With the state conventions officially wrapped up, both parties have set their fall strategies. And while Massachusetts remains a historical stronghold for Democrats, the path to winning the state's massive block of independent voters is rarely a straight line.
One of the red meat issues for Republicans is immigration. With the World Cup about a week away, international cooperation will be on people's minds. Reporter Sam Drysdale of the State House News Service explains where Mass. Gov. Maura Healey is vulnerable on immigration, and what the GOP needs to avoid to not completely alienate independent voters.
Sam Drysdale, SHNS: Governor Healey walks a very thin line politically on this issue. She spent the beginning of her administration restricting, and some advocates even say peeling back, the state's right to shelter law following an influx of immigrants into the state's family shelter system, which was causing a lot of strain.
But in the more recent years, under the new Trump administration, she's doubled down against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") tactics, even issuing new guidance aimed at keeping federal immigration agents out of schools, hospitals and churches here in Massachusetts.
So, she's kind of trying to do both things. Republicans, on the other hand, have doubled down on the Trump rhetoric. But there's a large block of independent voters here in Massachusetts who tend to, you know, want something more in the middle or even fall more down on the Democratic side of things.
And the GOP has to be careful in their messaging as they're leaning into the Trump rhetoric around ICE enforcement that they don't go too far, right, to alienate that base.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: You know, it was an interesting dynamic last week, Governor Healey was out there celebrating with Uber and Lyft drivers after the big union victory. But at the same time, her administration is pushing ahead with new driver requirements that the union wants to stop with public hearings on these proposed regulations starting in Boston next week. What exactly is at stake for drivers here?
It's a really interesting tension here because that labor victory is in line with Healey's reelection campaign, which is backed by major unions.
But she also is trying to do some government oversight of these big companies. She was front and center at that union celebration. It's a huge symbolic win for organized labor and for gig workers. But at the very same time, her administration's Department of Utilities is advancing these new safety and electric vehicle regulations. The union says that those could become overly burdensome.
So, what's at stake here for the drivers is whether or not those regulations would expand background checks, documentation requirements and data sharing rules. They also seek to expand the fleet of Electric Vehicle ("EV") Ubers and Lyfts.
The union says that this could be too much of a burden on low income or immigrant drivers, create bureaucratic hurdles and shrink the workforce just as collective bargaining is getting underway for this union victory.
A topic that made the news in the Berkshires recently, Williamstown is now the first town in the state to ban the land application of sewage sludge. That means that many farmers will have to find a new type of fertilizer that's considered safer for human health. Local officials hope this will force statewide action on Beacon Hill. Do you think it will?
You know, I think that it's certainly significant that this is happening on a local level. And environmental advocates are certainly hoping that towns like Williamstown can pressure Beacon Hill into finally advancing a statewide prohibition of this sludge [ban]. But that has been stalled in committee for a long time. And historically, these fights do get bogged down by competing interests. So, I think there's definitely more political energy around this issue this spring, but translating that into statewide action when there's opposition from wastewater operators and agricultural groups, I think that's an uphill climb still.
A progressive Senate candidate in Maine created a huge controversy with Red Sox nation recently, after blaming private equity and team ownership for the Red Sox sitting dead last. Given how sacred the Sox are. Could you see a Massachusetts lawmaker bringing that kind of anti-corporate message to Beacon Hill? Could there be actual legislation to regulate team ownership, or is trashing the front office strictly an out of state luxury?
Yeah, the Red Sox are almost untouchable politically in Massachusetts. I would think, and fans are, rightfully grumpy this season and so I think anything feels a little bit personal. But whether that could migrate over to Beacon Hill, I think that's a harder sell to me.
Lawmakers are skeptical of private equity in areas like health care and in housing, but legislation targeting sports ownership, I think, would be much harder. And the state doesn't have authority over how Major League Baseball teams are financed. And I do think lawmakers would just hesitate to pick a fight with the Red Sox, not to mention their owner also owns the Boston Globe.
We'll see how that turns out in Maine next week, when voters cast their primary ballots.
