| Publications | Commentary | Newsletters | In the News | Press Releases |
 |
 |
New Jersey Politics
If you found yourself on Jeopardy and host Alex Trebec said, "this state ranks last in the nation in terms of women's political participation," what would you say?
Chances are you'd blurt out some confirmed "red" state where conventional wisdom holds that a woman's place is in the home-not the House or Senate. Never would you imagine that the answer would lie somewhere in the Northeast, where you would think people have more open minds.
But, unless you said "New Jersey" it would cost you money.
How can this be? The numbers are clear and stark. According to a recent survey by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, New Jersey is doing horribly. The last-place ranking is based on four criteria: the percentage of women registered to vote; the percentage actually voting; females in elected office; and institutional resources to help women move up the political ladder.
As is the case in every state except Pennsylvania, women are more likely than men to register. But with 63 percent of women registered in the Garden State it ranks only 38th. Worse, New Jersey is one of only seven states where women vote in a lower percentage than men (45 percent in 1998 and 2000-41st in the country. The state ranks 31st in institutional resources.
But none of these rankings is as embarrassing as this: New Jersey is 48th in female representation in elected office. The only worse states? Now you can think red: Mississippi and South Carolina. There are no women in New Jersey's 15-member delegation to the US Congress. There are only 19 women in New Jersey's 120-seat Legislature. Among our neighboring states, Maryland has 63 female state legislators, Connecticut 55, New York 48 and Pennsylvania 36.
This goes beyond focusing on the circumstance under which any particular woman loses any particular election. After all, men lose too. No, numbers of this magnitude point to a systemic problem. Some 80-odd years after winning the right to vote, women have not made it anywhere close to being equal partners in New Jersey's political life. And this is not new: California today has18 women in its congressional delegation while New Jersey has sent only five to Washington in the state's history.
One contributing factor is New Jersey being one of only two states where the Governor is the only executive branch official who is elected. This robs women of the opportunity. In fact, it's a good argument for why New Jersey should establish the post of lieutenant governor. Indeed, 16 of the nation's 42 lieutenant governors are women (in addition to nine governors). The state with the most women elected to executive branch positions is Alabama with five. Connecticut and Oklahoma have four each and many states have three. New Jersey has had many women appointed to high-ranking cabinet positions, but running for office provides much more visibility and so is helpful for women who want to rise even higher.
Money is a problem too. The costs of campaigning in New Jersey go up every year, especially with the state's reliance on hugely expensive advertising on New York and Philadelphia TV stations. Men have been at fundraising longer; they are better connected to big bucks. And, again, women who are appointed to cabinet positions, instead of elected, have no opportunity to create a fundraising base.
New Jersey's political infrastructure is not much help either. The most powerful people when it comes to deciding who will run for legislative seats in New Jersey-and providing the money to do so-are the two parties' county chairs. Only four of those 42 seats are occupied by women.
And a look down at the grassroots provides little reason for optimism. According to statistics kept by the Center for Women in American Politics at Rutgers University, only 13 percent of New Jersey's mayors are women. The situation is better with freeholders, CAWP reports-26 percent-but the bottom line is that women are far behind men.
Should this matter to anyone other than female activists? Yes, it should. One reason is that a CAWP survey of females in office found them to be considerably more likely than men to get involved in healthcare issues and matters that affect children and families. Another is that CAWP also found women to be more inclusive and more responsive to members of the public in creating legislation and developing priorities. Knowing that, it's not a stretch to imagine that more women in office just might produce less corruption. And while that can't be said for certain, it's indisputable is that men have had their chance and the results in New Jersey aren't so great. Guys, move over and let someone else have a chance.
| © 2008 New Jersey Policy Perspective |  |