Coakley's stance: She aggressively defended Massachusetts' 35-foot buffer zone around clinics, intended to prevent the harassment of women seeking services. But she failed to persuade even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court: Justices ruled 9 to 0 that the buffer zone violated the First Amendment.

This has been quite the season for an attorney general running for governor. Some key suits — challenging carbon emissions rules and the Defense of Marriage Act — have raised Martha Coakley's profile nationwide. And inside Massachusetts, her political fate is tied to a series of notable cases.

Political fallout: Likely positive. Coakley was seen as defending women's reproductive rights, and drew attention to the fact that she's the only woman running for governor now.


Casino referendum

Coakley's stance: She declared that casino applicants had an implied contract with the state, so the casino law couldn't be subject to a voter referendum. The state Supreme Judicial Court roundly rejected her position.

Political fallout: Severe. Her legal opinion seems dubious, and opposing any sort of referendum strikes many people as antidemocratic. Plus, the anticasino rhetoric we'll be hearing all summer will be a constant reminder of Coakley's role in the story.

The Partners settlement

Coakley's stance: She produced well-researched reports that suggested that Partners, the owner of Mass. General and Brigham and Women's hospitals, was using its market clout to drive up the cost of basic services. But she then cut a complicated deal to allow Partners to take over South Shore Hospital and other facilities, in exchange for cost controls.

Political fallout: Moderate. Patients like Partners because of its reputation for quality, but other hospitals believe Coakley capitulated too easily. Her opponents are making hay over her back-room deal to let the merger go forward, but the complexity of the issue discourages easy attacks.

Child protection lawsuit

Coakley's stance: A New York-based watchdog group sued Massachusetts' Department of Children and Families, claiming it failed to adequately monitor children in dangerous situations. Coakley, as AG, declined to settle the case, which is now before a federal appeals court. Meanwhile, DCF — among other lapses — failed to make required checks on a Fitchburg boy who turned up dead.


Political fallout: Significantly negative. Coakley insists that she had no choice but to defend the state and has been critical of DCF. Opponents say she should have settled and used the terms to help reform the agency.

Predatory lending

Coakley's stance: She's been aggressive in investigating deceptive lending practices. In 2011, her office sued the nation's five largest mortgage lenders, breaking with other states that were negotiating with the banks for a broad settlement. This winter, she urged Massachusetts officials to bar casinos from placing liens on the homes of patrons with unpaid debts.