Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

House · Democrat

Christopher J. Worrell

Current member · 5th Suffolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Boston

First elected

House 2022

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
189th (2015–16)House6th Middlesex2011 lines
190th (2017–18)House6th Middlesex2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)House5th Suffolk2021 lines
194th (2025–26)House5th Suffolk2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Christopher J. Worrell was paid $13,824 in leadership and committee stipends from 2025 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
189th (2015–16)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Public Servicenot availablenot available
190th (2017–18)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Educationnot availablenot available
193rd (2023–24)No post recorded$0$0
194th (2025–26)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security$7,776$6,048 (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

5th Suffolk on its 2021 lines: 1 city or town, 45,983 residents (2020).

Boston

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: 43 for all state aid and 36 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)6th Middlesex$122,000$0$2.76 · 78th of 160$2.76 · 78th of 160
190th (2017–18)6th Middlesex$504,000$0$5.70 · 39th of 160$5.70 · 39th of 160
193rd (2023–24)5th Suffolk$1.2M$0$13.54 · 36th of 160$13.54 · 35th of 160
194th (2025–26)5th Suffolk$1.2M$0$25.24 · 14th of 160$25.24 · 14th of 160

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)6th Middlesex$275,000$6.22 · 42nd of 160$275,000$6.22 · 46th of 160
190th (2017–18)6th Middlesex$932,000$10.53 · 16th of 160$1M$11.66 · 14th of 160
193rd (2023–24)5th Suffolk$1.7M$18.79 · 32nd of 160$2M$21.29 · 34th of 160
194th (2025–26)5th Suffolk$1.2M$25.51 · 23rd of 160$1.4M$29.81 · 23rd of 160

Budget amendments

Christopher J. Worrell sponsored 113 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $55.3 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

113

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

45%

25 of 55

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

58%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 55 with a known outcome, 25 were adopted (45%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 32 (58%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Christopher J. Worrell filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2026$1M“the New Commonwealth Fund to assist in their work of expanding grant opportunities for Black and Brown-led non-profits across the Commonwealth”H4000 #702
FY2025$1M“the New Commonwealth Fund to assist in their work of expanding grant opportunities for Black and Brown-led non-profits across the commonwealth”H4600 #421
FY2026$200,000“Hearth, Inc. for upgrades and other improvements, including those necessary for the operation of facilities operated by Hearth, Inc. in the city of…”H4000 #1004
FY2019$100,000“the United Way of Tri-County’s Call 2 Talk program”H4400 #871
FY2025$75,000“the Cape Verdean Association’s Cabral leadership and innovation center”H4600 #431

Strong matches: 14 enacted items, $2.7 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). A further one weaker text match is not listed; attribution is inferred from amendment text and is less certain there. House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

53 outcomes are inferred by matching amendment text to the House’s consolidated amendments, because the House records most amendments only as “Consolidated A–G.” 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

Christopher J. Worrell filed 158 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; eight were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 7% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 4% to 7% 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 diedNo actionPending (session open)Enacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
189th (2015–16)House62413520206%6%776
190th (2017–18)House47002320400%7%790
193rd (2023–24)House1440460029%4%111
194th (2025–26)House35011400200%*1%117

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

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

Christopher J. Worrell cast 41 yes-or-no votes on the 41 accountability roll calls in this file (ten yes, 31 no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 25, 2017Recommit the 2017 pay-raise bill (H.58) to Ways and MeansNoYeas 35, nays 125
January 25, 2017Amd 3 (Lyons): legislators' raise not effective until next General CourtNoYeas 40, nays 120
January 25, 2017Amd 5 (Lyons): cap the increases at 4%NoYeas 36, nays 124
January 25, 2017Engrossment of the pay-raise bill (stipend increases)YesYeas 116, nays 44
January 26, 2017Enactment of the pay-raise billYesYeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017Override of Gov. Baker's veto of the pay-raise billYesYeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017Amendment 1.0 (Geoff Diehl): Text of the proposed House amendment (Representative Diehl) to the House Bill relative to Rank and File (House, No. 2017)NoYeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017Sustain the Chair's ruling (point of order, Mr. Mark) against Diehl amd 2, Speaker term limitsYesYeas 123, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): 24 Hour Time Frame for Bills to Be Acted OnNoYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationNoYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 10.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Equal Representation on Ethics CommitteeNoYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 15.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): InoculatorsNoYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 16.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 27.0 (James J. Lyons, Jr.): Defining and Limiting Informal SessionNoYeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 20.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to House financial accounts auditsNoYeas 34, nays 125
February 2, 2017Amendment 21.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votesNoYeas 41, nays 118
February 2, 2017Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionNoYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Roll Calls on WebsiteNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Reports of Conference Filing DeadlineNoYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 14.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votesNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 1, 2023Amendment 7.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Time to review technical/ perfecting amendmentsNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023House rules (H2023), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 153, nays 0
February 1, 2023Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionNoYeas 23, nays 130
February 1, 2023Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Hearing ScheduleNoYeas 24, nays 129
February 1, 2023Joint rules (H2025), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 153, nays 0
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Roll CallsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Formal Session NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): General Court AuditsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Opinion of the JusticesNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 7.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Joint rules (H2026), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
February 25, 2025Amendment 18.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Time to Review LegislationNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 17.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Audit by State AuditorNoYeas 24, nays 127
February 25, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee PollsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Poll NotificationsNoYeas 23, nays 128
February 25, 2025House rules (H2024), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 23
June 26, 2025Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: on acceptance (contested meaning)YesYeas 147, nays 2
June 3, 2026Engross H.5469 (public records law applied to the Legislature). Reform advocates split (contested meaning)YesYeas 125, nays 28

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

Christopher J. Worrell’s committee reported $253,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2023–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2023$59,000
2024$81,000
2025$62,000
2026$50,000
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$226,00089%
Political committees and PACs$27,00011%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer60%
Self-employed16%
Retired7%
Not employed11%
Not reported or withheld5%

The same committee also reported $48,000 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2019, 2022), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
DEVOTED HEALTHindividuals, by employer$4,2505
ABLEindividuals, by employer$4,0004
MORGAN STANLEYindividuals, by employer$4,0004
VOLNAYindividuals, by employer$3,0003
JUNO SPORTSindividuals, by employer$3,0003
VICTORY HUMAN SERVICESindividuals, by employer$2,9506
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITYindividuals, by employer$2,6505
PURE OASISindividuals, by employer$2,5004
UHM PROPERTIESindividuals, by employer$2,5005
NECHMindividuals, by employer$2,5003

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Worrell Committee (CPF 17118). 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.