OPINION: No on Q3 – Jungle Primaries are Bad for Working People’s Interests

Jonathan Cohn, “OPINION: No on Q3 – Jungle Primaries are Bad for Working People’s Interests,” Working Mass, October 19, 2026.

The most dangerous words in the English language are: “we’re from private equity, and we’re here to help.” 

When private equity swoops in to “help” a struggling business, that typically means worsening labor conditions and worsening product quality—but increasing the money of those private equity executives. That’s exactly what private equity executives are trying to do with democracy in Massachusetts with this year’s Question 3, making it a place where they can more easily buy candidates and forestall progressive victories at the state and federal level. These donors are seeking to curb the rise of more populist messaging and policy that centers working people rather than the rich and large corporations. The fact that jungle primaries are detrimental to workers’ interests is why labor unions and progressive groups across Massachusetts are united in urging you to vote NO on Question 3. 

Question 3 would change MA’s electoral system to a jungle primary system like California and Washington. Proponents have been saying that this is about democracy, accountability, choice, competition, but a quick look at where the money comes from says otherwise. 

According to campaign finance disclosures, 70% of the money raised for Question 3 comes from private equity, with most of that from Bain Capital or Berkshire Partners. Indeed, just six private equity executives account for half of all the money raised by the campaign. These are overwhelmingly donors to conservative Democrats (like MA’s Jake Auchincloss and Seth Moulton) and Republicans (like Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy) who are friendly to the corporate centrism that the financial industry loves.

These donors have a long history of funding education privatization ballot questions, and not a lot of history caring about democracy. 

What is Q3?

Question 3 makes several noteworthy changes to Massachusetts elections. It’s important to understand the risks of all of them. 

The marquee part of Question 3 is the all-party primary system, often called a jungle primary, in which all candidates run on the same ballot and the top two candidates of any party advance to the general election. More on that in a moment. 

Question 3 also changes how MA elects Lieutenant Governors. Currently, MA has a system with the perhaps inartful moniker of “shotgun marriage”: Governor and Lt. Governor candidates run separately in the primary, and then are paired together in the general election. Under Question 3, gubernatorial candidates would pick their running mates upon formally filing as a candidate with the Secretary of State. Vetting possible running mates is a major hurdle for grassroots and less institutionally connected candidates, and if people don’t think you can win (grassroots candidates often peak late), why would anyone want to bet a year of their time on your campaign? It’s a very clear way to limit the possibility of who can consider running. 

Question 3 also changes ballot design in Massachusetts. In a bastardized version of fusion voting, it allows multiple minor parties to endorse the same candidate on the ballot. Fusion voting in states like New York strengthens democracy by enabling voters to choose minor parties’ ballot lines and help them to build a base. They earn that ballot line by having actual voters. By contrast, in Massachusetts, you can get minor party status with only 50 people petitioning the secretary of state. With such a low threshold, any slumlord can create a minor party (say, “Massachusetts Housing for All”), and start endorsing candidates on the ballot with deceptive names. The SuperPACs that flood your mailboxes in election season have to disclose their donors, but imagine if they can just get their endorsements printed directly on your ballot.

A Warning From California

California’s recent gubernatorial primary should be a warning to anyone thinking about voting YES on Question 3 this November. 

This year, given the diverse Democratic field and narrow Republican field in the gubernatorial race, polling consistently showed that two conservative Republicans would advance to the general election, denying voters real choice. 

Out of fear of such a lockout, the CA Democratic Party started pressuring candidates to drop out of the race, and the two dominant candidates became a self-funding billionaire and the candidate backed by every corporate PAC in the state. Actual policy debate was sidelined, and party elites and big money donors were empowered.

Whenever there is a push for consolidation, those with power, money, and privilege will always claim a right to stay in a race, regardless of whether they have the best ideas (often, they don’t). 

One of the biggest advocates for California’s jungle primary system has been the California Chamber of Commerce. They have touted its ability to help them get more corporate-aligned Democrats elected on the basis of lots of outside special interest money, conservative crossover votes in Democrat vs. Democrat general elections, and the loss of cues through which people typically understand the differences between candidates. And they are right, with the emergence of a new bloc of corporate-backed Democrats more loyal to Uber, Chevron, Meta, and crypto than to any constituencies or values.

That’s not a solution to any problem we have in Massachusetts; it will make the ability to pass policies to help working people even harder.

Getting Diverse, Working-Class Candidates to Run

I have worked for many years to try to recruit more candidates to run for office and support them when they do. When I talk with prospective candidates, the two biggest barriers for them when considering running for office are time and money. Running for office takes up a lot of time. It might require you to take an extended leave from work, or balance a full-time campaign and a full-time job. 

It also costs a lot of money to run for office, and most people don’t start out with a readymade list of high-net-worth donor prospects. 

If we want to see more working people run for office, then we need to find ways to rein in the time and financial burdens of running for office. 

Question 3 makes both of them worse, increasing both the time and money involved in running for office–benefiting incumbents and wealthy candidates for whom neither poses a true obstacle. 

Ranked Choice Voting vs. Jungle Primaries 

Although Massachusetts voters unfortunately rejected Ranked Choice Voting in 2020, there has been a robust and inspiring push on the local level to adopt Ranked Choice Voting on the local level. The push for a top-two primary system takes the wind out of those sails. 

New York City’s mayoral race last year showed us the wide-ranging benefits of ranked choice voting. Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic primary was due to an amazing field operation and a compelling message, for sure, but NYC’s Ranked Choice Voting system was essential to how the campaign played out. 

When voters can pick multiple candidates and register their preferences accordingly, progressive candidates aren’t in a fight to the death: they want each other’s voters to also rank them. We saw that dynamic in 2025’s greatest bromance: the cross-endorsement between Zohran Mamdani and former Comptroller and current Congressman-elect Brad Lander and the positivity and goodwill surrounding it. When progressive candidates lift each other up, the ideas and the movement benefit. 

In a ranked choice system, voters also don’t need to be afraid that voting for their top choice could lead to their least favorite choice getting elected. If you were a voter who did not want to see Andrew Cuomo become governor, you didn’t need to spend hours agonizing about how others might vote: you just vote for multiple progressive candidates and leave Cuomo off your ballot. 

A jungle primary, by contrast, is what Andrew Cuomo wanted to jerry-rig New York’s election system into. After losing the primary, he insisted on staying in the election, and he wanted to force out other candidates in order to form a cross-party conservative coalition, backed by a lot of money and a lot of racism. Cuomo was able to strong-arm Mayor Eric Adams out of the general election, but failed to convince Republican candidate Curtis Silwa out. Nonetheless, Cuomo still got 73% of Republican voters to vote for him, according to exit polls. With Mamdani pulling 50.78% of the vote in the general election, one can easily see how Cuomo’s theory of the election could have worked if he bullied his way into a two-party race. Democracy and the City of New York would have been worse for it. 

Just Say No

Question 3 is shaping up to be a “Whose side are you on?” question. On the yes side: private equity, venture capitalists, and investment bankers. On the no side: every major labor union and progressive group in the state. 

The yes side, bankrolled by those who have been fighting for years to make working people’s lives worse, and the no side, backed by those who have been fighting to make working people’s lives better. The choice is clear: NO on Question 3. 

Jonathan Cohn is a member of Boston DSA and Policy Director for Progressive Massachusetts, a multi-issue grassroots organization that advocates for state level policy. He has been active in campaigns to expand voting rights, strengthen immigrants’ rights, increase education funding, and make a fairer tax code, among many more. He has also been a volunteer, neighborhood team leader, regional coordinator, or campaign manager for various candidate campaigns and ballot initiatives at the city, state, county, and national level.

Editorial: “Rather than a defense of their productivity, the Legislature’s reliance on omnibus bills should be an indictment”

Jonathan Cohn, “Rather than a defense of their productivity, the Legislature’s reliance on omnibus bills should be an indictment,” CommonWealth Beacon, October 13, 2026.

IN A RECENT piece for CommonWealth Beacon, Massachusetts Senate counsel James DiTullio defends the Legislature’s productivity against statistics that show Beacon Hill passing far fewer bills than other states. He points out that Massachusetts is one of just seven states that allow omnibus bills covering multiple issues, a structure that he says reduces the number of bills in comparison to the vast majority of states, which only permit single-issue legislation.

But his piece ignores the way that such statistics can be artificially padded at the same time that they are artificially limited in comparison to other states, and raises questions about the way that Beacon Hill’s lawmaking norms evade transparency and accountability.

Given our paternalistic home rule system, in which Beacon Hill acts as a gatekeeper for cities and towns seeking to pass their own laws, many of the bills signed into law end up being home rule petitions. The first bill signed into law this year was approving a charter change for Malden, and the most recent was about Natick’s deputy police chief. Why does Beacon Hill need a role in either?

The total count is also bloated by administrative matters like sick leave banks, in which state employees are able to benefit from unused sick leave from their colleagues.

Last year, for example, there were 20 sick leave banks and 61 home rule petitions signed into law out of a total of 101 new laws. Of the 231 bills signed into law this year, 200 were home rule petitions and 6 are sick leave banks. If we were to look at laws of statewide import, the national statistics DiTullio rails against would be even worse.

But DiTullio is correct that the Massachusetts General Court’s embrace of omnibus bills and policymaking through budgets and supplemental budgets makes simple bill tallies an imperfect yardstick. It was through last year’s budget, for instance, that Beacon Hill passed a new immigrant legal defense fund and banned tenant-paid broker’s fees, both significant wins. Bills can also be subsumed into thematic omnibus bills— say, for example, the PROTECT Act, which combined a number of important provisions from other standalone bills.

However, you would never know this from the Legislature’s website. It records many of those individual bills as dead for the session, to be mourned today and to rise like a phoenix from the ashes in January. Indeed, understanding which bills have become law in the Legislature through budgets and omnibuses requires expensive paid subscriptions to companies specializing in bill tracking. Pity the poor engaged constituent, or even legislator, simply trying to understand what’s going on.

………..

Op-Ed: “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot”

Jonathan Cohn, “An Abundance of Questions Coming to the November Ballot,” Fenway News, June 2026.

With the onset of spring weather in May came a biennial Massachusetts tradition: signature collectors outside the grocery store and at local events.

That’s because as soon as signature collection wrapped up for candidates running for office this year, it started up again for ballot questions. And we have a lot of them.

Last fall was only Round One for these questions. A record-breaking 11 ballot questions reached the necessary 74,574 certified signatures needed to advance. They began the new year as bills filed with the Legislature.

A special committee in the Legislature held hearings on all 11 of those questions, listening to proponents, opponents, nonpartisan experts, and members of the public. They decided not to take action on any of them. That means that the campaigns need to collect another 12,429 signatures between early May and mid-June, a much tighter window than Round One, but a lower threshold.

Unfortunately, one of the original 11 is no longer moving forward: the ballot initiative taking on the legislature’s hierarchical pay structure. Currently, legislators can more than double their pay through stipends attached to various leadership posts. Critics rightly deride these stipends as “loyalty pay,” given how they make their recipients indebted to the House and Senate leaders who dole them out. The State Senate, a bitter foe of the question, sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on the question’s constitutionality, and SJC sided with them. The question’s backers are planning to regroup and try again next year.

So what are the remaining 10 questions you might see on clipboards in the coming weeks?

  • Rent stabilization, i.e., limiting how much rent can increase each year to 5% or inflation (whichever is lower), with tailored exemptions for small landlords and new construction
  • Limiting minimum lot sizes in order to eliminate zoning obstacles to the construction of starter homes in the suburbs
  • Expanding the public records law to the Governor and Legislature (We’re the only state where the Governor and Legislature claim full exemption)
  • Election Day Registration, i.e., enabling eligible voters to register to vote or update their registration at the polls (as New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut already allow). Our early September primaries put the need in stark relief.
  • Replacing party primaries with all-party runoff elections like in California, a system Californians are thinking twice about amidst their chaotic gubernatorial election
  • Reducing the state income tax from 5% to 4%, which would lead to a $5 billion cut to the state budget on top of looming cuts to health care and food assistance and disproportionately benefit the top 1%
  • Tightening the revenue cap created by a 1986 ballot question, making it harder for the state to invest
  • Enabling public defenders at the Committee for Public Counsel Service to form a union
  • Recriminalizing recreational marijuana
  • Dedicating funds from the existing state sales tax on sporting goods to a fund for protecting and conserving water and nature

Sound like a lot of ballot questions to keep track of? That’s not all of them.

The one question already guaranteed to be on the ballot is a referendum on the guns safety omnibus bill passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 2024. The bill modernized Massachusetts’ existing firearms laws to address issues such as untraceable “ghost guns,” strengthened the state’s “Red Flag Law,” protected safety in public spaces, and increased violence prevention programming. The Gun Owners Action League collected signatures to try to repeal it. With ballot questions, always remember to pay attention what the yes means and what the no means: it’s yes to keep the law and no to repeal it.

The Legislature can take action until June 30 (the date signatures are due to the Secretary of the State) on any of the 10 other questions. With a question like Election Day Registration, which the State Senate has passed multiple times over the years, doing so seems like a no-brainer.

But barring a quicker legislature or a lot of illegible signatures, we are destined to a historically long ballot this November. Make sure to do your homework before heading into the polls: you won’t want to be taken by surprise by a never-ending list of questions when there is already a long list of offices on the ballot.

“‘The bloodless murder of legislation.’ After promising more transparency, Mass. Legislature still killing bills without votes.” | Boston Globe

Kelly Garrity, “‘The bloodless murder of legislation.’ After promising more transparency, Mass. Legislature still killing bills without votes.,” Boston Globe, May 5, 2026.

Public committee votes are a form of holding lawmakers accountable, allowing residents and advocates the ability to thank those who supported their preferred legislation and “call to complain if they voted the way you didn’t want them to,” said Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts.

The pocket study, he said, maintains the Legislature’s “old style.”

“The bloodless murder of legislation,” he said, “where things die, and everybody has clean hands.”

Letter: “Reader angered by the disappearance of immigrant children”

Jennifer Debin, “Letter: Reader angered by the disappearance of immigrant children,” Hometown Weekly (Dover/Sherborn), March 19, 2026.

To the Editor:

I recently learned that approximately 700 kids are missing from our neighboring Framingham public schools in large part due to ICE and anti-immigrant activity creating an environment of distrust and perceived lack of safety.

As a public school parent myself, this is extremely troubling. If this is happening in just one district, the effects across Massachusetts of students not being in school could be disastrous for our children and the future of our state. Massachusetts has stood up to ICE but we could be doing much more.

Our country was once the Land of Opportunity and the home of the American Dream with our public education system being an integral part of that. Keeping kids away from school due to the very real fears that they or their family members may be detained by ICE for the simple act of trying to go to school is something we must fix immediately. Individuals and activists groups can be powerful and have shown that we in Massachusetts do not want ICE tearing apart our communities but we need Governor Healey and the legislature to step up to make policy change to reinforce our actions, getting kids back in school and families back to living their everyday lives without fear. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic Governor and Democratic Legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE. I am calling on Governor Healey to end this collaboration with a stroke of the pen.

Additionally, Beacon Hill should make it clear: state and local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents.

Doing so makes us all less safe as people become afraid to report crimes, retreat further from public life, and more children are denied an education. Our legislators must support and pass the Safe Communities Act, the Dignity Not Deportations Bill, and the PROTECT Act. Children of any immigration status need to be in school and Massachusetts must do more on their behalf.

Jennifer Debin
Sherborn, MA

Area Residents Hold Candelight Vigil to Protest ICE

John Kyriakis, “Area Residents Hold Candelight Vigil to Protest ICE,” Dedham Times, March 6, 2026.

On a cold, rainy evening, Thursday March 5th , approximately 60 people from Neponset Valley Progressives and the Dedham Democratic Town Committee held a candlelight vigil, in front of the First Church and Parish, to protest the ongoing actions of ICE/CBP in our communities and to commemorate those killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (ICE/CBP). Protesters gathered with signs. The bells of the First Church rang, once for each person killed by ICE/CBP action. Participants gathered to sing as well.

March 5 holds special significance as it is the anniversary of the Boston Massacre when patriots took a stand against the oppression of King George III. The protesters point out that the lawlessness and authoritarianism of the Trump administration have facilitated ICE and CBP violence.

ICE/CBP is arresting people and incarcerating them without due process, and searching private property without judicial warrants. This is unconstitutional. ICE/CBP is now adopting AI and other surveillance tech to spy not only on immigrants,
but on protesters who oppose ICE/CBP actions.

In addition to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, 40 people (32 in ICE custody, 8 in ICE “incidents”) have been killed by ICE/CBP, Thus far, ICE/CBP has arrested 328,000 people and detained close to 65,000—including children. Despite claims from the Trump
administration that it is rounding up the “worst of the worst,” fewer than 14% of those arrested have been convicted of violent crimes. According to Trac (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) 73% held in ICE detention have no criminal record;
and as of Feb 7, 2026 many of those convicted committed minor offenses, including traffic violations.

Op-Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act

Heather Ford, “Op Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act,” Westwood Minute, March 6, 2026.

ICE’s (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) actions are making our community less safe: from the murders of Minnesota’s Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to the detainment of Milford teen Marcelo Gomes da Silva. The Burlington ICE facility that held Gomes da Silva is a mere twenty-five miles from Westwood.

ICE was founded in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act. Paradoxically, the above actions make my homes of Massachusetts and America less secure. The right to a trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest are human rights named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here in Massachusetts, resistance and dissent are baked into our pedigree: we are the home of the Boston Tea Party and the “shot heard ‘round the world” in Concord. This historic resistance has not met this moment. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE.

Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally getting the memo that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that meets this unprecedented moment.

Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status.

Neither Westwood’s State Representative Paul McMurtry nor its State Senator Mike Rush have sponsored the Safe Communities Act (H2580/S1681). The Safe Communities Act limits local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, protects access to justice in our courts, and ensures due process protections. Immigrant workers, survivors of domestic and sexual assault, and tenants must feel safe reporting crimes, abuse, or exploitation without fear of deportation. I urge my neighbors to contact Rep McMurtry and Sen Rush about this Act.

Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants

Becca Kornet, “Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants,” Hometown Weekly, February 27, 2026.

To the Editor:

Every day, we see horrific violence by ICE agents across the country, including here in Massachusetts. This has hit pretty close to home, with Milford and Framingham being among the communities hardest hit by ICE in 2025. ICE’s actions are making all our communities less safe. Massachusetts residents have turned out in big numbers to protests and standouts demanding that our elected leaders do more leading and stand up to the cruelty and lawlessness of the Trump administration. There was a recent surge of ICE activity in Maine, and Massachusetts could be targeted next. We need to be ready for that now.

Many of our beloved immigrant neighbors are rightfully scared to leave their homes for fear of being detained by ICE. Parents are staying home from work and children are staying home from school. Others who are not immigrants but have black or brown skin, or an accent, or just find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time can all too easily find themselves in the middle of an ICE detention raid. Once someone is detained by ICE, the harrowing process has been known to move extremely quickly, with individuals transferred to Burlington, then to Plymouth, then to someplace like Louisiana – often over the course of a single day, before their families even know what happened, and before they have had a chance to secure legal representation. It is a dehumanizing experience.

While Massachusetts can’t stop everything ICE is doing, we must stop being complicit. Although many of us are proud of Massachusetts’s reputation as a liberal bastion, when it comes to protecting our immigrant communities, we have often lagged behind other states. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed critical legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally coming around to the idea that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that truly meets the moment.

Beacon Hill should make it clear: state and local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents – Massachusetts should prevent this misuse of public safety resourcesfrom happening within our borders. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE. Governor Healey can end this collaboration with a stroke of the pen.

I urge you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported similar legislation.  You can find out if they are supporting the Safe Communities Act here. Other relevant legislation includes the Dignity Not Deportations Bill and the Black and Latino Caucus’s PROTECT Act. Call on them to build support with their colleagues behind robust legislation.

Becca Kornet
Medfield

Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE

Rita Colafella, “Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE,” Watertown News, February 23, 2026.

Across the US, we are witnessing ICE violence perpetrated with apparent impunity. On TV and social media, we see lawlessness and general chaos. A functional society needs the rule of law — built on stable precedents, clear processes, and established procedures to ensure the safety of every resident. Currently, that safety is being undermined by a federal administration that shifts rules on a weekly basis, while operating without a transparent strategy or the tactical oversight necessary to protect civil liberties.

Americans from across the political spectrum have turned out in droves to demand accountability. Recent polling reflects this growing national consensus: 60% of Americans disapprove of ICE’s conduct, including 68% of independents. Even among those who generally support the agency’s mission, there is unease because 65% of ALL those polled believe ICE has “gone too far.” It is no different in Massachusetts. Maine is experiencing a sudden and sharp increase in ICE activity. If Massachusetts is next, then we need a decisive local response. We along with 100 of millions of other Americans urge our elected leaders to act. It is time to implement safeguards that prevent federal overreach from compromising the safety, dignity, and legal stability of our communities. 

I grew up in the shadow of the Soviet Union and 40 years after World War II, and this issue transcends modern politics — it is about the fundamental preservation of human dignity and the sanctity of the law. When one is raised with the historical memory of how quickly state power can turn arbitrary and unchecked, one understands that “rules” are only meaningful when they are consistent and transparent. We learned that America’s promise is rooted in the idea that one’s safety is guaranteed by the rule of law rather than the whims of a shifting administration. When enforcement agencies operate without accountability, it echoes the very instability and overreach that many sought to escape. Protecting this idea matters because both heritage and history have demonstrated countless times that once the precedent for lawlessness is set, no community is truly secure.

While the Commonwealth cannot directly overturn federal ICE policy or obstruct its operations, we are under no obligation to be complicit in its actions. Massachusetts is failing to uphold its historic “rebellious reputation” — the same spirit that ignited the American Revolution and stoked the flames when other states wavered. Today, we are falling short of protecting our residents. Other states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, have already passed decisive legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. The national tide is turning, and it is time for the Governor and Beacon Hill to recognize this shift. Our leaders must do their jobs by passing legislation with real “teeth” — laws that reflect the will of the people and effectively address the wrongdoing occurring within our borders.

Our legislation must be crystal clear: state and all local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests — taking people into custody when they have not committed a crime. Nor should they ask any members of the public about one’s status. Locally funded resources must remain focused on protecting our communities, not assisting ICE in civil arrests or interrogations. ICE is pressuring local departments to sign 287(g) agreements, which effectively deputize local officers to perform federal immigration duties.

Massachusetts remains the only state with a Democratic governor and a Democratic-majority legislature to maintain such a statewide agreement. The chaotic civil immigration enforcement is not just a moral failure — it is a strategic one. Diverting highly trained and handsomely paid officers to apprehend people for status violations — often without a judicial warrant — moves resources away from responding to overdoses, domestic violence and armed robberies. The data is undeniable: U.S.citizens are 2.5 times more likely to commit drug crimes, and over four times more likely to commit property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants. By many metrics, focusing on civil violations does not make us safer; it only erodes the trust necessary for effective community policing. The Governor has the power to end this collaboration with a stroke of her pen. It is time for Beacon Hill to pass legislation to protect every resident of this Commonwealth.

Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan recently came to Watertown, and described what we can do to protect people. It included informing people of their rights to properly labelling areas as Private. She then said the most effective actions are demonstrating on the streets and contacting your representatives. So I ask you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported ending such agreements with ICE.

Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident

Letter: “A call for action to stop complicity with ICE actions”

Kelene Blumstein, “Letter: A call for action to stop complicity with ICE actions,” The Harvard Press, February 20, 2026.

According to reliable news reports, ICE’s violent actions are happening across the country, including in Massachusetts. We must not allow this to happen in Harvard—or anywhere. In my opinion, these operations make our communities less safe.

The Department of Homeland Security is systematically abusing its authority through unlawful raids, while spreading propaganda and misinformation to justify its actions. This climate of aggression undermines public safety and erodes trust in all law enforcement.

Massachusetts cannot stop everything ICE is doing, but we must stop being complicit.

Gov. Healey and state legislators are finally hearing the public’s demand for action—but it matters that we pass legislation that truly meets this moment.

We must demand that:

  • State and local law enforcement do not assist ICE or act as ICE agents.
  • Massachusetts law enforcement never assist ICE in civil immigration arrests or ask people about their immigration status.
  • ICE’s 287(g) program—which turns local officers into ICE agents—should be ended. Massachusetts is the only blue state with a 287(g) agreement. Gov. Healey can end this with a stroke of the pen.

Let’s demand that our legislators pass the Safe Communities Act, the PROTECT Act, and the Dignity Not Deportations Bill.

These bills would:

  • Truly separate local police from ICE.
  • End all 287(g) agreements.
  • Protect access to courthouses and schools.

Let’s keep our police focused on community safety.

Kelene Blumstein, Littleton Road