Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is this the year for two-woman tickets?

Nan Whaley and Cheryl Stephens

Nan Whaley (left) and Cheryl Stephens are running together for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, in Ohio.

Originally published by The 19th.

A record number of women could end up running together as nominees for governor and lieutenant this November, signaling shifting perceptions about women’s electability.

Nan Whaley won the Democratic nomination for Ohio governor Tuesday night alongside Cheryl Stephens, her running mate for lieutenant governor. In at least 13 states, women are running for both governor and lieutenant governor this year, according to a preliminary tally by the Center for American Women and Politics. Additional primary races this month could set up more two-woman tickets for the general election — and if one is successful, it will be the first time in U.S. history that voters have elected two women to a state’s top two executive spots,

“I think the fact that we’re looking at multiple all-female tickets for governor and lieutenant governor is extraordinary,” said Erin Loos Cutraro, the founder and CEO of She Should Run, a nonpartisan nonprofit that encourages women to run for office. “It tells us how far we’ve come. It tells us to be hopeful for the future.”


Limited information is available on the number of women who have run concurrently for governor and lieutenant governor during a primary, and the data carries a caveat: Two-woman tickets are not always intentional. In some states, candidates for the top two posts run together on a ticket in both the primary and general, in some they’re separate, and in some candidates run separately during the primary and together on a ticket for the general election. In six elections since 2000, two women have run from the same major party for lieutenant governor and governor, but not as a ticket; none were successful.

In Ohio, Whaley and Stephens appeared on the primary ballot together. Whaley, a former mayor of Dayton, and Stephens, who is an organizer and former mayor, will go up in November against Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who won a crowded primary Tuesday, and his running mate, current Lt. Gov. Jon Husted.

Whaley and Stephens’ primary win means 2022 already matches the record for the number of gubernatorial tickets with women running on a ticket together. In the past 30 years, there has never been more than one in a general election:

  • Democrats Dawn Clark Netsch and Penny Severns in Illinois in 1994
  • Republicans Peppy Martin and Wanda Cornelius in Kentucky in 1999
  • Democrats Barbara Buono and Milly Silva in New Jersey in 2013
  • Democrats Susan Wismer and Susan Blake in South Dakota in 2014
  • Republicans Andria Tupola and Marissa Kerns in Hawaii in 2018

All lost. In at least one instance, the candidates did not intend to run together. Tupola and Kerns ran separately in their primary but then together on a ticket in the general election. (That dynamic sometimes caused friction between the two.)

At least one all-woman ticket could happen unintentionally this year. In Arkansas, which holds its primary May 24, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the party’s presumptive nominee for governor. Republican Leslie Rutledge, the state’s current attorney general, is in a crowded race for lieutenant governor that could go into a runoff. The winners of the GOP primary in the conservative-leaning state are likely to be elected in November.

In Georgia, also holding primaries May 24 — and which, like Arkansas, has never elected a woman governor — Democrat Stacey Abrams faces no challengers within her party as she makes another bid for governor. The race for the number two spot is crowded, but among the candidates is state Rep. Renitta Shannon, a Black woman and the only Democratic woman. Abrams has not weighed in on the lieutenant governor’s race, which could go into a runoff if no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote. Shannon is seeking to run alongside Abrams, who could become the first Black woman ever elected governor in any U.S. state.

Christine Matthews is a pollster who has studied women’s candidacies and worked in gubernatorial races in the past, including that of Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. She noted that since at least the 1980s, there has been a model for the two-person ticket for governor and lieutenant governor: A man runs for governor and, increasingly, chooses a woman as his running mate.

This is reflected in the data. While just nine women currently serve as governors, 19 serve as lieutenant governors, a position that can vary widely in responsibilities and is sometimes largely a ceremonial role. More women of color are serving as lieutenant governors now than have ever served as governor.

The model for the top statewide office has changed as more women have been elected to all levels of government, Matthews said.

“I do think this cycle, voters are in the mindset where they’re ready to elect a woman governor and lieutenant governor because of the normalization of female candidates,” she said.

The conditions have been limited for two-woman tickets. Just 45 women have ever served as governors, compared with at least 1,000 men, according to a general estimate from the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

No woman governor has ever served with a woman lieutenant governor on a permanent basis — though there have been multiple occasions where there was a woman governor and a woman next in the line of succession, according to CAWP. In 2021, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul briefly served with Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the Senate majority leader in the statehouse, but she later appointed Brian Benjamin as her number two. Benjamin resigned last month amid a campaign bribery investigation. Hochul has replaced Benjamin with U.S. Rep. Antonio Delgado, who is expected to campaign with her but will be separate from her on the primary ballot. Other women candidates could end up on the general ballot with Hochul because of the last minute shake-up.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has worked for women candidates, noted that her research shows two-thirds of swing voters at the end of any given election cycle are usually women. She said it makes sense that nominating women candidates is a good way to gain independent swing women voters. She also noted more Republican women are finally getting early primary support and winning primaries.

“Both parties have realized that when they run women, they win,” she said.

Still, there are potential barriers for the women candidates, particularly those who run for governor. Research shows gender inequalities in the fundraising process, including the fact that men outnumber women as donors in gubernatorial races.

Lake added that her research has shown women candidates for governor have had to prove that they are qualified while men are assumed to be qualified. She said in a general election with two-woman tickets, women candidates may have to work twice as hard to prove themselves.

This could play out in gubernatorial races where two women are running against each other as well. New research by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, which advocates for women’s political representation, shows that in woman vs. woman matchups, gender bias is amplified. Women candidates at the top of the ticket have to do more to prove they are qualified. Voters also disproportionately scrutinize women candidates’ appearance, including clothing and posture.

While gender can play a role in voters’ decision-making, it’s usually not as large as that of party affiliation and partisanship. In Ohio, Whaley and Stephens face an uphill battle in a state where more than twice as many people voted this week in the Republican gubernatorial primary as the Democratic one, and where in 2016 and 2020, former President Donald Trump won by about eight points.

“The fact that you’ve got two women running in Ohio as Democrats. If they lose, the politics of being a Democrat in Ohio is going to have almost everything to do with it and much less the fact that it’s two women,” Matthews said.

Cutraro said while she’s happy to see a jump in women’s representation for the top statewide offices, she noted the importance of investing in encouraging more women to run. She pointed to research that shows how women are taught to lose political ambition at an early age. And for now, 19 states still have never had a woman governor. At least six states with the potential for two-woman tickets have never had a woman elected governor.

“It reminds us that as we look at cities and statehouses across the country, how much more work we have to do to make a moment like this not seem so extraordinary,” she said.

Ohio has had a woman governor before — for 11 days in 1998, when then-Lt. Gov. Nancy P. Hollister ascended to the top spot when the Republican’s predecessor had resigned to join the U.S. Senate. But the state’s voters have never elected a woman governor. Whaley is now the first woman to be nominated by a major party in Ohio for the office.

Whaley celebrated the achievement in part by highlighting her campaign with Stephens.

“What could be more different than two women from the working class who will fight for the working class?” Whaley tweeted with a photo of the pair.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less