Kim v. Hanlon

With the exception of two counties, New Jersey’s primary election ballot does not separate candidates by the office for which they are running. Instead, candidates endorsed by the county parties are placed into a single row or column regardless of office. This arrangement is known as “the county line.”

Candidates who did not receive the county party’s endorsement are relegated to separate columns or lines. To be placed on the county line, a candidate must obtain permission from the campaign manager of a slate of candidates who file jointly to be listed in one column or row on the ballot. The slate usually consists of the party’s candidates for county freeholder, equivalent to a board of supervisors or county commissioners in other states, or some other candidates for county office. The county line candidates are given the first position on the ballot, meaning they are placed on the left side or top of the ballot, depending on the county. 

The remaining candidates are then placed further to the right or bottom of the ballot, as determined by the county clerks. In some cases, candidates have been placed far from other candidates or in hard-to-see areas on the ballot, a situation known as “Ballot Siberia” by local politicos. 

On Feb. 26, 2024, Congressman Andy Kim, a candidate for the 2024 United States Senate election in New Jersey, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging the county line:

(1) Violated the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for favoring candidates on the county line over those not on the line by making it easier for the former to win elections, injuring the plaintiffs and their supporters.

(2) Violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating similarly situated candidates, i.e., candidates in a political party’s primary for an elected office, differently. According to statistical analysis, candidates on the county line were substantially more likely to win than candidates off the county line.

(3) Violated the right to free association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by forcing candidates to either negotiate and agree to share the county line with other candidates they might disagree with politically, or forfeit the advantage provided by the line.

(4) Violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution by designing primary election ballots to favor county line candidates, exceeding the state’s authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections delegated to it by Congress.

The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to strike down the county line as unconstitutional, forbid its further use, and require implementation of a new ballot design sorting candidates by the office they seek, among other relief.

On March 12, 2024, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey (LWV New Jersey), joined by Salvation and Social Justice, New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, and New Jersey Policy Perspective, filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. LWV New Jersey also filed an amicus brief in Conforti v. Hanlon, a separate challenge to the county line system.

The brief highlighted the county line's negative consequences on candidates of color, female candidates, and voters of color. The amici also emphasized the undemocratic nature of the county line, in which candidates on the county line are provided a significant advantage over those off it. By extension, incumbent elected officials, who currently do not reflect the diversity of New Jersey, have easier access to the county line and are favored by the system. This advantage poses barriers to candidates who are women, younger, and/or people of color, who are often outside of the political system. Finally, LWV New Jersey and its co-amici argued the county line system burdened the right to vote by misleading voters into voting for candidates favored by political party insiders who control access to the line through preferential placement.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction on March 29, 2024. On April 3, 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the defendants' motion for a stay. On April 17, 2024, in a 3-0 vote, a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the preliminary injunction.

LWV New Jersey was represented in this matter by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and Campaign Legal Center.