I first became acquainted with Tanisha Sullivan while tapping my thumb on the driver's wheel I’d been clenching for the past ninety minutes, on my way to the Massachusetts State House to meet her incumbent opponent Bill Galvin. Plastered across an advantageously placed billboard off I-93 south was, news of her primary challenge evokes a conflict central to the democratic party of 2022: Should we continue to elect the seasoned officials who have “served us well,” or give new ideas and people power? The latter decision could either bring a new era of prosperity to the commonwealth, or leave voters yearning for the stability of incumbent officials. Let’s meet the two of them: 

Bill Galvin has served as the Massachusetts Secretary of State for over a quarter of a century. Originally from Brighton, Galvin holds degrees from Boston College and Suffolk Law. Fresh out of law school, Galvin was elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1976. After a failed bid for state treasurer in 1990, Galvin was first elected as Secretary of State in 1994. The chief elections officer of our commonwealth has stood the test of time, re-elected to seven consecutive terms as Secretary of State. Galvin should get kudos for his stamina; he has faced opposition not only from politicians on the other side of the aisle, but more recently, from his own party. Still, it seems his popularity has only grown as his incumbency has. Galvin received more votes in 2018 than any other officer on the Massachusetts ballot. To many, Bill Galvin represents the old guard of politics, and the detriment that a lethargic administration can have on the communities it serves. After so many terms in office, is it time for a new face to take up shop at 1 Ashburton Park? Tanisha Sullivan believes so. 

Tanisha Sullivan is running a fierce primary campaign against the democratic incumbent. With degrees from the University of Virginia, Boston College, and BC Law, the Brockton native boasts 20 years of experience in corporate law. She is the current president of the Boston branch of the NAACP, and has previously held the role of Chief Equity Officer for Boston Public Schools. Sullivan’s campaign is tailored toward what the Secretary’s office should be doing with its mandate, exposing the inaction of her primary opponent over the past seven terms. In Sullivan’s words, she yearns to “transform this office from being a static administrative hub into a dynamic democracy gateway". However, voters are concerned  with the extent by which she would be able to constitutionally expand the scope of the office. Calling the secretary the “chief democracy officer,” Sullivan would certainly bring a new spirit to the office, but are Baystaters ready for such a change? 

The Secretary of State’s office is primarily responsible for the administration of elections. In the wake of national challenges to the ballot box, the role has become increasingly influential. Both candidates recognize the responsibility the commonwealth has to set an example for democracy across the states, and each has their own way of addressing the conflict in the hearts and minds of Massachusetts residents across the commonwealth: Tanisha Sullivan hopes to champion same-day voter registration (SDR) here in the commonwealth. Surprisingly, a famously blue state like Massachusetts has a 20 day cutoff for registering to vote, disenfranchising thousands of voters. In repeated television engagements and debates Sullivan has pointed out that fellow New England state Maine legalized SDR in 1973. Massachusetts is a half century behind on this front, and in his quarter century as secretary, Bill Galvin has done nothing about it. SDR is a key issue to Sullivan, but it is also an issue that has already been tested by the secretary. Galvin's repeated rebuttal is that he has filed legislation to legalize SDR with the legislature, it just has simply not passed. Tanisha Sullivan intends to bring SDR to the finish line, illustrating the relentlessness she would exercise within the state legislature. For her, filing a bill is not enough. Galvin, a pragmatist, perhaps to his detriment, shifted his focus from SDR to the administration of mail in ballots and expansion of early voting in the commonwealth. Yet, those efforts only ease the anxiety of registered voters. In the midst of the Orange line shut down, many 

The two also have a very interesting dynamic within their interactions with one another in radio debates. Frequently, Galvin uses time allotted to policy questions to rebut the assertions of his opponent. It has the effect of portraying the secretary as being on the defense, with Sullivan's rhetoric coming across as much more authentic compared to her older, more jaded opponent. 

But, the main question which voters seem most concerned with is this: are Sullivan’s plans for the commonwealth achievable from the role of Secretary of State? This apprehension rattles the core of Sullivan's agenda and ethos. Galvin’s limited campaigning strikes continual blows by accentuating this, reaffirming his authority and respect in an office he has commanded since before the turn of the century. Along with his incumbency advantage, Galvin has out-fundraised Sullivan significantly, and the limited polls running show him in the lead. These on-paper victories do not seem to deter Sullivan and her supporters, who grow in number day by day. 

The primary is just days away. Only then will commonwealth citizens be able to give fruit to their interests for Massachusetts. Yet, when stepping into that ballot box, each citizen must ask themselves, “Has the same old thing served me? Or is it time to take the leap toward change?”