Senate · Democrat

Mark C. Montigny

Current member · Second Bristol and Plymouth

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

New Bedford

First elected

Senate 1992

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
Session	Chamber	District	Lines
189th (2015–16)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2011 lines
190th (2017–18)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2011 lines
191st (2019–20)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2021 lines
194th (2025–26)	Senate	Second Bristol and Plymouth	2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Mark C. Montigny was paid $546,224 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
Session	Posts	First year	Second year
189th (2015–16)	Assistant Majority Leader	not available	$15,000
190th (2017–18)	Assistant Majority Leader	$65,000	$67,540
191st (2019–20)	Senate Steering and Policy Chair	$38,129	$38,129
192nd (2021–22)	Chair, Senate Committee on Steering and Policy; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Export Development	$39,993	$39,993
193rd (2023–24)	Chair, Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs	$61,404	$61,404
194th (2025–26)	Dean of the Senate; Chair, Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight; Chair, Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs	$67,293	$52,339 (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

Second Bristol and Plymouth on its 2021 lines: 5 cities and towns, 167,853 residents (2020).

New Bedford 60% · Dartmouth 20% · Fairhaven 9% · Acushnet 6% · Mattapoisett 4%

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: 59 for all state aid and 57 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)
Session	District	Dollars	In corrective clauses	Per resident per budget, rank	Without corrective clauses, rank
189th (2015–16)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$1.6M	$0	$9.26 · 2nd of 40	$9.26 · 2nd of 40
190th (2017–18)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$2.9M	$0	$8.56 · 3rd of 40	$8.56 · 2nd of 40
191st (2019–20)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$3M	$0	$8.82 · 2nd of 40	$8.82 · 2nd of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$3.7M	$0	$11.01 · 7th of 40	$11.01 · 7th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$4M	$0	$11.94 · 11th of 40	$11.94 · 11th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$2.3M	$0	$13.46 · 8th of 40	$13.46 · 8th 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)
Session	District	Placed in the district	Per resident per budget, rank	Everything placed	Per resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$1.6M	$9.26 · 3rd of 40	$1.6M	$9.26 · 3rd of 40
190th (2017–18)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$2.9M	$8.56 · 7th of 40	$2.9M	$8.56 · 7th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$3.1M	$9.27 · 9th of 40	$3.5M	$10.48 · 7th of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$3.9M	$11.68 · 10th of 40	$4.4M	$13.17 · 9th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$4.7M	$13.96 · 14th of 40	$5.3M	$15.91 · 13th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Second Bristol and Plymouth	$2.4M	$14.21 · 12th of 40	$2.8M	$16.44 · 16th of 40

Budget amendments

Mark C. Montigny sponsored 173 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $60.4 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

173

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

59%

102 of 173

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

41%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 173 with a known outcome, 102 were adopted (59%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 72 (41%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Mark C. Montigny filed (strong text matches)
Year	Amount	Enacted budget text (excerpt)	Amendment
FY2019	$38.3M	“fund a rate add-on for wages, shift differentials, bonuses, benefits and related employee costs paid to direct care staff of nursing homes”	S4 #456
FY2025	$750,000	“provide law enforcement agencies with access to critical incident stress management and peer support programs to address police officer mental…”	S4 #1010
FY2024	$750,000	“provide law enforcement agencies with access to critical incident stress management and peer support programs to address police officer mental…”	S3 #958
FY2026	$500,000	“the SouthCoast Community Foundation, Inc. to administer a 1-time grant program to provide access to resources for underserved residents in the…”	S3 #748
FY2025	$500,000	“the SouthCoast Community Foundation. Inc to administer a 1-time grant program to provide educational, health, wellness, nutritional, arts, cultural…”	S4 #793

Strong matches: 60 enacted items, $49.7 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause).

For 7 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

Mark C. Montigny filed 435 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; ten were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 3% 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
Session	Chamber	Lead bills	Enacted	Folded into an enacted bill	Sent to study	Reported favorably, then died	Reported adversely or withdrawn	No action	Pending (session open)	History not available	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	Senate	65	2	2	38	15	1	7	0	0	3%	4%	41
190th (2017–18)	Senate	72	1	2	43	23	1	2	0	0	1%	3%	84
191st (2019–20)	Senate	69	1	3	41	16	7	1	0	0	1%	3%	116
192nd (2021–22)	Senate	71	5	1	40	20	2	3	0	0	7%	2%	53
193rd (2023–24)	Senate	75	0	2	54	17	0	2	0	0	0%	1%	90
194th (2025–26)	Senate	83	1	0	37	0	0	0	44	1	1%*	1%	84

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

S2129 (189th): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Jesse B. Walker, an employee of the Trial Court · Chapter 59 of the Acts of 2016
S2500 (189th): An Act establishing an arts, culture and tourism promotion fund in the city of New Bedford · Chapter 381 of the Acts of 2016
S2671 (190th): An Act authorizing the appointment of special police officers in the city of New Bedford · Chapter 418 of the Acts of 2018
S2215 (191st): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Mark A. Paiva, an employee of the Department of Correction · Chapter 15 of the Acts of 2019
S1747 (192nd): An Act relative to the Fairhaven Fire Department · Chapter 85 of the Acts of 2022
S2694 (192nd): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Jennifer Almond, an employee of the Department of Correction · Chapter 78 of the Acts of 2022
S2702 (192nd): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Kim Souza, an employee of the Trial Court · Chapter 50 of the Acts of 2022
S29 (192nd): An Act authorizing the city of New Bedford to convey certain land acquired for open space and play ground purposes · Chapter 18 of the Acts of 2022
S3134 (192nd): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Philip Cloutier, an employee of the Department of Mental Health · Chapter 303 of the Acts of 2022
S2508 (194th): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Andrew Setera, an employee of the trial court · Chapter 6 of the Acts of 2025

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

Mark C. Montigny cast 68 yes-or-no votes on the 71 accountability roll calls in this file (24 yes, 44 no, three for a named candidate).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
Date	Measure	Vote	Chamber result
January 26, 2017	Senate engrossment of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
February 2, 2017	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Matters considered in an informal session	Yes	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informal	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to poll	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid Notification	No	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017	Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.1 (Bruce E. Tarr): Posting of Committee Roll Call Votes	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Walter F. Timilty): Improving Access to Records	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Informal Session	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Conference Committee Report	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Audit of accounts	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Joint rules (S9), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Non disclosure agreements	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 7.1 (Rebecca L. Rausch): anti-harassment and assault	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Numbers of bills considered at a hearing	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 17.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Matters considered in an informal session	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
January 31, 2019	Amendment 25.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
not available	Senate rules (S8), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 11, 2021	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Members receiving SWM GAA recommendation	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021	Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnight	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pm	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 8.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive formal sessions	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 15.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Anti-harassment and bystander intervention training	No	Yeas 10, nays 29
February 11, 2021	Amendment 20.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Amendments to other appropriations bills	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Accessibility; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021	Supplier diversity; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021	Amendment 42.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Consideration of further and redrafted amendments	No	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 11, 2021	Amendment 44.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Hearings	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021	Amendment 49.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Adoption amendment - Rule 24	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Minority Leader appointments to committees (partisan allocation) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021	Amendment 24.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Notice of legislative matters	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): New items on the calendar	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of conference committee report	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021	Amendment 14.0 (James B. Eldridge): Lengthening public notice period for legislative hearings	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 9, 2023	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive Legislative Days	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time of recess for consideration of new matters	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023	Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pm	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnight	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Manner of how member voted	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023	Amd 23 (Rodrigues) strikes Rule 11B, the 8-year term limit on the Senate President; adopted 32-6	Yes	Yeas 32, nays 6
February 9, 2023	Strike remote-participation rules 57C/57D (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 3, nays 35
February 9, 2023	Remote voting conditions (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Senate rules (S17), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 37, nays 1
February 9, 2023	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of Conference Committee Report	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
February 9, 2023	Amendment 12.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Adding a Minority Report	No	Yeas 3, nays 36
not available	Joint rules (S18), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 12, 2025	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Number of bills to be heard	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025	Amendment 9.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Minority conference committee report	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): 48 Hours for conference committee reports	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timeline for review of conference committee reports	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025	Amendment 22.0 (John F. Keenan): Considering Conference Reports	No	Yeas 9, nays 29
February 12, 2025	Amendment 26.0 (John F. Keenan): Preventing Unjustified Financial Gain for Members and Their Familes	Yes	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 12, 2025	Amendment 29.0 (John F. Keenan): Limiting Joint Committee Extensions	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
not available	Joint rules (S15), rules package: question on passing the bill to be engrossed (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 13, 2025	In-person voting conditions (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 5, nays 32
February 13, 2025	Amendment 36.0 (John F. Keenan): Continuing Beyond Midnight	No	Yeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025	Shorten period in which a matter can be laid on the table (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 13, 2025	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10PM	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025	Amendment 19.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Virtual vote designation	No	Yeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025	Legislative days for Rule 24 (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025	Senate rules (S19), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
June 26, 2025	Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: question on acceptance of conference committee report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 40, nays 0
May 28, 2026	S.3104 resolutions limiting the Senate's response to the Auditor to the SJC-defined 4 requests; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny; contested (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 33, nays 6
July 30, 2026	Press shield amendment to S.3200; adopted 40-0; not about the Legislature's records (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 40, nays 0
July 30, 2026	Amd 18 (Tarr): apply the public records law to the General Court more fully	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
July 30, 2026	Senate passage of H.5469 34-6; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny (too weak); contested (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 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

Mark C. Montigny’s committee reported $18,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$900
2016	$2,945
2017	$500
2018	$3,057
2019	$500
2020	$500
2021	$1,300
2022	$1,500
2023	$1,000
2024	$2,750
2025	$500
2026	$2,750

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Political committees and PACs	$12,000	66%
Individuals	$4,602	25%
Unions and associations	$1,500	8%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share
Not reported or withheld	100%

Not counted as contributions: $91,000 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 organization	Kind	Total	Contributions
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$5,000	10
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF MA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	committee or PAC	$1,500	3
MA ASSOC OF REALTORS POL ACTION COMM - MA RPAC	committee or PAC	$1,200	3
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS LOCAL UNION 385	union or association	$1,000	1
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF MA PAC	committee or PAC	$500	1
LOCAL 509 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION COMM ON POL ED MA WORKERS' POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$500	1
1199 SEIU MA PAC	committee or PAC	$500	1
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 103 POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$500	1
IRONWORKERS UNION LOCAL 7 POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$500	1
MASSACHUSETTS BRICK LAYERS PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE	committee or PAC	$500	1

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Montigny Committee (CPF 12314). 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.