A classic study in political contrasts emerged this week, as a challenger in arguably New Jersey’s most competitive congressional contest displayed a more voracious, gritty, justice-minded, and effective under-the-hood public policy presence than the moribund incumbent she seeks to displace.
Former executive director of Working Families Sue Altman, running for the Democratic nomination in CD-7, spearheaded an unsettled 2021 civil rights lawsuit, Conforti v. Hanlon, which substantively mirrors the lawsuit filed this year by U.S. Senate candidate Andy Kim. Like Kim in his suit, the plaintiffs in Conforti v. Hanlon, including Altman, seek relief from what they see as an unfair ballot design in New Jersey.
From CLC:
“New Jersey is the only state in the nation that uses a bracketing system for its ballot design in primary elections: it organizes groupings of candidates in a column or row, rather than listing the office sought followed by a list of each candidate in that race. Candidates who are running for different offices that are in the same bracket are featured together, whereas unbracketed candidates are exiled to separate sections of the ballot.
“This bracketing system is flawed for several reasons. First, candidates who are bracketed are given access to more preferable ballot positions – for instance, further to the left or closer to the top. Research has shown that this leads to “position bias” that systematically advantages certain candidates over others. Candidates endorsed by county parties are also frequently bracketed together, disadvantaging other candidates who are either on their own or grouped with another unbracketed candidate. Finally, this design is confusing for voters and often obscures which candidate is running for which office – failing to meet a fundamental objective of good ballot design.”
That unsettled case now informs Judge Zahid Quraishi’s reasoning as this week he considers Kim’s case against the backdrop of the developing Democratic Primary for United States Senate. Quraishi basically said in Conforti v. Hanlon that he doesn’t need to deal with state court decisions. That’s significant because it is a state court case supplying the legal framework for New Jersey’s unique balloting structure. Quaremba v. Allan, settled before the New Jersey State Supreme Court in 1975, asserts that it is not “an abuse of discretion for a county clerk to accord affiliated candidates a line of their own. ‘On the contrary he should [place them on a line of their own] if that course is feasible and if in the context of the whole ballot it would afford all the voters a clearer opportunity to find the candidates of their choice.’”
Sources this week are preparing for Quraishi to rule against the line, signaled in part by a letter issued by state Attorney General Matt Platkin, which made Platkin appear to want to get out ahead of the judge.
As a party to Conforti, Altman will be able to argue that she was way ahead of the game: ahead of Kim, ahead of Platkin, ahead of a slow-footed and mostly dull-witted New Jersey political establishment that fell asleep at the switch years ago, relying on creaking laws to uphold their dangerously fragile – and arguably publicly disinterested – edifice.
Altman’s notoriously press evasive and publicly bashful opponent, U.S. Rep. Tom Kean (R-7), simultaneously has crinkled like wallpaper into a Donald Trump-dominated Republican Party, with nothing of penetrating significance to say amid the clash of these times, as issues of great weight soar like swinging guillotines in a Jan. 6, 20021-threatened democracy.
Starkly defined, it supplies a critical stage two to the story of Altman, who as leader of the Working Families Alliance fought South Jersey Democratic Party Powerbroker in Camden, going so far as to get the heave ho out of a Trenton hearing room, while, again, Kean lived in apparent symbiotic acquiescence to the system.
Most notably when it comes to Kean, Democrats will attack unrelentingly in a presidential election year with Trump on the ballot and Kean under him in a district whose signature county – Somerset – in 2020 went 111,000 to 72,000 for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.
From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earlier this month:
“Tom Kean Jr. has gone to great lengths to put off answering any and all questions about whether or not he will vote for criminally-indicted Donald Trump.
Now, Super Tuesday has come and gone, and the Republican Party has made Trump the presumptive nominee and backed his dangerous, extreme record of:
-
Facing 91 felony charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States for his efforts to overturn a free and fair election, including by directing a “violent” and “angry” mob to the Capitol on January 6th.
“Tom Kean Jr. no longer has any wiggle room when it comes to whether or not he will support the leader of his MAGA party and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump,” said DCCC Spokesperson Aidan Johnson. “New Jerseyans are done with Junior’s weak hedging around who he supports for president.”
Kean will likely follow his 2022 strategy, which frontend-loaded a schedule heavy on back door getaways and grinning press-averse galloping, trusting in the GOP-favoring dimensions of the district to carry him.
But it hardly looks like leadership, especially as his upstart opponent drives the biggest, potentially most significant political decision in recent New Jersey history – no hyperbole – not in the name of crude boss politics (the essence of the GOP’s Donald Trump problem) but in the face of it, making CD-7, to say the least, volatile.
(Visited 112 times, 112 visits today)
In the world of politics and leadership, the Altman v. Kean case has been a topic of much discussion and analysis. This case, which involved a leadership dispute between two prominent figures in New Jersey politics, has shed light on the different styles of leadership and management that can exist within the same organization.
The case involved a power struggle between former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and his former chief of staff, John Altman. Altman accused Kean of micromanaging and interfering in his work, while Kean claimed that Altman was not effectively carrying out his duties.
One of the key differences in leadership style between Kean and Altman was their approach to decision-making. Kean was known for his hands-on approach and tendency to involve himself in every aspect of the organization’s operations. This micromanaging style often led to conflicts with his subordinates, who felt that their autonomy was being undermined.
On the other hand, Altman preferred a more hands-off approach to leadership. He believed in delegating tasks to his team members and allowing them the freedom to carry out their responsibilities without constant interference. This approach often led to greater efficiency and productivity within the organization, as employees felt empowered to take ownership of their work.
Another key difference in leadership style between Kean and Altman was their communication styles. Kean was known for his direct and sometimes confrontational communication style, which could be off-putting to some of his colleagues. Altman, on the other hand, was known for his diplomatic and collaborative approach to communication, which helped him build strong relationships with his team members.
Ultimately, the Altman v. Kean case serves as a valuable lesson in the importance of understanding and adapting to different leadership styles within an organization. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership, it is important for leaders to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their own style and be willing to adjust their approach when necessary.
By analyzing the leadership differences in the Altman v. Kean case, we can gain valuable insights into the complexities of leadership and management in the political arena. As organizations continue to evolve and face new challenges, understanding and embracing diverse leadership styles will be crucial for success in the future.
