Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

N.J. first state to reverse Covid-inspired switch to voting all by mail

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said social distancing measures will be enforced in polling places.

Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for Montclair Film

New Jersey has become the first state to back away from a pandemic-driven switch to conducting elections almost entirely remotely.

Projections of declining Covid-19 cases by the spring prompted Gov. Phil Murphy's announcement Monday that the state's longtime reliance on in-person voting will resume for school board elections in April, municipal contests in May and probably the gubernatorial and legislative primaries in June.

The decision to conduct last fall's general election mainly by mail created more of a ruckus, but also more of a difference in civic participation, than in any other place that made a similar change.


The switch heralded a blizzard of criticism from voters worried about entrusting their ballots to the Postal Service, many of whom insisted on showing up at local polling stations that were supposed to be used only by the physically didabled — and furious about reports of bureaucratic snafus, including the use of outdated lists to send some ballots to dead people and multiple ballots to living people.

The system also had to endure a lawsuit from the Trump campaign, which argued the Democratic governor exceeded his authority by decreeing the alternate system. But, in the end, it seemed to work best for the Republicans.

Voters crushed the state's turnout record — 77 percent of eligible New Jerseyans cast a ballot, fully 10 points better than the nation as whole — even as the numbers voting in Democratic urban strongholds slipped while the share of people voting in GOP-friendly suburban counties soared. The results were higher-than-usual percentages for some Republican congressional candidates, although no seats changed hands. And President Biden carried the state's 14 electoral votes by 16 points, a similar margin to other recent Democratic nominees.

In the end, 86 percent of New Jersey ballots were cast using envelopes, one of the highest shares in the nation. Four years ago the number was 7 percent, one of the smallest percentages.

The local contests in the spring usually generate minimal turnout. And there is not much suspense ahead of the June primaries, when Murphy's nomination for a second term is assured and so is that of his GOP challenger, former state Rep. Jack Ciatarelli.

Murphy said he was "optimistic" that vaccination rates and declining Covid cases will allow in-person voting in June, but for now his decision only applies to the first two elections.

"As always, voters will have the availability to request a vote-by-mail ballot for any reason," he said. "We will ensure that all in person polling places adhere to safety protocols, including face covering, social distancing and frequent sanitation."

Similar turnout boosts marked the 2020 elections in the other five places that for the first time sent all registered voters an absentee ballot: California, Nevada, Vermont, almost all of Montana and Washington, D.C. None of them has decided for sure what their election systems will be for 2022 or beyond. New Jersey was pressed to make a decision because it and Virginia are the only states with elections for governor and the legislature this year.


Read More

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty

Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption

A new Brennan Center survey finds that large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents share deep-seated concerns about government corruption, which most voters define broadly and blame for many of the country’s biggest problems going unaddressed. The survey, fielded to 2,000 registered voters across the country between April 28 and May 6, also finds widespread support for key anticorruption reforms, such as new limits on money in elections and stronger protections against self-dealing by high-ranking government officials.

The key findings include:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less