Tuesday proved to be a successful election day for Democrats competing in closely watched races around the country, including several locally.
The main event for this region was between Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli for governor of New Jersey. Sherrill won by a margin that proved not to be as close as several polls had predicted. Other races that wrapped up with little drama were the retention elections for Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the contest for Philadelphia District Attorney.
Below is a recap of those and other elections relevant to the region.
Additional judicial election results for Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court and Philadelphia Municipal Court are available on the city’s election website, along with results of the retention elections in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. And results of judicial elections and retention elections in Pennsylvania Superior Court and Commonwealth Court are posted on the state’s election website.
Democrat Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli in Tuesday’s election. Sherrill will succeed New Jersey’s current governor, Democrat Phil Murphy, who was term limited after eight years in office. Sherrill, a former Navy pilot and currently the congresswoman representing New Jersey’s 11th District, will be the second woman to serve as New Jersey’s governor. The first was Republican Christie Todd Whitman who was elected to two terms between 1994 and 2001.
The retention elections for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht set a record for campaign spending on a nonpartisan judicial race with a total expenditure of more than $15 million. Despite all the attention, the races proved not to be close with all three justices cruising to retention victories.
Their return to the bench on state’s highest court means the liberal justices will maintain their 5-2 advantage over the conservative justices. By winning election, Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht are each elected to new 10-year terms. Donohue, who is 73, will only serve two more years before reaching the mandatory judicial retirement age of 75.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner easily won election to a third term on Tuesday, defeating Pat Dugan, a former Philadelphia Municipal Court judge. This is the second time Krasner defeated Dugan this election cycle: Dugan also lost to the progressive prosecutor in May’s Democratic primary election.
Philadelphia City Controller results
The Philadelphia City Controller is the chief auditor of the city and the School District of Philadelphia. The auditor’s office works independently of city government, and its analyses are intended to provide objective information to city leaders and the public about Philadelphia’s finances and how its money is being spent. Incumbent Christy Brady easily defeated Republican Ari Patrinos in Tuesday’s election.
New Jersey Assembly District 1 results
District 1 represent parts of Atlantic and Cumberland counties and all of Cape May County. Incumbent Republicans Antwan McClellan and Erik Simonsen are running against Democrats Carolyn Rush and Carol Sabo.
New Jersey Assembly District 2 results
District 2 represents parts of Atlantic County including several shore towns. Assemblyman Don Guardian and Assemblywoman Claire Swift are the Republican incumbents. They face challenges from Democrats Joanne Famularo and Maureen Rowan in Tuesday’s general election.
New Jersey Assembly District 3 results
District 3 covers Salem County and parts of Gloucester and Cumberland Counties. Democrats Dave Bailey Jr. and Heather Simmons are the incumbents, and they are running against Republicans Chris Konawell and Lawrence Moore.
New Jersey Assembly District 4 results
District 4 represents parts of Camden, Atlantic and Gloucester counties. Democrats Dan Hutchinson and Cody Miller are the incumbent members of the state assembly representing this district. They are challenged for their seats on Tuesday by Republicans Amanda Esposito and Gerard McManus.
New Jersey Assembly District 5 results
District 5 represents portions of Gloucester and Camden Counties. Assemblymen William Moen Jr. and William Spearman, both Democrats, are the incumbents and are running for reelection against Republicans Constance Ditzel and Nilsa Gonzalez, along with Green Party candidate Robin Brownfield.
New Jersey Assembly District 6 results
District 6 represents parts Camden and Burlington counties. Democrats Louis Greenwald and Melinda Kane hold the assembly seats in this district. They are running against Republicans John Brangan and Peter Sykes.
New Jersey Assembly District 7 results
District 7 represents municipalities in the portion of Burlington County along the Delaware River. Carol Murphy and Balvir Singh, two Democrats, are the current assembly people representing this district. Republicans Douglas Dillon and Dione Johnson are running against them.
New Jersey Assembly District 8 results
District 8 represents parts of Atlantic and Burlington counties. Headed into Tuesday’s election, its assembly seats are split between Republican Michael Torrissi Jr. and Democrat Andrea Katz. The other candidates in this election are Republican Brandon E. Umba. and Democrat Anthony Angelozzi.
Three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices – all Democrats – are up for judicial retention in Tuesday’s general election. The outcome could have ramifications for the composition of the seven-member court, which currently has a 5-2 Democratic majority.
Polls close at 8 p.m. All results in the chart below are unofficial until confirmed by election officials.
Justices Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht are all up for retention as they near the end of their 10-year terms on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The three Democrats soundly outperformed their GOP opponents in 2015, capturing a majority on the court after Republicans had held the advantage for more than a decade.
This chart may not display correctly for some mobile users. If you’re having trouble, please visit the full version of this page.
On Tuesday’s ballot, Pennsylvania voters will see “yes” or “no” options next to the names of the three justices, who do not face other candidates when up for retention. Those who are retained serve another 10-year term or remain on the court until they reach the state’s age limit of 75. When a justice is not retained, the court has a vacancy that can be filled with an appointment by the governor – which requires Senate approval – before an open race in the next election cycle.
Dougherty spent 14 years on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, specializing in family law cases, before his election to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Donohue was a trial lawyer in Allegheny County for decades and served as state Superior Court judge before reaching the Supreme Court. Wecht similarly served as a Superior Court judge, also with a background in family law, before he was elected to the Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania’s top appellate court rules on a wide range of significant issues that include political redistricting, reproductive rights, education law and civil rights.
This year’s election marks a rare instance when three seats are up for retention at the same time, although it is historically uncommon for Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices not to be retained. The last time a justice in Pennsylvania lost a retention bid was in 2005, when Philadelphia-based Justice Russell Nigro, a Democrat, was voted off the court by a 51%-49% margin. Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, a Republican from Philadelphia, narrowly retained her seat that year with 54% of the vote.
If all three justices are voted down, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court likely would be left shorthanded until 2027. Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled Senate would hold the power to thwart Interim appointments from Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro in hopes of holding out for the GOP to earn seats on the court in open contests next year. The loss of just one justice also could result in a deadlocked court for the foreseeable future.
Spending on this year’s retention elections is expected to surpass $15 million, setting a record for nonpartisan judicial races that are usually quieter when fewer justices are on the ballot. The national Democratic and Republican parties both have poured millions of dollars into this year’s retention elections in a battle over the makeup of the court in one of the nation’s perennial battleground states.
The first results to populate the graphic below will be early and absentee results after polls close at 7:30 p.m. The graphic below only reflects Union County results in cases where cities or towns extend into other counties.
Caitlin McGlade is an investigative data reporter with about 15 years of experience holding accountable powerful people in Arizona, Kentucky, Florida and Ohio. Her work prompted a variety of reforms, including Arizona’s first-ever standards for assisted living memory care, and won numerous national awards.
One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday. Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdownThe results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries. More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot: In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night. As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president. The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani. California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control. Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule. Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority. Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded. If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027. Virginia attorney generalRepublican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.Texas-18 Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.State legislaturesControl of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.Ballot measuresMaine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.Mayors Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.
WASHINGTON —
One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday.
Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdown
The results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries.
More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot:
In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.
In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.
Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night.
As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president.
The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.
The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani.
California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control.
Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule.
Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority.
Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded.
If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027.
Virginia attorney general
Republican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.
Texas-18
Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.
State legislatures
Control of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.
Ballot measures
Maine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.
Mayors
Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.
“People fought and died for the right to vote, and people need to participate in every election,” Dillard said.
Dillard walked Denver7 through the specific issues set to appear on both the statewide 2025 ballot and the Denver ballot, detailing what voters can expect as Election Day approaches.
If you are not registered to vote, take action by registering at the closest polling center in your county. Be sure to be in line before 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 4, and make your voice count this Election Day.
Aaron Brown
Denver7’s Colette Bordelon speaks with our Political Analyst Alton Dillard about the importance of filling out a ballot.
Denver7 has extensively covered the issues that will appear on the 2025 ballot:
Politics
Colorado voter guide: The local and state measures on the 2025 November ballot
Proposition LL
There are two statewide ballot measures this year: Proposition LL and Proposition MM, which were referred by the legislature and need a simple majority to pass.
Proposition LL aims to retain and spend excess state revenue collected from Proposition FF, also known as Healthy School Meals for All. Proposition FF, which was passed by Colorado voters in 2022, created a program that reimburses participating school meal providers offering free breakfast and lunch to all public school students. Schools must participate in the National School Lunch Program and receive federal meal funding to qualify.
Proposition LL would allow the state to use $12.4 million in excess tax revenue collected under Proposition FF for the Healthy School Meals for All Program, instead of refunding it to households that earn $300,000 or more a year. In addition, Proposition LL would maintain current tax deduction limits for households earning $300,000 or more annually, which are expected to be lowered next year.
A “yes” vote on Proposition LL allows the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue that has already been collected for the Healthy School Meals for All Program and maintains current taxes on households earning $300,000 or more annually.
A “no” vote on Proposition LL means the state will refund $12.4 million to households earning $300,000 or more annually and allows deduction limits to change as scheduled under current law, which will lower taxes paid by these households.
So, why is Proposition LL on the ballot? The answer lies in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), which requires voter approval for the state to keep any revenue collected that exceeded a Blue Book estimate. In this instance, the 2022 Blue Book found that Proposition FF would increase tax revenue by $100.7 million in the 2023-24 budget year. The state ended up collecting $112 million, roughly $11.3 million more than expected, according to the Blue Book.
“LL is just essentially being able to keep excess revenue, because when Proposition FF passed, you had to sort of guess at what the amount of tax intake was going to be. And under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in Colorado, you actually have to go back to the voters to be able to hold on to that excess revenue,” said Dillard.
If Proposition LL does not pass, the $11.3 million excess, plus the $1.1 million in interest, would be refunded to households making $300,000 or more a year. In addition, the amount of taxes those households pay would be reduced in the future, as the current law requires under TABOR.
The Blue Book summarizes the arguments in support of Proposition LL as follows: Proposition LL allows the state to retain revenue that it has already collected to support free school meals for public school students, rather than refunding it to high-income taxpayers. Access to free school meals improves academic outcomes, eliminates stigma for low-income students, and reduces hunger. Using all of the tax revenue the state has already collected will help provide more free school meals to Colorado public school students.
The argument against Proposition LL in the Blue Book is: Proposition LL is effectively a tax increase in challenging economic times. The state collected more revenue than it estimated. It should refund the money to affected taxpayers rather than using it for a government program that gives meals to students even if their families can afford to pay for them.
Proposition MM
Proposition MM would increase state income taxes for households that earn $300,000 or more a year in order to provide funding for the Healthy School Meals for All Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Recent federal policy will increase SNAP costs paid by the state. The Blue Book states that Proposition MM would raise an additional $95 million in tax year 2026 and “similar amounts in future years.”
A “yes” vote on Proposition MM increases state income taxes for households earning $300,000 or more annually. The increased tax revenue will be used to offer free school meals to all public school students, implement previously approved local food purchasing and employee wage components of the Healthy School Meals for All program, and help fund SNAP.
A “no” vote on Proposition MM keeps state income taxes for households earning $300,000 or more annually unchanged
Arguments in support of Proposition MM, detailed in the Blue Book:
1) Proposition MM ensures that free school meals are available to all Colorado students. The Healthy School Meals for All Program has been more highly utilized than anticipated, demonstrating the strong need for a universal free school meal program. Access to free school meals improves academic and health outcomes and helps families at a time when food costs are rising and federal assistance is declining. When fully implemented, the program also provides students with locally sourced, healthy food and boosts compensation for school meal workers in Colorado communities.
2) Many Colorado families and individuals rely on SNAP for some or all of their food needs. SNAP improves health, economic, and educational outcomes for low-income families. The funding provided by the measure will lessen the impact of recent federal cuts to the program and allow the state to continue important food assistance and nutrition education programs.
Arguments against Proposition MM, from the Blue Book:
1) Proposition MM gives more taxpayer money to excessive government programs. The school meals program provides food to kids who do not need it or eat it, wasting both money and food. Federal changes are meant to make SNAP more cost-effective, and state taxpayers should not be on the hook for funding the program’s inefficiencies. The state should live within its means and provide assistance to only those who need it most, rather than asking for millions more from taxpayers.
2) Proposition MM is a tax increase. For many households, this would more than double the amount they have to pay, a significant additional expense. The state should not be raising taxes on any households during a time of economic uncertainty.
“With MM, they’re just simply saying, ‘Okay, we still have some other things to shore up as far as making sure kids get fed.’ So we are going to go to those households making $300,000 or more, and ask them for a little more on an annual basis,” Dillard explained before detailing the other side of the argument. “One side is saying that it makes a little more sense to go back to what the original intent of school lunch programs were. Of course, you want to feed everybody, but they’re asking, ‘Do you need to have free lunch provided for kids whose families may not be struggling?’”
Denver Referendum 310
A Denver issue receiving a lot of attention is Referendum 310, which deals with the sale of flavored nicotine within the city and county limits.
“310 is really going to be interesting, because that’s the one that would essentially uphold the flavor tobacco ban that’s already on the books,” Dillard said.
The ordinance to ban flavored tobacco products was first approved by the Denver City Council in an 11-1 vote last December. After pushback and petitions from business owners, the issue is now in the hands of voters.
A “yes” vote on Referendum 310 means you support keeping Denver’s ban on flavored tobacco products. In September, Michael Bloomberg donated more than $1.5 million to the campaign Denver Kids vs. Big Tobacco to uphold the ban.
Meanwhile, Denver business owners said the ban would hurt them financially. A “no” vote on Referendum 310 means you want to overturn the current ban on flavored nicotine products.
Vibrant Denver Bond
Then, Denver voters will also have to decide upon the Vibrant Denver bond, a $950 million bond package that would invest in infrastructure throughout the Mile High City.
Voters will consider five ballot issues — 2A through 2E — that involve improvements to roadways, parks, city facilities, shelters and more. Ballot Issue 2D would fund projects at libraries and other city cultural facilities, while Ballot Issue 2B would fund parks.
“One thing to remember with bonds is that ordinarily they come about every decade or so. But, now the City of Denver has been going to the well on a slightly more frequent basis,” Dillard said. “The difference with bonds are they’re just, essentially, asking to extend an already existing debt. So, it is not a new tax of any sort.”
Certain ballot issues can pass while others fail, allowing voters to approve which projects are funded by the bond, according to Dillard.
Denver 2A
Ballot Issue 2A allows Denver to increase the city’s debt by $441,420,000 for dozens of infrastructure projects, including near Burnham Yard, the preferred site for the new Broncos football stadium. Some others include multimodal projects along the Santa Fe Arts District and West 38th Avenue, as well as safety improvements on Evans Avenue.
The measure is one of five (2A – 2E) in the bond package, which city finance officials estimate could cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion to repay over time. Supporters say the projects would improve safety and access, while opponents warn against adding to Denver’s long-term debt.
The Vibrant Denver bond campaign says the projects would not require a tax increase and that the city is operating within a debt capacity voters have already approved.
Denver 2B
Ballot Issue 2B would be used for repairs and improvements to city parks and recreational infrastructure and facilities, including the future Park Hill Park — a new southeast recreation center — and updates to parks around the city.
Denverites have been paying property taxes on bonds since 2007, and voters approved extensions to the taxes in 2017 and 2021 for additional municipal bonds. If approved, 2B would extend those taxes once again.
The most expensive item in the plan is the Park Hill Park build-out for $70 million. The proposed project is the transformation of the former 155-acre Park Hill Golf Club into a park space for Denverites. In 2023, Denver voters rejected a plan to allow housing and commercial development on the site.
$20 million in the plan is allocated for the land acquisition for a future Southeast Recreation Center & Skate Park. Development of the recreation center would require additional funding in the future.
$15 million in the plan is allocated for rebuilding the outdoor pool at Aztlan Recreation Center.
Denver Health CEO Donna Lynne said the passage of 2C will help better serve patients with a new building that can accommodate more patients. The current building is over 40 years old.
According to Lynne, the project would increase capacity by about 50%, allowing the health provider to introduce new services, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, and expanded dental care.
Ballot Issue 2C would also allocate $10 million toward Denver’s Children’s Advocacy Center, which provides medical care, mental health support, and legal advocacy for abused children.
Not everyone is convinced that additional debt is the right path. Jason Bailey, founder of “Citizens for No New Debt,” has voiced opposition to the bond package, warning that government borrowing could be counterproductive.
City officials and bond proponents contend that the measures will not raise taxes and that Denver’s debt remains within limits already approved by voters. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and the Vibrant Denver campaign maintain that bonds are a responsible way to invest in the city’s future.
The Denver Botanic Gardens, the Denver Art Museum, and the Denver Museum of Nature & Science would each receive $3,000,000. A breakdown of funds can be found here.
Denver 2E
Ballot Issue 2E focuses on housing and shelters for those experiencing homelessness. It specifically asks voters about three projects: adding ADA upgrades to some city homeless shelters, working to acquire land for affordable housing and adding affordable housing on top of a new library.
“We would always rather spend with the General Fund than with debt, if we have to. But there are times where, for financing purposes, it is easier or smarter to use debt to invest,” said Johnston.
This year, Johnston and his administration have made several cuts, including to homelessness initiatives, in order to bridge a $200 million budget gap. Denver7’s Danielle Kreutter pressed the mayor about how the city can ask for more funding for homelessness while also trimming its budget.
“This is true about the budget in general. People will say, ‘Wait, why are you going for the bond if there are cuts to the budget?’ and it is exactly because these are two different purposes of two different funds. Our budget pays employees, it pays for people, it pays for programs. The bond only does capital infrastructure,” Johnston said. “Not a single dollar in the bond could be used to pay for a program or pay for an employee.”
The mayor said if the ballot issues don’t pass, it will impact the projects listed in the bond package and other projects on the city’s to-do list.
Opponents say now is the time to stop the cycle of debt and borrowing.
Denver Public Schools Board of Education
There are four seats on the Denver Public Schools (DPS) Board of Education that are up for grabs this year. In total, eleven different candidates are vying for the positions.
“I would put school board elections up there with any other elected office, because we’re talking about the people who create the policy to educate our children,” Dillard said.
Already filled out your ballot and forgot to mail it back? The Colorado Secretary of State’s website has a ballot drop-off locator you can access here. Denver voters can find their nearest ballot drop-off location (as well as nearest voting center and mobile vote centers) by clicking here.
The countdown to Election Day: A last look at the 2025 ballot measures for Denver voters
Denver7 | Your Voice: Get in touch with Colette Bordelon
Denver7’s Colette Bordelon covers stories that have an impact in all of Colorado’s communities, but specializes in reporting on crime, justice and issues impacting our climate and environment. If you’d like to get in touch with Colette, fill out the form below to send her an email.
The last campaign finances reports before election Day were due last week, and they show Republicans beating Democrats in multiple Charlotte council races.
Melissa Melvin-Rodriguez
mrodriguez@charlotteobserver.com
Republican candidates raised more money than Democrats in multiple Charlotte City Council races, according to the last campaign finance reports before Election Day.
The most recent reporting period ran from Aug. 27 to Oct. 20. Candidates are required to submit reports about how much money they’ve raised and spent as well as who is giving money to their campaigns. However, the amount of money isn’t necessarily indicative of who will win the election.
Krista Bokhari more than doubled the contributions of Democrat Kimberly Owens in south Charlotte’s District 6 race.
Long shot mayoral candidate Terrie Donovan outraised Democratic incumbent Vi Lyles by a wide margin, too. Donovan’s biggest influx of cash came amid national scrutiny of Lyles’ response to the fatal light rail stabbing.
And leading the pack across all races is at-large Republican candidate Edwin Peacock III, whose campaign generated more than $110,000. Peacock previously told The Charlotte Observer his fundraising efforts during the 2025 campaign brought in more money in a shorter period of time than any of his previous campaigns.
Here’s a look at notable results from campaign finance reports.
Bokhari has wide financial edge in tight District 6 race
District 6 is expected to be the closest city council race. The district is shaped like a triangle in south Charlotte and includes neighborhoods such as Eastover, Myers Park, South Park, Providence and Carmel. Only about 300 votes separated the two major party candidates in 2023.
From a financial standpoint, though, Bokhari is miles ahead.
The Republican’s campaign generated $96,468.52 during the reporting period and spent $64,818.36, leaving her with $86,160.39 in the final two weeks before the election. Owens raised $40,037.16 during that same period, spent $39,112.26 and has $15,767.50 remaining cash on hand. However, Owens still raised the third-highest amount across all city races.
Bokhari likely benefited from name recognition and pre-existing family connections. Former Councilman Tariq Bokhari held the seat she’s now running for before stepping down to take a position in the Trump administration in May. Krista Bokhari also ran for state legislature last year.
One-third of her contributions came from the North Carolina Republican Party in the form of printing and postage for mailing campaign ads. The state-level party did not contribute to any other city candidate this cycle.
Her largest individual donation came from prolific local developer David Longo, who contributed more than $7,000. Other notable donations include about $50 from mayoral candidate Donovan, more than $2,000 from the founder of a luxury and custom awards company, $5,000 from the owner of a luxury car dealership, $3,500 from attorney and political consultant Larry Shaheen and $500 from former GOP state Rep. Scott Stone.
A full breakdown of Owens’ contributions were not immediately available on the Mecklenburg County or State Board of Elections websites as of Friday evening. While the deadline for reports was early last week, reports sometimes aren’t received by the Board of Elections or uploaded online before Election Day.
Republican leads in fundraising for citywide race
No candidate came close to bringing in as much campaign funds as Peacock in the at-large council race.
He raised $113,217.94, spent $26,353.02 and has $117,816.52 on hand. His contributions during the most recent reporting period are more than all four Democratic incumbents combined.
About a quarter of his donations, or more than $29,000, came from individuals whose listed jobs are in real estate, development and construction sectors. Longo contributed over $6,500 to his campaign.
Other notable donations include $1,000 from District 7 Councilman Ed Driggs, who is the only other Republican currently serving on council; $5,000 from Frank Harrison, the CEO of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated; $239.70 from developer and community figure Bobby Drakeford; and $150 from former Councilwoman Velva Woollen.
Dimple Ajmera raised the next-highest amount of $21,875, spent $9,181.99 and has $179,713.62 cash on hand, which she’s accumulated over a decade of campaigning.
Notable donations include $1,000 from 32BJ SEIU, the union representing contracted airline workers; $300 from the Democratic Women of Mecklenburg County; and $1,000 from Lee Ratliff, the CEO of Professional Security Services, which provides security on Charlotte public transit.
James “Smuggie” Mitchell raised $19,197.09, spent $18,184.75 and has $9,355.28 cash on hand. Just under half of his financing, or about $9,000, came from individuals who self-identified as working in real estate, development and construction. LaToya Evans, the mayor’s personal publicist, contributed $200 to his campaign. Ratliff, the PSS CEO, also contributed $1,000 to his campaign.
LaWana Slack-Mayfield raised $17,220, spent $19,763.01 and has $16,947.67 remaining. Former Mayor and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx contributed $200, Drakeford contributed $375, 32BJ SEIU contributed $1,000 and Ratliff contributed $1,000.
Victoria Watlington raised the least money out of the incumbents at $14,470 this period. She spent $3,456.19 and has $42,440.62 remaining. A copy of her full report was not available on the State Board of Elections website as of Friday evening.
Lyles trails in funding for mayoral race
Donovan’s campaign seemingly got a big financial boost after the tragic death of Iryna Zarutska on the Blue Line hit national headlines in early September.
Donovan works in real estate and has never run for office before. She raised less than $2,000 the entire period before Sept. 8 — roughly when Charlotte’s public safety became a national talking point. Half of that amount was money she’d given to her own campaign.
Lyles had raised over $17,000 in that same period.
But Donovan ended the most recent reporting period having raised $39,856.82. She spent $23,350.10 and has $18,585.22 left on hand.
Much of her contributions remained local despite attention pouring in from across the country. Only about $4,200 came from outside the Charlotte area. And more than $5,200 was money she spent on herself. Together, those two figures account for about a quarter of her overall financing.
Lyles meanwhile raised $21,083.50, spent $12,381.58 and has $108,414.20 remaining.
This story was originally published November 2, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
Nick Sullivan covers the City of Charlotte for The Observer. He studied journalism at the University of South Carolina, and he previously covered education for The Arizona Republic and The Colorado Springs Gazette.
Election Day is Tuesday. In Mecklenburg County, there will be municipal and school board elections as well as a transportation referendum. In this file photo, sample ballots sit on a table for voters at Sharon Presbyterian Church in south Charlotte.
Melissa Melvin-Rodriguez
mrodriguez@charlotteobserver.com
Mecklenburg County voters on Tuesday will decide a series of local elections and the fate of a potentially transformational transportation tax referendum.
Election Day is Tuesday, with polls open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. at locations across the county.
Voters will have a mix of municipal and school board races as well as a transportation tax referendum on ballots. What appears on a voter’s ballot depends on where he or she lives.
By the end of early voting on Saturday, 63,427 people cast ballots. That appears to be an early voting record for a municipal or odd-year election, according to Mecklenburg County data. An additional 1,224 mail-in ballots have been approved.
In 2023, the most recent municipal election, a total of 39,432 people cast ballots during early voting, with an additional 1,226 approved mail-in ballots. Mecklenburg County data show that was higher than prior odd-year elections. But it was eclipsed by the even-year elections before and after. With presidential, U.S. Senate, congressional, gubernatorial and statewide races, even year elections produce much higher voter turnout than ones only featuring local contests.
The top performing early voting site was the South Park Library, which saw 1,500 more ballots cast than any other voting site. The second- and third-busiest sites were the South County Library and Matthews Library, respectively.
Friday was the busiest day of early voting, with 10,747 ballots cast. Saturday was another day with more than 10,000 ballots cast.
It’s unclear whether early voting numbers will produce a municipal election turnout record. To beat 2023’s turnout, about the same number of voters would need to cast ballots on Election Day as during early voting.
Here are other things to know before Election Day:
What’s on the ballot
While races on ballots will vary widely, some of the key elections include:
A referendum that asks people to vote “for” or “against” the following: One percent (1%) local sales and use taxes, in addition to the current local sales and use taxes, to be used only for roadway systems and public transportation systems. The tax increase will bring Mecklenburg County’s sales tax to 8.25%. Of the more than $19 billion it’s expected to generate in the next 30 years, 40% will go to trains, 20% will go to buses and 40% will be split between Charlotte and local towns to use on road improvements.
Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles faces a challenge from Republican Terrie Donovan and Libertarian Rob Yates. She’s favored to win, and would claim sole possession of the second-longest serving mayor in Charlotte’s history if so. Republican Pat McCrory is Charlotte’s longest serving mayor.
In the Charlotte City Council’s District 6, Republican Krista Bokhari faces Democrat Kimberly Owens. Bokhari is married to Tariq Bokhari, who was the District 6 representative until resigning earlier this year for a short-lived job in the Trump administration. The district is shaped like a triangle in south Charlotte and includes neighborhoods such as Eastover, Myers Park, South Park, Providence and Carmel.
Two incumbents — west Charlotte’s Thelma Byers-Bailey and Summer Nunn, whose district snakes along the county’s southern border — chose not to run for reelection to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education. That guarantees at least two new members of the board. Dee Rankin in District 3, which covers University City and parts of north and east Charlotte, is the only incumbent without competition.
Voters in Huntersville will see two familiar faces back on the ballot for mayor — incumbent Christy Clark and Derek Partee. They were two of the three candidates who battled in the 2023 mayor’s race. The mayor and town board races are officially nonpartisan, but a group of Republicans also have united to try and oust Democrat commissioners in their “No More Than 4” slate.
Cornelius also gets a mayoral rematch with incumbent Woody Washam facing Denis Bilodeau again as well as a third challenger, Kenny Campbell. In 2023, Washam won by just five votes.
Matthews voters will see a major shake-up on their town board this year. All six commissioner seats are on the ballot, and at least three will be filled by newcomers.
To be eligible to vote in any North Carolina municipal election, a voter must live within the city or town limits for at least 30 days before Election Day. With the voter search tool on the State Board of Elections website, people can see what’s on their ballot and which districts they live in under the “YOUR JURISDICTIONS” tab.
But all voters who live in Mecklenburg County will have a school board district election and transportation tax referendum on their ballots. When there’s only one person on the ballot, voters are still able to write in a candidate.
Voters can find their sample ballot, designated district, current elected officials and voting location by filling out their address on the county Board of Elections website at apps.meckboe.org/addressSearch_New.aspx.
What if I’m not registered to vote?
People who are not registered to vote are not eligible to cast a ballot on Election Day.
North Carolina allows same-day registration only during early voting, and Saturday was the last day of early voting.
Voter ID
Voters must bring photo ID to the polls, but “all voters will be allowed to vote with or without photo ID,” according to the NCSBE Voter ID website. Voters who don’t show an ID will need to fill out an exception form. Details regarding acceptable forms of ID including student and government employee IDs can be found on ncsbe.gov/voting/voter-id#acceptable.
For questions about voting on Tuesday, contact the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections at 704-336-2133 or Vote@MeckNC.gov. The Board of Elections is located at 741 Kenilworth Ave., Suite 202.
This story was originally published November 2, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
Josh Bergeron is the government editor at The Charlotte Observer. Previously, he was the editor of the Salisbury Post in Salisbury, N.C. and worked as an editor and reporter at newspapers in North Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi. He’s a proud LSU alumnus — Geaux Tigers.
The curated articles on the 2025 transit tax proposal in Mecklenburg County highlight key things voters should know about a 1% sales tax increase. Common themes include examining the potential economic impact, addressing transit infrastructure needs, and differing views on the proposal’s fairness.
The Charlotte Observer’s reporters have spent the past few months reporting on potential impacts of the referendum, which asks voters whether they support a 1% increase in the local sales tax to fund road, rail, and bus projects.
Supporters argue it addresses congestion and long-term infrastructure needs. Opponents view the tax as regressive and potential accelerant of gentrification risks. Charlotte-area leaders have polarized opinions. Some back the tax, stating it improves transit while others criticize it for increasing costs.
The Charlotte light rail travels atop a mural behind Optimist Hall in Charlotte By TRACY KIMBALL
NO. 1: WILL MECKLENBURG TRANSPORTATION TAX INCREASE FOOD PRICES? HOW PROPOSAL AFFECTS YOU
The proposal could increase Mecklenburg’s sales tax rate from 7.25% to 8.25%, which doesn’t apply universally to all purchased goods. | Published July 21, 2025 | Read Full Story by Mary Ramsey
Voters line up early to cast their ballot on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. By TRACY KIMBALL
NO. 2: MECKLENBURG COUNTY NEARING HISTORIC SALES TAX VOTE. HOW HAVE PAST ELECTIONS GONE?
Referendums like the one poised to appear on Mecklenburg County ballots this November faced mixed reactions from voters in recent decades. | Published August 6, 2025 | Read Full Story by Mary Ramsey
The Lynx Blue Line Parkwood Station in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, September 10, 2025. By KHADEJEH NIKOUYEH
NO. 3: WILL CHARLOTTE LIGHT RAIL STABBING HURT TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM’S CHANCES?
A murder that captured national attention could affect Charlotte’s efforts to overhaul its transportation system because the multibillion-dollar plan is now in voters’ hands, a political expert says. | Published September 16, 2025 | Read Full Story by Mary Ramsey
The Blue Line train moves through South End in Charlotte. By Jeff Siner
NO. 4: COULD CHARLOTTE TRANSPORTATION REFERENDUM PRICE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOUSES?
Greg Jarrell says has seen “an enormous wave of money” crash into west Charlotte in recent years. | Published September 22, 2025 | Read Full Story by Nick Sullivan
A plan to revamp the Charlotte region’s transportation system with billions in road, rail and bus projects funded by a sales tax increase hinges on voters’ decisions in the upcoming election. By JEFF SINER
NO. 5: CHARLOTTE AREA ROLLS TOWARD HISTORIC TRANSIT VOTE. IS THERE 2ND CHANCE IF IT FAILS?
A plan to revamp the Charlotte region’s transportation system with billions of dollars for road, rail and bus projects would be in jeopardy if Mecklenburg residents vote down a sales tax increase to fund it this November. | Published October 16, 2025 | Read Full Story by Mary Ramsey
No image found A plan to revamp the Charlotte region’s transportation system with billions in road, rail and bus projects funded by a sales tax increase hinges on voters’ decisions in the upcoming election. By JEFF SINER
Charlotte-area leaders and organizations have staked out positions for or against Mecklenburg’s transportation tax referendum. | Published October 28, 2025 | Read Full Story by Mary Ramsey
The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.
Railroad tracks at Camp North End in Charlotte. This site is a potential location for a new station on the Charlotte Area Transit System’s proposed Red Line rail project.
Chase Jordan
cjordan@charlotteobserver.com
Work on some projects that would be funded by the referendum on Mecklenburg County’s November ballot could begin as soon as late 2026 or early 2027.
The referendum on the 2025 ballot asks voters to approve or reject a 1% sales tax rate increase to fund road, rail and bus projects across the county. Road projects likely will be among the first to get started. Rail projects could take the longest.
If the referendum passes, local leaders anticipate the tax increase will generate more than $19 billion in revenue over the next 30 years. Of that money, 40% will go to rail projects and 20% to the region’s bus system. The other 40% would be divided between Charlotte and Mecklenburg’s six towns for road projects.
Some projects have priority, and some could come together faster because of their size and scope, local leaders say. Here’s what voters should expect when it comes to work starting:
When would work start on Red Line, other rail projects?
There’s no exact date yet for when crews would break ground on rail projects if the referendum passes. Existing plans include a general timeline and plans for prioritization.
The Red Line, a commuter rail line from uptown to Lake Norman-area towns
The Silver Line, a light rail line from Charlotte Douglas International Airport to Bojangles Coliseum. The line was originally slated to run from Belmont to Matthews but was shortened due to budgetary constraints over the objection of some east Mecklenburg leaders
An extension of the Blue Line light rail to Carolina Place in Pineville
An extension of the Gold Line streetcar from the Rosa Parks Community Transit Center to Eastland Yards
The Silver Line could eventually be extended further east, as could the Blue Line to Ballantyne, according to the plan.
The state law authorizing the referendum says the transit authority must complete at least 50% of the Red Line before completing any of the other rail projects on the docket. The commuter rail project has been in the works for decades but was hindered by a lack of access to railroad tracks and funding.
The Charlotte Area Transit System told The Charlotte Observer the rail projects are currently in the design stage and “will move as quickly as possible, with advancement within the next decade” if the tax increase passes.
What about buses, microtransit?
CATS’ overhaul of its bus system “would begin as soon as possible” if the tax increase passes, with a goal of completing the work within five years, the agency said. The plan, dubbed “Better Bus,” includes $3.8 billion in projects.
CATS plans to increase frequencies on its 15 busiest bus routes to 15 minutes or less.
Additional work would include:
Bus stop improvements, including 2,000 additional shelters, benches and waiting pads
Priority traffic signals for buses on the busiest routes
Bus fleet improvements, including 89 new buses
Increased express bus service frequency
The bus money would also fund an expansion of CATS’ microtransit program — a rideshare-like service currently operating in select parts of north Charlotte and Lake Norman-area towns — to 19 other parts of the county.
Charlotte, towns make plans for road projects
Road projects funded by the potential sales tax increase could begin in the next year or two.
Charlotte could begin work on road projects funded by new tax revenue as soon as money starts coming in, “which is anticipated to be in late 2026 or early 2027,” city spokesman Jack VanderToll said.
Davidson commissioners would decide the specific start dates for projects funded by the sales tax increase if it takes effect based on existing plans, resident feedback and the town’s prioritization process, town clerk Betsy Shores said.
Matthews expects revenue from the sales tax would be available to spend starting in fiscal year 2028, which begins July 2027, town spokeswoman Maureen Ryan said.
“In the meantime, we’ll continue planning and prioritizing transportation projects to be ready when the time comes,” she told the Observer.
Pineville plans to focus on smaller projects “from the onset” with the goal of starting “a more sizable road project” within 18 months to two years of receiving significant revenue, according to assistant town manager Chris Tucker.
Cornelius leaders plan to prioritize projects and set timelines for those projects if the referendum passes, town spokeswoman Emma Mondo said. Those projects may include “major road projects,” work on intersections and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and maintenance.
Huntersville spokesman Ethan Smith said the town doesn’t have details yet on when work would begin on projects funded by the potential tax increase.
Representatives for Mint Hill did not respond to questions from an Observer reporter about the town’s plans for its portion of the roads funding.
Mary Ramsey is the local government accountability reporter for The Charlotte Observer. A native of the Carolinas, she studied journalism at the University of South Carolina and has also worked in Phoenix, Arizona and Louisville, Kentucky. Support my work with a digital subscription
Last week in Nutley, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jack Ciattarelli pitched his gubernatorial candidacy to more than 100 people crowded inside Mamma Vittoria banquet hall.
Ciattarelli, who is making his third bid for the state’s top job, opened his remarks by referencing a group of protestors gathered outside on Franklin Avenue in this Essex County town.
SIGN UP HERE to get PhillyVoice’s free newsletters delivered to your inbox
“How disappointed are they going to be in 28 days?” Ciattarelli said to applause from the crowd of his supporters. “Because I’m here to tell you right here, right now, in 28 days, we’re declaring victory. We’re winning this race.”
It’s less than four weeks until New Jersey voters decide whether Ciattarelli, a former assemblyman, or Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill will become our next governor in a race that has become increasingly bitter as both sides claim the other is lying about their record. Rising costs, immigration, Sherrill’s military record, and Ciattarelli’s support of President Donald Trump have dominated the campaign in its most recent weeks.
The two are competing on Nov. 4 to replace outgoing Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat who is wrapping up his two terms as governor in January and cannot seek a third term this year. Vic Kaplan, a Libertarian, and Joanne S. Kuniansky, representing the Socialist Workers Party, will also be on the ballot.
Sherill told reporters during a campaign stop at Kean University Monday that the large turnout for June’s six-person Democratic gubernatorial primary indicated how eager the party is to remain in power for a third straight term.
“That’s the kind of enthusiasm we’re seeing on the ground. We are working to get that, take that enthusiasm and ensure that every single person gets to the polls,” she said.
Polling edge
Since polling ramped up at the start of September, surveys of the contest have usually shown Sherrill with a sizable single-digit lead.
Though some polls have suggested a closer race — including a tied result from an Emerson College poll released last month — Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll director Dan Cassino believes Sherrill has the edge.
“I think we do see Democrats freaking out and getting worried and being nervous because they’re Democrats in New Jersey and that is their species’ being,” Cassino said. “I don’t think we have any particular reason for them to be nervous, but I think they very much are.”
An Axios report cited private conversations with unnamed Democrats to say the party is increasingly concerned that Sherrill could lose the race. Sherrill brushed the criticism off on Monday, suggesting national Democrats “are in a different place.”
“This is just the kind of, I think, electorate that is ready to fight hard for the things we care about, and I think we’ll see those results in November,” she said.
Ashley Koning, director of Rutgers University’s Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling, warned the race would come down to turnout — something next to impossible to forecast.
“Turnout has never been something that’s predictable, but it certainly is not predictable now, and when you overlay the national political context on top of our race in this state, it is incredibly difficult to get a good handle on where this actually is, other than of course it’s close,” Koning said.
Polls of New Jersey’s 2021 gubernatorial race — when Murphy faced Ciattarelli — mostly missed the mark. Though Real Clear Politics’ polling average showed Murphy up 7.8 points over Ciattarelli, the governor won reelection by just 3.2 points.
Pollsters have made some changes to prevent another miss. Fairleigh Dickinson University’s poll began weighting its results by education and region to more accurately reflect attitudes across the state, Cassino said, though the effect of such changes is so far untested.
There are other reasons to think the race will be close, and the candidates’ increasing acrimony numbers near the top of the list.
Sherrill and Ciattarelli have launched ads seeking to tar their opponent in what Cassino said is a bid to drive down turnout among their rival’s base.
“The fact that it’s turned negative tells you both candidates think this race is up for grabs,” Cassino said, later adding, “This is trying to winnow the electorate down to just the most committed voters because both sides think they have an advantage there.”
Rough and tumble
Turnout in this year’s governor’s race is expected to be low, as is typical for the state’s odd-year elections. In 2021, just 40% of the state’s eligible voters cast ballots in the general election.
But the campaigns’ turn toward mudslinging could also just reflect the growing bitterness of American politics.
“I think that’s what politics is nowadays. I think we have seen more and more nationalized campaigns, including here in the Garden State,” said Koning. “This is just what politics is. This is what it’s expected to be, and that civility and decorum that used to once, potentially, accompany it is gone.”
Ben Dworkin, director of the Rowan Institute for Public Policy and Citizenship, said this year’s negativity hasn’t reached any high-water marks.
“Negative campaigns, contrasts over policies happen all the time. Personal attacks are unfortunate, but they happen in this game. We’re not playing tiddlywinks here,” he said. “This is New Jersey politics. It’s a rough-and-tumble sport.”
Trump could also prove an unpredictable variable in the race.
Sherrill has invoked him often on the campaign trail, hoping to tap the same animus that helped propel her to her first congressional term in 2018. On Monday, she criticized the effect of Trump’s tariffs and the continued federal government shutdown, which Democrats blame on Republicans and Republicans blame on Democrats.
“Voters are seeing Trump is costing them an incredible amount of money, and every time they go to Jack to say, ‘What are you going to do about it?’ his response is largely, ‘I agree with it,’” she said.
Ciattarelli’s mentions of Trump have largely been to mock Sherrill for her focus on him.
“If you get a flat tire on the way home today, it’s President Trump’s fault,” Ciattarelli joked in Nutley. “There’s nothing this woman won’t blame on President Trump.”
Historically, New Jersey backs the governor who doesn’t share the president’s party affiliation. Murphy bucked that trend to win reelection in 2021, but at least some of that win can be attributed to the pandemic, Dworkin said.
The state also rarely selects a governor from the same party three times in a row. New Jersey last did so when Gov. Richard Hughes was elected to succeed Gov. Robert Meyner in 1961.
“I think the fact that we’re really not sure which one of these kinds of trends is going to be dominant reflects the closeness of the race,” Dworkin said.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
Nikita Biryukov and Sophie Nieto-Munoz, New Jersey Monitor
Charlotte City Council District 5 Representative Marjorie Molina applied for the board of trustees that would oversee the region’s new transportation authority. City council is responsible for appointing members to the board.
Matt Kelley
For the Observer
A Charlotte city councilwoman wants to serve on a countywide board she could help appoint, raising conflict of interest questions among her peers.
Marjorie Molina, who represents east Charlotte’s District 5, told council members at a meeting on Monday she submitted an application for the board of trustees that would oversee the new Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority. A full list of applicants who’ve applied so far hasn’t been publicly released. The authority also will only materialize if voters approve a proposed 1% transportation tax referendum this November.
Molina said her knowledge would benefit the board because she is the vice chair of the transportation, planning and development committee. But several council members worried about optics, with Councilwoman Tiawana Brown calling her application “a red flag.”
“There’s been a lot of confusion at this dais right now, and so I can understand why some people are saying no, and me being one of them,” Brown said.
Is it a conflict of interest if Molina serves on the transportation board?
A conflict presents itself if a council member has a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox told council on Monday. He didn’t see Molina’s application as a conflict of interest “at this point,” he said.
Molina called the role a volunteer position without financial benefit. However, Fox later noted state law does not prohibit board members from setting compensation for themselves.
Elected officials by law cannot serve “concurrently” on the board. That’s relevant to this situation, too, Fox said. Molina lost reelection to J.D. Mazuera Arias and will leave office before the authority would take effect.
“It depends on timing and whether or not the member is still an elected official,” Fox said.
Still, Molina’s tenure overlaps with the council’s deadline to make transportation board appointments. Her last day is Dec. 1, and appointments are due Nov. 24.
Molina said her colleagues brought valid concerns and pledged to recuse herself from the vote if she was still in consideration. She is weighing whether to withdraw her application.
“It’s a risk for me,” Molina said. “I risk losing my voice to offer my information, and I risk being a part of the process.”
Council members had mixed opinions— some encouraging Molina to join in the vote and others supporting a decision to step aside.
Ed Driggs, who chairs the committee on transportation, said he “wouldn’t be offended” if Molina retained her vote. Driggs thought the issue did not rise to the level of a conflict of interest, he said.
Councilwoman Renee Perkins Johnson said she would support Molina’s decision to excuse herself over the potential for negative public perception.
How will the transportation board be appointed?
Gov. Josh Stein signed the PAVE Act in June, allowing Mecklenburg County to place the referendum on ballots. If passed, it would overhaul the region’s transportation system and raise an estimated $20 billion over the next 30 years.
Under the PAVE Act, the referendum would establish an independent transit authority with a 27-member board to make transportation decisions. Members will serve for four years, though the inaugural board will include some two-year appointments so terms are staggered.
The city is responsible for appointing 12 of those members: the mayor chooses two people, the Charlotte Business Alliance recommends two people, Foundation for the Carolinas recommends one member and the city council chooses seven appointees.
A work group consisting of three council members will lead candidate interviews, then bring recommendations or summaries to the full council to consider and vote on. The exact interview process with the work group has not been finalized.
Molina said she would “have to recuse (herself)” from voting over perceived conflict if she makes it to the interview stage.
“In other words, I can’t vote for myself,” Molina said.
Nick Sullivan covers the City of Charlotte for The Observer. He studied journalism at the University of South Carolina, and he previously covered education for The Arizona Republic and The Colorado Springs Gazette.
“With so many people settling in Mecklenburg County, now is the time to make the critical infrastructure investments to keep the county a great place to live, work, and raise a family,” Stein said in a Tuesday statement. “This referendum will enhance safety, reduce congestion, and keep the region moving and thriving.”
NC Gov. Josh Stein, flanked by Charlotte-area leaders, signs a bill allowing Mecklenburg County to put a sales tax referendum on the ballot to pay for transportation projects. Behind Stein is Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles (in red dress) and State Rep. Tricia Cotham (in green dress). Screenshot YouTube
And on Friday, the influential Black Political Caucus announced its endorsement. Chair Jocelyn Jones-Nolley said in a statement the group’s “overwhelming vote of support demonstrates the unity of our members in recognizing the importance of this referendum to Mecklenburg County’s future.”
“We look forward to partnering with the Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority and other stakeholders to ensure community concerns are prioritized and addressed, and that the benefits of this investment are shared broadly across all neighborhoods,” she said. “This is about ensuring growth that works for everyone.”
Mecklenburg County voters will decide whether to approve a 1% sales tax increase to fund road, rail and bus projects. Plans include, among other initiatives, the construction of the Red Line commuter rail to the Lake Norman area and an overhaul of the region’s bus system.
The revamped public transit system would be led by a new regional authority.
Supporters say the plan will relieve traffic congestion and improve the region’s infrastructure. Opponents say a sales tax is regressive and question the decision to shorten the long-planned Silver Line light rail from the airport to eastern Mecklenburg County due to funding constraints.
Safety became part of the conversation about the referendum in recent weeks following the killing of Iryna Zarutska on the LYNX Blue Line in South End. Zarutska’s death also attracted national attention and a congressional hearing on crime in Charlotte on Monday.
CLT Alliance CEO Robert McCutcheon said in a statement Stein’s endorsement “reinforces the urgency of this moment.”
“With the Governor’s support, we are sending a clear message: this referendum is essential for the future of Mecklenburg County, and now is the time to act,” McCutcheon said.
The “Yes For Meck” campaign said in a statement the BPC’s endorsement “adds significant momentum to the referendum campaign.”
Election Day is Nov. 4, and early voting begins Oct. 16.
This story was originally published September 30, 2025 at 2:18 PM.
Mary Ramsey is the local government accountability reporter for The Charlotte Observer. A native of the Carolinas, she studied journalism at the University of South Carolina and has also worked in Phoenix, Arizona and Louisville, Kentucky. Support my work with a digital subscription
Pennsylvania voters will decide in November whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices – all Democrats – in an election with major ramifications for the composition of the commonwealth’s top appellate court.
Justices on the seven-member Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, are each elected to serve 10-year terms. When justices already serving on the bench reach the end of their cycles, they face retention elections with simple “yes” or “no” votes on whether to give them another 10-year term. A judge needs a majority to retain the seat. Partisan judicial elections are only held when the court has vacancies, most often because a justice has reached the state’s age limit of 75 years old. Rarely do seats open up as a result of a justice losing a retention election, which has happened only once since 2000.
“Pennsylvania traditionally has between 25% and one-third of people vote no on judicial retention candidates,” said David Senoff, a Philadelphia-based attorney who has helped lead past retention campaigns for both Democrats and Republicans on the state Supreme Court. “If you have a really organized ‘vote no’ campaign, maybe you can get that number close to 50%.”
The three justices up for retention this year – Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht – each were elected to the Supreme Court in 2015 in a historically unusual cycle with three vacancies. The three Democrats soundly outperformed their GOP opponents that year, capturing a majority on the court after Republicans had held the advantage for more than a decade.
Campaign spending on the 2015 race topped $16 million, making it the most expensive state Supreme Court election in U.S. history at the time. When Justices Kevin Brobson, a Republican, and Daniel McCaffery, Democrat, were elected in races for single open seats in 2021 and 2023, respectively, spending in each surpassed $10 million.
Retention elections typically don’t attract as much money or attention, in part because candidates are not running against opponents, but this year is viewed as an outlier because it presents a rare chance for Republicans to free up as many as three seats.
With just over a month to go before the Nov. 4 election, filings from the three justices up for retention show they have already raised nearly $3 million combined. TV and online ads from interest groups have cast the races, normally a down-ballot issue, as an ideological moment of truth for Pennsylvania.
“This year’s retention elections have certainly drawn increased attention because of the hyper-politicized environment that we are in generally,” said civil litigation lawyer John Hare, who co-chairs the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Historical Commission and Commission on Judicial Independence. “If past is prologue, this court will be required to decide the most important issues that jurists are called upon to decide – civil rights, the death penalty, redistricting, issues of life and death.”
‘We want them in courthouses’
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was established in 1722 and is the oldest continuously operating appellate court in the Western Hemisphere. While justices were originally appointed by the governor with Senate confirmation, the switch to an electoral system was made in 1850 with an amendment to the state Constitution.
“Whether appointed or elected judges are better has been debated by Pennsylvanians for decades,” Hare said.
In the late 1950s, a state commission sought to reform judicial selection to an initial appointment system followed by retention votes. That effort was voted down by the public, but the search for a balanced approach led to the establishment of the current elections and retention cycles in 1968.
“The more overt politicking required by an elective system is seen as distasteful for judges who generally are – and are supposed to be – above politics,” Hare said. “That has been the main criticism, the necessary interjection of political realities into judicial races.”
One of the challenges for justices seeking retention is that they have to campaign in ways that don’t violate judicial ethics. This year, even though justices are barred from partisan campaigning and discussing cases, the three Democrats up for retention have jointly held public forums in Philadelphia to talk about the impartiality of the court system.
“The collective wisdom is we don’t want our judges out on the campaign trail,” Senoff said. “It doesn’t matter what party they are. We want them in courthouses doing their work.”
Pennsylvania has fewer campaign finance limitations on judicial candidates than races for any other statewide office. There are no caps on individual donations. Outside of ethics considerations, the only restriction for judges already on the bench is that they can’t start raising money until after the November election of the year prior to their retention vote.
Senoff said many judges voluntarily make adjustments during and after their campaigns to account for taking money from lawyers and businesspeople, including those with pending cases. They may temporarily recuse themselves from cases connected to campaign donors to avoid the appearance of bias or impropriety.
In the legal community, attorneys routinely support candidates from both parties and view retention elections as a nonpartisan procedure.
“I know people don’t ever believe that,” Senoff said. “But on the ballot there will be no party identification. It’s just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for a particular judge.”
History favors justices up for retention
The last time a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania lost a retention bid was in 2005, when Philadelphia-based Justice Russell Nigro, a Democrat, was voted off the court by a 51%-49% margin. Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, a Republican from Philadelphia, narrowly retained her seat with 54% of the vote that year.
The retention election in 2005 is considered an odd case. Months earlier, the state legislature approved a pay raise for state lawmakers, judges and top elected officials during an early-morning session with minimal public notice. Lawmakers voting to give government officials raises was an unpopular move that many voters took out on judges who benefited but were not directly involved.
“The governor signed it and the judges were part of that pay raise, and so it was easy to paint the judges as part of this ‘midnight pay raise,” Senoff said.
Dougherty, Donohue and Wecht do not face an immediate uproar against state government and none of them are enveloped by scandal, which also has cost justices their seats in years past.
Before his election to the Supreme Court, Dougherty spent 14 years on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia specializing in family law cases. Donohue was a trial lawyer in Allegheny County for decades and served as state Superior Court judge before reaching the Supreme Court. Wecht similarly served as a Superior Court judge, also with a background in family law, before he was elected to the Supreme Court.
Some of the “vote no” messaging about the three Democratic justices has lumped them together as part of a decade-long Supreme Court majority that authored contentious decisions regarding COVID-19 protocols, education, redistricting and other issues.
“Those cases become magnified during campaign season, and they do tend to capture the public’s attention because they are so easily exploited by either side,” Hare said. “The ‘vote yes’ ads that are on TV focus on abortion and contraception. I think in a swing state like Pennsylvania, those hot-button national issues will always resonate because all you need to do is swing a couple percent of the electorate.”
In the event that any of the three justices are not retained, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, would then be able to appoint interim judges that would require consent from the Republican-controlled Senate. A battle over replacements could disrupt the court’s operations until an open, partisan election would be held next year to fill the vacancy.
The Democratic National Committee announced last week it will make a “six-figure investment” to protect Pennsylvania’s high court from “MAGA extremists” and the influence of “billionaires across the country” as their spending increases on the “vote no” campaign.
“I think with PACs, candidates and others, this race could easily reach $10 million,” said Deborah Gross, president of the nonprofit Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which educates the public about the judiciary and advocates for impartiality and fairness in the courts. “This will definitely be the most expensive retention race is PA history.”
Gross noted that all three justices have been endorsed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the state’s influential professional association for lawyers.
Among the general voting public, Senoff said it’s common for people to tune out judicial elections. Many voters have difficulty remembering candidates’ names, and telling them to “vote no” could even end up impacting Republican judges in lower court races.
A spending blitz on ads may ramp up visibility and partisan antagonism, but Senoff is skeptical that it will significantly move the needle in November. He said it’s harder to motivate people to vote to remove a single candidate than it is to get them to choose between one or another.
“You have to convince the voters to fire people,” he said. “If there’s not something that this particular justice has done that you think is so beyond the pale, generally it’s better to vote retain your judges. At a minimum, you retain consistency. If you lose three justices who have been there for 10 years, the combined institutional knowledge loss would be outrageous.”
Photo: Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg/Getty Images
The upcoming vote for mayor and other municipal offices is the main event on Election Day, but New Yorkers will also weigh in on a ballot question that, if approved, would start the process of revising the City Charter and the State Constitution to move city elections from the current odd-numbered-year schedule and make them coincide with the year we pick presidential candidates. If that happens, we’ll be joining cities like Baltimore and Los Angeles that recently changed their calendars.
Lots of well-intentioned political leaders, including Governor Kathy Hochul, think it’s a great idea. I don’t.
“There’s not the voter participation that we should have in a country like the United States of America,” Hochul told me recently. “It is a privilege to vote, people shed blood for this right, it was denied to people of color for so many decades — for a hundred years — and people won that right. I want more people to exercise. And what happens is in a non-presidential election, non-governor’s election year, there’s not as much attention.”
No argument there; the numbers show that lots more New Yorkers come out to vote for president than for mayor or any other local office. Last year, according to city figures, just over 60 percent of the city’s 4.7 million active registered voters turned out in the race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. That’s not far behind the national average of around 64 percent, and much higher than the 23 percent who voted in the 2021 general election for New York City offices.
Overall, turnout in city elections has been trending downward for decades. Just over 32 percent of voters came out in 2001, and that number dropped in 2005 and 2009, reaching an all-time low of only 20 percent of registered voters casting ballots in the 2013 election, with slight upticks in 2017 and 2021. New York’s quarter-century of steadily declining participation is what worries Hochul.
“We wish everybody would participate all four years, but they don’t, so let’s acknowledge human nature,” she told me. “I also think there’s something that goes on — it’s election fatigue. People need a break; otherwise, it’s nonstop campaigning all year round for four straight years. And I think when you sometimes have special elections, and vacancies, and the mayor — we have school-board races at different times — it’s very confusing to people. So let’s just simplify it and have one big election.”
The main problem with “one big election” is that national political dynamics would inevitably cause vital city issues unique to New York to get swallowed, distorted, or ignored. Take the issue of congestion pricing: After more than a decade of study, struggle, and the creation of an unlikely alliance among environmentalists, transportation advocates, and big businesses, Manhattan below 60th Street is currently the only place in America with a general toll on vehicles. It’s safe to assume that most voters in car-dominant swing states like Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan don’t understand or care about New York’s innovative experiment — and might decide to attack it, as Trump vowed to do before the election (and, thankfully, has thus far been blocked from doing by a federal court). New York is better off deciding local issues without a lot of political noise coming from — or intended for — other places.
And imagine trying to help voters focus on strictly local matters — like when to close Rikers Island, how to fund public housing, or whether to boost money for our parks — while national candidates are spending hundreds of millions of dollars flooding the airwaves with ads for and against sweeping issues like the 900-page Project 2025 agenda. The last thing we need is local candidates bloviating about funding Social Security or supporting NATO instead of telling us how they plan to improve trash pickups, improve the schools, or hire more social workers to help the homeless.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Back in 1894, reformers changed the State Constitution to hold city elections in a so-called “off year” specifically so that decisions would be made by people concerned about local issues without the distraction of national issues like war and peace. More than a century later, for some reason, today’s reformers see that intentional narrowing of focus as a bad thing.
“I think New Yorkers can walk and chew gum at the same time,” says Richard Buery, who chaired the Charter Revision Commission supporting a change in the election calendar. “Right now, in the middle of this mayoral election, it’s not like people aren’t talking and dealing with the issues at the federal level and national level,” he told me. “I think people can figure out what matters.”
I’m not so sure about that. Year after year, researchers and pollsters find that most Americans don’t know who represents them in Congress and can’t name the three branches of government. A University of Pennsylvania survey recently found that “over half of Americans (51 percent) continue to assert incorrectly that Facebook is required to let all Americans express themselves freely on its platform under the First Amendment.” It’s hard enough trying to inform the public about hyperlocal issues like neighborhood rezonings or installing bike lanes; trying to simultaneously discuss farm subsidies, funding for health research, and other issues would be all but impossible.
If New York is going to be hell-bent on increasing participation, we should be at least a little bit concerned about making sure it’s informed participation.
Beyond the policy questions, New York’s local political scene can only benefit from keeping some distance and difference from the national parties. One reason Republicans in New York have been pushed to the edge of extinction over the last decade — no GOP candidate has won a statewide office since 2002 — is that voters associate them with a national party that has become stridently conservative and wholly subservient to President Trump. Curtis Sliwa, the current Republican candidate for mayor, told me he can’t win without getting support from disaffected Democrats — and that his already uphill battle for City Hall would become almost impossible if Trump endorsed him or otherwise got involved in the race.
On the other side of the aisle, city Democrats skew significantly more to the left than the national party — witness the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani — and it’s not clear that older, centrist national Democrats, who rallied around Joe Biden even after it was clear that he should retire, have the energy to lead, absorb, or suppress the youth-powered political movement surging through New York. Which is one more reason we should make sure city elections remain by and for New Yorkers only.
Longtime LGBTQ rights activist Allen Roskoff’s club is launching a campaign to recruit a progressive Democrat to run against Mayor Adams in 2025 — marking the first official left-wing effort aimed at ousting the incumbent, who already holds a big fundraising edge ahead of the next election cycle.
Roskoff, an erstwhile friend to Adams who has soured on him lately over what he sees as the mayor’s conservative tendencies, told the Daily News last week that the effort, dubbed “Coalition for Mayoral Choice,” will be modeled after a similar initiative he and other progressives undertook in 1981 to challenge then-Mayor Ed Koch.
In that time, Roskoff and his compatriots recruited liberal Brooklyn Assemblyman Frank Barbaro to run against Koch. After being outspent 10-to-1, Barbaro clinched 36% of the vote in that year’s Democratic primary, losing to Koch, who received 59.8%.
But Roskoff said he’s not intimidated by Adams’ war-chest and argued it’s critical that New York City Democrats are presented with an alternative in the next mayoral election.
“We deserve better; we deserve a choice,” Roskoff said before listing off his various grievances with Adams. “The world watches as New York City navigates complex issues, from the lack of affordable housing to living wage employment to the ongoing debate surrounding the migrant influx and New York City’s responsibility as a sanctuary city. Regrettably, the discourse around these topics, propagated by Mayor Adams, has been marked by anger, vitriol and right-wing talking points. Instead of welcoming our new neighbors, the mayor has castigated them.”
New York City Gun Violence Prevention Task Force
Luiz C. Ribeiro/for New York Daily News
Mayor Eric Adams
A spokesman for Adams’ reelection campaign did not immediately return a request for comment Sunday on Roskoff’s announcement.
Adams won the mayoral primary in 2021, defeating 12 challengers to become the Democratic nominee. The primary race included progressives such as Dianne Morales and Maya Wiley, often seen as foils to Adams’ more centrist leanings. Adams went on to win the general election over Republican Curtis Sliwa.
Roskoff declined to name any politicians in particular he’d like to see mount a 2025 challenge against Adams.
He said his Jim Owles group has already met with several local elected officials and activists who are interested in joining the coalition. The goal is for the coalition to conduct a search for progressives willing to challenge Adams and then narrow it down to one candidate they can coalesce around, according to Roskoff.
“We want to make it clear that our intention is to promote a progressive perspective in addressing the fundamental needs of our city,” he said. “We urge the progressive community to unite behind a single mayoral candidate and outline how they intend to address our unique requirements while upholding our core principles.”
The coalition won’t set up a website or a fundraising machinery for starters, though Roskoff said that could change.
For weeks, rumors have swirled in political circles about who could pull off a primary fight against Adams, who has drawn the ire of the city’s progressive class by calling for steep spending cuts across a variety of city agencies.
New York Budget
Hans Pennink/AP
Sen. Jessica Ramos
Names floated as potential contenders include Queens state Sen. Jessica Ramos, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and Brooklyn Assemblyman Zellnor Myrie.
Along with the launch of the Coalition for Mayoral Choice, Roskoff’s club planned to host a barbecue in Manhattan on Sunday afternoon that was expected to be attended by several prominent progressives, including Ramos.
Ramos did not return a request for comment Friday.
“We, the people, deserve a mayor who values competence above special treatment,” he said. “We, the people, deserve a mayor who does not appoint bureaucrats with anti-LGBTQ sentiments.”
