Democracy Advocates File Brief in Case Challenging New Jersey’s Primary Ballot Design

Date
Body

NEWARK—Today, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey and Salvation and Social Justice, represented by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and Campaign Legal Center, filed an amicus curiae brief in Conforti v. Hanlon, a case challenging New Jersey’s use of “the line” and other misleading features in its ballot design.

New Jersey is the only state in the country that organizes its primary election ballots by bracketing together a county-supported group of candidates in a column or row (“the line”), rather than listing each office and the candidates for that office in separate sections from one another. These bracketing rules in addition to other ballot design defects not only mislead and confuse New Jersey voters, but also disproportionately harm voters and candidates of color.

“Fair voter access is about more than just drop boxes and early voting hours. New Jersey’s primary ballot layout confuses voters, leading to decreased participation and keeping voters from having their voices heard,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “We cannot accept the disproportionate effect that our ballot design has on voters and candidates of color. New Jersey must do away with this overly-complicated ballot layout in favor of one that displays all candidates equally and provides voters with a straightforward ticket.”

Fair and clear ballot design is vital to a healthy democracy. Using “the line” not only grants bracketed candidates favorable positions on the ballot and systematically biases voters toward those candidates, it also, as today’s brief argues, negatively impacts voters because the manipulation of ballot position to capitalize on the bracketing bias undermines voter choice and the integrity of the democratic process.

“During a time when democracy is under attack and we must do everything possible to strengthen and expand it, New Jersey is instead subverting it by maintaining an outmoded primary ballot design that misleads and confuses voters and interferes with their right to vote,” said Henal Patel, director of the Democracy and Justice Program at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “These ballot design flaws disproportionately burden Black and other voters of color and make it more difficult for candidates of color to win office, undermining the goal of fair representation. This is exactly the opposite of what our state should be doing during these pivotal times.”

Ballot design studies demonstrate that when basic usability principles are ignored in ballot design, as is the case with “the line,” the affected voters will disproportionately be Black and other voters of color.

“In order to achieve fair representation, there must be fair ballot design,” said Jade Ford, an attorney for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Ballot design impacts voters, not just candidates for office. These types of defects also disproportionately affect voters of color and lower-income communities. It is time for New Jersey to address these systemic threats to the democratic process.”

Because candidates on “the line” are most often incumbents or party operatives, who in New Jersey are overwhelmingly white despite the state’s 45% population of color, it is also more difficult for candidates of color to win electoral office, negatively impacting fair representation. The New Jersey State Assembly is currently 70% white, and the State Senate is 75% white.

“Salvation and Social Justice is committed to fair and just elections in New Jersey. This case presents an opportunity for our state to align with jurisdictions across the country to safeguard a healthy democracy for all. New Jersey’s current ballot structure unfairly burdens communities and candidates of color. Without a fair opportunity to run for office, our entire state suffers. The time is now for New Jersey to do what’s right. Our democracy depends on it,” said Rev. Dr. Charles Boyer, founding director of Salvation and Social Justice.

Plaintiffs in the 2020 case include New Jersey House, Democratic Committee, Township Committee and County Clerk candidates, as well as New Jersey Working Families. Defendants are county clerks from Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Bergen, Atlantic, and Hudson counties. After defendants, along with Intervenor-Defendant Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, moved to dismiss the case, plaintiffs filed an opposition to that effort. The amicus brief supports plaintiffs’ opposition to having the case dismissed.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Conforti v Hanlon

At a Glance

CLC is challenging New Jersey’s misleading ballot design that gives certain candidates a positional advantage and disproportionately burdens voters of color.  

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

About This Case

New Jersey is the only state in the nation that uses a bracketing system for its ballot design in primary elections: it organizes groupings of candidates in a column or row, rather than listing the office sought followed by a list of each candidate in that race. Candidates who are running for different offices that are in the same bracket are featured together, whereas unbracketed candidates are exiled to separate sections of the ballot.

This bracketing system is flawed for several reasons. First, candidates who are bracketed are given access to more preferable ballot positions – for instance, further to the left or closer to the top. Research has shown that this leads to “position bias” that systematically advantages certain candidates over others. Candidates endorsed by county parties are also frequently bracketed together, disadvantaging other candidates who are either on their own or grouped with another unbracketed candidate. Finally, this design is confusing for voters and often obscures which candidate is running for which office – failing to meet a fundamental objective of good ballot design.

The burdens imposed by this atypical design disproportionately fall on voters of color. Ballot design studies have demonstrated that the poor and racial minorities are the most severely impacted by problems with ballot clarity. Moreover, communities with majority voters of color in New Jersey have witnessed some of the most egregious ballot designs, exacerbating the effects of structural racism.

Several candidates who ran in New Jersey primaries and some who plan to run again in the future are challenging the practice in federal court primarily because of the burden it imposes on candidates.

Our Brief

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing the League of Women Voters of New Jersey (LWVNJ) and Salvation and Social Justice (SandSJ) as amici curiae to represent the voices of harmed voters. CLC and the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice have filed a brief in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss on their behalf.    

Fair and clear ballot designs are vital to a healthy democracy. New Jersey’s misleading ballot design stands in direct opposition to this principle, and reinforces structural obstacles for voters and candidates of color.

CLC’s Clients

LWVNJ is a nonpartisan membership organization that has been dedicated to promoting civic engagement and protecting democracy through advocacy and voter education, assistance, and engagement for over one hundred years.

Founded in 2018, SandSJ is a nonpartisan, statewide racial justice organization in New Jersey. SandSJ has advocated for major voting rights efforts in the state, including restoring the right to vote to all people with criminal convictions, limiting police presence at voting locations, expanding voter access during the pandemic, and other measures to ensure that voters throughout the state, and specifically Black and other voters of color, have meaningful access to the ballot.

Victory! Appeals Court Upholds Michigan’s Independent Redistricting Commission

Date
Body

MICHIGAN – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld the state of Michigan’s voter-approved independent redistricting commission (IRC) as constitutional in Daunt v. Benson, allowing it to proceed with public input as the data is collected from the 2020 Census. The decision is a shot in the arm for the movement to adopt IRC’s as a viable solution to gerrymandering across the country. It could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It is time for fair maps in Michigan," said Paul Smith, vice president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), attorney of record in the case. "Today's decision reaffirms the right of Michiganders to ensure that elections are decided by voters, not politicians. This victory will allow the commission to proceed, allowing the voters' will to be heard."

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents Voters Not Politicians (VNP), the grassroots group that drafted and sponsored the constitutional amendment to create an IRC. The issue in the case is whether it is constitutional to make the Michigan Commission a true citizens’ commission, by excluding from consideration people who have had recent involvement in government and political affairs. The Sixth Circuit has now twice rejected that argument in two separate appeals. The challengers could, like any member of the public, engage in redistricting by taking part in the public hearing process. But they were properly excluded from consideration to join the commission.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Issues