STATEMENT ON DSA-LA’S ENDORSEMENT FOR MAYOR

Two left candidates who are DSA-LA members are now challenging Mayor Karen Bass in her re-election campaign: Councilmember Nithya Raman and Reverend Rae Huang. This has raised questions about DSA-LA’s endorsement for Mayor.

As with all major decisions for our local chapter, political candidate endorsements are driven and democratically decided by DSA-LA members.

Our endorsements require thorough discussion and debate because an endorsement from DSA-LA is not just another logo on a campaign mailer. When our members vote to endorse a candidate, it comes with a serious commitment of resources and time. We have a detailed and robust process for ensuring that any campaign we endorse is also building our movement.

At this time, DSA-LA has not endorsed anyone for Mayor in 2026, and any future endorsements will only be considered if motivated by a petition and approved if voted on by the chapter’s membership.

Should a mayoral candidate receive DSA-LA’s endorsement, we will throw the full weight of our power behind their campaign. For now, we are focusing that power on our already-endorsed candidates that make up the Shake Up City Hall slate—Marissa Roy for City Attorney, Rocio Rivas for LAUSD School Board, and Hugo Soto-Martinez, Eunisses Hernandez, Faizah Malik, and Estuardo Mazariegos for City Council.

Our Shake Up City Hall slate is made up of renters, immigrants, union members, and devoted DSA-LA members who are going to fight against ICE, the fascist Trump administration, bad bosses, and billionaires. That’s why we endorsed them. Winning these six races—the most we’ve ever endorsed in one election cycle—will be a monumental achievement toward building a Los Angeles for the working class. Sign up to get involved at shakeup.la.

-2026 DSA-LA Steering Committee

Graham Platner’s campaign in Maine’s 2026 Senate race has caused divided opinions among many of the state’s progressive and left wing voters, partly due to revelations around his former military contractor work, comments he made online in the past, and especially due to a totenkopf tattoo he received while serving in the Marines overseas. The tattoo is a design that was historically used by the Nazi SS, and has become a popular symbol with white supremacist circles. Platner has since had the tattoo removed and claims he did not know about the hateful history behind the design when we got it in the early 2000’s. However, it has left a good number of progressives and leftists struggling with whether they can support him or not, while he presents himself as a left populist fighting for a pro-working class platform.

Two contributors holding different opinions on the candidate, Rose DuBois and T. Sinclair, have agreed to share their conversation on the candidate’s acceptability and viability. Below is a transcript of their back-and-forth. 

***

T. Sinclair

Before we get started, I want to clarify that in no way am I excusing Platner’s tattoo. It was a dumb thing to get when he was young and in the Marines, and a disgusting symbol of hatred. And, whether you believe him when he says he didn’t know what it represented when he got it, I think it’s important to consider that people grow and worldviews can change. Graham has shown in the last five years or so that he has evolved to genuinely hold progressive, working class values that support all people, no matter race, gender, or orientation; not just with his words, but also through his community work with Action Acadia. The Democratic field has a handful of declared candidates, but most agree that the nomination comes down to Platner or current Governor, Janet Mills. Given Mills’ centrist (and sometimes conservative) record on labor, criminal justice reform, and indigenous rights, coupled with her lower than average approval rating, I think Graham Platner is a win-win candidate with not only the best chances of beating Susan Collins in November, but also delivering on a true working class agenda. But I am interested in hearing your thoughts, Rose.

Rose DuBois

Up front I want to start by dismissing the various other “scandals” that have plagued Platner. There’s a lot of, I would argue, fairly bad faith criticisms of him that just don’t resonate with me, or with I think most Maine voters. Even the Reddit comments, while they did bother me, I also know how people talk online, and as you said, people can change. I found his apology video for the comments to be quite persuasive. Nor am I in favor of Janet Mills. I was incredibly excited when I found out someone was going to be challenging her for the nomination, and was a big supporter of Platner from day one. But having a Nazi tattoo—regardless of any context—should be a red line.

I’m willing to entertain his claim that he didn’t know what it was when he got it—fair enough, people do stupid shit. And if it had come out that he’d gotten one, but had it removed years ago, I’d maybe see it in a different light. But the idea that he didn’t know what it was until now, twenty years later, is completely ridiculous. We should absolutely extend grace to those who strive for redemption, but redemption requires remorse about one’s actions. Denial is the exact opposite, an attempt to escape responsibility.

But ultimately the specifics of shortcomings of a single person are less interesting to me than the wider context in which this is occurring. Even beyond the fascistic politics of Trump and MAGA, an open embrace of Nazism is becoming more widespread in our society. Admiration of Hitler, and belief in conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial are increasingly common aspects of right wing politics, particularly among young Republicans. By electing someone to congress with a Nazi tattoo, we are helping normalize this, something that is extremely dangerous. How can we, for example, attack Elon Musk for doing a Nazi salute, and paint his claim it was another gesture as an obvious lie, when we ourselves engage in the exact same practice of obfuscation for what is very clearly a Nazi symbol? It only serves to muddy the waters, and make it easier to get away with this sort of thing.

And while attempts to depict any support for Palestine as being inherently antisemitic are preposterous, it’s unfortunately the case that antisemitism is also a growing problem on the left as well. What will it mean when the most pro-Palestinian member of the Senate (which I believe Platner would be) is also someone with a tattoo of the unit that was responsible to administering the death camps. It doesn’t take a political genius to see how this will get used by pro-Israeli figures and organizations in our politics. 

T. Sinclair

I see where you’re coming from, and I completely understand the concern with a member of Congress who formerly had a Nazi symbol tattoo (he has since covered it up) serving as a representative of the left, and how AIPAC would use that in ad campaigns. There is no doubt antisemitism is on the rise; people on the left who rightly call out the state of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and apartheid policies have made clear time and time again that their criticisms are of a nation-state, not Judaism or Jewish people, but even in some far reaches of the left (and pretty blatantly on the right) antisemitism has crept in and must be combatted. I don’t think Platner is in those far reaches of the left though, and rather stands firmly with 99% of progressives and leftists who abhor all racism and ethnic hatred. 

While I take him at face value that he didn’t know it was a Nazi tattoo (his wife and her family are Jewish and he claims they never raised concerns about it, and he passed federal screenings for gang/hate tattoos), let’s assume for a second that he at least had an inkling. I can see that causing voters to take a great pause and really inspect his politics. When you do that, what you find is a man who had mental health trauma from multiple tours in active war zones, came home and sought treatment for it, realized how messed up it is that working families can’t afford basic healthcare (or housing, or childcare, etc.), saw that the system was deeply flawed and got involved with local community organizing for progressive causes. 

Facing the given situation, MAGA and Trump 2.0, which is kidnapping people off our streets to extra-judicially deport, initiating illegal violence overseas, attacking the rights of our LGBTQ neighbors, flagrantly bypassing Congress and taking over agencies like the Federal Reserve, FTC, FCC, and FBI to favor Trump’s personal interests, it is not only paramount but existential to elect people to federal office who stand ready to oppose this right-wing “soft coup.” We have a chance here to kick out the conservative Sen. Susan Collins and replace her with a progressive. In my opinion, the good that Platner offers outweighs his bad misdeeds, like getting a terrible tattoo with his Marine buddies 20 years ago. To be honest with you, his choice to join the Marines during the Iraq War, or his short stint with a private military contractor should be bigger issues; but, most voters are fine with that. Is your issue the message that electing him would send, because of his tattoo, or is there reason to believe he wouldn’t be a good advocate for positive change?

Rose DuBois

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea that Platner himself isn’t at least adjacent to the sort of online spaces that are helping conspiratorial thinking proliferate. His Twitter account recently agreeingly quote tweeted the neo-Nazi Stew Peters (before quickly deleting), and in January he did an interview with Nate Cornacchia, a YouTuber who has spread antisemitic conspiracies (as well as racist anti-Somali ones that led to the ICE surge first in Minneapolis and then in Maine), with Platner saying he is a long time fan. Now sure, we can probably come up with explanations for these sorts of things—it’s pretty much impossible to open Twitter and not see the posts of far right users for example. But it’s one thing if it’s a one off event, it’s another entirely when there’s a growing pattern. I would find the defenses of him far more credible if he did not keep dabbling with the promoters of these kinds of conspiracies. If he’s so serious about affirming his anti-fascist commitments to us, why does this keep happening? At minimum it shows poor judgement and a bit of a cavalier attitude towards bigotry.

There’s been a concentrated effort to paint any concern about the tattoo as being “establishment,” or similar, and I find this to be quite insidious. The fact that the response is to become quite defensive is itself a red flag. People should be outraged that he had it! I mean in many countries having such a tattoo is a crime, and one that can incur jail time, it’s no light thing we can just walk past. If the circumstances were remotely any different, everyone on the left would be crying for a cordon sanitaire against him, but because it’s “our guy” suddenly it’s no big deal to have a Nazi tattoo. The way it’s being downplayed is incredibly discomforting.

I also think everyone is overbaking the idea that this won’t have any negative impacts on his electability. What happens come November when every Republican PAC puts millions behind “Graham Platner is a Nazi” ads? Collins is able to win primarily because she overperforms in Southern Maine, largely in the Portland suburbs and the Midcoast—places that used to be more Republican leaning decades ago. I’m not totally convinced that such hits are going to do zero damage among these kinds of split ticket voters.

I am glad that Platner has been able to move on from the dark place he was in after returning from the Middle East, and that he’s been able to channel that into becoming a community organizer. But that doesn’t mean he needs to be a senator. There are 1.4 million people in Maine, many of whom hold similar progressive values, and I would bet that basically none of them have Nazi tattoos. He’s not somehow singularly equipped for the job. I mean a year ago nobody had heard of him! His entire public profile was conjured up by out of state political consultants last summer! It almost feels like an inversion of the “not me, us” framing of the Bernie years, where somehow only this one man can lead our movement and save us, and the movement is treated as nothing without him.

I think if he actually cared about opposing fascism he would have dropped out. There’s no reason why, if he genuinely espouses the values he claims to hold, he couldn’t continue to fight for them as an organizer locally. I would not have become as skeptical of him as I am if he had done the honorable thing and stepped aside. We could’ve gotten behind someone else.

T. Sinclair

The more we chat, the more I think I’m understanding where we basically disagree, which I’ll get to in a second. While you have doubts about his electability vs. Collins, I would point to the most recent poll out of UNH that has him up by 38 points over Mills in the Democratic primary. While I agree with you that it would be a tight race against Collins, he clearly has the best shot for Democrats from a polling perspective come November. Admit it, if it’s Mills v. Collins, Collins wins by a mile. 

As for his interview with Nate Cornacchia, we both know Platner’s team has made it a priority to reach out to all voters, including those who voted for Trump out of frustration and attempt to bring them over to a working class agenda that isn’t hateful. When one is trying their best to reach audiences that don’t often hear a progressive populist message, one necessarily has to utilize some conservative media platforms. That’s just the name of the game, ugly as it is. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if his team might end up looking back on some of those decisions and feel sheepish about them.

So, finally, my thoughts on what I see as our basic difference. You are putting your principles first, believing the tattoo is disqualifying due to the symbol’s terrible past (and him keeping it for so long), his campaign team’s bad media platforming, plus a few other times when he made discomforting online comments. You interpret these as red lines based on your principles, so you cannot support him. I respect that. This is my position: pragmatic strategy should come first. We have to take back power. I have written on my belief in revolutionary forgiveness before, and I am more willing to forgive past decisions of candidates if they show that they’ve grown and matured, which I believe Platner has. I also believe in the importance of progressive working class representatives winning office (especially in this time of existential political crisis).

In my opinion, Platner clearly offers the most pro-working families agenda; one that is pro-LGBTQ, pro-labor, pro-choice, anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti-war. Plus, he is the most electable. So, in that regard, you could say I am prioritizing pragmatism. And I hear you on the concern that he doesn’t have that same “mass movement” feel Bernie offered, but I would also like to point out how well attended his series of town hall meetings have been, how Bernie endorses him, and that maybe sometimes it just takes an unexpected spark to light a larger fire. Maybe he was hand-picked by some labor-friendly political head hunters, I don’t know, and I honestly don’t care. What I care about is replacing Collins with someone who represents working and marginalized folks’ rights and needs in the halls of power. 

As you go into your final thoughts, those are basically mine. This is where we are, and as politically-minded people we ought to look at the terrain and tools we have in front of us, not wish for ones that don’t exist. And, to be honest, I think Platner’s platform is about as good as we could have hoped for in this given time. There’s no changing horses now, even if we wanted to. Unless you think the unpopular Mills or some other dark horse is the way to go. But for me, Platner gives us the best shot at claiming a Senate seat with a truly progressive, working class person, blemishes and all. I really appreciated this chat though, it let me think through a lot and I look forward to your final thoughts.

Rose DuBois

I absolutely would not make a judgement call on an election based on a single poll from one pollster three months before the primary, and eight before the general (though I do tend to agree that Platner is ahead in the primary). Polls aren’t definitive, they’re snapshots, and how voters are feeling can and do change over the course of a campaign. In Texas’s Democratic primary, much of the early polling showed Crockett well ahead of Talarico, a trend that did not continue closer to election day (or ultimately the results). The UNH poll also has some questionable methodology, and other polls also show both a much closer primary and general.

I’d grant that it’s fair to conclude that were the election to be held right now, like this minute, before any real campaigning (on which millions and millions of dollars will be spent), Platner likely has an edge over Mills in terms of beating Collins. But there’s no certainty that that will be the case come November, and I do not think that the maximum damage the Republican campaign machine can do to a candidate like Platner has necessarily been priced into polling yet. I also have zero trust that there aren’t more skeletons in the closet.

I would push back on the idea that were Mills to be the nominee, she is fated to lose. I’ve been fairly bullish on Collins going down this Fall since election day 2024, regardless of who we put against her. We certainly want to ensure that we have the best candidate for the job, but I’m skeptical that taking her down is going to come from a magic trick of a candidate, and more so the basic fundamentals of how Maine’s electorate is changing, the difference in environment between 2020 and 2026, and the profound unpopularity of the current administration in a midterm year. Even when I was excited about Platner I felt that way! The point in my mind was never to find a perfect candidate, but to get the best possible senator. Now that’s certainly not to say I think Mills would be a good nominee, or a good senator—I do not. She has become quite unpopular, she is far too old, and her politics are not remotely suited for the political moment. I’m not arguing for Mills, I’m arguing against Platner.

Responding to your point about the interview, I want to contrast it with the hubbub years ago when Bernie appeared on Joe Rogan. That feels quite different to me, and it was fine for him to do, as you said, in the interest of contesting voters. But the huge glaring difference is that Bernie did not have a giant Nazi tattoo on his chest. Sure, you can make a mistake and apologize for it, but words are cheap, and if you go back and continue to make the same mistake again, you’re making it pretty clear how sincere you are. Since the revelation of the tattoo, he’s done nothing to disabuse us of the notion that he’s still mixed up in circles where antisemitism and right wing conspiracies are common. And if he’s going to be influenced by that sort of thinking, I absolutely do not want him in any position of political power period.

I’d also like to point out that contrary to what the narrative is, Platner’s base very much is not the working class that exists outside of the progressive bubble. It’s more or less the exact same coalition we’re seeing from insurgent candidates elsewhere across the “democratic tea party” moment—combining the classic Bernie base of young and well educated downwardly mobile professionals with middle class suburbanites. Mills does notably better in polling in CD2 and Northern Maine than Platner does, and Platner’s strongest income bracket by far are people making over $100k. And I would be remiss not to point out how incredibly gendered this whole thing is as well.

Which ultimately brings me to your concluding point about principals vs pragmatism, to which I could not disagree with more forcefully. You’re framing this as a blemish that can be looked past in the name of the policies he might support, a bump in the road you feel comfortable ignoring while I do not, completely missing that my central objection to him is that the normalization of Nazism has very real consequences. Yes, I certainly hold anti-fascist principles, and these principles do guide my thinking, but these aren’t coming from abstractions, but a quite concrete and deadly serious reality. 

Nazism is an ideology of death and its continued growth in our society puts me under direct threat. The Nazis persecuted and murdered trans people in the camps, and you can absolutely bet that the current crop of groypers and neo-Nazis that increasingly make up the lower echelons of the Republican Party, given power, would do the same again. Twenty years ago, even having a hint of Nazi connection would end your political career, but the norms around this have become much thinner, and they are breaking. Every little thing that chips away at them makes Nazism a more acceptable part of our political life, and you can be certain that electing someone with an SS tattoo to congress is taking a huge sledgehammer at these norms. Whether intentional or not, it makes it easier for the sort of hatred to spread unabated that puts marginalized people in harm’s way.

What’s in Platner’s heart, whether he’s an anti-fascist or an antisemite, a progressive populist or a secret Nazi, is ultimately immaterial to the problem here. What policies he would or would not support are equally irrelevant to my perspective on him. It’s that his election in and of itself is a danger because of the tattoo, and one many people are brushing past and taking far too lightly.

***

We would like to thank our contributors, T. Sinclair and Rose DuBois for agreeing to partake in such an important conversation. Pine & Roses will continue its coverage of the Maine 2026 races throughout the year. 

The post A Conversation on Graham Platner appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Years ago–during Trump’s first term–I listened as clergy colleagues addressed a committee of the Minnesota legislature in a hearing to determine how the state would respond to Trump’s harsh anti-immigrant policies. One pastor’s testimony was simply a recital of biblical passages concerning love of neighbor and care for the immigrant. Because she was allotted only five minutes, she couldn’t finish the long list of such verses.

Today, even Capitol Hill journalists have caught on that the religious chest-pounding from some in this regime stands in sharp contrast with the rising chorus of defiant activists reciting biblical verses. Earlier in February, one journalist asked the Speaker of the House to address the difference, and Mike Johnson leaped at the chance, declaring that “borders and laws are biblical.” 

What Are Walls for?

Johnson’s statement is true, of course. It’s been a go-to talking point on the religious Right ever since the first Trump administration, when some evangelical scholars rushed to defend cruel and inhumane border policies by stolidly observing that “biblical cities had walls.” 

In fact, as responsible biblical scholars can attest, the most prominent archaeological remains of “biblical” walls today are their massive gate complexes. “City gates in ancient Israel (ca. 1200–586 BCE) were fortified, multi-chambered structures serving as the primary hub for civic, judicial, and economic life. . .”

In other words, one of the primary functions of “biblical walls” and their gates was to open a city, responsibly, to the world around it, as people gathered in and moved through those gates to connect with one another. 

But Johnson’s obsession with “borders” seems to have some other focus: naked partisan ambition, perhaps. Let me stipulate that a morally responsible case can be made for open borders (just a few examples here), but no one on “the Left” is advocating letting violent men swarm into U.S. cities and rampage through neighborhoods, in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights.  That’s official DHS policy you’re thinking of. 

It bears note—again—that according to the DHS’s own records, only a tiny percentage of the people seized off the streets or out of their homes,  thrown into concentration camps, or deported are actually violent criminals—a smaller percentage than in the U.S. population generally.

Love Thy Neighbor—or Not

In contrast, Mike Johnson considers just one passage, Leviticus 19:34, supporting care for the immigrant. He sniffed that “whether [radical Leftists] know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land.” 

He apparently means that because that verse occurs before anything like a bordered Israelite state has been established, it can’t be taken seriously as relevant for actual nations today. 

“CONTEXT,” he declared in all caps, “IS CRITICAL.”

If that statement had appeared in an undergraduate’s paper, I would have circled it in red, written “exactly right!” in the margin—and then asked why context mattered not at all in the rest of his exposition. 

Come to think of it, let me take off my tweed jacket, roll up my sleeves, and spend some time with this argument.

. . . 

So, Mike—may I call you Mike? —you go on to explain that verses like that one, or the “Greatest Commandment” of love of neighbor, were “never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.” Somehow you think that lets you, and the masked brutes prowling U.S. cities, off the hook.

Actually, you might pay closer attention to the verse you just quoted, from the King James translation (of course). Note that in its archaic, 16th-century English, the verse interweaves the singular thou and the plural you: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you [plural] shall be unto you [plural] as one born among you [plural], and thou [singular] shalt love him as thyself [singular].” Note, too, that the command continues, as so often in the Torah, with a reason: “for ye [plural] were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your [plural] God.” 

It’s hard, then, to follow your insistence that this command is addressed only to the “individual.” The “thou” here is called on as a member of a people, and called to identify with a collective experience that should draw them into empathy and solidarity with the “stranger in their midst.” 

You’re right, of course, Mike, that this command doesn’t refer to the borders of a nation. In fact, all of the narrative of the Torah takes place before any of “the congregation of the children of Israel” enter the “promised land.” 

That’s really the point. The Torah reads as God’s formation of a people, independent of their dwelling within specific geographical borders. Yes, later in the story (in Numbers 34) God stipulates just what will be the bounds of the land that the people Israel will occupy. But even later, in Deuteronomy 17, God warns the people that if—in envy of the nations around them—they set a king over themselves, they will be courting danger. Not surprisingly, that’s what happens, and the text warns in anticipation that the establishment of the nation’s borders will take place only later, after the people, who are the Lord’s focus here, have taken what the Lord describes as the wrong direction. 

Even later (Deut. 28), Moses issues a lengthy warning to the people (in the future indicative, Mike, which means the warning also functions as a prophecy of what will happen). The people will turn away from the Lord and, in punishment, “the Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle.” That cruel foreign invader will destroy the nation and disperse its people. Those appear to be retrospective references to the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C.E., which allows scholars to date the main body of Deuteronomy. 

The climax of the book, toward which one could argue the whole of the Torah has been driving, is the solemn, countervailing promise that Moses gives to the assembled people (chapter 30): if—later, after their dispersal “to the ends of the world”—they will turn again in obedience, the Lord “will bring you back . . . into the land that your ancestors possessed” (30:4-5). 

Attentive readers will note some anachronism there. Moses seems to be speaking “over the heads” of the throng assembled before him on the plains of Moab, to address a later generation, living after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), when the (relatively) more civilized Persian emperor Cyrus the Great allowed exiles to return to Jerusalem. Modern biblical scholarship recognizes the anachronism and recognizes its role in the wider cultural context (there’s that word again) of the ancient near east: a later generation addresses their own situation by revitalizing older tradition and attributing the result to an ancient lawgiver. 

It’s clear from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Torah was made “the law of the land” under Cyrus’s direction. Serious biblical scholars recognize that, discussing the relationship of “Persia and Torah” and describing the final Torah as “the literature of colonial Yehud,” a phrase first popularized by the late, great Norman K. Gottwald. 

At this point, Mike, I’ll admit I don’t seriously expect you to follow this argument, because it’s so uncongenial to your commitments. You are what any contemporary Bible scholar would recognize as a literalist, probably a Fundamentalist, and not a curious one at that. We recognize your type in the classroom pretty early in a semester. You’re not really a student: you’re a provocateur, and no one is going to change your mind.

I hope I’ve not gone too far into the biblical-scholarship weeds. I just want to point out that there is a world of actual study of the Bible in its historical context, which for some of us really is critical. That means recognizing that the final form of the Torah didn’t fall from heaven into Moses’s hands; that it was created centuries later, in solemn retrospect, by people who were trying to discern the divine will in the course of their own history. It wasn’t written to speak to people living on some other continent two and a half millennia later, though centuries of white Christian Protestants have insisted that they are precisely the Bible’s long-awaited subjects. 

More directly to the point of your concern, Mike, the Torah doesn’t imagine that any people can be kept holy through strict border controls. Holiness is a matter of doing right by their neighbors—which is why the single command you discuss appears as part of what scholars call the “holiness code” in the book of Leviticus.

This is a good place to observe that the ways any of us reads the Bible always say more about us than about the Bible. You presume that the Bible provides the blueprint for a white Christian America, to which everyone else must “assimilate”—a line that received an appropriate response from Stephen Colbert. 

You present your neat division of labor as the master-key to interpreting the Bible. “The Bible,” you write, “teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority—(1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities.” All that “love of neighbor” stuff in the Bible, so popular on the “progressive Left,” applies, you insist, only to the “INDIVIDUAL” (sic); in contrast, you write, “the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).” 

It’s interesting that you don’t cite any Bible verse  that lays out that division of labor—but not surprising. No such categorization of responsibilities ever appears in scripture. You or, more precisely, the Christian Dominionists on whom you rely made it up. The reason is pretty clear: You prefer a scheme that gives you authority over the rest of us to actual biblical teaching.

Let’s give those verses in Romans more attention than you’ve managed, Mike. (Full disclosure: I’ve written two books on the Letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperialism, and an additional scholarly essay just on this passage, 13:1-7.) 

There is no divine “calling” or “establishment” or “authorization” of government in these verses; the Greek participle tetagmenai (rendered “ordained” in the King James Version, and “appointed” in the New King James Version) has a restrictive sense and might better be translated “set in rank,” the way a drill sergeant might snap unruly troops to attention. The punitive role of governing authorities is described in the indicative—as a matter of fact—and not as a positive value. 

You seem attracted to the calm assurance in verses 3 and 4 that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil”; so, the one who does right has nothing to fear. To you, as to everyone in this administration and abroad in MAGA world, that means that people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were self-evidently evil-doers, and their deaths are their own damn fault. 

Leave aside for a moment the breathtaking indifference to brutality expressed in such sentiment. Even at the level of reading ancient biblical texts, this facile moral embrace of whatever the government does fails miserably. 

The apostle Paul knew perfectly well that government authorities were lethally dangerous to innocent people; after all, he declares that “the rulers of this age” crucified the innocent Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8), and later in that letter, assures his readers that at “the end,” Christ will destroy “all rule and all authority and power” and thus put “all enemies under His feet” (15:24-25). Paul describes his own record of being arrested and beaten by civil authorities as evidence that he is a genuine messenger of God, which is the opposite of how you want us to use the Bible (4:9-13). 

Scholars more chastened by actual history know that reaching for Romans 13 to buttress government authority has been the ploy of governments that have no intention of acting virtuously: Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, any number of other brutal dictatorships since. The passage remains something of an enigma, but over the last half century, scholars have observed the following:

1. Paul thinks his hearers have good reason to be afraid of the civil authorities (the words “terror” in v. 3 and “fear” in v. 7 are the same word in Greek, phobos). That good reason is precisely that the authority “does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). (Paul wrote that line at a time when the new emperor, the teenage Nero, was requiring his speechwriters to insist that he had brought peace throughout the Empire without even touching a sword.)
2. The Roman sword remains a constant lethal danger, as Paul affirms earlier in this same letter: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36).
3. Precisely because Roman authorities had proven themselves a deadly blunt instrument in putting down tax protests in nearby Puteoli, then again in a mass expulsion of Jews from Rome in a habitual over-reaction to civil unrest, Paul knows his own people are at greatest risk if the civil authorities crack down over any disquiet. 
4. And that’s why, in unfortunately stereotyped language, Paul here urged his (non-Jewish) readers to keep their heads down and their noses clean—advice he himself usually did not practice. 

The Bible for Thee, Not for Me

All of this is relevant historical context, yet none of it seems to matter to you, Mike, so I want to ask a few more questions.

If you took seriously the division you outlined between biblical instructions for “the individual” and those for “civil authorities”—why wouldn’t you accept the first as decisive for yourself?  Sure, you’ve been elected to the House, and your colleagues have made you Speaker, but if you had known what the Bible commanded you as an individual, why would you ever have sought public office? Indeed, why would you aspire to be an “agent of wrath,” instead of a righteous lover of mercy, as the Bible does expressly command? 

It seems to me that no Bible verse or biblical commentator is quite as important for your “theology” as the logic of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, a favorite of self-styled right-wing intellectuals like Peter Thiel (and his protegé J. D. Vance). For Schmitt, what made a nation was sovereignty, and what constituted sovereignty was the power to declare a state of exception to the laws that everyone else had to follow. That’s why you want to be in government, Mike—especially in this government, where declaring national emergencies is the most convenient way to ignore Congress, the courts, and the Constitution.

And why else, Mike, would you reach for the Bible to explain your eager participation in this regime? Even if you were right about the Bible’s authorization of government as God’s “agent of wrath,”  nobody asked you to serve the Bible. 

Instead, you were asked to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

I know that’s loaded with all sorts of language you’d prefer was not there: “domestic Tranquility”? “general Welfare”? “the Blessings of Liberty”? It’s pretty obvious you would rather be doling out punishment to “bad guys,” so you prefer to think that’s what the Bible authorizes you to do. 

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan taught us to recognize how often “the medium is the message.” The principle has no more apt illustration than you addressing a roomful of journalists and, over their heads, the American people, to tell us that the Bible authorizes you and your Republican colleagues to ignore the basic morality and decency to which so many of us feel bound. That moment—the medium of your self-righteous little Bible study—is the message you find in the Bible: you and your people decide, we obey. 

Fantasies of self-righteousness and the divine power to punish wicked others, fed by apocalyptic texts in the Bible, are rife in the present regime. More attentive readers of Revelation, or the prophecy in Matthew 25, will notice that no government officials, no military commanders appear in biblical visions of heaven, or heaven on earth. It is clear enough from the Beatitudes Jesus pronounces in Matthew 5 that the blessed are not those who have used force to assert their will but the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger for justice, those who make peace.

Don’t worry, Mike–there’s still time to read up.  

The post The Bible and the Border: Mike Johnson Explains It All (or Does He?) appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

March 2026 Newsletter

This is the monthly newsletter by the Montgomery County Branch of the Metro DC Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (MoCo DSA).

•  Interested in building a socialist future? Join DSA.
• Want up-to-the-minute updates? Follow us on Instagram, Bluesky, Twitter, and Facebook.
• Sign up for weekly updates (and see the archives) from Metro DC DSA.

Take Action

• Data centers require enormous amounts of power from local grids around the clock and constant cooling with local water supplies. Tell the Montgomery County Council to put a moratorium on data centers.
• Takoma Park has some of the strongest renter protections in Montgomery County, thanks to its rent stabilization ordinance. But the ordinance is under threat. Sign your name if you agree that Takoma Park should not allow landlords to get even richer on the backs of renters—the very people who can afford it the least.
• Maryland law denies teachers, librarians, and other public workers in the state the right to strike. That means residents who provide some of the most important care to our community don’t have access to organized labor’s most powerful tool—the strike. HB 1492 would give teachers and public workers the right to strike. Learn how you can support this critical bill.

Upcoming Events

• Saturday, March 7th – Canvass for Gabriel Acevero and Josie Caballero. Show MoCo that DSA stands with our endorsed candidates by turning up and turning out to knock on our neighbors’ doors. Gabe and Josie support teachers and working families, and that’s why we support them. Register to canvass.
• Saturday, March 7th – Join a Know Your Rights Canvass in Montgomery Village with MoCo IRC. You must request to participate here. The event is not open to the public.
• Saturday, March 14th – MoCo DSA Monthly General Body Meeting. Join us in person at the Gaithersburg Library or via Zoom for our monthly meeting to get plugged into the latest with MoCo DSA. If you’re brand new to DSA, this meeting is open to the public.
• Saturday, March 21 – MoCo DSA March Social. Socialize with fellow MoCo comrades at the Mayan Monkey Brewery in Gaithersburg. Tell us if you plan to attend! (P.S. We will be canvassing for our candidates that afternoon. Stay tuned for details).
• Looking to connect with comrades in DSA in a casual setting? We will be launching the MoCo DSA weekly coffee social in the coming weeks. More details to come!

MoCo Briefs

MoCo DSA in Annapolis

On February 16, we went to Annapolis to urge state legislators to support just cause eviction, end state investments in the imperial war machine and genocide, and stop collaborations with ICE.

Electoral 

In February, our campaign work for Gabe Acevero, Josie Caballero, and Izola Shaw kicked into high gear. Between phonebanking, canvassing in Rockville and Takoma Park, and a fundraiser at Clear Skies Meadery, MoCo DSA showed up for the candidates campaigning for a more just Montgomery County and Maryland.

Survey

We want to know what content you’re interested in! Fill out this brief survey to share your thoughts.

Interested in building a socialist future? Join DSA

The post Moco DSA March Newsletter appeared first on Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.

By Dylan

The fundamental case for corporate accountability rests on the principle that significant power—whether political or economic—must be subject to ethical scrutiny. In a globalized economy, the actions of large-scale enterprises have profound consequences for the communities and environments in which they operate. Consider the devastating impact that corporations like Union Carbide, Nestlé, Monsanto, and Halliburton have had on the environment and human lives.¹ When a corporation’s pursuit of profit intersects with regions marked by conflict, repressive governance, economic injustice, or social inequality, the company ceases to be a neutral bystander and instead becomes an active participant in the local landscape. If an organization benefits from or reinforces systems that result in human suffering or environmental harm, it incurs a moral responsibility that transcends simple legal compliance. Therefore, corporate accountability is not merely a regulatory preference but a necessary safeguard to ensure that private interests do not supersede human rights and dignity. In the absence of a unified global authority to govern these interactions, public awareness and ethical pressure serve as essential tools for aligning corporate behavior with the broader interests of humanity.

One of the most troubling, contemporary, examples of a lack of corporate accountability involves the Chevron Corporation. While its economic power and technological capacity are often framed as engines of development, Chevron’s operations in Israel and Venezuela reveal a more troubling dimension of corporate involvement in human rights abuses. In both cases, Chevron’s activities raise serious concerns regarding complicity, accountability, and the exploitation of people in politically volatile environments by non-state actors.

In Israel, Chevron’s involvement in the Tamar and Leviathan offshore natural gas fields has positioned the company as a critical contributor to the country’s energy infrastructure.² These gas fields supply a substantial portion of Israel’s electricity, thereby reinforcing the operational capacity of the Israeli state. While energy development is frequently presented as politically neutral, such claims become untenable when corporate profits are closely intertwined with prolonged military occupation and structural inequality. Revenues generated from Chevron-operated gas fields flow directly into the Israeli economy and, by extension, support state institutions that administer and enforce policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Chevron’s presence cannot be separated from the broader political context in which systematic restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic activity, and self-determination persist.

Furthermore, Chevron’s stake in regional energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines operating in the eastern Mediterranean, intersects with security policies that have restricted Gazan’s maritime access. According to Investor Advocates for Social Justice:

• “The Company holds a partial stake in the East Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which transports gas from Israel to Egypt along the coast of the Gaza Strip. Under international law, including the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, economic activity in occupied territory without the agreement of the affected population is considered unlawful and may constitute “pillage,” a war crime. The pipeline is also closely linked to Israel’s longstanding naval blockade of Gaza, which restricts Palestinian maritime access and has had a devastating impact on the region’s economy since 2009.”³

Although Chevron does not directly administer these policies, its operations benefit from and reinforce a system sustained through coercive state power. In this respect, Chevron exemplifies how corporations become embedded within structures of control and repression while maintaining formal distance from their consequences.

Chevron’s role in Venezuela also raises concerns about corporate ethics and humanitarian responsibility. The oil giant continues to operate in Venezuela even as the United States government has sanctioned the Caribbean nation’s economy. According to a report last year by EuroNews,

• “Chevron’s operations are structured so that cash flows and profits do not directly benefit PDVSA (Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company) or the Venezuelan state under current sanctions licences….The Venezuelan government does not receive fresh revenue from these operations — no dividends, no budget income, no direct cash transfers….US officials argue that Chevron’s continued presence actually strengthens sanctions enforcement rather than undermining it.”⁴

Basically, Chevron functions as the sanctions arm of the US government by not having to pay taxes or royalties to the Venezuelan government. Add in that Venezuela must sell its oil abroad for debt relief and it becomes clear that the country and its people are being exploited by state and non-state actors.⁵

This means that Chevron’s ongoing oil production in Venezuela has not translated into meaningful improvements in living conditions for Venezuelans experiencing shortages of food, medicine, and basic services due to U.S. sanctions. As two economists at the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted:

• “It is important to emphasize that nearly all of the foreign exchange that is needed to import medicine, food, medical equipment, spare parts and equipment needed for electricity generation, water systems, or transportation, is received by the Venezuelan economy through the government’s revenue from the export of oil. Thus, any sanctions that reduce export earnings, and therefore government revenue, thereby reduce the imports of these essential and, in many cases, life-saving goods.”⁶

Chevron has also faced numerous allegations of failing to comply with mandated cleanups, leading everyday, working-class people to bear the social and economic costs.⁷ Their privileged status highlights a recurring pattern in global energy politics: corporations maintain access to strategic resources while civilian populations suffer.

With the Trump administration’s recent coup against Venezuela’s government, Chevron stands first in line to profit from Trump’s oil grab as the only U.S. company currently operating in Venezuela.⁸ This has ramifications for Americans as well. If Venezuelan oil production is increased, it is likely that more Venezuelan heavy crude oil would be imported by U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, largely located where Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income communities are already exposed to fossil fuel pollution.^9,10

Boycotting Chevron should therefore be understood not as an isolated consumer choice, but as part of a broader effort to impose ethical constraints on corporate behavior within the international system. Historically, boycotts have functioned as tools to expose moral contradictions, mobilize public awareness, and pressure powerful institutions resistant to reform. Consider the progressive, humanitarian, impacts of the Montgomery bus boycott or international divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime.¹¹ In the absence of effective international regulation of corporations, public accountability becomes one of the few remaining mechanisms for challenging corporate complicity in systemic injustice.

Ultimately, Chevron’s involvement in Israel and Venezuela illustrates a wider failure to reconcile profit-driven enterprise with ethical responsibility. A boycott, while limited in scope, signals a refusal to normalize corporate practices that benefit from occupation, repression, inequality, and human suffering. In doing so, it affirms the principle that economic—like political—power, must be subject to moral scrutiny.

Footnotes:

1. CorpWatch: The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers

2. AFSC: Chevron Fuels Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes Additionally

3. Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Proposed Human Rights Policy Implementation

4. EuroNews: Why Chevron still operates in Venezuela despite US sanctions

5. Venezuelanalysis: Chevron Back in Venezuela, A Tale of US Imperialist Arrogance

6. CEPR: Economics Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela

7. AmazonWatch: Chevron’s Global Record of Denial and Destruction

8. USPCR: From Palestine to Venezuela, Chevron Profits From U.S. Imperialism

9. S&P Global: US Gulf Coast refiners seen benefiting from increased use of heavy Venezuelan crude

10. PBS/NPR: Oil refineries release lots of water pollution near communities of color, data show

11. Ethical Consumer: History of Successful Boycotts

At the end of January, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Chicago Cuba Coalition’s event titled “War in the Americas, Cuba, Colombia, Immigrants in the Crosshairs, What’s Next? What Can We Do?” During this event, I spoke about my experience on the DSA Cuba delegation. This event took place days after Trump’s new executive order, which seeks to further limit fuel going into Cuba. Trump’s executive order on Cuba, paired with the toppling of Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro, exacerbates the humanitarian crises unfolding in Latin America. My goal was to capture the beauty and resilience of the Cuban people despite every attempt to cut them down. I hope to carry that spirit of revolutionary struggle – which is still alive and well in Cuba today – into our local work, which takes place within the belly of the imperialist beast that is the United States of America.

***

Transcript of speech by Lyra Spencer, delivered January 31, 2026 at Chicago Teachers Union Headquarters. Text edited for clarity.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lyra Spencer, and I am one of the two co-chairs of Chicago DSA. It is such a privilege and an honor to share the stage with such scholars, experts, and fighters who have been working to end the blockade for many years. 

I come to bring my experience and perspective as someone who had the privilege to travel to the island in October along with my DSA comrades in solidarity with Cuba. Thank you for giving me this space to share my experience. Cuba, interestingly enough, was my first trip abroad. It was a life changing experience for many reasons. 

I want to start by foregrounding the humanitarian crises unfolding in Cuba inflicted upon that nation by the United States. While I was there in October, Cuba was really struggling. Older buildings in Havana’s city center were crumbling and trash started piling up in places due to the lack of fuel for trash collection. There was actually a moment when we were passing a field on our bus where two 12-year-old boys carrying a trash can emptied it into a nearby lot. The hospitals are in desperate need of supplies, and they experience frequent power outages.

Cuba is facing a currency crisis. The Cuban peso has taken such a hit that many of the smaller peso units of currency are worthless now. Cuba, despite its robust public healthcare program, has a shortage of doctors now because the median wage is paid in pesos at $25 dollars per month. Cuban residents can find much more lucrative wages working in tourism, where currency and tips are often exchanged in U.S. dollars. A restaurant server often makes far more money than doctors.

A local Cuban journalist described the situation, stating that there used to be a baseline in Cuba where everyone had their basic needs met. No one was particularly wealthy, but no one was forced to live in extreme poverty either. However, because of the blockade, many of Cuba’s residents are falling into a type of destitution that few have experienced before. All of this was prior to the illegal kidnapping of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela, and before the executive order on Cuba. 

I can only imagine how hard things must be for the people of Cuba now. I wanted to ground us in this place upfront to acknowledge the rough spot that Cuba is in as a result of U.S. imperialism. The reason why I chose to foreground this is because I do not believe that the full story is one of sadness and sorrow, but one of beauty, resilience, and liberation.

***

The most shocking thing about Cuba wasn’t the problems that ail its society today. For me as an American, it was seeing a society centered around the wellbeing of humans and not the maximization of shareholder value.

While in Cuba, we visited three main places that I want to highlight. The first being one of the main hospitals in Cuba, where we learned from some of the top doctors about the Cuban healthcare system. In Cuba, everyone has access to free healthcare, and it is considered a fundamental right. Healthcare was one of the main tenants of the Cuban revolution, and Fidel Castro demanded equal access to healthcare for all Cubans as a part of his two-hour denunciation of the Batista regime following his arrest for his involvement in the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba on the 26th of July, 1953.

Immediately after the revolution, doctors were sent to every corner of Cuba which had been previously neglected to survey the population and find out the needs of the public. They immediately set up a primary care system and started treating the most common ailments of the day. Cuba has historically had lower infant mortality rates than the United States, as well as a similar life expectancy and more equal health outcomes along race and income lines. The people of Cuba enjoy far better access to primary care, with doctors and nursing teams located at the neighborhood level, and residents having access to frequent preventative screenings. Even with Cuba’s current doctor shortage, they still have a higher doctor-to-population ratio than the U.S. 

Not only does Cuba provide excellent healthcare for its citizens, it also exports its doctors around the world to help other Global South countries in need. The only limitation to the Cuban healthcare system are the restrictions placed upon it by the U.S. embargo. It is ironic, despite its immense wealth, that the U.S. government is doing everything in its power to remove access to healthcare for millions of Americans. Despite the hardships imposed on them by the blockade, the people of Cuba are doing everything it can to keep quality care and expand it to other countries in need. 

During the trip to this hospital, I noticed something that I rarely see here in Chicago: Black doctors in prominent leadership positions within Cuba. In fact, Cuban society was fairly integrated, at least in Havana. Not only doctors, but professors, museum curators, lawyers, and countless other professions had their fair share of Afro-Cubans working together in Cuban civil society.

This was one of the first stark differences I noticed, as a Black woman residing in a northern neighborhood in Chicago. Back home, I could go days without seeing someone who looks like me, despite Chicago being 30% Black. Furthermore, professions are often unofficially segregated by race in the U.S., just as the neighborhoods in Chicago are. On our way out of the hospital, one of the doctors revealed that she was in her seventies, which was a shock to all of us. On the trip someone asked how she manages to look so youthful, she replied, “The revolution keeps me beautiful.”

***

The second place I want to talk about is the Latin America School of Medicine in Havana. There, we learned that Cuba sends doctors to other Global South countries around the world as a humanitarian service to the poor. The country takes in students, houses them, and trains them to return to practice medicine in their own countries free of charge. The head instructor told us that they share what they have with the community, including educational instruction, supplies, and temporary housing. But in exchange they also share some of Cuba’s problems, such as blackouts and limited access to food. The head instructor told us that recently fresh water hadn’t been available at the school for twenty days, and the students operated to distribute water pipes sent to them in equitable ways. In some communities in Latin America, over 70% of the doctors came from the Latin American School of Medicine. I also found it interesting that this school has also trained doctors from poor communities within the U.S., having hosted over 244 U.S.-American students since the academy’s founding. Eight U.S. students will be graduating this year.

The last place I want to cover is Cenesex. Cenesex is the Cuban National Center for Sex Education. It handles most of the country’s sex education, along with advocacy and essential services for queer people. The organization works to educate the population on all things related to queer and trans people, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. 

Cenesex was one of the main institutions responsible for the update to the family code that was passed through a nationwide referendum in 2022. It legalized same-sex marriage and adoption and recognized non-traditional family structures outside of the nuclear family, focusing on the rights and wellbeing of children over parental authority, mandating equal sharing of domestic responsibilities and gender equality, banning corporal punishment for children, and setting the minimum age for marriage in the country to eighteen. Cenesex was one of the main drivers of the advocacy campaign in favor of the new code, hosting public input and educational forums all across the country. It also helps trans individuals navigate transitioning, preparing them for surgeries, offering them and their families counseling, and connecting them to much-needed resources.

One moment that was the cornerstone of this trip was leaving Cenesex. There were three trans people on this trip, and we all cried after the visit. It was truly shocking to see a government institution actively care about our wellbeing instead of trying to erase our identity, call us “groomers,” and eradicate us from existence. We are told by our government that Cuba is a danger to the United States, yet each and every one of us trans women on this trip felt far safer in Havana than we did crossing through the Miami airport to get there.

***

The reality of Cuba that I experienced is one of resilience. Despite our government’s best efforts, Cuba has created a society that centers around the wellbeing of its population. While I was there, I saw very little military and police. I saw integration. I saw a government and people trying as hard as they could to get by in spite of the situation. Like any government, it makes mistakes. However, the central point of Cuba’s state planning is to center human wellbeing. 

The only danger that Cuba presents to the United States is the danger of U.S. citizens seeing what a government with a fraction of our country’s resources can do to take care of its people and its struggling neighbors. That is why our imperialist government is fighting so hard to finish the job of its predecessors and destroy the revolution once and for all.

I left Cuba with a renewed sense of responsibility. The only people that have the power to stop what our government is doing is us. We must carry the strength, beauty, and resilience of the Cuban people in our struggles against this fascist Trump regime. We must stand united in the belly of the beast.

Thank you.

The post The Revolution Keeps Me Beautiful: A Report-Back of the DSA Cuba Delegation appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

It is that time of year again, time for Vermont’s annual Town Meting Day tradition. 

The last two years have seen schools and school budgets become the focus on local as well as state politics. As in every year, Green Mountain DSA (GMDSA) recommends voting yes on your local school budget. 

GMDSA only chose to endorse one candidate for a local race this year, but there are elections in every town, city and village, some of which are more exciting than others. The rest of this voter guide will be a town-by-town breakdown of local races in areas where there is an active GMDSA presence, of both elections and ballot questions. 

Burlington

Green Mountain DSA has only endorsed one candidate this TMD, being Marek Broderick, for re-election to the city council in Ward 8. Before first being elected in 2024, Marek was co-chair and an organizer with the UVM chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, DSA’s youth section. As a councilor, Marek has fought for tenants’ rights on and off campus, including notably organizing with UVM's Student Tenant Union to win unanimous support for a resolution holding UVM accountable for poor housing conditions. Marek was unanimously endorsed for re-election by the chapter because the fight is not over. If Marek wins on March 3, he will continue to fight for housing for all, tenant rights, and a city that everyone can call home.

However, Marek’s advocacy for renters, students and the broader working class has not made him any friends within Burlington’s establishment. This year, the Democrat Party chose to nominate only one candidate to run against an incumbent: the landlord Ryan Nick, scion of commercial real estate tycoon Jeff Nick, is running to unseat Marek. 

Nick has been able to raise considerable cash through his connections to the city’s monied interests, mostly from other landlords and real estate moguls. This is fitting, as Nick has made a name for himself as a vocal opponent of essential harm reduction services like the Howard Center’s needle exchange, and an opponent of mutual aid groups like Food Not Cops. Ryan himself works for his father’s real estate company, JL Davis Realty, on “tenant relations,” according to his CCTV candidate forum. Between his status as one of Burlington’s landlords and his antagonism of community groups, Green Mountain DSA believes that Nick cannot be trusted to hold police accountable and exactly represents the elites’ status quo that is crushing us workers. 

If you live in Ward 8, please vote to re-elect Marek Broderick!

Green Mountain DSA recommends voting for all other Progressive candidates, including in Ward 7, where Bill Standen is running to unseat Democrat Even Litwin.  Green Mountain DSA also recommends voting yes on question three, which would enshrine the city’s Racial Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Office in the city charter. 

Lastly, the coalition that put Proposition 0 on the ballot in 2023 is at it again, aiming to get the direct democracy charter change on the ballot again in time for the November midterms. We recommend signing the petition to get Proposition 0 on the ballot. 

Winooski

In Winooski, there are no contested races for city council or the mayor. Green Mountain DSA offers no recommendations for this election, other than a yes vote for both the city and school budgets, particularly article six which would allow the school to purchase a nearby home to the school with surplus funds. The property will be used by the school for specialized educational settings for students who need it. Currently, the school system does not have something like this and students who need a specialized education setting are required to travel out of district. We would also like to note that an added benefit of this purchase is removing a known Zionist's pro Israel propaganda from the property being purchased.

GMDSA also recommends Katie Livermore, who is running for re-election to the School Board. Many Winooski GMDSAers know her from her work on the Winooski AFC campaign which passed last year with over 70% approval. Katie played an integral role in that campaign and continues to organize in her community both in the school and outside.

South Burlington

Unlike Burlington, and like Winooski and the rest of Vermont municipalities, South Burlington elections are officially non-partisan. However, this does not stop them from being competitive. For the two-year seat this year, the two candidates running are Amy Allen and Beth Zigmund. Allen seems to be a typical pro-business, establishment candidate, while Zigmund is running with the support of progressive non-profits like Run on Climate (which also endorsed Marek Broderick). Green Mountain DSA offers no recommendation in this race, but leans toward favoring Zigmund. 

Montpelier

Montpelier residents will again vote on the Apartheid-Free Communities (AFC) pledge, after it was voted down last year. The pledge, which passed last year in Winooski and various other towns across Vermont, condemns Israel’s system of Apartheid, settler colonialism and occupation, and commits the signer to fighting for liberation in Palestine. Green Mountain DSA endorses AFC, and urges Montpelier residents to vote yes. 

Waterbury

On Waterburry’s ballot this year, there are three seats up for election: one three-year seat, and two one-year. For the three-year seat, Republican Chris Viens is the only candidate to have made it onto the ballot. Fortunately, former Selectboard member Don Schneider has announced a write-in campaign, and we recommend writing in his name. The chapter offers no recommendation for the one-year seat, but recommends voting yes on the Randall Meadow bond question .

Randolph

Randolph residents of the police district again face an increased police budget, this time to $893,357. Despite the district containing less than half the town’s total population of just 4,774 people, the police budget is approximately a sixth of the town’s budget. Green Mountain DSA recommends residents vote no on the police budget.

Randolph also has two selectboard elections this year. The three-year seat race is between Ashley Lincoln and Emery Mattheis, and the two-year seat is between Bethany Silloway and Dustin Adams. Mattheis and Adams are running with the newly-formed “Committee for a Cooler ‘Dolf,” organized by a GMDSA member. Adams is also a GMDSA member himself, although he did not seek the chapter’s endorsement. GMDSA recommends voting for Emery Mattheis and Dustin Adams.

St Albans

St. Albans has a relatively slim election this year. Three city seats are open – two city counselors and the Mayor – all of which are uncontested. 

Article three continues a seven year project to upgrade and update the city's 1953 water system. The current ask is for St. Albans residents to permit the borrowing of $800,000 to refurbish the existing town water tank; this accounts for half the total cost (project total of $1.6M) with the remaining $800,000 covered by a no-interest 40 year loan. Completion of the project will ensure that St. Albans continues to provide safe, clean water to residents without service interruption caused by maintenance: GMDSA recommends voting yes on Article three. 

Article two is a proposed budget for FY2027. Effort has been made to keep expenses low for residents with a modest property tax increase of 2.2% (estimated to be $50 more per resident throughout the year), and the budget includes capital improvements for the Welden Theater, new breathing apparatuses for fire responders, a lawn mower for city parks and properties, an increase in services provided by the Restorative Justice Center, and a new snow plow. The budget also includes a substantial increase for Police and Dispatch wages, as well as two new vehicles (one marked, one unmarked) for the St. Albans Police Department. Because the FY27 budget devotes nearly 50% of its total projected $15.5M expenditure to Dispatch and Police service, GMDSA recommends voting no on Article 2 unless the police budget is disentangled from other budgetary needs or the increase in police spending explicates integration of support/social service resources into law enforcement services. 

Town Meeting Day is Tuesday, March 3, 2026. Please email us at hello@greenmountaindsa.org if you’d like to join a canvass between now and then, or if you’d like to see an item on your town’s ballot included in this guide. 

You can check your voter registration here.