Senate · Democrat
Sonia Chang-Diaz
Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.
Residence
Boston
First elected
Senate 2008
Occupation
Legislator
Left office
did not seek reelection in 2022 (not a candidate in the 2022 primary or general election for this seat); term ended January 4, 2023
| Session | Chamber | District | Lines | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189th (2015–16) | Senate | Second Suffolk | 2011 lines | |
| 190th (2017–18) | Senate | Second Suffolk | 2011 lines | |
| 191st (2019–20) | Senate | Second Suffolk | 2011 lines | |
| 192nd (2021–22) | Senate | Second Suffolk | 2011 lines |
Posts and stipends
Sonia Chang-Diaz was paid $219,053 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2022.
| Session | Posts | First year | Second year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 189th (2015–16) | Chair, Joint Committee on Education; Vice chair, Senate Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets | not available | $7,500 |
| 190th (2017–18) | Chair, Joint Committee on Education; Vice chair, Joint Committee on the Judiciary; Assistant vice chair, Senate Committee on Ways and Means; and one more committee role | $35,200 | $43,191 |
| 191st (2019–20) | Chair, Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy; Vice chair, Joint Committee on the Judiciary | $32,496 | $32,496 |
| 192nd (2021–22) | Chair, Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security | $34,085 | $34,085 |
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 Suffolk on its 2011 lines: 1 city or town, 169,760 residents (2020).
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.
| Session | District | Dollars | In corrective clauses | Per resident per budget, rank | Without corrective clauses, rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189th (2015–16) | Second Suffolk | $835,000 | $24,000 | $4.92 · 7th of 40 | $4.78 · 7th of 40 |
| 190th (2017–18) | Second Suffolk | $2.8M | $39,000 | $8.13 · 4th of 40 | $8.01 · 4th of 40 |
| 191st (2019–20) | Second Suffolk | $1.9M | $313,000 | $5.68 · 10th of 40 | $4.76 · 14th of 40 |
| 192nd (2021–22) | Second Suffolk | $3.6M | $421,000 | $10.64 · 9th of 40 | $9.40 · 11th 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.
| Session | District | Placed in the district | Per resident per budget, rank | Everything placed | Per resident per budget, rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189th (2015–16) | Second Suffolk | $2M | $11.58 · 2nd of 40 | $2M | $11.72 · 2nd of 40 |
| 190th (2017–18) | Second Suffolk | $6.3M | $18.66 · 1st of 40 | $6.4M | $18.87 · 1st of 40 |
| 191st (2019–20) | Second Suffolk | $5.3M | $15.72 · 4th of 40 | $5.4M | $15.83 · 4th of 40 |
| 192nd (2021–22) | Second Suffolk | $8.1M | $23.73 · 5th of 40 | $8.2M | $24.10 · 6th of 40 |
Budget amendments
Sonia Chang-Diaz sponsored 82 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $51.7 million in all.
Amendments sponsored
82
FY2017–FY2026 budgets
Adopted, known outcomes
48%
39 of 82
Chamber rate, same ask sizes
27%
expected at the chamber’s rates
Of the 82 with a known outcome, 39 were adopted (48%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 22 (27%) would have been.
| Year | Amount | Enacted budget text (excerpt) | Amendment |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2023 | $500,000 | “the creation of a pilot program for school districts participating in the METCO program” | S4 #689 |
| FY2017 | $250,000 | “a grant program to support science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, programs at vocational technical high school programs” | S4 #177 |
| FY2021 | $150,000 | “fund youth workers at housing authority sites that have experienced the highest rates of gun violence since the start of the state of emergency…” | S4 #282 |
Strong matches: 3 enacted items, $900,000 (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause).
For 8 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
Sonia Chang-Diaz filed 138 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; one was enacted on its own. In completed sessions, 0.7% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 2% 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.
| Session | Chamber | Lead bills | Enacted | Sent to study | Reported favorably, then died | Reported adversely or withdrawn | No action | History not available | Enacted rate | Chamber median | Cosponsored |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189th (2015–16) | Senate | 28 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0% | 4% | 70 |
| 190th (2017–18) | Senate | 33 | 0 | 18 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0% | 3% | 85 |
| 191st (2019–20) | Senate | 33 | 0 | 22 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 3% | 121 |
| 192nd (2021–22) | Senate | 44 | 1 | 28 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2% | 2% | 138 |
Enacted bills as lead sponsor
- S2654 (192nd): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Alecia Simmons, an employee of the Office of the Comptroller · Chapter 27 of the Acts of 2022
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
Sonia Chang-Diaz cast 36 yes-or-no votes on the 37 accountability roll calls in this file (18 yes, 18 no, one for a named candidate).
| 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 | Yes | Yeas 7, nays 32 |
| February 11, 2021 | Amendment 44.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Hearings | Yes | 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 |
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
Sonia Chang-Diaz’s committee reported $865,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2022.
| Year | Contributions |
|---|---|
| 2015 | $9,400 |
| 2016 | $22,000 |
| 2017 | $8,500 |
| 2018 | $30,000 |
| 2019 | $11,000 |
| 2020 | $39,000 |
| 2021 | $314,000 |
| 2022 | $431,000 |
| Kind | Total | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals | $856,000 | 99% |
| Unions and associations | $5,750 | 1% |
| Political committees and PACs | $3,200 | under 1% |
| Employer reported | Share |
|---|---|
| A named employer | 57% |
| Self-employed | 16% |
| Retired | 1% |
| Not employed | 21% |
| Homemaker or at home | under 1% |
| Not reported or withheld | 4% |
Not counted as contributions: $332,000 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).
The same committee also reported $0 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2023), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.
| Employer or organization | Kind | Total | Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS | individuals, by employer | $17,000 | 30 |
| PARTNERSHIP FOR DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION | individuals, by employer | $10,000 | 11 |
| MIT | individuals, by employer | $6,500 | 10 |
| METROPOLITAN BOSTON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP | individuals, by employer | $5,750 | 10 |
| HARVARD UNIVERSITY | individuals, by employer | $5,000 | 8 |
| BOSTON UNIVERSITY | individuals, by employer | $4,300 | 10 |
| NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY | individuals, by employer | $4,250 | 6 |
| BAIN | individuals, by employer | $4,100 | 6 |
| STATE STREET | individuals, by employer | $4,000 | 6 |
| HEALTHWELL | individuals, by employer | $3,900 | 4 |
Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Chang-Diaz Committee (CPF 14571). 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.
- Massachusetts Legislature, members, districts and roll calls
- Budget amendments and enacted budgets, FY2017–FY2026
- CTHRU payroll, Office of the Comptroller (stipends)
- Office of Campaign and Political Finance
- District lines: Acts of 2011 and 2021; Census 2020 block populations
- Official profile (prior offices, occupation)
- Election statistics (first elected, residence)
- Leaving office (election statistics)
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.