See who won the primary election for three Bergen County Commissioners seats
Bergen County's incumbent Democratic commissioners Tom Sullivan, Mary Amoroso and Germaine Ortiz won the primary election against three challengers — Chris Chung, John Vitale and Dolores Witko — who were backed by Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, who lost his bid for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination to Assemblywoman Mikie Sherrill.
Sullivan, Amoroso and Ortiz, who were backed by the county Democratic committee, garnered 34,432 votes, 39,448 votes and 32,961 votes, respectively, according to unofficial vote totals as of Wednesday morning.
Former Palisades Park Mayor Chris Chung, former Bergen County Democratic Organization state Assembly candidate John Vitale and former Closter Councilwoman Dolores Witko received 27,407 votes, 23,958 votes and 21,887 votes, respectively.
They will face Republican candidates Jeffrey 'Jay' Costa Jr., Linda Barba and Andrea Slowikowski, who ran with support from the county GOP organization, won their party's nomination against Armen Azarnia and John Dinice, according to unofficial vote totals.
NJ elections: Has NJ ever had a female governor? What states have female governors now?
During the campaign, Amoroso, the vice chairwoman of the commissioners, said that she and her running mates are dedicated to building a strong future for everyone, citing increased funding for special education programs and the planned opening of a new career and technical school later this year.
She was first elected to public office in 2015 to the Mahwah Township Council and is running for a third term as a commissioner.
Ortiz, the chairwoman of the Board of Commissioners, was first elected in 2016. A financial analyst for more than two decades, she said she was focused on improving residents' quality of life while maintaining fiscal discipline and expanding on shared services agreements across the county.
Sullivan was first elected to the county board in 2015. In 2021, he was nominated by Murphy and confirmed by the Senate to the New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority.
Vitale, Chung and Witko were hoping to take advantage of the elimination of the party line on ballots. With the new ballot, the candidates believed they might reach voters who in the past may have voted down the line, which would group candidates who won the backing of county political parties. The practice led to keeping the same people in office and the county hadn't seen a competitive Democratic primary for the Board of Commissioners in years.
On Tuesday, however, even with the new ballots, both Democratic and Republican candidates who had support from their parties secured the nominations to run in November's general election.
'While I'm disappointed with the outcome of the primary, I want to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who supported our campaign and believed in our vision for Bergen County,' Chung said.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: See Bergen County Commissioners primary election results for 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Declassified Election-Related Emails Portray FBI as 'Broken Institution'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Recently declassified documents pertaining to purported Chinese interference in the 2020 presidential election portray the FBI as a "broken institution," according to a top Senate Republican. Newsweek reached out to the bureau via email for comment on Tuesday. Why It Matters In mid-June, FBI Director Kash Patel declassified documents that "detail alarming allegations" about potential Chinese interference in the Donald Trump-Joe Biden election. The documents were then shared for review with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican and chair of the Judiciary Committee. China has denied any nefarious involvement in swaying the election results in 2020, and again in 2024. Allies of President Trump have alleged that China rigged the 2020 results in former President Biden's favor, invigorating hardcore supporters to march on the Capitol, leading to the siege of January 6, 2021. What To Know On Tuesday, Grassley released internal FBI emails that he claims reveal how the agency "suppressed intelligence of alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election to insulate then-FBI Director Christopher Wray from criticism," after he "provided inaccurate and contradictory testimony to Congress." "These records smack of political decision-making and prove the Wray-led FBI to be a deeply broken institution," Grassley said in a statement. "Ahead of a high-stakes election happening amid an unprecedented global pandemic, the FBI turned its back on its national security mission. "One way or the other, intelligence must be fully investigated to determine whether it's true, or if it's just smoke and mirrors. Chris Wray's FBI wasn't looking out for the American people—it was looking to save its own image. Now's the time to rebuild the FBI's trust." Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to become FBI director, on July 12, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to become FBI director, on July 12, 2017, in Washington, D.C. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Grassley spokesperson Clare Slattery told Newsweek that the senator "draws no conclusions as to any potential impact these allegations may have had on the election." "Grassley's release is exposing the Wray FBI for failing to properly investigate this allegation due to a political calculation," Slattery said. "He is not drawing conclusions as to the veracity of the claims—that is for the FBI to do." The release of these new redacted emails is directly correlated to Patel saying last month that the Chinese Communist Party and potentially others are alleged to have been involved in interfering with the 2020 election outcome by manufacturing fake driver's licenses for the purpose of facilitating fraudulent mail-in ballots, Slattery said. Grassley said that what is being suppressed is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR) from the FBI's Albany Field Office on September 25, 2020, which contained information from an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS) alleging the Chinese government's production of "tens of thousands" of fraudulent driver's licenses to benefit then-presidential candidate Biden. The CHS was reinterviewed and their allegations purportedly backed the initial IIR's findings. An FBI Albany official described the source as "competent" and "authentic in his/her reporting," per emails, with a high level of confidence in the "9-10 range." The allegations, according to the FBI, showed signs of credibility but were not fully investigated due to the bureau's sudden and "abnormal" decision to halt the probe. Other FBI field offices and members within the intelligence community were disallowed from accessing or studying the IIR. The FBI's stated reason for doing so was because "the reporting will contradict Director Wray's testimony." What People Are Saying Wray, during sworn testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on September 24, 2020: "We take all election-related threats seriously, whether it is voter fraud, voter suppression, whether it is in person, whether it is by mail. And our role is to investigate the threat actors. Now, we have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it is by mail or otherwise. ... [B]ut people should make no mistake we are vigilant as to the threat and watching it carefully, because we are in uncharted new territory." FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino posted to X: "We typically work behind the scenes in this space, but we understand we need to rebuild your trust in the FBI and learn from past mistakes. That's why we have declassified and shared with Congress thousands of pages of documents related to our counterintelligence work, and it's why we're continuing to release as much as we can to the public." What Happens Next It remains unclear what further events to which the declassified documents could lead. Grassley's office did not say whether future hearings could be called to have Wray, members of the FBI or whistleblowers testify.
Cosmopolitan
36 minutes ago
- Cosmopolitan
Here's Why People Are Upset About the Supreme Court's New Porn Age-Restriction (and How Billie Eilish is Somehow Involved)
If you're unfamiliar, last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision to uphold a Texas law, the goal of which is to prevent underage kids from accessing online pornography. The strategy outlined in the Supreme Court's recent Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton ruling is to require porn sites to make users submit official identification that confirms they're above age before they start perusing through all of that adult content. You may be wondering, how does Billie Eilish factor in here? Because that's a pretty reasonable question. Now, while Billie's no Supreme Court Justice (but probably should be?), her name got thrown in the debate about this ruling thanks to her 2021 interview on the Howard Stern Show. 'I started watching porn when I was like 11,' she shared. 'I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn.' Apparently, upon hearing this soundbite, Republican Louisiana state representative Laurie Schlegel felt inspired to take action against the unregulated access kids have to porn on the internet. 'I just thought how courageous it was,' she told POLITICO in 2023 about Billie's statement, 'It just sort of reemphasized to me what a problem this is, especially for our children.' Schlegel then went on to introduce and pass the first state law requiring age-verification for porn, which started a ripple effect—18 other states passed similar laws (including the Texas one that was recently upheld). The lawmakers or political commentators who critique this ruling (of which there are many) are, of course, not arguing that kids should have unregulated access to pornography. You would be a severe freak if you chose to die on that hill. What the dissenters do argue, though, is that porn sites asking for ID is an inadequate fix and technically an infringement on our First Amendment rights. By asking people to upload their personal information to shady websites like (or whatever your preferred pornographic outlet may be), you're technically hindering their access to protected speech. Then you're also making people run the risk of having their official identification info their porn search history attached. And I'd argue that the line between a porn site and non-porn site gets blurrier every day. I was first exposed to porn via the hashtag #TittyTuesday on the app formerly known as Twitter. So when virtually every social platform has a dark corner where adult content's eagerly shared (check the bots in every viral tweet's response section, if you dare), why are only the websites explicitly branded as porn subject to this ruling? The children know how to look up #TittyTuesday! And, conversely, if all social platforms are to be redefined as porn, does that mean that we'd need to show ID everywhere we go on the internet? Where is the porn line in the sand here? Which would then become an even more major First Amendment no-no? There are plenty of gray areas within this subject topic, which is why the Supreme Court's dissenting judges in this case—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—argued that the law should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard. 'Many reasonable the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience,' Kagan said in her dissent. 'But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials for every adult. So a State cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children,' Instead, it was examined under intermediate scrutiny, which is a less rigorous standard of review and only requires that a law serve an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. In short, this debate's not about whether kids should get to access porn but more about the means of stopping them from doing so. This case sets a weird precedent for applying a lower scrutiny to cases related to the First Amendment (free speech is no intermediate matter). And while lawmakers in support of this major ruling might love to keep Billie's name in their mouths, she might deserve some distance from this matter. Our girl loves free speech.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump-Musk feud reignites over the ‘big, beautiful bill'
The public and messy feud between President Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk was reignited this week over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' as Congress works to get the massive package to Trump's desk by July 4. Musk on Monday said he would back primary challengers to any Republicans who supported Trump's megabill and promised to donate to lawmakers who have drawn the administration's ire like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump then threatened to cut government contracts for Musk's companies and left open the possibility of deporting the South African CEO. Trump and Musk both had signaled they were ready to move on from their bitter fight nearly a month ago, but the president's megabill that Musk has called 'political suicide for the Republican Party' has brought the two men back to snipping. 'I think Washington is confused by the on-off again relationship between Trump and Musk. It looked like they had patched things up around a month ago,' said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, adding that the tech billionaire's X posts 'came out of nowhere for most people' after it seemed like he was 'looking to bury the hatchet' in recent weeks. Trump on Tuesday shrugged off concerns that the GOP could be swayed by Musk's megabill criticism, but doubled down on his suggestion that the federal government take a look at the contracts Musk's companies have. Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years, according to a February Washington Post analysis. 'No, I don't think so. I think what's going to happen is DOGE is going to look at Musk. And if DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune,' Trump said during a visit to a new migrant detention facility in Florida. 'I don't think he should be playing that game with me.' It's a sharp change in tone from the president, who had previously said he thinks he could make amends with Musk after their nasty disagreement last month. Asked on Tuesday morning what happened to Musk, Trump replied, 'nothing.' 'He's upset that he's losing his EV mandate and he's upset. He's very upset about things. But he could lose a lot more than that. I can tell you right now, Elon can lose a lot more than that,' he said, arguing that Musk's criticism of the bill is over a key provision that takes away the tax credit for electric vehicles that benefited his company. The president also signaled he would consider deporting the South African-born U.S. citizen, whom he had elevated to lead the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until late May. 'I don't know. I think we'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible,' Trump said. The president has praised the massive cuts and sweeping changes to the federal government under DOGE, despite pushback over job losses and service disruptions, and gifted Musk a gold key to the White House in May as recognition of the billionaire's work. But now, Musk is arguing that Trump's ambitious tax and spending package undermines DOGE efforts to rein in spending. As senators squabbled over the bill this past week, Musk blasted the spending package as 'utterly insane' and 'political suicide' for the GOP. On Monday, he renewed his calls for a new political party as he lamented estimates for how much the bill would raise the debt ceiling. 'Musk is unique in that he has enough money to probably actually impact a two-party system,' said a former Trump campaign official. 'Republicans obviously face challenges in their ability to govern, and so do Democrats, but right now all Trump wants is a bill with his name on it that he thinks is a good bill. A lot of Republicans in Congress know this isn't a good bill, but fear is a motivator,' the former campaign official said. 'We're a two-party country pure and simple. Musk is probably the only person that could change that given his money, but he'd have to find unique, credible candidates to attract the disillusioned voter who thus far has leaned Trump.' The Senate's version of the bill, which narrowly passed earlier on Tuesday, would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion between 2025 and 2034, roughly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk wrote on X. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.' The promises to back primary challengers against Republicans who support the megabill come after Musk – the world's richest man, with a staggering $397 billion net worth, according to Forbes – signaled plans this spring to step back from political spending after injecting hundreds of millions into the 2024 election. 'He could absolutely become a thorn in the side of the Republican Party by funding primary challengers. That would cause some headaches, no question about it,' Bonjean said. But Trump 'holds most of the cards,' Bonjean said, pointing to Trump's comments on the possibility of deportation and his authority over contracts that Musk and his companies touch. 'I don't think any candidate wants to have the world's richest man open up his war chest against him. But I think most members of Congress would rather have Trump's endorsement than Musk's millions,' said GOP strategist Alex Conant. But, one source who worked in Trump's first administration described the situation with Musk as not overly concerning, giving the support the president has from GOP lawmakers. 'The White House doesn't love the renewed back-and-forth, but no one sees this as a major political threat. It looks more like a flare-up than a serious inflection point,' the source said. 'This is Trump's party. The idea that rank-and-file Republicans would suddenly abandon him because of a feud with Elon just doesn't hold water.' Musk spent at least $250 million through his America PAC on Trump's election. During his tenure with DOGE, he kept an office in the White House complex, slept over in the Lincoln bedroom and touted that he and Trump were 'good friends.' Trump also consistently defended Musk while he faced backlash over his work to make cuts to federal spending and as Teslas were vandalized around the country. When asked about the reignited feud, the White House argued that the president is saving money for taxpayers with his policies. 'Many Presidents have promised, but none other than President Trump has delivered to actually make government more efficient and root out waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington, and that mission is moving full steam ahead,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an emailed statement. 'Under the President's leadership, every agency and department is executing this mission seamlessly and, as a result, has yielded more than $170 billion in savings for the American people.' The public nature of Trump and Musk's spat last month and renewed fight this week is one of the more remarkable parts of their friends-turned-foes saga. 'These are not two men who quietly settle their differences in the background. They're content to brawl it out in public,' said Conant. Musk wouldn't be the first figure in Trump's orbit elevated to a position of power 'only to fire and then fight with,' Conant noted, pointing to Trump's frayed relationship with his first-term Vice President Pence. 'Anybody who's paid attention to Trump over the last 10 years should not be surprised that he's not backing down from a fight with Elon Musk.'
