Platform

Judges in Massachusetts do not reflect the racial diversity of the Commonwealth and more importantly do not at all reflect the racial makeup of the people they most often preside over. We have more than enough old white male judges in our Commonwealth. We should provide a greater opportunity for racial diversity within the judiciary to better reflect the people of Massachusetts and to better address and understand the context of race in over-policing.

We should have a vested interest in appointing judicial candidates from backgrounds underrepresented within the judiciary). Currently, the average judge in Massachusetts is a white man, and a former prosecutor - with former prosecutors constituting nearly 2/3 of the bench. It is imperative that we appoint candidates with backgrounds in immigration law, civil rights, and public defense, so that the perspective of prosecution is not the only one in the room. We must also ensure that other perspectives, such as those with lived experiences in marginalized communities, are well-represented. . Our judges should come from the multitudes of people that make up the Commonwealth – foster care recipients, those on SNAP/EBT/MassHealth, people of color, immigrants, our queer and trans community, and women.

Abolition

As we all know, the judicial system, both in the US and here in Massachusetts specifically, is not a fair playing field for all. Because of privilege, power, and money–certain people may avoid all accountability for their crimes, while others will face severe punishment for simply being a victim of their own circumstances. I will approve judges that are committed to reshaping the judicial system to be one less focused on punitive measures and prison sentencing, and more for bettering the entire community, including those going through the judicial system–through alternative sentencing and an emphasis on re-entry services. Through this practice, Massachusetts can be steered away from mass incarceration, and ultimately towards abolition.​

Anti-Recidivism

Recidivism is the tendency for formerly incarcerated people to be re-arrested and return to prison following their release from an initial sentencing. Prison in the US does not give people the skills or capacity to excel, work, and thrive in society following their release. Anti-recidivism is simply the framework dedicated to ensuring that people are not forced to suffer through re-imprisonment simply for being subjected to the shortcomings of the prison-industrial complex in the US. It is incredibly important that we have judges that not only understand the nuances of this framework but employ it in their day to day sentencing within a deeply flawed system.

​

Rehabilitation

Those who commit crimes are whole people (not just their crimes or their impacts) and we want judges that recognize that and seek their betterment and not just their punishment. This is key to accomplishing goals in anti-recidivism, as well as a move towards restorative justice, and ultimately moving away from the carceral system of justice. Punitive measures in the US have never been particularly adept at rehabilitating those who commit crimes, which usually leave them in the same place or worse off than when they first entered prison, by the end of their sentence. Judges should have a vested interest in utilizing alternative sentencing programs, and place an emphasis on keeping offenders out of prison for petty offences. 

In an age of rising fascism here in the US, it is vitally important that judges here in Massachusetts steadfastly defend first amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, particularly in the case of pro-Palestinian, pro-labor, antifascist, and immigrant rights organizing and activism, which is so often stifled and suppressed by local, state, and federal officials.

In 2026, it is unquestionable that the federal government has embraced fascism. This administration has made it a point to rapidly strip both LGBTQ and reproductive rights as much as possible. Judges in Massachusetts must fervently defend these rights not just for our own residents, but for anyone fleeing to our commonwealth as a safe haven from bigoted and overreaching laws in their home jurisdictions.

Donald Trump has put a judicial target on the backs of every immigrant, both documented and undocumented, in this country. Judges should be using every ounce of their judicial authority to fight against federal overreach affecting immigrants here in MA, and should consider the holistic context and impact of immigration status when sentencing, in order to protect the wellbeing and welfare of all of Massachusett’s residents. Judges must also hold ICE and all DHS agents more broadly wreaking havoc and terror upon our neighbors accountable for any and all crimes they commit here, to the full extent of the law. While qualified immunity exists federally, experts doubt that DHS agents have this when not acting within the official capacity of their jobs, whose scope is limited by law. These agents should be charged and found guilty for each and every offense committed against the people of Massachusetts. The battle may be uphill for accountability in this sense, but it must be something any judge confirmed to serve in the Commonwealth should be committed to.

Judges must be committed to a more holistic justice, and this includes taking environmental crime seriously. Judges should feel fair and appropriate in punishing serial polluters and environmental criminals (including corporations) as well as ordering fair remediation and punitive damages which are hefty enough to actually disincentive environmental crime, rather than acting as a simple, small fee that businesses can pay to pollute as much as they’d like. With a judiciary committed to environmental justice, MA can lead in the country for state-led conservation and restoration efforts.

​