In Political Earthquake, Court Strikes Down Controversial New Jersey Primary System

The county "line" gave candidates favored by insiders preferential placement on the ballot.

In a decision sure to upend New Jersey politics for years to come, a federal judge on Friday forbade the use of the state’s controversial county-based “line” system — the backbone of New Jersey’s clubby political machine — in party primaries in June.

U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled in favor of U.S. Rep. Andy Kim (D), a Senate candidate, and two Democratic House candidates, who had sued for an emergency injunction against the “line” system in late February on the grounds that it violated their First Amendment rights under the freedom of association and the Constitution’s prohibition on state laws interfering with federal election outcomes. Kim’s chief opponent, New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy, who was poised to get the line in the state’s most populous counties, withdrew from the race on Sunday, but Kim proceeded with his lawsuit anyway.

“The integrity of the democratic process for a primary election is at stake and the remedy Plaintiffs are seeking is extraordinary. Mandatory injunctive relief is reserved only for the most unusual cases,” Qureishi wrote in his 49-page decision. “Plaintiffs’ burden on this Motion is therefore particularly heavy. Nevertheless, the Court finds, based on this record, that Plaintiffs have met their burden and that this is the rare instance when mandatory relief is warranted.”

Under the line system, the local Democratic and Republican parties in 19 of the state’s 21 counties put candidates endorsed by their respective county parties in prominent places on the ballot, while relegating non-endorsed candidates to peripheral areas known as “ballot Siberia.” The system provided a tremendous advantage to candidates with ties to county party chairs and other insiders, since ordinary primary voters often cast ballots for the line candidates by default. One study that the plaintiffs presented to the court found that, on average, the line conferred a 38-point advantage for its recipients in primary elections.

As a result, Qureishi concluded, candidates excluded from the line “have shown a severe burden on their First Amendment rights.”