Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

House · Democrat

Natalie M. Blais

Current member · 1st Franklin

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Deerfield

First elected

House 2018

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
191st (2019–20)House1st Franklin2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)House1st Franklin2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)House1st Franklin2021 lines
194th (2025–26)House1st Franklin2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Natalie M. Blais was paid $50,100 in leadership and committee stipends from 2021 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
191st (2019–20)No post recorded$0$0
192nd (2021–22)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities$5,908$5,908
193rd (2023–24)Vice chair, Joint Committee on Agriculture$7,096$7,096
194th (2025–26)Title not in the roster records; a stipend was paid$22,431$1,662 (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

1st Franklin on its 2021 lines: 18 cities and towns, 42,982 residents (2020).

Montague · Greenfield · Deerfield · Sunderland · Bernardston · Shelburne · Leverett · Buckland · Conway · Ashfield · Whately · Colrain · Charlemont · Leyden · Heath · Rowe · Hawley · Monroe

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: 52 for all state aid and 82 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
191st (2019–20)1st Franklin$150,000$0$1.84 · 131st of 160$1.84 · 131st of 160
192nd (2021–22)1st Franklin$460,000$0$5.65 · 100th of 160$5.65 · 96th of 160
193rd (2023–24)1st Franklin$684,000$56,000$7.96 · 70th of 160$7.30 · 74th of 160
194th (2025–26)1st Franklin$358,000$0$8.32 · 54th of 160$8.32 · 53rd 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
191st (2019–20)1st Franklin$330,000$4.06 · 99th of 160$330,000$4.06 · 101st of 160
192nd (2021–22)1st Franklin$485,000$5.96 · 113th of 160$485,000$5.96 · 118th of 160
193rd (2023–24)1st Franklin$734,000$8.54 · 85th of 160$996,000$11.59 · 67th of 160
194th (2025–26)1st Franklin$663,000$15.44 · 35th of 160$729,000$16.96 · 37th of 160

Budget amendments

Natalie M. Blais sponsored 68 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $257 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

68

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

56%

19 of 34

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

57%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 34 with a known outcome, 19 were adopted (56%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 20 (57%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Natalie M. Blais filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2026$250,000“the Baystate Franklin Medical Center in the city of Greenfield to support its family medicine residency program”H4000 #1620
FY2025$100,000“outdoor recreation infrastructure improvements in the city of Greenfield”H4600 #1057
FY2026$75,000“the city of Greenfield for maintenance vehicle upgrades”H4000 #1202
FY2026$75,000“the town of Shelburne for playground improvements”H4000 #1203
FY2025$50,000“Montague for infrastructure improvements at the Gill Montague council on aging”H4600 #1058

Strong matches: 14 enacted items, $862,000 (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

32 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

Natalie M. Blais filed 189 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; 30 were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 17% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 3% 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)Enacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
191st (2019–20)House296241502021%4%312
192nd (2021–22)House5295141626017%3%252
193rd (2023–24)House5891192603016%4%227
194th (2025–26)House5061190002412%*1%192

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

Show all 30

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

Natalie M. Blais cast 59 yes-or-no votes on the 59 accountability roll calls in this file (12 yes, 47 no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 30, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Time to review billsYesYeas 55, nays 103
January 30, 2019Amendment 2.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Time to review amendmentsNoYeas 47, nays 111
January 30, 2019Amendment 3.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Committee materials and votesNoYeas 49, nays 109
January 30, 2019Collective bargaining for House employees (curb on leadership control of staff); not a disclosure/power-of-leadership rule in the narrow sense (contested meaning)NoYeas 9, nays 149
January 30, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationNoYeas 40, nays 118
January 30, 2019Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsNoYeas 35, nays 123
January 30, 2019Amendment 14.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Polls – 2 HoursNoYeas 44, nays 114
January 30, 2019Amendment 16.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): House AuditsNoYeas 35, nays 123
January 30, 2019Amendment 17.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): HWM Reports on BillsNoYeas 33, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 19.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionNoYeas 32, nays 126
January 30, 2019Amendment 20.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsNoYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 22.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Votes on WebsiteNoYeas 44, nays 113
January 30, 2019Fingerprint remote voting from committee rooms (contested meaning)NoYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 25.0 (Marc T. Lombardo): Matters considered in an informal sessionNoYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 31.0 (John H. Rogers): Relative to Rule 18CNoYeas 43, nays 113
January 30, 2019Amendment 32.0 (Patrick Joseph Kearney): relative to Rule 100 ( c ) 3NoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019Amendment 33.0 (Patrick Joseph Kearney): relative to Rule 20A and Rule 33ANoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019Equitable office space (leadership allocates offices) (contested meaning)NoYeas 11, nays 146
January 30, 2019Amendment 38.0 (Denise Provost): To assure adequate time to prepare and file amendmentsNoYeas 44, nays 113
January 30, 2019Amendment 41.0 (Russell E. Holmes): Equal Pay Amendment IINoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019House rules (H2019), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 125, nays 32
January 30, 2019Conference-committee appointment deadline; adopted 157-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 157, nays 0
January 30, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Roll Calls on WebsiteNoYeas 47, nays 110
January 30, 2019Amendment 12.0 (Marc T. Lombardo): Informal SessionNoYeas 36, nays 121
January 30, 2019Joint rules (H2021), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 157, nays 0
February 24, 2021Amendment 8.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee Votes and TestimonyNoYeas 36, nays 122
February 24, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Electronic PollNoYeas 38, nays 121
February 24, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Procurement AmendmentNoYeas 34, nays 125
February 24, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Conference Committee ReportNoYeas 35, nays 123
February 24, 2021Joint rules (H68), rules package: on adoption of the Order (contested meaning)YesYeas 128, nays 31
July 7, 2021Remote voting for members on military duty; adopted 160-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 160, nays 0
July 7, 2021Amendment 2.0 (Tami L. Gouveia): Speaker Term LimitsNoYeas 35, nays 125
July 7, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsNoYeas 30, nays 129
July 7, 2021Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Polls - 2 HoursNoYeas 35, nays 124
July 7, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationNoYeas 33, nays 126
July 7, 2021Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsNoYeas 32, nays 127
July 7, 2021Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Votes on WebsiteNoYeas 38, nays 121
July 7, 2021Amendment 16.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee VotesNoYeas 41, nays 117
July 7, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Christopher M. Markey): Review Period for Released BillsNoYeas 39, nays 119
July 7, 2021House rules (H3930), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 129, nays 29
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

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

Natalie M. Blais’s committee reported $58,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2019–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2019$6,000
2020$9,100
2021$7,100
2022$11,000
2023$4,550
2024$11,000
2025$9,754
2026$0
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$48,00082%
Political committees and PACs$11,00018%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer40%
Self-employed16%
Retired29%
Not employed9%
Not reported or withheld5%

Not counted as contributions: $3,811 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).

The same committee also reported $29,000 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2018), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
NORTHEAST SOLAR DESIGN ASSOCIATESindividuals, by employer$4,1506
UMASS AMHERSTindividuals, by employer$3,50012
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$2,5005
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PACcommittee or PAC$2,1005
TOWN OF BUCKLANDindividuals, by employer$2,0002
NUTRI SYSTEMSindividuals, by employer$1,8506
UMASSindividuals, by employer$1,2502
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSindividuals, by employer$1,0023
NORTH ATLANTIC STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
GALLAGHER AND BASSETTindividuals, by employer$8002

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Blais Committee (CPF 16942). 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.