Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now we continue our election series, 30 Issues in 30 Days. Today, we begin the final week of the series with the final five segments, 26 through 30. Today it's issue 26 on day 26. President Donald Trump is an issue in the New Jersey governor's race. Now, on one level, the gubernatorial race in New Jersey is being seen as a bellwether for how the nation is or is not approving of President Trump's second term in office. Of course, it's about a lot more than that, but it is also this. He is making himself a factor on purpose. So much so that on Friday, and maybe you haven't heard this yet, the Trump Justice Department said it will monitor polling sites in Passaic County. If you don't know Jersey, Passaic is a purple county, but it also has a large immigrant population. Paterson is in Passaic County, for example, and Democrats are calling this voter intimidation.

Joining us now to talk about how both Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill say they would deal with President Trump if they're elected governor and other ways the president's influence is being felt in the tight race is Nick Corasaniti, New York Times reporter covering national politics with a focus on voting and elections. Nick, thanks for coming on for this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Nick Corasaniti: Oh, thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with the basic fact that in their televised debate, Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill are asked to give Trump a letter grade for his performance in office so far. Let's listen to a little bit of that right now.

Jack Ciattarelli: Right now, I'd certainly give the president an A. I think he's right about everything that he's doing. He has secured the border and the economy, inflation is much lower than it was when Joe Biden was in the White House, and particularly because of what he's done specific to New Jersey. Temporary halt on the wind farms, beating up on New York Democrats over congestion pricing plan, and quadrupling the salt deduction.

Speaker 1: Congresswoman.

Mikie Sherrill: Amazing. I think that tells us all we need to know about who Jack Ciattarelli is supporting. I'd give him an F. Right now, we see at every single level, costs are going up on New Jerseyans. Whether it's the tariff costs that are costing you more from everything from a cup of coffee to the groceries you buy for dinner at night, to the one big beautiful bill, which will raise health care, energy, and housing costs.

Brian Lehrer: You can't get more polarized than that. Nick, do you want to do any political analysis? I know you more cover elections and the voting process, but what do you think the relevance is for voters for governor of that A and that F, since Trump is not on the ballot?

Nick Corasaniti: As with all things in the Trump era, the president looms over all politics. It's unsurprising to see such a divergence there as Democrats have stuck to a very anti-Trump messaging ever since election in 2024, and he still holds a very strong sway over the party. I think there's a little bit more nuance than what was said in that debate in those very short clips. Sherrill has made being an anti-Trump candidate her central message.

She runs a lot on her biography, which is a Navy pilot, former federal prosecutor, mother, dealing with everything that comes with that in a state like New Jersey under Trump. A lot of her message has been about countering him. Ciattarelli has tried to walk a delicate line where he's very much supportive of the president, but also knows New Jersey is a blue state. Even if Trump came within six points in 2024, he still lost by six points, which was 250,000 votes, which is not a delta you can make up in a governor's election.

He's tried to say, "Give the President an A," but he still doesn't make him at all a central part of his stump speech. When he's out on the campaign trail, it's about affordability, it's about immigration. He'll borrow Trumpian phrases like lambasting sanctuary cities, but he never mentions, "I'm going to stand with Trump on sanctuary cities." He just says, "I'm going to be against them." He clearly knows that Trump is not especially popular, or at least not a one-to-one winning message in New Jersey. He has to keep the base energized by talking about those policies and maybe saying he gets an A on the debate, but then also in his normal pitch to voters, make it more about himself and New Jersey.

Brian Lehrer: New Jersey listeners in particular, any questions or comments, or stories about Trump as a factor in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. What you think would be different for the state, whether you're for Sherrill or Ciattarelli, or undecided, what would be different for the state if one or the other is elected with respect to Trump's national policies and how they would affect New Jersey further. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 in our 30 Issues in 30 Days segment. One Trump-related issue is, of course, immigration enforcement.

Ciattarelli said that he would repeal a state policy that limits the amount of voluntary assistance that local law enforcement officers can provide to federal authorities enforcing civil immigration laws. That is the current law limits local law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement. Let's listen to about a minute of the exchange on this during the gubernatorial debate.

Jack Ciattarelli: I think it's my role as governor to keep the state safe, and we'll do that on day one by not having sanctuary cities in our state, nor will we be a sanctuary state. I've been very, very transparent about that. I think that only encourages illegal immigration, and it does restrict our local police in certain ways. If a local mayor and police chief want to work in partnership with a federal agency to keep their community safe, I think they should be allowed to do so.

Having said that, anyone who came here from a history of criminality, came here illegally, came from a history of criminality in their country of origin, has to go back. Anyone who came here illegally, has committed crime, or has scammed our government assistance program since coming here has to go back. I believe that everyone else should be put on a pathway to recognition. This has always been my position. A pathway to recognition means some form of government-issued ID, so we don't have people living in the shadows or working under a falsified Social Security number, which isn't fair to those who do that.

Mikie Sherrill: That's not really a real thing. That doesn't confer any status to anyone. That's why, standing up here, I am incredibly concerned about public safety. I'm a former federal prosecutor. I'm the only person on the stage who's prosecuted a violent criminal who was then deported, so I care deeply about that, but I've always been for comprehensive immigration reform.

Brian Lehrer: That was from the ABC debate, just to give the producers credit, on Channel 7 in New York, Channel 6 in Philadelphia, the other week. Nick from the New York Times, New Jersey is not officially a sanctuary state, but it has enacted policies like the Immigrant Trust Directive. That's what it's called, the Immigrant Trust Directive, that does restrict state and local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Can you explain it a little bit more for our listeners so they know what that exchange was actually about?

Nick Corasaniti: I'll be perfectly honest. This isn't 100% within normally what I cover with regards to national politics, but I think that there's a very important part of the immigration argument that's playing out in the New Jersey election, and it's what Trump and Republicans have been doing for years, and that's tethering immigration issues to public safety issues.

When you hear Jack Ciattarelli in that debate or on the campaign trail talking about sanctuary cities and welcoming federal law enforcement like ICE into New Jersey towns that might request it. It's always wrapped within this public safety argument that there's some kind of crime being committed or that communities are less safe because of immigration. It's a message that I think is finding a way to voters in New Jersey in a way that it might not in other states, because New Jersey is an extremely diverse state with a large immigration population.

They certainly have seen this and know what the issues are in their local communities, and it becomes very much a base play. You see Republicans attach themselves to exactly what Ciattarelli is saying, and then when Mikie Sherrill is saying, "I want comprehensive immigration reform." It's what Democrats have always said, yet haven't been able to get done at the federal level.

It's this continued, almost like it's a stalemate that we've seen. We could go back to 2013, you could replay those quotes about comprehensive immigration reform, and then pass the recognition on the Republican side. We've heard this for a dozen years, if not longer, and it's just been more entrenched on either side. What's changing at this time, or at least what the Republicans are trying to do, is make it about public safety.

Brian Lehrer: Let's go on to another issue. The Trump administration announced on X earlier this month that it would be suspending $18 billion in funding for New York City infrastructure projects, but that includes the Gateway Tunnel project, which is a New Jersey priority. Two new rail tunnels under the Hudson River connecting the city to Jersey. It's got a lot of bipartisan support. Ciattarelli said he opposes the termination of the project, but argues he would be better positioned to get it revived because he would work with Trump, not just take a stance of fighting him like Sheryl is articulating.

He says we see similar arguments in the New York City mayoral race, one way or the other, working with Trump, opposing Trump, being loud against Trump, being quiet behind the scenes against Trump. Do you see this as a national campaign heme on things where various Trump policies might be unpopular?

Nick Corasaniti: Very much so. This is exactly how a lot of general elections are really playing out with the president and the White House clearly making like if you're a political friend, he approves money faster. He has taken to social media so many times to announce all of these projects being approved or funds being sent to red states. He rarely ever mentions, "I'm sending it to this governor or anyone who's insulted him."

It's become almost the main way that Trump is talked about in the New Jersey governor's race right now. Ciattarelli's pitches, "I can work with him. We're a state that gets federal funding, and we'll need to continue Gateway, or we'll need money for different projects." Whereas Sherrill says, "I'm going to stand up to Trump and we're going to sue him." That's her way of fighting against Gateway is, "This was an illegal move. You can't just terminate a program that Congress has already appropriated funds for," which is the battle that we've seen in so many other states where funding has been removed or terminated.

What's very interesting about Gateway specifically, I think, is that it showed that Ciattarelli is running around, and Trump himself has campaigned via telephone rally for Ciattarelli. By terminating Gateway, he's really throwing a wrench in the New Jersey governor's race. This is one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country, is so critical to New Jersey's economy, to the national economy. To terminate it is just going to enrage so many New Jersey voters who may even be Trump supporters. There are plenty of Trump supporters even in blue areas in the northern part of the state.

It puts Ciattarelli in an almost impossible position. He can't be against it, but he also doesn't want to be seen as contradicting or saying, "I'm going to go fight the president." He has to take that, "I can work better with him to get this done," versus Sherrill's position of, "I will sue it to get it done." I think that's where the Democrats and Republicans are across the country. There's so much of the Democratic base that wants to see a fight. Lawsuits, stand up rhetoric, protest energy that they feel like has been lacking, at least in Congress and in the initial months of the Trump administration, and then Republicans saying this is great and this is just what we need to do to adjust for it.

Brian Lehrer: Let me just get two callers in here, one on each side of this. I guess, more for or against what Trump's impact on New Jersey would be if Ciattarelli or if Sherrill are elected. We'll start with Hank in Ocean Grove. Hank, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Hank: Good morning. There's an old African saying, "When the elephants fight, it's the grass that gets smothered." It's silly to go ahead and start trying to challenge the federal government when you don't have to. The New Jersey governor has enough to do without fighting with the feds on this. Better to go ahead and try to play the role of neutral professional than to say I'm going to take him on as if you're some kind of schoolyard fighter and thinking you're going to win.

This will get tied up in the courts, and it will be New Jerseyans who suffer. These are issues that need to be managed professionally and neutrally. You don't have to be on Trump's side necessarily to work with the federal government. I think Ciattarelli is probably taking a wise position on this, not getting too entangled with Trump, but saying, "We can go ahead and try to negotiate this out. We want the Gateway project. Let's go ahead and see what we can talk about." Rather than saying, "I'm going to take you to court." It's nonsensical.

Brian Lehrer: Hank, thank you very much. By contrast, I think Mike in Trenton, you're on WNYC. Hi, Mike.

Mike: Oh, hi, Brian. This is a good topic, and I think you started with the Trump's impact on the New Jersey election. I'm a registered Democrat, but very much an independent-minded voter. Trump is almost the issue for me on the balance. I think Jack Ciattarelli is actually a better candidate. I think he would make for a better governor, but I struggle mightily with his embrace of Trump. I am almost selfishly, or maybe foolishly, naively, of the view that a win for Trump is a loss for the country here. It's tough. I'm not fully decided, honestly, and I think Hank makes a very compelling point about working. I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for Jack based upon his embrace of Donald Trump and his failure to call out Trump's refusal to accept the results of the last election. There's many others, but those are probably my big issues.

Brian Lehrer: Mike, thank you very much. Interesting contrast there. Nick, before you go, I want to ask you about the latest news from over the weekend. Your New York Times colleagues reported on this idea of the Trump Justice Department monitoring the election in Passaic County, which they said they're going to do. The article notes that it includes immigrant-rich areas. Passaic County does. Patterson has a Palestinian population, for example, that's been in the news for other reasons, because of the resonance of what's going on in the Middle East, but generally, an immigrant-rich area, and with the way immigration is an issue in this race.

The article says, "Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, but Mr. Trump and other Republicans have since claimed it is rampant, particularly voting by mail, which is how most Californians vote. They're monitoring California elections, too." In this announcement, Democrats have called the argument a ruse for voter suppression. I'm just curious what you know about this or how you think people should understand this, since you cover elections nationally. What form will the monitoring take, and could it result in voter intimidation and lower Democratic turnout?

Nick Corasaniti: I think to step back really quick, the Justice Department for decades has sent monitors to states to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws. Even in 2022, midterms, for example, the Justice Department that monitors 24 states, and what they were doing then is making sure that there was no voter intimidation, there was no voter suppression. They were looking for any violations of the Voting Rights Act or other federal laws that protect voters to make sure no one is disenfranchised or intimidated, or no vote suppression campaigns are successful.

That's what the Justice Department has always done. This Justice Department is very different. As soon as Trump came into power and was inaugurated, they dropped almost all of their litigation about gerrymandering voting rights cases, and they pivoted to become this department that is hunting for the very rare voter fraud in the United States. This is the first time we're seeing the Justice Department take up what is a normal process in the past of monitoring certain jurisdictions with a different mindset.

I guess we don't know that, but they haven't taken positions of protecting the Voting Rights Act so much as they've been looking for fraud and abusive voter rolls and things like that. What it'll look like, or at least what it has looked like in the past. I don't think we can say anything for certain anymore, is that these are lawyers within the Department Civil Rights Division in D.C. or within the U.S. Attorney's office. They are not law enforcement. They do not look like law enforcement, and they only have the same level of access as any member of the public would do in monitoring these jurisdictions.

Now they can try and negotiate better access. I know in some of these areas, they're trying to be able to see the vote counting or the mail ballot transfer. The Attorney General Platkin has said, "We're not necessarily going to be giving them any special access. We don't exactly trust their motives here." This is going to be, I think, a bit of an unknown in a way that it never has been before. The Justice Department, when going into jurisdictions in the past, has had a very clear historical mandate that they had operated under for decades. With this change in the Trump administration and under Attorney General Bondi, it might look different. We just really don't know yet.

Brian Lehrer: My understanding from the article is that this announcement about monitoring came in response to a request from local Republican officials who want them specifically to monitor the mail-in votes. I'm just curious if you know anything about that. We have 30 seconds, and we're out of time. Or how they would do that.

Nick Corasaniti: I guess it's unclear exactly how they would do that, and it depends. It will vary between California and New Jersey, as they are very different voting laws. Republicans under President Trump have been very obsessed with mail-in voting. The president has said he wants to end the practice, which he has no authority to do. Again, we're in this uncharted territory of how the Justice Department is behaving across the government. This will be a new test of that. Whether they're in counting centers, whether they're standing near dropboxes with video cameras, whether they're checking in the post office, we just don't really know yet.

Brian Lehrer: Nick Corasaniti, New York Times reporter, covering national politics with a focus on voting and elections, with our issue 26 in our 30 issues in 30 days election series, President Trump as an issue in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. Nick, thank you so much.

Nick Corasaniti: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.