New Jersey Primary Election: Is 'Abolish ICE' a Winning Message for Democrats?

In a political landscape often defined by caution, a recent congressional primary in New Jersey offered a compelling glimpse into the evolving priorities of Democratic voters. Analilia Mejia, formerly the political director for Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, took an unconventional approach during her race. Beyond traditional campaign rallies, Mejia organized post-town hall training sessions focused on nonviolent resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Unconventional Campaign: Analilia Mejia's Bold Strategy

Mejia, daughter of Colombian and Dominican immigrants, expressed to me that voters are eager to grasp"how rising authoritarianism functions, how it's moved in other countries, how we can best resist it through nonviolence, noncompliance and education."Her candidacy for the seat previously held by New Jersey's new governor, Mikie Sherrill, was clearly driven by a desire to transcend conventional politics.

While many of her competitors in the crowded contest also voiced concerns about ICE, Mejia distinguished herself with an unwavering, clear opposition. Instead of merely advocating for reform, she explicitly called for ICE's abolition. She directly linked the agency's aggressive actions, particularly those observed in places like Minnesota, to a broader perceived assault on American democracy by President Trump, inspiring people with a conviction that collective action could make a difference.

Decoding the Primary Upset: Mejia's Unexpected Lead

New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, characterized by affluent commuter suburbs, is a reliably Democratic area but not typically a hub for left-wing activism. Yet, Mejia's bold message resonated deeply. The primary night was a dramatic affair: early returns led the election analytics site Decision Desk HQ to call the race for her opponent, former congressman Tom Malinowski. However, as Election Day ballots were tallied, the call was retracted. As of the time of this writing, the race remains incredibly tight, with Mejia holding an 868-vote lead amidst fewer than 3,000 provisional ballots remaining.

AIPAC's Miscalculation and the Backlash

Much of the initial media attention on this race centered on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) controversial and ultimately self-defeating campaign against Malinowski. Despite his moderate stance and generally pro-Israel record in Congress, Malinowski drew AIPAC's ire for refusing to pledge unconditional support for Israel. Hoping to bolster other candidates, AIPAC poured over $2 million into attack ads against him. This strategy backfired spectacularly as Mejia, who has voiced strong criticisms regarding Israel's actions, surged ahead, leaving their preferred candidates trailing.

A Barometer of Democratic Sentiment: Anger and Fear

The key takeaway from this primary extends beyond AIPAC's political blunders. Should Mejia secure the victory, it would underscore a palpable dissatisfaction among Democratic voters with what many perceive as their party's inadequate response to Trump's autocratic tactics. While a razor-thin plurality in a special election might not be conclusive, elections serve as crucial barometers of public sentiment. As the year's first congressional primary, this race was widely watched for insights into the Democratic electorate's mood.

The preliminary reading is stark: voters are furious and genuinely terrified, a level of intensity that many Democratic leaders may still underestimate. This apparent outcome has surprised many political insiders, with one Axios headline declaring,"The left smells blood after shocking Democratic primary result."However, longtime New Jersey pollster Patrick Murray wasn't surprised, noting,"this is an incredibly angry Democratic electorate."He argues that while New Jersey suburbanites haven't suddenly embraced democratic socialism, they view the Democratic establishment as ineffective and desire representatives who will actively challenge the president without hesitation. The underlying message, he explained, is that Democratic voters believe their party"should be on a war footing with Donald Trump."

The Nuance of 'Abolish ICE': A Critical Distinction

It's crucial to note that AIPAC's attack ads against Malinowski did not center on Israel. Instead, they targeted his congressional stock trading and, significantly, his 2019 vote that funded ICE. This detail highlights that even shadowy political organizations recognized the district's growing concern over immigration enforcement.

Many mainstream Democrats, likely including Malinowski, acknowledge that ICE operates with significant issues but are wary of demands to dismantle it. They recall how calls to "defund the police" during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests became a political liability, and fear a similar backlash on immigration. However, there's an essential, substantive difference between calling toabolish ICEand advocating to defund the police.

Why ICE is Different from Police Reform

Societies require police forces. But while immigration enforcement is necessary, the agency known as ICE is not. ICE is a relatively new entity, established just 22 years ago, and its increasingly paramilitary structure and actions raise serious alarm bells. Fueled by what some describe as Trump's massive funding increases, ICE's budget now surpasses that of many national militaries. A significant portion of its workforce has been recruited recently, allegedly through campaigns with explicitly white nationalist undertones. The agency is reportedly surveilling not just undocumented immigrants but also American citizens. Incidents of violence involving immigration agents, such as the shooting of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection or the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent, underscore a pattern of aggression that fosters terror in communities nationwide. Voters are increasingly reluctant to fund an agency perceived as an occupying force. When politicians merely suggest ICE needs 'reform,' it can sound weak and out of touch.

Mejia articulated this distinction:"We cannot continue to feed the beast."She clarifies that she doesn't advocate for open borders, asking,"How do you have a country without borders?"Instead, her argument is that ICE itself is irredeemable and must be replaced."What we are against is the chaos, the violence, the hatred, the impunity, the curtailment and violation of constitutional protections and rights,"she stated.

Voter Mandate: A Call for Adaptive Leadership

Democratic voters appear to agree. A recent YouGov poll indicated that a striking 76 percent of Democrats desire ICE's abolition, a sentiment also shared by 47 percent of independents. This level of support far surpasses the peak for 'defund the police,' which reached 43.4 percent among Democrats in July 2020. Trump's rapid efforts to undermine American democracy have thrust the nation into a new political reality, and Democratic voters are actively seeking leaders capable of adapting to it.

While taking bold stances that might be labeled 'radical' carries inherent risks, appearing to passively accept an intolerable status quo is arguably riskier. As Mejia succinctly put it,"Playing it safe is a mistake."The New Jersey primary suggests that for a growing segment of the electorate, particularly when it comes to issues like immigration enforcement, a strong, principled stance likeabolish ICEcould very well be a winning message.