There’s a clear choice in the race for state representative for the 25th Middlesex District, and it’s Marjorie Decker. Years of progressive advocacy have turned into real legislation, resources and results for our community. That’s Marjorie’s record, which is why it was disappointing to read a letter in The Independent (“Time for a change in Cambridge’s 25th Middlesex,” Aug. 12) presenting a misleading picture of her.
As residents and voters of the 25th Middlesex District, we are writing because voters deserve the full story. Only two of the six signers of that letter actually live in our district, a fact the letter never discloses to the voters it is trying to sway.
MacKay was president of Harvard’s graduate student union. Marjorie supported its organizing efforts with the UAW, but context matters. MacKay is in their 12th year as a Harvard student, lives in a Harvard dorm and uses that address as their campaign address. Yet after three years of campaigning, many voters still don’t know these basic facts. MacKay describes themselves as living in Porter Square, occasionally acknowledging Garden Street, but never the Harvard dorm. Their identity as an educator and labor leader also originated through their status as a Harvard graduate student.
The letter is similarly selective about political history. MacKay was a Republican until five years ago, after moving to Cambridge in 2015. Decker has been a lifelong progressive Democrat.
People can change, but a letter arguing that MacKay is the more progressive candidate should give voters the full history of both.
The Cambridge fossil-fuel petition deserves facts, not speculation. The writers repeat a dispute over a Cambridge home-rule petition and speculate about Marjorie’s motives, suggesting she refused to file it “perhaps to avoid jeopardizing her relationship” with another legislator. That is speculation, not evidence.
Voters can disagree with a decision Marjorie made. But there is a difference between criticizing a strategic decision made with fellow legislators and turning that disagreement into the toxic narrative her opponent has pushed for three years. In the latest House energy bill, it was Marjorie who was able to save the 10 pilot communities and put them back in the bill after they were removed by the House chair. The narrative about her climate record simply does not align with her actual work or relationships with climate advocates.
Marjorie has taken on the fossil fuel industry and won meaningful legislative changes. She secured the most significant increase in Massachusetts’ Renewable Portfolio Standard, requiring utilities to provide more electricity from clean, renewable sources. She has fought consistently for stronger climate policy and earned the support of leading environmental organizations because of that record.
The claims about committee-vote transparency are also deeply misleading, because the writers leave out critical context. Over two legislative sessions, the Republican minority leader filed 11 transparency-related amendments. Ten were rejected unanimously by Democrats. On the 11th, every Democrat except one voted against it. Four of the six authors from outside the district also don’t tell you that each of their representatives voted exactly as Marjorie did, yet they have not criticized them for those votes.
Another fact they leave out: Marjorie has made her committee votes public to the press and constituents who requested them for years, long before committee-vote transparency became a campaign issue.
The same selectivity appears in the letter’s discussion of “dark money,” clean energy and tax credits for working families. Her record and the facts are available at on her website.
Equally confusing is MacKay’s claim to be the labor candidate. More than 30 unions have endorsed Marjorie, including the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, Massachusetts Building Trades Unions and the SEIU State Council. The Greater Boston Labor Council voted unanimously to support Decker despite MacKay’s membership in that organization.
What’s most disappointing is how little this selective portrayal resembles the Marjorie Decker we know. Throughout her career, she has turned progressive advocacy into legislation on climate change, children’s mental health, reproductive freedom, gun safety, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant protections, economic justice and health care and secured millions of dollars for Cambridge organizations.
The MacKay campaign has peddled fear and misinformation about Marjorie’s record, including her leadership on gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ protections and her work on legislation protecting immigrants, led by the Black and Latino Caucus and informed by immigrants’ lived experiences.
Our country is under assault from the Trump administration’s attacks on LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, abortion care and health care. Marjorie has the experience, skills and record to keep building the firewall Massachusetts needs. Unlike her opponent, she has deep, long-standing relationships in Cambridge and across the state that make her effective.
It’s no surprise that Vanderbilt University’s Center for Effective Lawmaking recognized Marjorie as one of the most effective legislators in Massachusetts. That record is why Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Equity Now, the Environmental League of Massachusetts and Clean Water Action, and Mass Equality and Bay State Stonewall Democrats support her.
This support isn’t built on slogans. It’s built on results and trust.
Those of us who actually live and vote in the 25th Middlesex District deserve an honest, informed debate based on the candidates’ complete records. We know Marjorie Decker. We know what she’s fought for and what she’s delivered. We trust her to continue making a real impact for our community.
On Sept. 1, we will vote proudly to return Marjorie to the State House, and we hope you’ll do the same.
Celeste Peterson, Brian Burke, Deidre Deegan, Judy Bright, Ben Flaim, Gail Council, Ron Harris and Khari Milner
