South Middlesex Times

Apr 6 2024

New Jersey’s voter ballots may look very different in the June primary as a result of a lawsuit brought by Rep. Andy Kim’s campaign for U.S. Senate. A federal court judge recently issued a preliminary injunction striking down the use of the party line that groups all candidates running together on the ballot rather than grouping them by office they seek as is done in the rest of the nation. The New Jersey ballot has drawn criticism from a growing grassroots movement because it isolates candidates not endorsed by political parties in a less prominent position – affecting their election chances.

A group of Rutgers experts, including alumni, were heavily involved in shaping the case that could transform politics in New Jersey. Julia Sass Rubin, a professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, has conducted extensive research on the influence of the party line and served as an expert witness in the case. Attorneys on both sides attended Rutgers Law School including two members of Kim’s legal team, Yael Bromberg and Brett Pugach (both LAW’11). The third member of Kim’s team, Flavio L. Komuves, is a Rutgers College graduate who previously served as Deputy Public Advocate for New Jersey. Even U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi, who wrote the decision, is a Rutgers Law School graduate.

When asked about the significance of the decision and why it happened now, Brett Pugach explained the history behind the party line practice in New Jersey. He mentioned that before primary elections, parties nominated candidates at conventions based on the selection of party insiders pursuing their interests. The practice of using the party line began in the early 1900s when New Jersey led a national movement for direct primary elections. Pugach highlighted how New Jersey passed a primary endorsement ban in 1930 to prevent parties from exerting undue influence but over time, county parties found ways to circumvent this ban.

Julia Sass Rubin, another expert from Rutgers involved in the case, elaborated on the argument for abolishing the party line. She stated that the unique ballot design in New Jersey provides an electoral advantage to party-endorsed candidates, while punishing those who choose not to associate with other candidates. The lawsuit aims to address the violation of candidates’ rights and the confusion it creates among voters.

Moreover, Rubin highlighted the impact of the end of the county line on candidates’ campaigns in New Jersey. She noted that the system discouraged non-endorsed candidates from running, resulting in a large number of uncontested primaries and contributing to the lack of diversity among elected officials. The removal of the county line will require candidates and parties to engage more with voters and invest resources in communicating their ideas effectively.

Discussing the future implications of the decision, Rubin emphasized that the end of the county line will significantly alter the political landscape in New Jersey. While political machines have historically controlled politics in the state, the elimination of the county line will reduce their influence and allow new voices to enter the political arena. Additionally, the decision may lead to more competitive primary elections and greater diversity among elected officials.

The preliminary injunction issued by the federal judge is expected to secure fair primary ballots for the 2024 election. Despite some appeals and resistance from certain parties, the move towards abolishing the party line in New Jersey seems to be gaining momentum, with calls for permanent judicial relief and fair ballots in future elections.

This historic case striking down the party line on New Jersey ballots showcases the impact of Rutgers expertise in shaping political change and promoting fairness in the electoral process.