The Boston Globe has endorsed Marjorie Decker in the upcoming Democratic primary for state representative in the 25th Middlesex District, calling her a “pragmatic coalition builder” who “has shown she can navigate the Legislature and get things done.” That’s what this election should be about – electing the candidate best qualified to represent the interests of Cambridge residents.
Unfortunately, too much airtime in this campaign cycle is being given to mischaracterizations by challenger Evan Mackay, who continues to launch unfounded attacks on Marjorie’s record and integrity. We are disheartened by Evan’s intentional efforts to mislead voters and are concerned about how that would translate to their representation of our community. The coverage by the Cambridge Day and other publications has been inaccurate and intentionally omits the continued policies Marjorie passes and budget appropriations she secures for our community.
These claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Marjorie has impeccable integrity as well as an impressive track record of success fighting for issues important to Cambridge – social justice, safety on our streets and in our schools, public health, climate change. Marjorie listens to her constituents and has the dedication, negotiating skills, relationships and experience that make her an extremely effective legislator. She has earned our votes and continues to do the work and fight for the issues that affect people in our community who need her voice the most.
Marjorie is our champion, and must continue to be. We hope you’ll join us in voting for Marjorie Decker on Sept. 3.
Lynn Margherio and Brian Burke, Francis Avenue, Cambridge
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Sure, Representative Marjorie Decker was endorsed by the Boston Globe Editorial Board but it’s canceled out by another article written by the Editorial Board, criticizing state legislature leadership on their tardiness, their low amounts of legislation work, monopolized power, “leadership pay”, and many other issues [1]. Funny enough, the article was released the day before the endorsement was announced. In fact, the Editorial Board was criticized heavily in their Letters to the Editor section [2].
In fact, the endorsement itself admitted that she has “she also not been a notable champion of legislative reform” [3]. I gather that you both believe that Decker is “the candidate best qualified to represent the interests of Cambridge residents”, but she’s clearly proven that she isn’t. In 2022, the 25th Middlesex District, in a non-binding ballot question, voted overwhelmingly for state representatives to make their committee votes public (94.2% exactly). Yet, her track record has shown that from 2017 – 2021, she has repeatedly voted against proposals that would increase the transparency of the state legislature [4]. This is especially concerning when the MA state legislature is one of the least transparent legislative bodies in the entire nation [5]. In this way, Decker has been complicit in at least some part of the “body’s failures” and has demonstrated, to me at least, that she is not the “best qualified to represent the interests of Cambridge residents” [3].
Another quality of Decker’s that you mention is her “impeccable integrity”. However, her actions in regards to Riverbend Park have shown otherwise. In fact, she blatantly lied to her constituents. You can read more about it at the well written sources [6] and [7]. With these specific actions, I’m not sure how prioritizing cars on Memorial Drive has brought “safety on our streets” and helped with “climate change”.
Also, this is yet another low quality pro-Decker opinion article. If you’re going to claim that challenger Evan MacKay has “launched unfounded attacks”and is intentionally trying to “mislead voters”, at least cite some sources to back up those claims. It’s embarrassing that when you were given the platform to submit an article, even the both of you failed to mention “the continued policies Marjorie passes and budget appropriations she secures for our community”.
This article, and many of the other pro-Decker articles have merely offered words of fluff to back up their reasoning. It’s hard to engage in a dialogue because of this. Linking a hypocritical Editorial Board endorsement just doesn’t cut it.
Regardless, I hope my response to this half-baked opinion letter convinces readers to vote for Evan MacKay for 25th Middlesex District Representative on Sept 3rd’s primary. In my humble opinion, they are the “the candidate best qualified to represent the interests of Cambridge residents”. Find more info about voting here: https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/electioncommission/news/2024/07/september3,2024stateprimaryvotingoptions
[1]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/26/opinion/spilka-mariano-legislature-dysfunction/
[2]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/29/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-cambridge-primary-beacon-hill-challenge/
[3]: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/27/opinion/decker-mackay-cambridge-legislature-primary-election/?event=event12
[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/1ex5xdc/rep_decker_misleading_constituents_with_deceptive/
[5]: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2023/12/crisis-of-transparency-in-massachusetts-state-house/
[6]: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/08/28/riverbend-park-matters-to-cambridge-marjorie-decker-doesnt-seem-to-care/
[7]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/1etu190/a_contempt_for_constituents_why_you_should_vote/
And one more point, don’t bash the Cambridge Day when they’ve reached out to Decker and her team for comment but Decker never replies. She’s been given many chances to defend herself, but chooses to ignore the local news outlet that her supporters read and in turn, those supporters like Margherio and Burke, pump out terrible empty endorsements of her. @ianhuntisaak’s comment on this article highlights how Decker doesn’t even seem to acknowledge the Cambridge Day: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/08/28/decker-and-challenger-mackay-get-their-forum-days-before-voting-transparency-could-be-issue/
Do you take issue with any specific claims, and if so, could you detail them here? This letter just reads as “we like Decker because we do, don’t ask specifics”