Will Progressive Newcomers Reshape the Legislative Agenda?

Last Tuesday’s primary has been deemed a watershed moment for Massachusetts progressives. From Ayanna Pressley’s defeat of 10-term incumbent Michael Capuano to Nika Elugardo’s victory over Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sánchez, progressive candidates notched a host of impressive wins. For context, 15 out of the 30 candidates endorsed by Progressive Massachusetts won their primary contests, an excellent batting average for even the most seasoned political organization let alone a grassroots advocacy group founded in 2013.

Reverberations from the primary will be felt well into the next legislative session. Notably, the Massachusetts House of Representatives saw three incumbents defeated, including two members of the leadership team. When all was said and done, 12 newcomers—all of whom are Democrats—stamped their tickets to the Great and General Court by securing victories in districts that will not feature a challenger in the November general election. They include:

1. Jo Comerford, Senate, Hampshire, Franklin, & Worcester District
2. Nika Elugardo, House, 15^th Suffolk District
3. Christopher Hendricks, House, 11 Bristol District
4. Jon Santiago, House, 9^th Suffolk District
5. David Biele, House, 4^th Suffolk District
6. Peter Capano, House, 11^th Essex District
7. Lindsay Sabadosa, House, 1^st Hampshire District
8. Natalie Blais, House, 1^st Franklin District
9. Mindy Domb, House, 3^rd Hampshire District
10. Michelle Ciccolo, House, 15^th Middlesex District
11. Tommy Vitolo, House, 15^th Norfolk District
12. Marcos Devers, House, 16^th Essex District

To what extent do these newcomers portend a shift in the state’s legislative agenda?

This question is admittedly a bit premature. The general election will feature more than 50 contested races, which means the legislature’s ideological profile could look quite different four months from now. What is more, it is difficult (read as “nearly impossible”) to infer an entire legislative agenda from a sample size of 12.

Caveats aside, the symbolic significance of the electoral gains made by progressive candidates is too great to ignore. Progressives capitalized on the electorate’s appetite for change and will likely build on their success in the general election. It is also plausible that a number of incumbents will seize on the momentum generated by the left and begin to embrace elements of the progressive agenda, further bolstering the influence of the Progressive Caucus.

But just how many ticks to the left the legislature moves will depend on a number of factors. First, whereas many of the newcomers self-identify as progressive or were endorsed by progressive organizations, others are difficult to typecast. Consider Michelle Ciccolo of the 15^th Middlesex. Ciccolo appeared to champion a progressive campaign platform that emphasized the importance of environmental sustainability and additional investments in public education. Her campaign website even touts her “progressive vision for Massachusetts.” Yet, none of the state’s progressive heavyweights endorsed Ciccolo. In fact, most of them—Progressive Massachusetts, the Working Families Party, the Mass Alliance—endorsed her competitor, Mary Ann Stewart.

Peter Capano of the 11^th Essex offers yet another illustration of the ideological variance among Tuesday’s winners. Capano embraced a host of progressive issues, including tax reform and renewable energy. However, his victory appears to have been paved by organized labor, as opposed to widespread progressive mobilization. Despite being endorsed by more than 20 labor organizations, he did not receive a single endorsement from any of the state’s major progressive groups. Like Capano, David Biele of the 4^th Suffolk also cobbled together a wealth of endorsements from organized labor groups, including the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, IBEW Local 2222, and Ironworkers Local 7, but did not appear to generate much excitement within the progressive wing of the party.

In fairness to Capano, Ciccolo, and Biele, their campaign platforms may have been characterized as progressive in previous election cycles. However, 2018 is not like previous cycles and the litmus test for progressive support seems to have moved further to the left. Whether these distinctions in terms of their endorsements and campaign platforms influence the way these newcomers govern and, more specifically, their willingness to advocate for progressive issues remains to be seen.

Second, Tuesday’s election suggests a clear progressive agenda has yet to fully crystallize. All of the progressive candidates highlighted the importance of free health care, expanded educational opportunities, and tax reform. Yet, these issues were not always the central plank in their campaign platforms. Nika Elugardo largely ran on an anti-establishment platform that framed Jeffrey Sánchez as beholden to House leaders. She was especially critical of Sánchez’s inability to advance a measure that would have made Massachusetts a sanctuary state. Chris Hendricks and Jon Santiago, who upended incumbents in the 11^th Bristol and 9^th Suffolk respectively, were less critical of the leadership and instead focused a considerable amount of attention on the opioid epidemic. Former community organizer Lindsay Sabadosa of the 1^st Hampshire cited Medicare for all as her top priority while Tommy Vitolo of the 15^th Norfolk stressed the importance of clean energy policy as well as more affordable education.

Differing priorities among the newcomers is by no means a bad thing. If anything, it suggests Tuesday’s winners have a keen understanding of their districts. However, the newcomers will eventually need to coalesce around a much shorter list of agenda items. Many of the priorities listed above constitute big ticket items in that they will require legislators to expend a considerable amount of political capital in order to secure policy change. Policy addressing the opioid epidemic, which might seem like an a-political issue relative to Medicare for all and tax reform, would likely engender a modest amount of political conflict given that the state enacted an opioid bill in August. It is hard to imagine the leadership and many rank-in-file members will be particularly enthusiastic about revisiting this issue in the upcoming session.

Which leads me to my third point: The viability of the progressive agenda will partially hinge on the outcome of the governor’s race. If elected, Democratic nominee Jay Gonzalez will help rally progressives around a more concrete platform while forcing centrist Democrats to at least entertain a left-leaning agenda. One could speculate Progressive Massachusetts as well as the Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts were aware of this reality when they endorsed Gonzalez over Bob Massie, who arguably had a longer track record of fighting for progressive issues. While both Gonzalez and Massie brandished impressive progressive credentials, many political insiders believed Gonzalez was better positioned to challenge Governor Charlie Baker. Massie, for example, struggled with fundraising throughout the primary, a bad omen for anyone hoping to challenge the nation’s most popular governor.

Finally, the composition of the legislature’s leadership team will undoubtedly impact the political viability of certain elements of the progressive agenda. Jeffrey Sánchez’s departure leaves a significant void in the most important committee in the House. Relative to his predecessor, Brian Dempsey of Haverhill, Sánchez championed a much more progressive agenda during his time at the helm of the Committee on Ways and Means. If the next chair’s ideology shades closer to that of Dempsey than Sánchez, then Ways and Means could represent a roadblock to progressive reform.

Translating electoral success into substantive policy change is always a difficult task. From securing support within the executive branch to developing a clear set of policy priorities, the fate of the progressive agenda will depend on a myriad of factors beyond electoral politics alone. Whatever the outcome of November’s general election, the upcoming legislative session is poised to be a fascinating one for anyone interested in the political dynamics of public policymaking.