Sen. Jason Lewis’ decision not to run for reelection in the 5th Middlesex, which spans Malden, Melrose, Stoneham, Wakefield, Reading and parts of Winchester, set up a spirited race to see who will represent the district’s diverse population on Beacon Hill for the next two years.
While the three Democratic contenders — State Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian, Malden City Councilor-at-Large Carey McDonald, and Malden Ward 4 City Councilor Ryan O’Malley — all campaigned as progressives, a series of four Malden-based forums did highlight differences in their views and governing philosophies.
Here are 10 highlights from the Malden Safe Streets Presents forum covering transit, Vision Zero and infrastructure; the Malden Candidate Tech and AI Forum, which addressed data privacy, charter schools and automation; the GMAACC Candidate Forum, which focused on immigrant communities, housing and budgets; and the online forum hosted by the Chinese Culture Connection, which covered housing, education, the state budget and more.
1. Reforming education funding and tax policy
Education funding is a perennial hot-button issue for the 5th Middlesex, with the Chapter 70 formula cited as a factor in communities including Malden, Melrose and Reading that considered Proposition 2 ½ overrides to sustain local service levels.
O’Malley took the most aggressive stance here, calling for a structural shift away from “regressive property taxes” and arguing that the current system punishes retirees and low-income residents. He proposes instead a “progressive wage or income tax” so those with higher incomes carry more of the burden of funding local services.
McDonald, drawing on their experience as Malden’s Finance Committee chair, suggests more incremental adjustments, advocating for capping local contributions to schools at a specific portion of a municipality’s revenue. They also recommend that Massachusetts adopt “regional educational cooperatives” for transportation and special education to lower costs, a model used in other states.
Lipper-Garabedian, who served as chief legal counsel to the Mass. Secretary of Education, points to the Student Opportunity Act as a success she helped architect while acknowledging that the “blunt object” of Prop 2½, the state’s property tax cap, may be outdated and expressing an openness to “dynamic” property tax caps used in other states that reflect inflation.
2. Confronting Mystic Valley Regional Charter School
The Mystic Valley Regional Charter School (MVRCS) emerged as a flashpoint, with candidates agreeing on the problems but differing on solutions. MVRCS has an annual budget of $96.8 million, a mix of public funds and private donations, and has purchased a significant amount of real estate in Malden, both commercial and residential, to what many see as the detriment of both the Maplewood neighborhood and the city’s tax base.
McDonald called the charter school a “bad neighbor,” citing how MVRCS bulldozed favorite restaurants and “evicted senior citizens” in Maplewood Square. They proposed reforming the Dover Amendment, which gives certain facilities the ability to override local zoning, and closing loopholes that exempt certain institutions from municipal oversight.
O’Malley accused the school of “land banking” residential properties and removing them from the tax rolls. His solution: Have the state prohibit such property accumulation and empower Malden Public Schools to eventually absorb MVRCS buildings to serve the broader student population.
Lipper-Garabedian approached the issue through the lens of state-level regulatory enforcement. She has filed legislation to give the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, or DESE, “more teeth” during the charter renewal process, specifically to investigate disciplinary practices and property acquisitions that harm communities.
3. Strategies for housing affordability and rent stabilization
With housing costs a primary driver of the state’s affordability crisis, all three candidates support tenant protections but offer different implementation models.
Lipper-Garabedian supports the state’s Affordable Homes Act and favors a local-option approach to rent stabilization. This would allow individual cities and towns to decide if rent controls are appropriate for them, recognizing that the needs of the 5th Middlesex differ from districts in central and western Massachusetts.
O’Malley emphasizes direct tenant empowerment. Drawing on his background as an affordable housing attorney, he proposes a “Right to Purchase” that would allow tenant unions the first opportunity to buy their buildings if a landlord decides to sell. He would also prioritize the maintenance of existing housing stock, warning against “bad landlords” who neglect rent-stabilized properties
McDonald advocates for a strategy that pairs immediate tenant protections with new funding streams. To protect renters without stalling supply, they support a rent stabilization policy that caps annual rent hikes but exempts new construction. To fund the development of income-restricted affordable housing, McDonald proposes generating local revenue through a deeds transfer fee.
4. ICE contract and the Protect Act
Perhaps the sharpest point of disagreement in the forums concerned the state’s continued, limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
McDonald has taken an “unequivocal” stance, demanding an immediate end to any contract. They argue that Massachusetts should not collaborate with a federal regime that “sows chaos and cruelty” in local neighborhoods, noting that they have “never heard an immigrant” support the contract. They said protecting our immigrant neighbors will be the top priority and pointed to their efforts to organize rallies and letters of support to get people out of detention, a paper they sponsored to make sure the city is not collaborating with ICE, and having previously sued the Trump administration.
Lipper-Garabedian offers a more practical view, supporting the state’s Protect Act, which limits local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and protects sensitive public spaces, while noting that the state has retained the ICE contract specifically for “adjudicated violent offenders.” This, she argues, prevents “collateral community arrests” that occur when federal agents enter neighborhoods to conduct enforcement because the state refused to coordinate direct transfers of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes. She did characterize immigration as “the most hot button political issue in our country” and acknowledged that the federal government’s policies have, in some cases, made living in our communities difficult.
O’Malley aligns with the call to end the ICE contract but adds an economic angle: “state-level work authorizations.” He argues that Massachusetts should experiment with allowing undocumented residents to work legally within the state, similar to how the state handles legalized marijuana despite federal prohibition. He also would seek accountability for ICE agents who are “violating the civil liberties of our residents” and called out what he sees as tokenizing of immigrants during the campaign.
5. Data privacy and the Location Shield Act
Data privacy has become a frontline issue. But which specific technologies — mobile data, police surveillance, or corporate identity databases — pose the greatest immediate threat to civil liberties?
Lipper-Garabedian says she’s taken a clear leadership role here, filing the Location Shield Act to ban the sale of mobile location data. She warns that such data is being used to target individuals seeking reproductive care or those at risk of ICE enforcement.
McDonald focuses on the intersection of data and surveillance, expressing significant concern over the use of Flock license plate cameras. They argue these tools are being used by federal agencies to track movements across municipal borders without local oversight.
O’Malley approaches the issue from a civil libertarian angle. While supporting privacy, he warned against “age-verification internet laws” meant to protect young people from the harms of social media that might require citizens to upload government IDs to corporate databases, potentially creating new vulnerabilities for the very people the law aims to protect.
6. AI and tech in public classrooms
Massachusetts received an “F” grade on student data privacy, a point of concern as the candidates consider the role of AI in schools. The debate here balanced digital literacy as a workforce necessity against protecting cognitive development as the core priority for K-12 students.
O’Malley suggests a delay, recommending that students be discouraged from using high-level AI until “late high school” so they have time to build foundational writing and critical thinking skills before relying on automated tools.
McDonald is the most skeptical of a rapid AI rollout, stating that students should not be “guinea pigs” for global corporations. They advocated for a “Student Technology Review Office” to screen the terms of service for software used in schools so individual teachers and administrators aren’t forced to interpret complex legal jargon.
Lipper-Garabedian focuses on the Student and Educator Data Privacy Act, which she sponsored with the goal of creating a state-level framework that prevents tech companies from harvesting student data for commercial purposes and ensuring that any technology in the classroom is used strictly for educational outcomes.
7. Addressing AI job displacement and algorithmic bias
Beyond the classroom, the candidates wrestled with the moral and ethical questions posed by AI-driven automation.
Lipper-Garabedian advocates for a “human-in-the-loop” requirement for consequential decisions. She emphasizes that automation should not be used to “undercut” the wins of organized labor and notes her work with national data systems to study the impact of AI on the workforce.
O’Malley sees collective bargaining and union protections as the primary shield for workers. He specifically highlighted driverless cars as a technology that must remain under human oversight to prevent wholesale job displacement and protect public safety.
McDonald supports the FAIR Act to keep high-stakes decisions from being made by algorithms. They specifically called out the use of AI by insurance companies to deny healthcare claims, calling for an immediate ban on such practices.
8. Street design, Vision Zero and traffic calming
A major topic of the Malden Safe Streets forum was the Vision Zero Action Plan, which has the goal of eliminating all traffic-related deaths. The question is how to achieve that ambitious goal.
O’Malley argues that safety cannot be achieved through surveillance or policing alone. Instead, he prioritizes physical road design, citing his work on the Spot Pond Brook Greenway and advocacy for infrastructure that physically separates cyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Lipper-Garabedian emphasizes the use of Complete Streets grants and her role in pressuring the Department of Conservation and Recreation to redesign state-owned roads. She views state/local partnerships as the primary tool for securing the millions needed for infrastructure upgrades that benefit safety initiatives.
McDonald would pair traffic calming with upstream zoning reforms, arguing that reducing car dependency through better transit and denser housing near train stations is the most effective long-term strategy for increasing both safety and climate resilience.
9. Beacon Hill transparency and legislative audits
Massachusetts remains an outlier regarding public records access and open meeting laws for its legislature, and the debate over the audit that drew overwhelming voter support sparked some spirited debate.
O’Malley is a vocal supporter of the audit, noting that even the Malden youth council is required to follow open meeting laws, and therefore “the legislature should too.”
McDonald is also on Team Audit, calling transparency a prerequisite for accountability and promising to conduct town hall meetings.
Lipper-Garabedian, the only current state legislator, said that she supports the general concept of transparency but called out the “complexity and nuance” of legislative work. She says her focus remains on building the coalitions necessary to pass progressive bills within the existing framework.
10. Contrasting leadership styles
The candidates’ professional backgrounds predict how they intend to navigate the State House.
Lipper-Garabedian leans on her six-year tenure as a state representative and identity as one of only 10 mothers raising children while serving in the 200-member legislature. Her pitch is one of “Day One” readiness, rooted in a “track record of success” and experience in how to move the levers of power within the existing leadership structure.
McDonald, a nonprofit executive, identifies as the only person of color in the race and cites a “political wonk” mastery of municipal finance combined with an activist’s ethos. They’re positioning as a reformer who understands the “brokenness” of the state-local relationship, particularly around funding.
O’Malley, an 11-year Malden City Council veteran and affordable housing attorney, embraces the outsider label. He leans on his experience as a Middlesex Fells park ranger and local activist, styling himself as an “independent voice” who refuses to “go along to get along” and promising to be a disruptive presence who will not “toe the line of party leadership.”
Additional info to help you choose among the candidates
Neighborhood View, with input from local organizations, sent questions to the three candidates hoping to succeed Jason Lewis as Malden’s state senator in the Fifth Middlesex district. Here are their written answers.
- Professional experience
- Transportation equity, submitted by Malden Safe Streets
- AI in schools, submitted by Reconnect Malden
- Housing costs, submitted by a new community group, via Malden Safe Streets
- Structural budget issues for cities and towns
- Economic development
- Climate resilience action and advocacy
- Auditing the Legislature
- Closing statement
Be the first to comment