Shaw Israel Izikson’s September 12 report in The Berkshire Edge reviewed public records reflecting that when Marybeth Mitts, candidate to fill Rep. Smitty Pignatelli’s soon-to-be vacated 3rd Berkshire District seat in the State House of Representatives, “filed with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) on March 6, she filed to run as a Democrat.” Mr. Izikson also reported that Ms. Mitts’ filing with the state, under the penalty of perjury, was inconsistent with Ms. Mitts’ party affiliation at that time, which was “unenrolled.” Talk about starting a campaign off on the wrong foot.
Days later, Ms. Mitts advised the OCPF that she in fact was “unenrolled” and not a Democrat. For me, this party-affiliation episode falls into the “no harm, no foul” category. Based on the public records, Ms. Mitts’ goof is understandable, because we see that at various times Ms. Mitts has registered as a Republican, as a Democrat, and as unenrolled (more about that below). Still, this goof-under-oath, even if understandable, troubles me as an officer of the court because “under penalty of perjury” needs to mean something.
Let’s get to what should trouble all of us: Ms. Mitts tried to run in the Democratic primary and could not because she was not a registered Democrat by the deadline to run. When she found out she could not due to missing the statutory deadline, Ms. Mitts adopted a Plan B and is now running as “unenrolled.” Rather than own up to that fact—being very kind here—Ms. Mitts spun her “unenrolled” election for The Berkshire Eagle. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with being unenrolled or running for office as an independent. But listen to what Ms. Mitts told The Berkshire Eagle when she announced her candidacy on March 11:
Party affiliation can be seen as a sign that ‘I’m on your side.’ I’m on the side of all Berkshire County residents. If elected, I think it’s important not to win as a member of the red team or the blue team. That’s why I’m running as an independent, because I’ll be representing everyone in the 18 towns.
“That’s why I’m running as an independent” is a lie. The public records show that Ms. Mitts tried to run as a Democrat. Only when she learned she could not run as a Democrat did she opt to run as an independent. Ms. Mitts’ statement to The Berkshire Eagle gave voters the false impression that she is running as an independent out of conviction. The truth, we now know, is that she is running as an independent out of convenience: It is the only port available to her in this storm. Her statement to The Berkshire Eagle was pure fabrication.
Had Ms. Mitts announced her candidacy by saying, “I intended to run as a Democrat, but I made a mistake and blew the deadline, so I’m running as an independent,” she would have scored points for candor. That is the kind of honest statement I want from elected officials. Instead, she did what too many politicians do: She tried to cover up her mistake in the trappings of virtue. Voters know the difference.
The public records also reflect that Ms. Mitts had been a registered Republican. There is nothing inherently wrong with this fact, but understand this: When someone tells you who they are, believe them. And let’s consider the flopping back and forth between Republican, Democrat, and unenrolled. I am very hesitant to paraphrase former President Trump, but here goes: I like my politicians who know what party they belong to. Is Marybeth Mitts unable to choose a side? The parties’ positions could not be more polar. Voters need to know where Ms. Mitts stands and for what she stands.
The fact is, Ms. Mitts has never chosen a lane. Flopping between political affiliations reflects an utter absence of political conviction. While candidates for elective office have the right to run under whatever label they may choose, voters are entitled to know why a candidate chose a political label. A candidate’s choice tells us something about the candidate; party designation is how candidates signal their ideology. Flopping signals a lack of one. If you will permit some advice, Ms. Mitts: Take a stand, pick a side. The 3rd Berkshire District needs someone who is not concerned with how the wind blows. If you don’t know where you stand, get back to us when you do.
Party matters on Beacon Hill too. Out of 160 House members, only one is unenrolled, a former Republican like Ms. Mitts. If you know anything about the House and its nearly 85 percent Democratic makeup, you know that being a member of the Democratic Party matters deeply. It is unlikely House leadership distinguishes between former Republican, Republican, former Democrat, and unenrolled members. Ms. Mitts, you have touched each of those bases. To the House leadership, you would simply be viewed as “not one of us.”
But don’t take my word for it. In early April, my wife and I were privileged to tour the State House with Smitty. On that tour, knowing that Ms. Mitts was unaffiliated, I asked Smitty about the prospects for an unaffiliated member serving in the House. Smitty scoffed and suggested, in sum and substance, that an unaffiliated member might as well be in Siberia. From the vantage point of Beacon Hill, western Massachusetts already looks very Siberia-like. In a world where South County project funding often comes through earmarks, a former Republican unaffiliated member might have as much luck getting project funding from Albany as Beacon Hill.
Does anyone think that Democratic Speaker of the House Ronald Mariano would do any favors for a former Republican unaffiliated member? For perspective, with a long-serving, very esteemed Democratic House member representing us, the 3rd Berkshire District received $6.345 million in earmarks in the recently enacted $5.16 billion Affordable Homes Act and is currently slated to receive $5.05 million in the House version of the $3.4 billion Economic Development Act currently in conference. One can only imagine what the district’s insignificant sliver would be if an unaffiliated member were seeking a slice of the state’s economic pie. I don’t need to imagine. I know how pleased Beacon Hill will be to help a newly elected Democrat from our district. A Democrat endorsed by numerous Democrats across Massachusetts (including Senator Elizabeth Warren). A Democrat who will help us get the funding we need to fix our failing infrastructure, augment our meager housing supply, sustain our schools, and address all of our other issues. A Democrat—Leigh Davis, the candidate readers of this column know I support and to whose campaign I contributed because I believe Ms. Davis is the person most qualified and best suited to represent the 3rd Berkshire District.
Here is what we now know: Ms. Mitts was dishonest at the outset of her campaign, but given the state of political dishonesty today, not to a disqualifying level. More concerning is Ms. Mitts’ utter lack of political conviction. What does Ms. Mitts—former Republican, former Democrat, and currently unenrolled—actually stand for, if anything at all? And how will 3rd Berkshire District voters have faith that what she says she stands for now will be what she stands for if elected?
When you get down to brass tacks, the 3rd Berkshire District needs a representative who can secure funding for our failing infrastructure and other critical needs. Fact: The Democratic Party has a supermajority in our state. Electing anyone other than a Democrat would be a self-inflicted wound. Without a doubt, South County will be sunk with a representative not in the Democratic boat. That, Ms. Mitts’ utter lack of candor about the real reason she is running as an independent, and political-affiliation flip-flopping absolutely leads me to conclude—and should lead you to conclude—that Ms. Mitts is not the right fit for the Berkshire Third.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Would the Berkshire Third be better served by a Democrat?”
Survey Monkey Results
A recent column asked the following survey question: “Given that Democrats hold nearly 85 percent of the seats in the Massachusetts House, would it cause you concern that one of the candidates in the general election is unenrolled?”
As of publication, 52.94 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has held Community Access Fees hostage: 201
