For Burlington voters, the Governor's Council race is about much more than a relatively unfamiliar office on the ballot.
It is about who helps select the judges who make decisions affecting Massachusetts families.
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has endorsed Margie Palladino for Governor's Council, citing qualities including trust, transparency and independent judgment.
But Palladino's case for the office did not begin with an endorsement.
It began years ago in the courtroom, in family-court advocacy and in efforts to create broader systemic reform.
Palladino is a former trial attorney, former partner at a Boston law firm and has Supreme Judicial Court experience.
She is also the co-founder and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Family Advocacy Coalition (MFAC), a grassroots organization dedicated to family-court reform and advocacy.
Her advocacy did not begin with this election.
For years, Palladino has worked with families, domestic violence survivors, advocates and policymakers on fairness, justice and meaningful family-court reform.
Her work surrounding the Massachusetts coercive-control law, along with amicus briefs she has authored, reflects an effort to create broader change. Not simply address individual cases. She has supported thousands of families across Massachusetts.
That is systemic advocacy: working to change the policies, laws and practices that can affect thousands of families and communities.
Palladino chooses to stand behind families and domestic violence victims.
Not because an election requires it.
Not because it is politically convenient.
Because she believes families deserve a voice.
The Governor's Council is not an office most voters follow closely.
But a 4–3 judicial confirmation brought the Council into the spotlight.
On April 1, the Council confirmed Mary Ferriter to the Probate and Family Court after a contentious nomination that generated significant public opposition.
Concerns raised by domestic-violence survivors and family-court advocates focused in significant part on Ferriter's prior involvement with a controversial court-ordered parenting program.
And hundreds of domestic-violence survivors and advocates across the Commonwealth reached out to Governor's Council members urging opposition to Ferriter's nomination.
The issue became larger than one judicial nominee.
It became a question about whether the voices of people directly affected by the family-court system were being heard.
Governor's Councilor Mara Dolan ultimately voted in favor of Ferriter's confirmation.
Dolan defended her decision, saying she had conducted extensive vetting and believed Ferriter would be an outstanding Probate and Family Court judge who would be sensitive to domestic-violence victims.
But the vote left survivors and advocates with a larger question:
When hundreds of domestic-violence survivors and advocates reach out to their elected representatives about a judicial nominee, what weight should their voices carry?
This is not an allegation that Dolan violated a law or ethics rule.
It is a question about trust, transparency, responsiveness and confidence in the judicial confirmation process.
Dolan is also an actively practicing attorney, including work in family law.
That creates another issue for voters to consider:
What safeguards should exist to protect public confidence in the independence of the judicial appointment process when a Governor's Councilor is also practicing within the Massachusetts court system?
Again, this is not an allegation of wrongdoing.
It is a question about transparency, trust and the appearance of independence.
And when judges are being selected, public confidence matters.
Palladino brings a combination of experiences that is unusual in the race:
Legal experience.
Trial experience.
Supreme Judicial Court experience.
Family-court advocacy.
And years of work focused on systemic reform.
Governor's Councilors are not required to be attorneys.
But Palladino has spent years understanding the legal system from inside the courtroom, and then spent years listening to the people experiencing that system from the other side of the bench.
That gives her a perspective shaped by both law and advocacy.
For a family facing a court proceeding, a judicial decision isn't simply a legal ruling.
It can mean:
Where a child lives.
Parenting time.
Custody.
Safety.
And the future of a family.
The Governor's Council does not decide those individual cases.
But it helps determine who becomes the judges who do.
That is why Palladino argues that judicial selection deserves serious public scrutiny.
Palladino's advocacy is not limited to family-court reform.
Not only does Palladino stand up for families and domestic violence victims, she also supports LGBTQ+ rights, disability rights and anti-racism, grounded in the belief that every person deserves dignity, fairness, safety, and equal justice.
The common thread is straightforward:
People deserve to be heard.
Families deserve dignity.
Justice should apply equally to everyone.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio's endorsement gives Palladino a prominent statewide validator as she seeks a seat on the Governor's Council.
But the endorsement is only one part of Palladino's story.
The legal career came first.
The courtroom experience came first.
The family-court advocacy came first.
The work on systemic reform came first.
The work surrounding coercive control came first.
The amicus briefs came first.
The campaign came after the record. Not before it.
The Ferriter confirmation may have brought the Governor's Council into sharper focus.
But this race is about more than one judicial vote.
It is about who participates in choosing Massachusetts judges.
It is about what questions should be asked of judicial nominees.
It is about how public testimony is considered.
It is about independence.
It is about transparency.
And ultimately, it is about whether the people most affected by Massachusetts courts believe they have a meaningful voice in the system.
That is the conversation Palladino is bringing to September 1.
The Governor's Council may not be the most recognizable office on the ballot.
But its members help determine who receives approval to serve as Massachusetts judges.
Those judges can serve for decades.
And their decisions can affect Massachusetts families for generations.
For Burlington voters, that makes the September 1 Governor's Council race worth paying attention to.
The Ferriter vote brought the institution into the spotlight.
Diana DiZoglio's endorsement has brought additional attention to Palladino's campaign.
But the central question remains:
Who should help choose the judges who can shape the future of Massachusetts families?
Look at the record.
Look at the experience.
Look at the advocacy.
And consider what you want the Governor's Council to represent.
Because when judges have the power to make decisions that can change the course of a family's life, the question of who chooses those judges isn't a small question.
It is the question.
September 1, 2026.
Governor's Council District 3.
Margie Palladino.
Who chooses our judges matters.
Learn more about Margie Palladino
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Burlington Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.