Was the 2025 Massachusetts Democratic Convention a step forward or a step back for the Massachusetts Democratic Party? Even after serving as a delegate to the convention, I’m still not sure. We were there to vote for a new party platform — and vote we did — but the platform we voted for isn’t exactly “new.”

Normally, a party convention during a year with no federal election is where locally elected party delegates discuss, amend and ultimately adopt an updated version of the party platform. Usually, the proposed platform is an edit that builds upon the previous one: the next stage of a living document, worked on by decades of passionate Democrats.

This year, though, was different. For some reason, the Democratic Party Platform Committee decided to chew up and swallow the existing platform from 2021 — and what came out the other end was worse than the metaphorical picture you might be imagining right now. Rather, the proposed platform for 2025 felt more like day-old soda with too much ice in it: weirdly bland, flat and entirely insufficient to quench one’s thirst. 

The platform proposed by the party committee completely failed in comprehensively addressing issues like healthcare, racial justice, climate and environment, LGBTQ+ rights and more. Climate deadlines, commitments to single-payer healthcare and specific protections for marginalized groups were removed. Entire sections on disability, healthcare and reproductive rights were dropped in favor of vague, weak and scattered mentions.

A few days before the convention, Chairman Steve Kerrigan sent an internal email to all delegates, attempting to manipulate us into “pledging support” for the proposed 2025 party platform, whining about some unknown aspersions being thrown against it and acting defensive about the whole process. It was only a few days later that we received an email from the Massachusetts Progressive Action Organizing Committee explaining the issues that many delegates had with the party committee’s proposed platform. The Progressive Action Organizing Committee encouraged us to vote for its proposed amendment, which somewhat humorously involved “striking from the proposed platform” everything from the very first word to the very last and “inserting” the entirety of the old 2021 platform.

So, this was our conundrum: approve a weak and regressive platform during a major crisis of American identity in the face of an increasingly authoritarian state, or vote for an amendment to reinstate an old platform from a very different time. What would it mean to revert to a platform that was created when it seemed like authoritarianism was narrowly averted and the Democratic Party hadn’t yet learned its hard, but necessary, lessons?

Neither path was a move forward — both were a step back. And the Democratic Party Platform Committee had created this terrible Catch-22 by refusing to do what it’s always done and just edit the darn document.

When voting began at the convention, the proverbial “watery soda” immediately hit the fan: Through arbitrary procedural rulings, Kerrigan blocked the vote on scrapping the new platform in favor of the old one. All hell broke loose. Delegates stepped up to demand that we suspend the rules and vote on the amendment. We needed 50 signatures to do it; we got over 250. It was then time for the final vote on which platform we should adopt. The MassMutual Center felt like a pressure cooker. I thought the roof might just pop right off.

And then it happened: We finally stuck it to Kerrigan and the Platform Committee and re-adopted the 2021 platform with an array of new amendments.

As we left the convention, we celebrated — democracy had won over the machinations of the party elite. The platform that so many dedicated Democrats had built with heads and hearts had been saved from utter destruction.

But thinking about it now, I’m left with a feeling of deep uncertainty. Massachusetts is one of the deepest blue states in the country: The Democratic Party platform of our state should be a model for other state party platforms, and even the national Democratic platform. What does it mean for the party leadership to have presented such a horrible, flat-out dud of a platform that the average party members voted to scrap it entirely in favor of an old one? I can’t really say.

What I can say is this: First, I firmly believe that it was a terrible and disturbing decision for Democratic Party officials to be directly attacking the organizing efforts of Massachusetts Progressive Action and encouraging delegates to “pledge support” for a platform ahead of the convention, where our job was explicitly to discuss, amend and adopt a people’s platform. The party’s attempt to bias convention delegates toward its own organizational goals is deeply troubling.

Second, I firmly believe that Kerrigan’s actions during the voting period were either hopelessly incompetent or intentionally corrupt. Delegates were evidently throwing around the possibility of a vote of no confidence against Kerrigan at the 2026 convention, and honestly, I will be right with them if it makes it to the floor.

So, the question remains: Has the Massachusetts Democratic Party progressed towards a political summit, or have we stalled while climbing the slope? It’s a hard question to answer, and I’m concerned about what this signifies for the future. It seems as if we will continue to be infected by old-fashioned, centrist party leaders who so desperately want to cling onto the status quo. It seems that the Democratic Party is still lost in the woods.

So, if you are a registered Democrat, I really, really encourage you to reach out to your local Democratic Committee and learn how you can become a voting delegate to the 2026 Massachusetts Democratic Convention. As we saw this year, regular people can really make a difference. If the Democratic Party is going to take us boldly into the future — and not just rot away, cowering in a corner as hateful authoritarianism tightens its grip on the country — we’re really going to need young people to get involved.

James Cerone is a first-year graduate student of public administration and a contributor for The News. He can be reached at [email protected]

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.