority Member on Senate Bills in Third Reading, Senate Steering and Policy, and five joint committees$89,724$69,785 (to date)

Posts: the Legislature’s leadership and roster records as compiled for this project; where those name no post, the member’s committee chair, vice-chair and ranking roles from the Legislature’s member profiles. Stipends: additional compensation in the Comptroller’s payroll data (CTHRU dataset 9ttk-7vz6), 2016–2026; 2026 is the year to date. Stipends for 2015 are not available. Base salary is not included.

The district

First Essex and Middlesex on its 2021 lines: 19 cities and towns, 180,195 residents (2020).

Gloucester · Newburyport · North Reading · Ipswich · Middleton · Salisbury · Georgetown · Boxford · North Andover · Hamilton · Rockport · Groveland · Newbury · Topsfield · Rowley · Manchester-by-the-Sea · Wenham · West Newbury · Essex

Percentages are each place’s share of the district’s 2020 residents; for a town split between districts, the share of the town inside this one follows.

Population-weighted Fairness Index of the district’s cities and towns: 34 for all state aid and 49 for discretionary money (50 is a fair share).

Local earmarks are counted three ways. District money uses the first, clauses that name a place in the district; the second table adds organizations located in the district (placed in the district) and state facilities located there (everything placed). Three ways to count a local earmark.

District money, first measure: enacted earmarks in clauses naming a place in the district, by session (district money, not the member’s)
SessionDistrictDollarsIn corrective clausesPer resident per budget, rankWithout corrective clauses, rank
189th (2015–16)First Essex and Middlesex$538,000$0$3.04 · 25th of 40$3.04 · 25th of 40
190th (2017–18)First Essex and Middlesex$1.3M$0$3.56 · 28th of 40$3.56 · 28th of 40
191st (2019–20)First Essex and Middlesex$1.5M$0$4.22 · 20th of 40$4.22 · 20th of 40
192nd (2021–22)First Essex and Middlesex$3.4M$33,000$9.73 · 11th of 40$9.64 · 9th of 40
193rd (2023–24)First Essex and Middlesex$3.6M$0$10.11 · 16th of 40$10.11 · 16th of 40
194th (2025–26)First Essex and Middlesex$1.7M$0$9.51 · 15th of 40$9.51 · 15th of 40

District money is where enacted earmarks land, by the place a clause names, mapped to districts by 2020 population; it is not attributed to the member and does not include leadership’s base-text money that names no place. Ranks are of district money per resident among the chamber’s districts, 1 = most. “In corrective clauses” is the part carried by a Ways and Means chair’s corrective amendments, which is leadership’s money; the last column gives the per-resident figure and rank without it. Sessions are labeled by the General Court that enacted each budget. Per-resident figures use the district as drawn for each session (2011 lines through the 192nd General Court, 2021 lines from the 193rd), so they will not equal a session’s dollars divided by the resident count above.

The same district on the other two measures, by session (enacted; includes any corrective-clause money)
SessionDistrictPlaced in the districtPer resident per budget, rankEverything placedPer resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)First Essex and Middlesex$558,000$3.15 · 29th of 40$558,000$3.15 · 29th of 40
190th (2017–18)First Essex and Middlesex$1.1M$3.18 · 35th of 40$1.3M$3.56 · 35th of 40
191st (2019–20)First Essex and Middlesex$1.5M$4.11 · 28th of 40$1.5M$4.22 · 30th of 40
192nd (2021–22)First Essex and Middlesex$3.3M$9.45 · 16th of 40$3.4M$9.73 · 17th of 40
193rd (2023–24)First Essex and Middlesex$3.7M$10.34 · 21st of 40$3.8M$10.45 · 23rd of 40
194th (2025–26)First Essex and Middlesex$1.9M$10.29 · 16th of 40$1.9M$10.29 · 20th of 40

Budget amendments

Bruce E. Tarr sponsored 1,094 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $852 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

1,094

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

20%

224 of 1,094

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

31%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 1,094 with a known outcome, 224 were adopted (20%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 342 (31%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Bruce E. Tarr filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2023$500,000“a grant program to assist commercial lobster industry participants in the commonwealth with the costs equipment associated with the protection of the…”S4 #43
FY2024$375,000“a program to provide those engaged in commercial fisheries with grants for the purchase and maintenance of safety gear, to be administered in…”S3 #114
FY2025$350,000“the protection of right whales by increasing the patrols of the office and its officers’ ability to identify and remove abandoned fishing gear and…”S4 #10
FY2024$250,000“the protection of right whales by increasing the patrols of the office and its officers’ ability to identify and remove abandoned fishing gear and to…”S3 #2
FY2022$250,000“the protection of right whales by increasing the patrols of the office and its officers’ ability to identify and remove abandoned fishing gear and to…”S3 #289

Strong matches: 135 enacted items, $9.2 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause).

For 30 amendments the sponsor is the first mover named in the amendment text, because the Legislature’s record listed none. Ask size is the larger of the earmark dollars and the line-item change an amendment requests; bands: no dollar amount, under $50,000, $50,000–$250,000, $250,000–$1 million, $1–5 million, $5 million or more. Leadership’s unattributed base-text and corrective-amendment money is never assigned to a member. The comparison describes outcomes; it is not a measure of merit.

Bills sponsored

Bruce E. Tarr filed 1,105 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; 47 were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 5% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 1% to 4% for the same sessions.

Most bills die in every legislature, and many policies pass inside other bills; the chamber median for the same session is the fair comparison.

Bills filed as lead sponsor, by session and outcome
SessionChamberLead billsEnactedFolded into an enacted billSent to studyReported favorably, then diedReported adversely or withdrawnNo actionPending (session open)History not availableEnacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
189th (2015–16)Senate2106212129250003%4%419
190th (2017–18)Senate220671702629003%3%381
191st (2019–20)Senate19013810932199007%3%570
192nd (2021–22)Senate1591259236014008%2%166
193rd (2023–24)Senate146728145110005%1%436
194th (2025–26)Senate18031960307612%*1%496

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

Show all 47

Outcomes are the furthest point each bill reached in the record. “Folded into an enacted bill” means the history names the enacted bill that absorbed it. “Passed both branches; no chapter recorded” means the bill was enacted by both branches and laid before the Governor, with no chapter or veto in the history; in the 194th General Court such bills are shown as laid before the Governor (pending). The 194th General Court is in session until January 2027, so its open bills are pending, not dead, and its rates (*) are not comparable with completed sessions. Chairs and leaders control the calendar, which raises their rates. Source: malegislature.gov bill histories.

Recorded votes on accountability measures

Bruce E. Tarr cast 68 yes-or-no votes on the 71 accountability roll calls in this file (63 yes, five no, three for a named candidate).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 26, 2017Senate engrossment of the pay-raise billNoYeas 31, nays 9
February 2, 2017Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Matters considered in an informal sessionYesYeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informalYesYeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to pollYesYeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)YesYeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consentYesYeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid NotificationYesYeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise billNoYeas 31, nays 9
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.1 (Bruce E. Tarr): Posting of Committee Roll Call VotesYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Walter F. Timilty): Improving Access to RecordsYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Informal SessionYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Conference Committee ReportYesYeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Audit of accountsYesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableJoint rules (S9), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Non disclosure agreementsYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 7.1 (Rebecca L. Rausch): anti-harassment and assaultYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Numbers of bills considered at a hearingYesYeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019Amendment 17.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Matters considered in an informal sessionYesYeas 6, nays 33
January 31, 2019Amendment 25.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consentYesYeas 6, nays 33
not availableSenate rules (S8), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Bruce E. Tarrnot available
February 11, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Members receiving SWM GAA recommendationYesYeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnightYesYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pmYesYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 8.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive formal sessionsYesYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 15.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Anti-harassment and bystander intervention trainingYesYeas 10, nays 29
February 11, 2021Amendment 20.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Amendments to other appropriations billsYesYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Accessibility; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021Supplier diversity; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021Amendment 42.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Consideration of further and redrafted amendmentsYesYeas 7, nays 32
February 11, 2021Amendment 44.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): HearingsYesYeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021Amendment 49.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Adoption amendment - Rule 24YesYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Minority Leader appointments to committees (partisan allocation) (contested meaning)YesYeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021Amendment 24.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Notice of legislative mattersYesYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): New items on the calendarYesYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of conference committee reportYesYeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021Amendment 14.0 (James B. Eldridge): Lengthening public notice period for legislative hearingsYesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Bruce E. Tarrnot available
February 9, 2023Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive Legislative DaysYesYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time of recess for consideration of new mattersYesYeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pmYesYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnightYesYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Manner of how member votedYesYeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023Amd 23 (Rodrigues) strikes Rule 11B, the 8-year term limit on the Senate President; adopted 32-6NoYeas 32, nays 6
February 9, 2023Strike remote-participation rules 57C/57D (contested meaning)YesYeas 3, nays 35
February 9, 2023Remote voting conditions (contested meaning)YesYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Senate rules (S17), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 37, nays 1
February 9, 2023Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of Conference Committee ReportYesYeas 4, nays 35
February 9, 2023Amendment 12.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Adding a Minority ReportYesYeas 3, nays 36
not availableJoint rules (S18), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Bruce E. Tarrnot available
February 12, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Number of bills to be heardYesYeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025Amendment 9.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Minority conference committee reportYesYeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): 48 Hours for conference committee reportsYesYeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timeline for review of conference committee reportsYesYeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025Amendment 22.0 (John F. Keenan): Considering Conference ReportsYesYeas 9, nays 29
February 12, 2025Amendment 26.0 (John F. Keenan): Preventing Unjustified Financial Gain for Members and Their FamilesYesYeas 38, nays 0
February 12, 2025Amendment 29.0 (John F. Keenan): Limiting Joint Committee ExtensionsYesYeas 6, nays 32
not availableJoint rules (S15), rules package: question on passing the bill to be engrossed (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 13, 2025In-person voting conditions (contested meaning)YesYeas 5, nays 32
February 13, 2025Amendment 36.0 (John F. Keenan): Continuing Beyond MidnightYesYeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025Shorten period in which a matter can be laid on the table (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)YesYeas 5, nays 33
February 13, 2025Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10PMYesYeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025Amendment 19.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Virtual vote designationYesYeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025Legislative days for Rule 24 (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)YesYeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025Senate rules (S19), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
June 26, 2025Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: question on acceptance of conference committee report (contested meaning)YesYeas 40, nays 0
May 28, 2026S.3104 resolutions limiting the Senate's response to the Auditor to the SJC-defined 4 requests; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny; contested (contested meaning)NoYeas 33, nays 6
July 30, 2026Press shield amendment to S.3200; adopted 40-0; not about the Legislature's records (contested meaning)YesYeas 40, nays 0
July 30, 2026Amd 18 (Tarr): apply the public records law to the General Court more fullyYesYeas 6, nays 33
July 30, 2026Senate passage of H.5469 34-6; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny (too weak); contested (contested meaning)NoYeas 34, nays 6

Votes marked “contested meaning” are rules-package and public-records passage votes; reform advocates were on both sides of them. Descriptions are the project’s plain summaries of each question, or the question as recorded for rules-package roll calls; the official record is on malegislature.gov. Votes are facts; no score is computed.

Campaign money in

Bruce E. Tarr’s committee reported $519,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2015$45,000
2016$47,000
2017$47,000
2018$48,000
2019$50,000
2020$12,000
2021$38,000
2022$65,000
2023$54,000
2024$54,000
2025$30,000
2026$28,000
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$444,00086%
Political committees and PACs$74,00014%
Unions and associations$800under 1%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer54%
Self-employed24%
Retired12%
Not employedunder 1%
Homemaker or at home3%
Not reported or withheld7%

Not counted as contributions: $9,905 in other receipts of $250 or more in the same years (candidate loans and the candidate’s own money, transfers, refunds, bank interest and aggregated small receipts).

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
SPS NEW ENGLANDindividuals, by employer$9,75011
WAYNE ALARMindividuals, by employer$8,79111
GENESIS MANAGEMENTindividuals, by employer$6,75011
NECCindividuals, by employer$6,50011
CHESTNUT HILL REALTYindividuals, by employer$6,50010
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$5,00010
NEW CAR DEALER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEcommittee or PAC$5,00010
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PACcommittee or PAC$5,00010
FISHER COLLEGEindividuals, by employer$4,8006
BANNER INDUSTRIESindividuals, by employer$4,7008

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Tarr Committee (CPF 11916). Individuals are grouped by the employer they reported; no individual contributor is named, and an employer field that is a person’s name is withheld. Massachusetts bars business contributions to candidates. Employer shows affiliation, not instruction.

Sources

Every figure traces to a public record.

Facts only: posts, stipends, sponsored amendments, enacted items, roll-call votes and district money. No score or grade is computed. Associations shown here are not evidence of cause. Method.