One might have thought, in this blue state and in this year of the woman, that the activities of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus would not come under criticism from the highest-ranking female leader in the House of Representatives.
One would be wrong. Here’s the story.
The Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus, founded in 1971, is a non-partisan organization committed to increasing the number of women elected to public office who support a woman’s right to choose.
The Caucus recently announced a number of candidate endorsements — female members of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Six of the endorsed candidates are challenging incumbent Democratic members of the House.
The Speaker pro Tempore of the House, Representative Patricia Haddad, apparently regarded these challenges to incumbent Democrats as an affront. She sent a private email to her fellow House Democrats on behalf of her colleagues in the Caucus of Women Legislators (a similarly-named group consisting of female members of both parties in the House and Senate) to clear up any confusion between the two Caucuses, to express support for the six challenged Democratic incumbents, to assure them that “the women of the House would never work against a colleague,” and to announce that, because of its endorsements, she would not be accepting the backing of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus.
Five of the six challenged House incumbents are male. The one female incumbent is Colleen Garry, who has been a steadfast opponent of abortion during her 24-year tenure in the House. This position, presumably, was the basis for the endorsement of her pro-choice challenger, Sabrina Heisey.
The day after Representative Haddad’s rather peevish email, the House passed a bill repealing a number of statutes that might be used (perhaps by an unfriendly federal government) to call into question a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. Representative Haddad’s leadership on the issue was lauded on the House floor, and the bill passed easily, 138 to 9. Two Democrats voted no – one of them was Colleen Garry.
A NOTE FROM SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE HADDAD
Some of you may have seen the endorsements sent out by the Mass Women’s Political Caucus recently. While this group is a non partisan non profit that is part of a national women’s group, it is NOT in any way associated with the Caucus of Women Legislators.
Your female colleagues – members of the Caucus of Women Legislators – want to dispel any misinformation you may have seen or heard on this topic. To be clear, the women of the House would never work against a colleague and have no affiliation with this group.
In fact, many of us that have received their endorsement have informed them that we wish to decline. In the past, it has been one of the organizations I have raised money for. Today, I informed the President that I would not be helping them because of this.
Once again, this note is to dispel the misinformation out there and to make sure our male and female colleagues, who were affected, know that they have our support.
Pat Haddad
Colleen Garry is in deep trouble in that district. While it has a conservative lean, Democratic primary voters in Dracut and Tyngsborough are quite progressive. Bernie took both towns in the presidential primary.
There is also a GOP challenger so it remains to be seen if a progressive can win the general. I lived in the district most of my life. My money would still be on Colleen winning the primary.
Well we know if Garry is renominated a progressive won’t win the general, so I say roll the dice on an actual Democrat and at least the voters will have a choice for a change between a Democrat and a real Republican. If they choose the real Republican, that’s one less Democrat who will rubber stamp DeLeo. I’m happy losing 10-20 of these DINOs to Republicans. It’s the only way to change the balance in the House.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that people who have worked together for many years have each other’s backs despite political differences. Outsiders can look strictly at voting records, but insiders know each other on a personal level.
Good argument for term limits.
The quickest reform to fix Beacon Hill. One that would actually pass by a wide majority of voters across the spectrum.
Unfortunately, they’ve ignored term limits in the past and will ignore them in the future. A constitutional amendment requires the votes of the people the term limits would stop. It’s a tough scenario.
Real reform will require many more Mike Connelly’s taking on the backbenchers and dead weight members on the Hill to really get the numbers to make changes. Seat by seat, brick by brick.
Absolutely not – that’s still for voters to decide.
Statewide voters already decided in 1994 that they wanted term limits in a referendum. A new referendum designed to once again skirt the insane specificity required to overcome SJC opposition would likely pass by a higher amount this time around.
In Maine they have reduced the power of lobbyists, the Senate President, and the Speaker. All good things. One bad thing is that influence has expanded to the Governor (who is also term limited), which would be a good thing in our state if Democrats could actually elect Democrats to the Corner Office instead of enabling Republican governors.
One of the big takeaways I got from my own limited statewide campaign experience was how expensive and difficult it is to run and win a primary against an incumbent. I think term limits can help with that. Ranked choice voting, which will be on our 2020 ballot, will help even more. Something has to change.
I meant I am opposed to term limits for public elections because voters should get to decide on an ad hoc basis whether or not they still like their rep who has been there for 20 years. As I recall the 1994 referendum was about Congress which SCOTUS appropriately struck down because states cannot add to restrictions imposed by the Constitution. I do wish the General Court had maintained limits for leadership positions and agree those positions have too much power.
Term limits are a terrible idea, although limiting the tenure of certain leadership positions is a VERY good idea. Too bad the House didn’t honor their own rules.
There are many problems with term limits. One is that the people who have been waiting patiently while in office for their chance to make reforms, and know the problem with inertia firsthand, will be booted before they have a chance to implement them. Sure, you could argue that with term limits there will be no inertia, but I would only accept term limits if we eliminated elections and instead drew straws for whoever was willing to accept the position, and gave them a longer tenure. A random pick would take cash out of the system, and attract intelligent people so there would be a lot of debate and change. Term limits, by themselves, only gives the organizations with the wealth and more manpower the ability to cherrypick the new candidates. It makes the external machine stronger and with less oversight. Of course, the same machine could just as easily load the docket with toadies, but with the easy ability of new candidates to enter the arena, that power would be diluted, and the party system, and the partisan poison, would likely whither on the vine. So, rather than term limits, imagine a democracy without elections! If random selection is good enough for a jury to apply the law, then a random selection should be good enough to write them, too.
Your response is classic, “letting the prefect get in the way of the good”. I very much appreciate the value of random citizens conducing the affairs of government over a cabal of people who are good at winning popularity contests fueled by money. But the concept of randomly selecting legislators is barely even recognized as an alternative in mainstream thought. So realistically, it’s wishful thinking that, at best, needs years to penetrate and be accepted by the body politic. I personally have wrestled with the concept of term limits, forever being an opponent of them. But in this increasingly dysfunctional democracy, reforms are needed. I’m very open to states aggressively experimenting with reforms–from RCV to, yes, term limits. Ideally, you put term limits on the “lowest” elective body–like the lower house of a bi-carmel setup. That may (hopefully) create “move up or out” situation where ambitious, but term-limited. state rep challenges their state senators or Congressional Critter…increasingly putting electoral pressure upstream for positions like US Senator. But waiting for the “perfect” only sustains the status quo.
Yep. This has already happened in Maine and California. I think it would be great if it happened here.
Is that not the entire crux of the problem on Beacon Hill? You decry the possibility of a Republican winning the Garry seat while all the while Democrats are actively working to re-elect Republicans they like and we all know DeLeo is doing nothing for the Democrats running for Governor.
In this case I’m just trying to push back on unfair criticism of Haddad. I prefer Heisey to Garry on policy, but also interned for Garry and know she has support of a lot of people including DTC members in the district. As such I’m not personally touching this race with a ten foot pole. Haddad and the MWPC each have the right to their opinions; you have the right to disagree and 36MI voters have the ultimate right to choose. Don’t you support your friends when they need it? That sounds like basic human nature.
Wow…by outsiders, do you mean people not sitting on the State Committee or not actively being a member of a local DTC? I certainly understand that insiders know each other on a personal level, and many would argue that is a bug in the system not a feature. But apparently your comfortable with the insiders calling the shots.
No, the insiders are not calling the shots. One member of the House supporting a colleague is simply expressing her opinion. Voters still ultimately call the shots. Haddad does not get a vote in the 36MI race, but I also don’t think it’s some big sin for her to express her preference.
She did NOT simply express her preference. She informed all her fellow Democrats that for the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus to continue to honor its 47-year commitment to electing more pro-choice women to office — when honoring that commitment meant supporting the primary opponent of an avowed anti-abortion legislator — was an offense worthy of Haddad’s disavowing that organization altogether (and encouragng her Dem colleagues to follow her).
Hard to think of a better example of Democratic entitlement in this state.
Which is also her prerogative, though I’m not sure the best strategy. It still does not make the 36MI voters’ decision for them.
I think Christopher’s comment has merit, but there is more to it. Representatives work together on a range of issues. If they get into the business of unseating incumbents, their ability ask them for a vote or other support is shot.
Rep A: I’d really like your support on Bill X, its a good bill and good for your district . . .
Rep B: Aren’t you one of the people who is trying to get me voted out?
Rep A; Yes, but . . .
Rep B: Don’t let the door hit you on the way out of my office.
Rep A should make sure that Rep B gets voted out. And deal with the new Rep B.
Christopher once again defends the insiders he has personal relationships with when they openly defy and defile the platform he and his committee work so hard to construct. He is then routinely shocked when these conservative Democrats ignore the DSC entirely and skip the convention as DeLeo did. The grassroots in this state are frustrated and finally learning how to organize, it won’t be long until they primary some more insiders so we see some changes.
Lastly we are talking about abortion rights. Something even Joe Lieberman supported wholeheartedly. And state legislatures could matter if Roe is overturned outright or continued to be chipped away at. Our state does not have a fallback provision to protect choice if Roe is overturned. It is unclear if MassHealth will continue to fund the procedure.
Aren’t we in the process of repealing our heretofore unenforceable anti-abortion laws for just that reason?
You also greatly misread my motivations here. I share your frustration that more legislators don’t adhere to platform and I have no problem with primaries. I’m just pointing out that some will continue to have their reasons for backing incumbents and are entitled to them.
Until your organization and its leadership starts calling them out for their entitlement, they will continue to ignore you. Give DSA, OR, and PM credit-they are organizing valuable and valid primary fights and are slowly changing the legislature one seat at a time, bypassing the DSC entirely. That Walsh, the Speaker, and the Senate President are even considering staying neutral in the election is an indictment of how little power the DSC holds. Maybe when it stops making excuses for Democrats that endorse Republicans or undercut the platform, it will be effective.
OK, I guess I have not been clear over the months and years. It is absolutely not the institutional party’s job to promote primaries against incumbents. We leave that to the voters, which I thought you liked. I’m sorry if you were ever under the impression that it is the party’s job to go after our own. There are plenty of others who can and should do that. If the challengers win primaries and become our nominees we will be more than happy to support them as well. Until then it is absolutely for the other organizations to do promote their favorite candidates, and yes bypass the DSC.
I am saying there is nothing stopping Haddad from “going after our own” to help her Republican and anti-choice Democratic “friends”. Similarly, nothing stopping DeLeo or Walsh from playing footsie with Baker and arguably de facto endorsing him. By no means do I want the DSC getting involved in every primary, but what point is your platform and the commitment to elect Democrats you hold so dear when so many prominent elected Democrats get to skirt both?
This is the nature of parties in a system where voters choose nominees via primaries and the state committee doesn’t moonlight as the politburo. What would you have us do? Is there something the state GOP does better that you think we should emulate in this regard? There are probably plenty of their activists none to happy with their members starting with His Excellency for similar reasons. If DeLeo or Walsh openly endorse Baker in this election (and working with him on governance is not the same thing and frankly in many ways is laudable), then we can ban them from the next few conventions, but that’s not much of a stick if they care more about their own constituents than their party (which is probably as it should be).
The Mass. Women’s Political Caucus has endorsed a number of female candidates, some who are challenging male incumbents who are progressive and pro-choice. Since the Mass. Women’s Political Caucus sounds like it could be a State House affiliated organization (it is not) what is wrong with a leading female legislator clarifying that fact? Sen. Jason Lewis and Rep. Sean Garballey are two of them; are we to sweep them out too just because they are not the preferred gender? Please tell the whole story, or post the email and let readers decide. Regrettably this post does neither, (See State House News Article from July 11)
The email that Rep. Haddad sent is now posted after the jump.
Of course she’s entitled to continue to support Representative Garry and any other incumbent legislator she chooses, and clarifying the names of the two caucuses was perhaps not unreasonable (even if it was a little defensive).
What I found most interesting about the email was that she didn’t stop there, but went on to repudiate the MWPC simply because they had, consistent with their mission, challenged incumbents, and also to assert that “the women of the House would never work against a colleague” (I note that she presumed to be speaking for all of them). If I were a female Democratic House member, I would certainly take those two things as very strong suggestions to fall in line.
Now that I’ve read the email it seems even more benign than I first imagined, though I’m not sure I agree with the step of declining an endorsement because you don’t like whom else they endorsed.