JP Progressives Statement on the Suffolk County District Attorney Race

We are not usually inclined to look to David Brooks for political advice, but recently, while reflecting on the Maine Senate race, he offered a useful framework for thinking about how to evaluate candidates for elected office. He suggested that, when deciding whether to vote for someone, there are often three filters:

Do they have the moral character required to do the job? Are they trustworthy? Do they tell the truth?
Do they have good judgment? Can they read a situation and determine what needs to be done?
Finally, do we align with them on the issues and the policies they would champion in office?

Reasonable people can disagree about how much weight to place on each of these three criteria, and that is the position the steering committee found itself in when considering an endorsement recommendation in the Suffolk County DA’s race. Some placed greater importance on the first filter, while others placed greater importance on the third. In this race, however, there is another question that must be asked: Are we holding the candidates to the same standard, given that multiple candidates have a history of alleged, or established, ethics violations?

The JP Steering Committee was unable to reach agreement on an endorsement for the Suffolk County District Attorney race, largely because members placed different weight on the filters above. However, as the ACLU MA’s campaign about the Difference a DA Makes reminds, we know how important the outcome of this election is for efforts to advance decarceration, so we are providing our members with the information we hope will help them make their own decision based on what they individually decide are their most important filters.

So, who are the candidates?

Kevin Hayden: Kevin Hayden is the current Suffolk County District Attorney, having won a full term in 2022 after being appointed by then-Gov. Charlie Baker earlier that year. A graduate of Boston University School of Law, Hayden served as an assistant district attorney in the Suffolk County DA’s Office from 1997 to 2008, followed by seven years in private practice as a criminal defense attorney. In 2015, Baker appointed him chairman of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board, a position he held until becoming district attorney. In 2024, Hayden admitted to violating the state conflict-of-interest law and paid a $5,000 civil penalty after the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission found that he failed to prevent or withdraw an official DA’s Office statement intended to discredit his opponent, Ricardo Arroyo, during the 2022 Democratic primary, improperly using public resources for his own political advantage.

Hayden’s 2022 Progressive Mass Candidate Questionnaire (he did not submit a questionnaire in 2026)

Rachael Rollins: Rachael Rollins is an attorney and former Suffolk County District Attorney, serving from 2019 to 2022, and former U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, serving from 2022 to 2023. Earlier in her career, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, a field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board, General Counsel for MassDOT and the MBTA, and Chief Legal Counsel for Massport. In 2023, Rollins resigned as U.S. Attorney following federal ethics investigations that found she violated the Hatch Act and Justice Department policies, including by attending a political fundraiser in her official capacity and disclosing non-public DOJ information in an effort to influence the 2022 Suffolk County District Attorney election. Since leaving federal office, she has worked at Roxbury Community College leading a reentry program for people impacted by incarceration and has taught civics, government, and law to youth and young adults. She is now running to return to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.

Rollin’s 2026 Progressive Mass Questionnaire

DA Rollins 2019 Policy Memo

Linda Champion: Linda Champion is an attorney, former Suffolk County assistant district attorney, and former member of District Attorney Kevin Hayden’s leadership team. She began her legal career as an assistant district attorney, including work with the office’s Elders and Persons with Disabilities Unit, and later returned as District and Municipal Court Legal Counsel, supervising assistant district attorneys and overseeing community prosecutions. Champion also spent a decade as Assistant General Counsel to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund and has worked in private practice on civil, municipal, regulatory, and public-pension matters. She is a graduate of Suffolk University and Suffolk University Law School and has taught as an adjunct professor at New England Law. Champion previously ran for Suffolk County District Attorney in 2018 and is seeking the office again in 2026.

Champion’s 2018 Progressive Mass Candidate Questionnaire (Linda Champion did not respond to Progressive Mass’s current candidate questionnaire)

And how do they compare when considering the above criteria?

We did not seriously consider Linda Champion because of her deeply problematic views on issues, such as her blanket statement that she would get rid of presumptive non-prosecution of low-level offenses and would retain mandatory minimums for certain crimes. Many of her positions on other issues were not disclosed because of her lack of participation in candidate questionnaires, so there was no basis for evaluation. These positions are at odds with our general goal to move toward a system of decarceration. So this leaves us with current DA Hayden and former DA Rollins. Ultimately, we have to vote for someone—or leave the race blank, which leaves the decision in the hands of other voters as certainly one of these candidates will ultimately win the election and hold the office.

Moral Character and Judgement (Filter #1 & #2):

Both Rollins and Hayden have had serious ethics allegations. Biden’s Office of Special Council released a report on Rollins finding flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, including interference in the 2022 DA election involving DA Hayden and City Councilor Arroyo, but she continues to dispute important factual conclusions of the federal investigations, including their conclusion that she was untruthful. She has expressed remorse and embarrassment about aspects of her conduct, but many in our community feel that she hasn’t expressed sufficient contrition. Hayden’s violations of the conflict of interest law, which he admitted to and paid a $5000 fine, were also related to the 2022 election. Residents will have to make their own judgement about the moral character and judgment of these two candidates based on the information available and whether they think either of these candidates deserves a second chance.

Issues and Policies (Filter #3):

So, now we turn to the third filter, which is where the candidates stand on the issues and policies that matter to us. In 2018 we were engaged in the Justice for Mass Coalition, which was informed by the ACLU’s campaign on What a Difference a DA Makes. The ACLU points to how much discretion a DA has in determining outcomes for individuals who come in contact with the criminal legal system, specifically around decisions of who to prosecute and what charges to bring, whether to seek cash bail, what plea deals and sentences to recommend, who receives diversion, how to hold police accountable and protect defendants’ rights, and whether to revisit wrongful convictions.

Candidates Comparison Chart

Here is a comparison chart based on both candidate questionnaires and candidate interviews.

You can review the full chart HERE, which includes citations. One important caveat is that candidates’ current positions were not always available so we’ve cited sources across the three election cycles where information was available: 2018, 2022, and 2026.

The conclusion of this comparison is that Rachael Rollins takes a more unequivocally progressive stance in the approach and policies she pursued in her first term as DA and promises to pursue if she were reelected. This is primarily because she is more clear about the policies and processes that she would put into place. In contrast, DA Hayden’s positions are not as unprogressive as one might think, but he tends to rely on discretion and points to his practice while in office as opposed to documented or operational policies. For example, they are close in position regarding the repeal of mandatory minimums and life without parole, declining many low-level prosecutions, ending cash bail, banning police use of facial-surveillance technology, and expanding post-conviction remedies and diversion programming, including the Emerging Adult Program that DA Hayden has put into place.

However, in addition to being more clear about policies vs. a case-by-case or discretionary approach, there are places where the distinction is more stark, for example, on qualified immunity: Rollins supports its elimination and Hayden supports continuing it. Hayden also did not oppose expanding the Massachusetts wiretapping law, and he has a more qualified response on limiting no-knock warrants.

We know that we are leaving a big decision to the members and that ultimately you will make a decision that reflects the principles that guide your electoral decisions. While we aren’t making a formal recommendation, we hope that we have provided you with the information that you need to make an informed decision.