The race between five-term incumbent Mike Connolly and political newcomer Neil Miller for state representative in the Middlesex 26th district is an experiential and physical difference: Connolly has served since 2016 on Beacon Hill and stands 6-foot-8. Miller is running for the first time, diminutive in political experience and physical size.
The candidates, however, seemed to agree on the issues more than they disagreed.
Connolly presented himself as a staunch progressive who grew up in public housing in Norwood in foster care, is dedicated to good government and has not missed a vote in his 10 years in office. Miller noted that he was an “outsider,” coming to participatory politics as a data scientist who has worked for the past three years for the federal government.
They met Tuesday for a candidates forum at the Cambridge Public Library’s Central Square Branch organized by the Citizens Committee for Transparency and Accountability and the political groups Act on Mass and the Coalition to Reform Our Legislature. About 35 people turned out to watch a talk about good government and the district, which includes East Cambridge and East Somerville, on a day of constant rain that literally damped the event.
Prepared questions began with the issue of secrecy for votes taken in committee, and the candidates were asked to assign a grade to the Legislature on this issue. Miller, calling for transparency, awarded a C-. Connolly agreed with the grade and with most of Miller’s points; he noted that he was the only House Democrat in the Cambridge-Somerville delegation to vote against a bill aimed at hobbling the work of auditor Diana DiZoglio in her role of looking at practices on Beacon Hill, an effort 72 percent of Massachusetts voters approved in a ballot question two years ago. A Boston Globe editorial blasted the bill as “political games” and quoted Connolly as saying “the headline almost writes itself, right? ‘Legislature passes transparency bill out of the cover of darkness.’”
Connolly said he would stand again against House leadership when he thought it was the right thing to do. To the same question focused on reforming and reining in House leadership, Miller suggested that one should, through diligence and thorough work, be a help to the speaker and leadership.
In grading the Legislature on its output and enacted laws, Miller cited Massachusetts as having the lowest number of bills passed in a year by any legislature in the country and assigned a letter grade of D. Connolly agreed again, but said legislators needed to take more time to read and understand the giant omnibus bills used in the state. The omnibuses package related issues toward giving them a single vote, and makes it seem as though there are fewer bills being worked on.
These types of bills allow for voluminous amounts of legislation to move through the process more quickly, but risk each proposal not getting due diligence and scrutiny. Miller said there should be fewer bills and each should get an up or down vote, with more time for legislators and the public to read, review and discuss before bills are moved for passage. Connolly defended the omnibus concept by pointing to how the Affordable Homes Act contained 48 policy provisions, each of which might have been its own bill, included the legalization of accessory dwelling units statewide and the creation of social housing.
Miller criticized Connolly for getting a $7,000 stipend for serving as vice chair for the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs when it hadn’t met or held public hearings on any matter. (It has met three times this year, according to its webpage.) Miller argued to reform legislative stipends and instead make base pay more “competitive.” Base pay for a legislator now is $82,000, which is around 70 percent of area median income, according to Cambridge Housing Department data.
Here too the candidates agreed, though. The stipends should be reformed, Connolly said.
Does the power of the speaker of the House promote corruption? Moderator Pete Septoff noted that there have been indictments for three consecutive speakers of the House from 1991 to 2009 – one on federal corruption charges and two for state charges. Miller proposed term limits on the Speaker and other leadership. And Connolly agreed.
Miller also supports creation of a legislative research bureau to help legislators in policy research, analyzing bills and fiscal support. Massachusetts is the only state without an independent legislative bureau, he said. Connolly agreed again. The state budget past last week does what Miller suggests, Connolly said, by creating a Foundation Budget Review Commission to assess the Legislature’s Student Opportunity Act.
The last question of the night was, again, regarding access to public records. Both candidates agreed that all branches of government should be transparent and the public should have access to records concerning state business.
At one point in the debate, Miller brought up a $425 expenditure in Connolly’s campaign disclosure report – payment for a background check on him. He accused Connelly of spying on him.
There was no sinister or nefarious behavior behind the expense, Connelly said. It is just a common practice among politicians to “vet” an opponent for strengths and weaknesses.
This post was updated July 10-11, 2026, to identify Mike Connolly’s hometown as Norwood, to adjust a grade given during the forum, note that a committee Connolly helps chair has met, clarify a plan to reform stipends and to expand on the concepts of the omnibus bill and an independent legislative bureau or review commission.
About The Author
