By Abdallah Fayyad

Moderate Republicans have become a rare breed in Massachusetts. President Trump and his politics loom large in the state, and his polarizing actions have only strengthened the Democrats’ grip on power. Since former governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, left office, the GOP has been effectively locked out of state government, and there’s little reason to believe that’s going to change anytime soon.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has now endorsed Mike Minogue, a former biotech executive, as its candidate for governor. Mike Kennealy, who served as the secretary of housing and economic development under Baker, was viewed as the more moderate candidate. But the state party resoundingly rejected him: 70 percent of the party’s delegates at the nominating convention chose Minogue over Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, a former MBTA general manager. While Shortsleeve will still be on the primary ballot in September, Kennealy was eliminated, since he did not clear the 15 percent threshold required to make the ballot.

Minogue, who has poured some $12.5 million into his campaign, is a prolific Republican donor, and he even hosted Vice President JD Vance at a fund-raiser last year. Regardless of how much he tries to court moderate voters across the state, it will be extremely difficult for him to meaningfully distance himself from Trump between now and November.

It’s not just a matter of optics. Minogue has wasted no time making his priorities known, and he’s aligned himself with several key Trump policies, promising to get “criminal illegal immigrants off our streets” and declaring that “girls need fair and safe sports.” That sort of politics may have helped Trump win the presidency in 2024, but it won’t help Minogue in a state where Trump got only 36 percent of the vote.

If Minogue wants to have any shot at all at winning the governor’s race, he would be wise to just focus on state politics. He drew raucous applause from the convention crowd, for example, when he pledged that he would repeal the MBTA Communities Act, which encourages building denser and transit-oriented housing and was signed into law by Baker. While I think that law is important in combating Massachusetts’ housing crisis, it’s proved to be controversial and has generated substantial backlash, even in liberal parts of the state.

A talented politician could use issues like that to make Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, worry. But as long as the Massachusetts GOP keeps aligning itself with Trump — and as long as Trump is still president — Healey will cruise to reelection without breaking a sweat.

By Joan Vennochi

Mike Minogue made his money and mark in business selling pumps for artificial hearts.

Now, as the Massachusetts Republican Party’s endorsed candidate for governor, he must win over enough voters’ hearts to defeat Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat.

That’s a tough sell for Minogue, who last year hosted Vice President JD Vance at a fund-raiser and donated to President Trump’s re-election bid and the Republican National Committee.

In a recent WBUR profile, the former head of Abiomed also said, “I am pro-life. I support a culture of compassion and life. I spent a career in the medical device industry helping to save lives, young and old, and I also think that we can do more to help people in a time of crisis.”

Nicely put, but still a kiss of death with the state’s liberal voters.

Within the tiny universe of Republican activists who attended last weekend’s convention, Minogue had four advantages: private-sector success, a military background (he’s a West Point graduate and served in Iraq), no other big races to be voted on, and lots of his own money to spend on organizing.

Of the three candidates seeking the party’s endorsement, Minogue was also the most politically conservative. But what made him attractive to the Trumpian base that now controls the Massachusetts GOP makes him a very challenging sell as a statewide candidate.

Out of the state’s 5.5 million registered voters, only 420,000 are Republicans. To have any chance at beating Healey, he has to do what every successful Republican gubernatorial candidate has done — tap into the 3.25 million voters who are registered as unenrolled or independent, and who make up the largest voter pool.

To woo them, Minogue will likely try to focus on management and fiscal issues. According to a recent UNH Survey Center poll, 49 percent of Massachusetts residents approve of Healey’s handling of the job, 45 percent disapprove, and 6 percent don’t know or are undecided. She gets her worst ratings on her handling of taxes, the economy, housing, and the cost of living.

While that might seem like an opening, Massachusetts Democrats will surely do everything they can to hang Trump around Minogue’s neck. He also has a primary fight with Brian Shortsleeve, the other Republican who won enough votes at the convention to get on the ballot.

That GOP primary fight could push the candidates even further to the right. If it does, the GOP can forget about beating Healey.

Even if it doesn’t, I still think the woebegone Red Sox have a better chance at winning the World Series than any Massachusetts Republican has at winning the governor’s office.

By Charles Chieppo

The Republican convention that endorsed Mike Minogue to be the GOP standard-bearer for governor was a low-turnout affair, as is too often the case with Republican politics in Massachusetts.

At the convention, only about 1,800 out of more than 4,000 eligible delegates cast a vote. Next comes the primary on Sept. 1, when Minogue will face venture capitalist and former MBTA chief Brian Shortsleeve, who finished a distant second at the convention. Chances are good that that race will be closer.

Like recent Republican governors in Massachusetts, both candidates promise to make the Commonwealth more affordable and business-friendly, and both pledge to control state spending. But unlike their predecessors, they also warn about the high cost of illegal immigration. Neither is critical of the Republican president. And while they share many positions — both running primarily on pocketbook issues — Minogue calls himself a “born-again Catholic” and is anti-abortion, while Shortsleeve is largely silent on the issue.

History teaches us that the eventual nominee is likely to move to the center during the general election. But does that mean the eventual Republican nominee will at some point criticize President Trump? Hard to say.

The two candidates have no shortage of ammunition to use against the almost certain Democratic candidate, Governor Maura Healey. For a decade beginning in 2010, Massachusetts had the second highest rate of business formation among the states, but between January 2020 and September 2024, we had the lowest net rate of any state. Today Massachusetts is one of just four states to have fewer private-sector jobs than in 2020. Outmigration has risen dramatically since 2012.

Housing, health care, and energy costs are through the roof, and taxes are high compared to other states. A key reason is that Massachusetts spends too much. Since 2010, median household income has grown by 13 percent, but real state spending is up 28 percent.

Healey has taken steps to address the housing shortage by limiting the power of municipalities to stop development and making surplus state land available for housing. But she has shown little stomach for challenging her party and its interest groups by reining in state government and cutting high costs that are eroding the Commonwealth’s competitiveness.

As is usually true, the case against one-party government is strong. Nonetheless, there’s a simple reason why the outlook remains grim for Massachusetts Republicans this November: Trump.

Trump’s tariffs have exacerbated the affordability problem he pledged to fix. Rather than addressing the nearly $38 trillion national debt that looms over our children, the United States spends $2 billion a day fighting Iran – precisely the kind of “forever war” he promised to avoid.

Many Trump policies hit Massachusetts especially hard. His war on immigration extends to highly educated immigrants on whom Massachusetts depends to make up for losses to outmigration, and cuts to university and medical research strike at the heart of the state economy.

Absent Trump, this fall’s election might be a real opportunity for the Massachusetts Republican Party. But anti-Trump fervor is likely to drive turnout among Democrats and independents eager to register their disdain.

Charles Chieppo is the principal of Chieppo Strategies, a public policy communication firm, and a senior fellow at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based public policy think tank.

This is an excerpt from Globe Opinion’s weekly politics newsletter Right, Left, and Center. Sign up here to get it delivered directly to your inbox.

Abdallah Fayyad can be reached at abdallah.fayyad@globe.com. Follow him @abdallah_fayyad. Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at joan.vennochi@globe.com. Follow her @joan_vennochi.

New Hampshire residents are being encouraged to check their voter registration status ahead of upcoming elections, according to information provided by the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.

Any U.S. citizen who is at least 18 years old and resides in the state has the constitutional right to vote. However, residents who have moved, changed their name or not voted recently may need to re-register. Even those who believe they are registered are advised to confirm their status, as voters can occasionally be removed from rolls without notice.

Voters can check their registration by visiting their local town or city clerk’s office or by using the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s online voter information lookup tool.

Under updated procedures effective June 2, 2026, residents may register to vote either in advance at their clerk’s office or on Election Day at their polling place. New Hampshire does not offer online voter registration.

To register, voters must provide proof of identity, age, residency and citizenship, such as a driver’s license, passport, utility bill or birth certificate.

When voting in person, a government-issued photo ID is required. Absentee voting remains available for those unable to appear at the polls due to illness, disability, work obligations, travel or religious reasons, though additional identification requirements for absentee ballots have been in place since 2025.

The League of Women Voters encourages residents to verify their registration early to avoid delays or complications on Election Day.

2-minute read

In a rare unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a New Jersey-based anti-abortion group on Wednesday, April 29 in its efforts to challenge a subpoena by the state Attorney General’s Office to disclose donor information.

The nine justices ruled that the subpoena violated the First Amendment rights of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, since the court has long held that disclosing affiliation with an advocacy group could be a restraint on the freedom of association.

The conflict dates back to 2023 when Matt Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general at the time, opened an investigation into First Choice, a religious nonprofit organization that has provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985. It does not perform or refer pregnant women for abortions, according to its website.

Story continues below photo gallery

Among the documents demanded in a subpoena were the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of donors.

First Choice, which has locations in Montclair, Morristown, Newark and Jersey City, filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent investigators from receiving donor information, arguing that it would discourage donors from associating with it by removing their anonymity.

Both a lower court and appellate court dismissed First Choice’s lawsuit, but the Supreme Court decided in June of 2025 to hear the case.

Platkin defended his subpoena

Platkin defended his decision last year, saying his office issued a “lawful subpoena in November 2023 to ensure that First Choice was complying with all relevant state laws.

“Non-profits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so — as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” he said in the statement.

Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of dissuading them from having an abortion. Such centers often do not clearly advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive.

The backdrop to this case is the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. It effectively allowed state legislatures to decide whether to outlaw abortions.

Not long after, Platkin’s office issued a consumer alert that warned the public that crisis pregnancy centers do not provide abortions and noted that such facilities “may also provide false or misleading information about abortion.” A year later the subpoena was issued.

But the question of whether the facilities acted deceptively was not before the Supreme Court. Rather, the case explored whether First Choice has the legal basis to bring a constitutional challenge to the subpoena in federal court, or if it must continue litigating the matter in state court, where the case is ongoing.

Among those celebrating the decision was the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which said groups like First Choice should be able to challenge subpoenas that may be used to target them because of their stances on social issues.

“It is crucial for advocacy organizations — wherever they fall on the political spectrum — to have a legal path to fight retaliatory conduct by government officials,” Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the group, said in a statement.

This article contains information from Reuters.