Live results: Ciattarelli, Sherrill projected winners in NJ governor's primary election
Jack Ciattarelli (R) and Mikie Sherrill (D) are the projected winners in the New Jersey governor's primary election.
This will be Ciattarelli second time representing New Jersey Republicans in the governor's race.
Sherrill beat out several Democratic candidates to earn the nomination.
TRENTON - Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill will fight to become New Jersey's next mayor after both candidates won their primary elections on Tuesday.
Ciattarelli was considered the heavy favorite to represent New Jersey Republicans in the second straight governor's race, after he nearly defeated Phil Murphy in 2021.
Sherrill, a New Jersey state representative, beat out a field of Democratic candidates to earn the nomination.
Use the dropdown below to view more districts
Jack Ciattarelli, a moderate establishment figure in the Republican field, is making his third bid for New Jersey governor.
Ciattarelli, a former member of the state's Assembly, initially ran for the New Jersey Governor's office in 2017 – he came in second place in the Republican Party gubernatorial primary, with 31% of the vote.
His second attempt in 2021 proved more successful; Ciattarelli won the Republican Party gubernatorial primary, but lost the general election to incumbent Murphy. He received 48% of the vote to Murphy's 51%.
In his third run, he received an endorsement from President Trump, even though he's received accusations of being a "never-Trumper" from the party's far right.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill will win the Democratic primary race for New Jersey governor, AP projects, claiming victory over a crowded and competitive field of prominent current and former officeholders.
The moderate congressional Democrat will fight to keep the Garden State blue as she faces Republican winner Jack Ciattarelli in the November general election. Because the New Jersey gubernatorial race is one of the first major elections since Donald Trump's return to the White House, there's a tremendous amount at stake simply through public perception.
Stream live coverage in the media player below or on our FOX LOCAL app, available for free on your phone and smart TV.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Fox News
4 minutes ago
- Fox News
The Political Battles Over Redistricting and Mail-In Voting
Texas Democrats have returned after fleeing the state earlier this month to prevent the passage of a new Republican-backed redistricting plan, which could add more GOP House seats in next year's mid-term elections. The fight over redrawing congressional maps in the Lone Star State didn't just spark a national debate over gerrymandering but has also motivated California to retaliate with its own redistricting plan that would favor Democrats. Chuck Devore, a Republican executive with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former California State Assemblyman, joins the FOX News Rundown to discuss the redistricting battles in Texas and California and how they may impact other states' actions and the 2026 Trump has announced plans to issue an executive order aimed at eliminating mail-in voting to 'bring honesty to the midterms.' His statements have reignited the debate over election integrity. Daron Shaw, a member of the Fox News decision desk and polling team and a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, joins the rundown to discuss how mail-in voting in America compares to other countries, the extent of federal government power over elections, and how the issue has become increasingly partisan. Plus, commentary from the Vice President of the Lexington Institute and Military Analyst, Dr. Rebecca Grant. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Trump eyes election changes, Secretary Bellows warns of fallout
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows in downtown Portland in August following the conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) 'What are the consequences?' This is the question Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows kept asking during discussions of President Donald Trump's efforts to change the voting process at the conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State, the oldest nonpartisan professional organization for public officials, in Biloxi, Mississippi earlier this month. The day after it ended, Aug. 8, Bellows officially responded to the U.S. Department of Justice's request for sweeping voter data, questioning the federal agency's intentions and asking that the request be withdrawn. She has yet to receive a response. 'What we're seeing right now is a dramatic expansion in federal power, coming from the Trump administration, over the states and the people that upends the very concept of our democratic republic,' Bellows said in a sit-down with Maine Morning Star after the conference. 'Anyone who cares about states' rights and individual freedom should be concerned about federal agencies engaged in an unprecedented power grab.' Bellows, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026, said she was reassured to hear from secretaries on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about federal intrusion into elections, which are administered by the states, not the federal government, under the U.S. Constitution. But she returned from the conference with more questions than answers regarding the Trump administration's intentions and the repercussions of some secretaries embracing the federal requests. Trump wants Congress to pass a national proof of citizenship voter registration requirement and in March tried to unilaterally impose one for federal elections through executive order, but the legislation stalled and the order was halted by the courts. Some states have individually passed laws to require documented proof of citizenship to vote, including New Hampshire and Wyoming, whose secretaries of state presented at the conference. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Wyoming's law in July. Two lawsuits filed against New Hampshire's law are still pending in federal district court. 'All of us agree that only citizens should vote in federal elections. That's in the Constitution. That's not the debate,' Bellows said. Rather, Bellows' concern is how added requirements would work in practice and, she expects, could create barriers for legitimate voters, particularly in a state like Maine with sizable rural, low-income and senior populations. Already, people registering to vote must sign a statement affirming they are citizens under penalty of perjury. Noncitizens who register to vote or cast a ballot face criminal penalties and deportation. One study of the 2016 election estimated the prevalence of noncitizen voting at 0.0001% of votes cast. However, conservatives in Maine and elsewhere have shared unsubstantiated claims of noncitizen voting. 'Then the concern becomes, from a very practical place, what is the impact on actual citizens and their constitutional right to vote?' Bellows said. In New Hampshire, some legitimate voters have been turned away due to the new requirements. Bellows, who oversees Maine's Bureau of Motors Vehicles, says insight into potential impact in Maine can be gleaned from the rollout of Real ID requirements, which she says have tripped up long-time Mainers while being easier for new citizens who have their documents readily available. For example, she said, some people who grew up in Aroostook or Washington counties were born in Canada because the nearest hospital was across the border, so birth certificates aren't a document they can use for citizenship proof. 'We have heard from dozens of customers who have complained that it has sometimes taken them many months or almost a year to get certified birth certificates from other states if they were born out of state,' Bellows said, 'or marriage information from other states. Particularly people who've experienced both marriage and divorce, those documents may not be documents that they have kept.' Seniors are the least likely to have that documented proof, partly because of higher likelihood of misplacement or damage over time, Bellows said, plus the added barrier of having to pay to get new copies. 'Ironically, some of these policies are most likely to disproportionately impact senior citizens living in rural areas, which predominantly voted for Trump in the last election,' she said. With federal legislation and the executive order stalled, the Trump administration is attempting a backdoor way to accomplish its goal of requiring documented proof of citizenship for voting, Maine Morning Star's partner outlet Stateline reports. The Trump administration is urging states to use an existing federal immigration database, called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, that it has refashioned into a platform to verify voters' citizenship. Originally intended to help state and local officials verify the immigration status of people seeking government benefits, searching one name at a time, SAVE can now do bulk searches, allowing for the scanning of full voter rolls. These changes also come as the U.S. Department of Justice is asking Maine and other states for copies of their voter rolls. Bellows told Stateline she had a recent phone call with officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who said the agency planned to retain SAVE data for 10 years for 'audit purposes only.' 'Just like the [Justice Department] is asking us to hand over an electronic file of all the voters in our state, it seems like the Department of Homeland Security is through this backdoor system also asking us to share voter information about every voter in our state,' Bellows told Stateline. Another possible change to elections discussed at the conference was also part of Trump's executive order but hasn't drawn as much attention: directing the independent Election Assistance Commission to amend a set of security benchmarks for voting machines. Donald Palmer, commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission who was nominated to the role by Trump in 2019, gave a presentation on how the commission is trying to implement the order by amending the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to require paper ballots and remove bar codes and QR codes, which could lead to the decertification of certain voting systems. 'The concern about that is that seems to be a path to decertifying the election or challenging legitimate election results held by the states,' Bellows said. Bellows sees the move as a way the Trump administration is setting the stage for more federal intervention in future elections. As a member of the elections committee of National Association of Secretaries of State, Bellows said she and other secretaries continue to meet every other week, sometimes more frequently as issues emerge, to press state and federal officials on the reasoning behind voting and election changes. When asked about other proactive measures she is taking, Bellows said she hopes to keep the state on its current path. 'Our greatest defense against what the federal government seems to be trying to do to undermine voter confidence and take over aspects of our elections is to continue to run really great elections,' she said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
