ELECTION 2024 EXTRA EDITION
Waltham, Mass.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WINS ELECTION
■ A walkthrough of the election’s progress, which Former President Donald Trump is likely to win.
By JULIA HARDY JUSTICE ASSOCIATE EDITOR
On Nov. 5, 2024, people around the U.S. cast their vote to elect the next president. By the time polling sites opened, approximately 80 million people had already voted early. Polling in many states has shown Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump at nearly an even percentage throughout the day, particularly in the battleground states.
According to Columbia Broadcasting System News and Cable News Network Politics, there are seven swing states — or battleground states — that will have a significant impact on the outcome of the election. The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Each state polling site closed anywhere between 7 p.m. and 1 a.m. Eastern time, with Alaska polls being the last to close. With one hour left until the first wave of poll closings, the critical battleground states continued to be close races based on razor thin margins, according to News Broadcasting Company news coverage.
The first of the presidential election results came in from Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia. As predicted, the initial projection for Georgia was deemed too early to call by National Broadcasting Company News, as was Virginia, South Carolina and Indiana. Kentucky was projected for Trump and Vermont for Harris.
At 10 past 7 p.m., Microsoft NBC analyzed the first votes from Georgia shortly after poll closures, providing the initial information on one of the
battleground states. The next wave of poll closures at 7:30 p.m. brought more projected victories for Trump, with Ohio and West Virginia predicted to go to the former president. Kentucky was projected shortly after.
At this point in the night, results were just beginning to roll in, but at 8:00 p.m., the polls closed in 16 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in a huge influx of new information.
Of the 16 states, Pennsylvania is perhaps the most anticipated initial result, as it is one of the major battleground states. Of the 16 states, five states projected Trump to win, three for Harris and nine states were too early to call. D.C. was called for Harris. Most notably, all the battleground states where the polls closed — Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina — continued to be too close to call as of 8:04 p.m. EST, according to MSNBC.
At 8:11 p.m. EST, Georgia was labeled “too close to call” instead of “too early to call.” At 8:15, MSNBC gave South Carolina to Trump. Main battleground projection states — GA, NV and PA — continue to have inconclusive results. NBC News projected Arkansas to go to Trump.
At 9:00 p.m., 15 more polls closed, with the majority of the states inconclusive. Of those states, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming were all projected to go to Trump. However, CNN coverage suggested that “[n]o one had broken serve yet,” meaning that there has been no surprises yet.
In the battleground states, Harris was ahead in PA and Michigan, while Trump was ahead in North Carolina and Georgia, as of 9:00. Just 10 minutes later, Harris was predicted to win in Delaware, according to MSNBC.
As of 9:30 p.m., according to Associated Press News nine states had been projected wins for Harris and 17 have been given to Trump. The battleground states — NC, PA, AZ, WI and MI — continued to be too early to call, and Georgia was too
close to call.
The polls in Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah closed at 10:00 p.m. EST. Montana and Utah were projected by NBC News to go to Trump, and Idaho and Nevada were too early to call. As of 10:30 p.m., the numbers for the battleground states continued to fluctuate. According to NBC News, Trump is ahead in projections in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Harris was ahead in Michigan, and Nevada has zero percent of the vote in.
With just 10 minutes before the next wave of poll closures, a total of 32 states had been called. Nine states were projected for Harris, and 23 were given to Trump. At 11:00 p.m., the polls in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington closed. Trump was projected to win Idaho and Harris won Washington and California. With this new information, Harris has 145 electoral votes as compared to Trump’s 214.
With only two states left to close up their polling sites, the battleground states remained too close to call as of 11:30. According to NBC News, Trump led in Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin with razor thin margins. Harris led in Michigan and Nevada. At this time, Harris had 172 electoral votes and Trump had 214. Virginia and New Mexico — called by AP News — were both called for Harris, leaving only 12 states left to be projected as of 11:45 p.m.. At that time, Harris had 185 electoral votes as compared to Trump’s 230. At midnight, the polls in Hawaii closed and were projected for Harris, bringing her total electoral votes to 189.
As of 12:30 a.m., both North Carolina and Georgia were called for Trump. After these states were called, at approximately 12:44 p.m., Harris’ campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond addressed the crowd at Harris’ Headquarters. He expressed that “We still have votes to count. We still have states that have not been called yet.” He said that “You [the American people] won’t hear from the Vice
ELECTION: Members of the Brandeis community gathered in the
Camus Center Atrium to watch the
President tonight,” but she will address the public the next morning. At the time of this speech, Harris had 189 electoral votes and Trump had 246. At 1:00 a.m. EST, the final polls closed in Alaska, with the final voters casting their ballots. At that time, the electoral votes stood with Harris with 194 and Trump with 246. The night of Nov. 5, 2024 and the early morning hours of Nov. 6 marked a historic time in U.S. history. However, there is much more history to be made; Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Alaska still have not been called.
The story of the 2024 presidential election has been one of narrow margins. The remaining states continued to be too close or too early to call, thus preventing the recognition of a new president of the United States. The country will be waiting with baited breath as the final tally of the votes come in and a new president is elected.
College voters: Activism at Brandeis, students encouraged toward polls
■ As the presidential election drew near, Brandeis was busy with political programming as students and faculty encouraged voting and voter registration.
By ANNA MARTIN JUSTICE EDITOR IN CHIEF
The Brandeis campus has been buzzing with election preparation all semester, as students have gathered to watch debates, register to vote and discuss policies. Many students are passionate about their beliefs, and the election has made its way into class offerings, club programming and more.
At the beginning of the school year, watch parties were held on Sept. 10 for the Presidential Debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump. The watch party was co-hosted by Student Union, Brandeis VoteDeis, the Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and the Samuels Center for Community Partnerships and Civic Transformation. The Dean of Students Office, the Brandeis Legal Studies Program and the Intercultural Center also took part in hosting the event. It took place on Sept. 10 from 8:30 to 10:30 p.m. in the Mandel Center for the Humanities. Following the watch party, Student Union President Rani Balakrishna ’25 provided remarks. In correspondence with The Justice on Nov. 3, Balakrishna expressed her joy regarding this speaking opportunity, sharing “I really love voting, I am in a position that was voted on by the student body at Brandeis, and I take great pride in that connection.”
That same night, the Brandeis Journalism Program hosted a watch party featuring speaker Prof. Eileen McNamara (JOUR), a Pulitzer Prize winner and former Boston Globe columnist. McNamara is teaching Political Packaging in America this semester, a class that dives deep into journalism’s role in elections and the history of election coverage. There was a watch party for the Vice Presidential Debate in the Golding Judaica Center Audi-
torium on Oct. 1, hosted by Student Union, COMPACT, VoteDeis, ENACT, DOSO, the Brandeis Journalism Program and the ICC. Student Union Vice President Ria Escamilla-Gil ’27 provided remarks following this debate.
The Student Union and VoteDeis collaborated to hold a voter registration drive on Oct. 7 in Fellows Garden. They shared information regarding resources on campus that help with voting. These resources included envelopes, stamps and an available notary.
The VoteDeis Coalition also hosted voter registration events through the month of September, encouraging all community members to prepare for the election. On Sept. 29 the group partnered with the Department of Community Living to hold a parents weekend voter registration drive in Ridgewood Residence Hall. On Sept. 30, VoteDeis partnered with Triskelion, Brandeis’ oldest surviving LGBTQ+ student-led community, to promote voter registration in the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium.
On Oct. 9, COMPACT collaborated with VoteDeis to host “Finding your path in community action: A conversation with Dr. Danielle Allen.”
This event consisted of a “student-focused [question and answer session] … featuring Prof. Daniel Kryden’s ‘Introduction to American Government’ class” according to Instagram. Dr. Allen is a professor at Harvard University, and the director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation. She is also the founder and president of Partners in Democracy.
VoteDeis also brought some fun to this election season, hosting a sticker design contest. The winner’s stickers were printed for members of the community to enjoy, and they received a giftcard to Lizzy’s Homemade Ice Cream.
On Oct. 22, VoteDeis, ENACT, Student Union, DOSO and the Politics Department collaborated to host a “vote goat.” The goat, named Weston, brought much attention to Fellows Garden, as students and faculty alike stopped by for selfies. In addition to holding the goat, help was offered with registration, early voting and coordinating rides to polling stations.
VoteDeis Coalition member Maddie Leventhal ’26 spoke with The Justice on Nov. 2, sharing “The VoteDeis Campus Coalition has been working to
grow student voter turnout by hosting election education events and by supporting students through registration and ballot requests, with a variety of social and academic events. Our most memorable moment was to bring in Brandeis’ very own VoteGoat! Weston, the VoteGoat, brought attention and energy around civic engagement while we were able to help registrations for students.”
On Oct. 23, Balakrishna was joined by former Student Union President Peyton Gillespie ’25 to speak at the “Your Vote Matters!” panel moderated by LeManuel Bitsoi, Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Rapaporte Treasure Hall. The panel covered the importance of voting, with the aim of directing students to the polls. In response to questions regarding the panel, Balakrishna stated “My goal by the end of that panel was to convince those who say ‘my vote doesn’t matter because I am not in a swing state’ to vote, and to encourage civic participation. I believe that there are so many issues up and down the ballot that people need to make their voice heard. I hope it encouraged Brandeis students of all ages to engage with democracy because everyone’s lives are impacted by politics.”
In addition, Balakrishna explained the importance of voting to her, sharing “Voting is incredibly important to me because as a woman of color, it is a privilege and an honor that I am excited to exercise. I voted in my first Presidential Election this year, and I saw firsthand the impact of grassroots organizations up and down the ballot this summer in local political work. I collected signatures, did phone banking and interned for the Massachusetts Democratic Party this past summer, which gave me so much insight on the power of local government.”
VoteDeis also organized buses to polls for all students registered as Waltham voters for both early and normal voting. The vote bus ran on both Sunday, Oct. 27 and Tuesday, Nov. 5, utilizing BranVans that are Americans with Disabilities Act accessible. Balakrishna, who has driven these vans, “know[s] that a barrier to voting is that people cannot get off campus after they arrive for classes or for the workday, and we want to be sure everyone gets an equal chance to vote.”
In advance of election results, the Student Union provided resources for stressed and over-
whelmed students. The Union partnered with Dog B.O.N.E.S. to host therapy dogs Ollie and Ava. They also opened their office to all students all day, providing a safe space and snacks. The Brandeis Counseling Center, the ICC and the Gender and Sexuality Center have also offered support resources to overwhelmed students.
On election night, the SCC was alive with watch parties, both in the atrium and in the multipurpose room. Brandeis Dems hosted the Democratic watch party in the MPR as students gathered to show their support for Harris. In the atrium, many campus departments collaborated to host a nonpartisan watch party for all interested students. Members of the Brandeis community came out in flocks to support their respective candidates.
— The Justice Editor in Chief Anna Martin ’26 is employed by the Brandeis Legal Studies program and taking Political Packaging in America and contributed to and edited this article.
— The Justice Editor Lin Lin Hutchinson ’25 is employed by the Brandeis Journalism program and taking Political Packaging in America, and edited this article.
— The Justice Deputy Editor Lauryn Williams ’25 is employed by the Brandeis Journalism program and taking Political Packaging in America and did not contribute to or edit this article.
— The Justice Deputy Editor Tibria Brown ’25 is employed by the Brandeis Journalism program and taking Political Packaging in America and did not contribute to or edit this article.
The Justice Managing Editor Eliza Bier ’26 is employed by the Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and did not contribute to or edit this article.
— The Justice Editor Nemma Kalra ’26 is employed by the Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and did not contribute to or edit this article.
The Justice Associate Editor Julia Hardy ’26 is on the executive board for Brandeis Democrats and did not contribute to or edit this article. The Justice Editor Niamh Mullen ’26 is taking Political Packaging in America, and did not contribute to or edit this article.
Brandeis out of state voters: Election difficulties,
hopes and resources
■ More than half of domestic students are from out of state, raising questions about how Brandeis students make sure they can cast their vote.
By LIN LIN HUTCHINSON, MIRABELL ROWLAND, KIA HOLMSTROM and LULU OLM JUSTICE EDITOR, JUSTICE STAFF WRITER AND JUSTICE CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
It was nearly 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 7 — the last chance for eligible Georgia voters to register for the 2024 November election. Jimena Martinez-Dominguez ’25 had already been registered to vote, but anxiety surrounding absentee voting lingered as she sank into a black faux leather couch.
During decisive election cycles, there are increased efforts to encourage participation in the electoral process amongst the college population throughout the United States. This year, Brandeis faced unique challenges in helping its students find voting resources for elections throughout the country.
According to a fall 2022 study conducted by the University, nearly 66% of Brandeis students come from states outside of Massachusetts, excluding international students. In a 2023 report, the undergraduate student body represented 40 different states. Martinez-Dominguez is part of that 66%, representing the “Peach State.” In previous elections, she happened to be back at home in Atlanta, but this year she will be more than 1,000 miles away as an out of state voter.
“I feel like everything is set, but I feel like, what if it’s not?” questioned Martinez-Dominguez, in an Oct. 7 interview, after requesting an absentee ballot. Her worries felt justified after spending nearly 30 minutes troubleshooting the process.
Martinez-Dominguez encountered difficulties with the web browser, which prevented her from completing the official absentee request form. Even after filling out the form, she discovered that submitting it was just the first step. She had to download the completed application, sign it, and then re-upload it for verification before she could finish the process.
“It was annoying that it was not compatible with Safari,” Martinez-Dominguez said. “If I had known that from the beginning, it would have been a lot easier.” She adds that the additional little steps would need to be completed in one sitting or else, in Martinez-Dominguez’s world, it would “slip [her] mind.”
For Hannah Henris ’26, from the Bronx, New York, she said she had no knowledge of the process for absentee voting. While she is not well versed in the civic engagement process, there are issues that stand out to her.
“Immigration is something that is important to me, especially having parents that are immigrants,” Henris said in an interview during the weeks leading up to election day, adding that equitable healthcare and prison reform are other top issues. Her parents immigrated from Ghana to create a better life for their family and she emphasized the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one that shouldn’t be taken away. “If I am being honest I don’t know much about the new stuff that’ll be passed. I don’t know about specific policies but I know I just don’t want [Former President Donald] Trump to be president again,” Henris said.
Question
For many other Brandeis students from swing states, overcoming the challenges of voting while at university is especially important, given the significant impact their votes have in the outcome of the election. This year, it was projected that only seven states could sway the outcome — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.
Allison Weiner ’25, a Michigan voter, used absentee voting for the first time, but expressed disappointment of not experiencing the symbolicalness of voting in person.
“It’s my first time voting for a president so I’m a little sad I don’t get to actually go to the polls and get a fun sticker,”
Weiner said in an Oct. 6 interview. “But the process itself has been really easy.”
They choose to remain registered in MI for numerous reasons, particularly the evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans which makes MI a swing state.
“I come from an incredibly purple state and this is the first time in modern history that both my state legislature and executive branch have been blue,” Weiner said. “However, most municipal governments outside of the Metro-Detroit area are dominated by Republicans and the Senate and Presidential race are both incredibly close this year. I absolutely feel like my vote is critical in determining the immediate future of both our country but also what life looks like back home for my state specifically.”
For many, this election raises concerns of what another Trump presidency would look like.
“I think we’ve all seen the state of the world under Donald Trump,” said Emma Liu ’25, who emphasizes the importance of remaining registered in swing states. The neuroscience major from Las Vegas believes her vote will be “better served in Nevada” despite the “little time [she] spent there.” Drawing from her personal experience, Liu views voting as a “privilege,” especially given her ties to Taiwan where democratic rights are important.
“I grew up in a country that valued its democratic rights just because of the history, so I think anything that can be done to preserve that here [in the US], should be done,” said Liu, who is motivated to vote for women’s rights and the country’s foreign relations. “I think in this country it’s a privilege [to vote]. I think it should be a right. So if I have the ability to do so, I should do so.”
Others don’t feel as hopeful.
“No, I don’t think my vote makes a huge difference in my home state,” said Ava Skladanowski ’28, a first time voter from Apex, North Carolina, who also faced difficulties with her mail-in ballot. Since 1984, NC has been won by a Republican presidential candidate, except in 2008, in which Former President Barack Obama took the state.
“I find it difficult, especially considering that I am from North Carolina. A lot of the voting resources around [campus] are meant obviously for people from the state of Massachusetts,” Skladanowaski said. She adds that she only knows a few students who have filled in their absentee vote, but “they only know because of their parents sending them ballots or giving them instructions.”
Campus organizations have made efforts in community outreach and engagement to help voters overcome confusions and barriers. The Brandeis Library hosted three separated registration events between the months of September and October and have been providing free stamps and notary servic-
results are unknown
Passing of Massachusetts ballot question four would legalize the personal use and growth of plant-based psychedelics such as psilocybin mushrooms, more commonly known as magic mushrooms or shrooms.
Voting “yes” on question 4 would mean that these psychedelics could be distributed to adults over 21 from licensed therapy centers. Psilocybin is a potential clinical treatment for many health disorders including substance use disorders, depression, anxiety or mental stress related to end-of-life care for cancer patients. Side effects of consuming psilocybin mushrooms include mindaltering side effects such as distorted sights, sounds, and a loss of time. A “No” vote would make no change in the law regarding natural psychedelic substances.
Not much is known about the long-term impact of taking these drugs but according to the National Institute
es should voter’s ballots require them. Additionally, the Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and Brandeis VoteDeis coalition are both nonpartisan campus groups supporting voter registration and civic engagement, who have hosted events including registration status checks at large community gatherings; Celebration of Voting, where students received assistance with registration, absentee ballots, early voting and rides to the polls while being able interact with a baby goat; and watch parties for the presidential and vice presidential debates. Additionally, many students also have received emails with newsletters from both groups providing resources related to voter education.
“What we’re trying to do, as much as possible, is eliminate any barriers or minimize obstacles to voting,” said David Weinstein, the assistant director of the ENACT.
More could be done by the University administration, according to Weinstein.
“Most of the resources I see provided come from other student-led groups rather than the administration itself and … it can be really challenging to parse through all of the available resources to figure out what is required by your state specifically.”
In a Oct. 21 email to the Brandeis community, Vice President for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging LeManuel Bitsóí encouraged students to “vote at all levels in our towns, cities, counties, states, and the presidential election!” He adds that while questions and concerns surrounding the November election remained, “we have a duty to exercise our right to vote and being informed voters has never been more crucial than this year.”
Growth, challenge and change are hallmarks of the college experience. Coming of age can be a distinctive experience of higher education. Cecilia Denis ’25, a resident of Pennsylvania, emphasized that college campuses are uniquely positioned for voter education.
“If you work at a company, they are not going to be setting up tables to make sure you register to vote … For the most part, they are going to stay out of it,” Denis said. “But this is the time period in our lives where you become able to vote, where you grow into that person who fulfills their civic duty. So I do feel like in colleges, there probably should be more about the process of voting, how to vote and why it’s important. This is the age of becoming a voter.”
For these students, and their peers the absentee voting process brings both challenges and opportunities. As many navigate the complexities of voting from afar, they remain determined to participate in an election that could shape the future of their home states and the nation. Whether facing technical difficulties or grappling with political issues, these students are finding their place in the democratic process, demonstrating that, despite the obstacles, their voices — and their votes — matter.
—Editor’s note: The Justice Editor Nemma Kalra ’26 is employed by Brandeis’ Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and did contribute to and edit this editorial.
—Editor’s note: The Justice Managing editor Eliza Bier ’26 is employed by Brandeis’ Educational Network for Active Civic Transformation and did contribute to and edit this editorial.
votes “No” to Question #5
On Nov. 5, voters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted on a series of five statewide ballot questions. Proposed by initiative petition, the first question asked voters if the state auditor could audit legislative activities such as cybersecurity norms and purchasing activities. Prior to this proposal, the state auditor required permission from the state legislator to audit the Massachusetts legislature. As of press time,
Massachusetts voters decided to pass this motion. This vote means that going forward, the state auditor (can or cannot) audit the accounts, programs and activities that are associated with the commonwealth — including the Department of Revenue.
The second question on the Massachusetts ballot asked voters if the state should eliminate the requirement that students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests in order to receive a high school diploma.
The MCAS is a statewide exam issued to test students’ competency in mathematics, science and technology and English. In the past, students have had to earn a passing score on the tenth grade MCAS exam or receive other state approval in order to graduate.
A yes vote means that Massachusetts students would no longer have to pass the MCAS exam in order to receive a high school diploma. As standardized testing is required by federal law, students would still be required to take the MCAS. However, rather than being a graduation requirement, MCAS will now only be used for diagnostic purposes.
If passed by voters, Massachusetts’ 300+ districts would need to set their own criteria for graduation. These criteria would still need to ensure that
students are competent in the areas of mathematics, science and technology and English, but exact requirements will vary by district.
Proponents of question two have argued that eliminating the MCAS requirement will free teachers from the need to “teach to the test,” while also offering potential benefits for students with learning disabilities, who sometimes struggle with standardized tests. Opponents have said that this decision may increase inequality, as some school districts will adopt lower educational standards than others, or that it may lead to some students leaving high school without the skills they need to succeed.
As of press time, results for ballot question #2 has not been announced.
on Drug Abuse, psilocybin has low levels of toxicity, meaning it is unlikely to cause any fatal breathing or heart problems. The substance is not addictive but there are health risks associated when consumption is unsupervised including, dangerous behavior that may put the user or others at risk, or a “bad trip” which would cause the user to experience “extreme fear, anxiety, panic, or paranoia as they experience its hallucinogenic effects.” Currently Oregon and Colorado have legalized the substance.
A “No” vote would make no change in the law regarding natural psychedelic substances. As of press time, results for ballot question #4 has not been announced.
—Niamh Mullen
Massachusetts ballot question five in the 2024 election asked voters registered in the state of Massachusetts to vote on if hourly wages for tipped workers should gradually increase over the span of five years to equal the state minimum wage.
The approved law, proposed increase tipped worker wages as follows:
“To 64 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025
• To 73 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026
• To 82 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027 To 91 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028 To 100 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029”
“Employers would be required to continue to pay tipped workers the difference between the state minimum wage and the total
On Nov. 5, 2024, Massachusetts residents were given the option to vote on question three, which allows Uber and Lyft drivers the ability to form unions. According to a report from The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts, this proposed law would enact sector-based bargaining, which would allow drivers across multiple companies to negotiate for industry-wide benefits such as better pay and expanded benefits. Additionally, drivers might not be able to start forming unions right away — rideshare workers face the logistical challenges of organizing a union now that the law has passed. The legisla -
amount a tipped worker receives in hourly wages plus tips through the end of 2028,” according to the state’s ballot guide. With this law employers would be allowed to administer a “tip pool” that would combine all customer tips given to tipped employees and distribute that to all workers, including non-tipper workers.
As of January 1, 2023 Massachusetts minimum wage is 15 dollars per hour and the service rate is 6.75 dollars per hour. Service workers are those who provide a service to customers and make more than 20 dollars a month in tips.
tion has several ramifications, both legal and practical: Most likely it would both reduce profits for businesses and create more expensive fares for riders, according to opponents of the ballot question. At the same time, it would begin to pave the way toward standard rights and protections for rideshare workers. As of press time, results for ballot question #3 has not been announced.
— Eliza Bier
—Sophia De Lisi
—Zoe Zachary
—Madison Sirois
BRYAN WOLFE/The Justice
On the issues
Three of the most pertinent issues discussed in the context of the 2024 Presidential Election include immigration rights, repro ductive rights and foreign policy. Everyone knows the candidates’ policies on these subjects, but what about those of Brandeis students ? Below, three undergraduate students of Brandeis University each share their opinions on one of the afforementioned issues: Luke Farber man ’27 discusses immigration rights, Grace Lassila ’25 addresses reproductive rights and Campbell Wood ’26 examines foreign policy
Immigration Rights
A central theme of Vice President Kamala Harris’ monumental, whirlwind campaign has been charting a path for America to move on from former President Donald Trump. Her ambitious economic agenda is titled “A New Way Forward,” and she leads crowds in chanting “We’re not going back!” at her massive rallies. And yet, there is one specific legacy left by Trump that the Harris campaign seems content not to rock the boat over: immigration. Of course, it would be irresponsible to claim the two candidates’ plans are the same. Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is fascistic in nature as he spouts horrifying claims that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our nation.” Harris remains the obvious, liberal and saner option by far. But it is unmistakable that Trump has managed to enact a backwards, conservative shift in how Americans at large view immigration, in such a way that Democrats have determined that they would not be able to challenge and still win the election. This, to me, is disappointing.
I am an indelible product of the American project; I am part Anglo-Scot, part Germanic, part Belarusian Ashkenazi Jew, part African American. Were it not for a nation like the United States that embraced immigration as a core value, I simply would not exist. In making this statement, I have no intention to whitewash a long history of anti-immigrant sentiment in America. When Africans were kidnapped from their homes and forcibly brought across the Atlantic, they were not migrants — they were considered property, not people. When Congress passed the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, ending all immigration from Asia and severely curtailing immigration from south and eastern Europe, it was done with the intention of “[preserving] the ideal of U.S homogeneity.” When President Dwight Eisenhower approved Operation Wetback in 1954, he allowed the U.S. military to use military force in detaining and deporting Mexican immigrants — some of whom were American citizens — from the United States. Wetback is an offensive slur used to describe a Mexican living in the US, especially without official authorization. In these historical instances, we find themes and ideas directly present in the language of Trump: dehumanization, homogeneity and mass deportations. This is what Harris should oppose in totality when she says “we’re not going back,” right?
If she does, she has been singing a different tune on the campaign trail. Harris and Democrats across the board have taken to signaling their “toughness” on immigration, ceding to
Reproduction Rights
Under any circumstance, any situation.
In this election, few issues are more important to me than abortion, reproductive care and women’s rights. Back in 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected as the 45th President of the United States, drastically changing the narrative on abortion in this country. Because of Trump, three conservative judges were appointed to the Supreme Court, leading to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
The consequences of this have been monumental for the women and pregnant people of this country. While I had always been pro-choice, seeing this change and the ramifications of it has been radicalizing.
There is nothing “pro-life” about limiting access to abortion. In fact, more people die when there are abortion bans in this country. Not only are pregnant people now more likely to die due to complications with pregnancies they actually wanted to carry to term, but for those with unwanted pregnancies, a lack of safe abortion access does not stop the number of abortions being had. People will resort to alternative methods to abort an unwanted pregnancy, no matter the consequences. They will turn to back-alley doctors and coat hangers, and harm themselves in order to prevent it. This is especially true for people of low-income status, as people who have money and access never have to worry about affording life-saving medical care. For women and people living at or below their means, an unwanted pregnancy could drastically change the quality of their life, financially, mentally and emotionally.
Foreign Policy
In the 2024 election, it’s not just domestic issues like healthcare, education and climate change that are at stake; our foreign policies — how we engage with other nations and balance national interests with global cooperation and peace — reveal just as much about a candidate’s vision for America. In this election, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris each represent a fundamentally different view on America’s role in the world.
Harris’ foreign policy is firmly rooted in a multilateral approach that prioritizes alliances, particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and recognizes that our national security and economic stability are interlinked with the well-being of the global community. I believe that Harris’ commitment to a cooperative global strategy is pragmatic, allowing us to address issues that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can tackle alone.
For instance, her steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression signals a return to reliable U.S. commitments to democracy and human rights abroad. This is in direct contrast to the volatile rhetoric of Trump’s presidency, making Harris’ approach feel refreshingly thoughtful. That said, her policy still leaves room for critique; as someone who cares deeply about social justice and human rights, I believe that she could go further in the Middle East, where her nonpartisan approach sometimes feels like code for silence on critical issues (which we, especially as Brandeis students, are likely very familiar with by now). Harris’ measured approach may certainly be diplomatic, but I would like to see a bolder, more transparent commitment to human rights and peace that doesn’t play both sides of the field and shy away from hard truths — namely, a more vocal approach to the advocacy for Palestinian human rights. A truly balanced approach would show the world that the U.S. values all human rights equally, not just those of our allies.
In contrast, Trump’s “America First” approach raises red flags; having repeatedly emphasized reducing U.S. involvement in global conflicts and suggesting that our commitments to allies and international organizations need to be reconsidered, it is clear to me that Trump sees foreign policy through a transactional lens. To put it simply, this means supporting nations only when it’s convenient for our national interests and cutting off those who might “cost” us in some way.
It is my wholehearted opinion that this approach is not simply just problematic; it’s also dangerous. Turning our backs on our allies and scaling back military commitments might seem like a cost-saving measure, but the reality is that isolationism often leaves the U.S.
Republican demands for “tighter borders” and restricting asylum seekers. A centerpiece of Harris’ campaign has been her support for the “tough” bipartisan border bill that Trump ultimately sank earlier this year.
This is a smart move, politically speaking. Gallup, a respected pollster, says that in July 2024, 55% of Americans supported decreased immigration, the highest since 2001. But this response betrays the dramatic shift in the political environment created by Trump during President Joe Biden’s tenure as well as Democrats’ refusal to push back. In 2020, support for immigration was at an all time high, with 70% saying they supported either the status quo or an increase.
What happened? Republicans have been able to effectively control the narrative of Democratic weakness on immigration, forcing them onto the defensive. For example, Harris has been saddled with the title of “Border Czar,” insinuating she directly is responsible for the procedures of the southern border with Mexico. Meanwhile, in actuality, Harris was sent by President Biden to Central America countries with the objective of improving conditions “at home” in order to reduce immigration.
So, what can Harris do if elected? Let’s take a moment to look at two Democratic presidents who stood up on immigration, even when it was costly or unpopular. Under threat of a congressional override, President Harry S. Truman still vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 — written in the midst of anti-communist hysteria — because of its prejudiced quotas. And President Johnson, despite opposition from powerful Southern conservatives, pushed through the 1965 Immigration Act, which eliminated the discriminatory “National Origins Formula” of the 1920s. Put simply in the words of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Tim Walz, “You don’t win elections to bank political capital — you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.” Immigrants are not pawns to advance political agendas; they’re real people whose lives are profoundly affected by policy. If Harris truly wants to be a transformative Democratic President who leads the country forward in a bold new direction, she should take a stand for immigrants.
I am also sick and tired of pro-life advocates splitting hairs and nitpicking the circumstances in which abortion should be allowed. You are not smarter or more ethical for wanting to prevent abortions in specific situations, past a certain point or “not in the third trimester.”
The fact of the matter is that people who need abortion care and access in their third trimester of pregnancy typically wanted that pregnancy. In these cases, the only times abortion is recommended is when the fetus is not viable or the pregnant person is in danger from the pregnancy. People who genuinely want to be parents are forced to wait until the pregnant person is “too sick” to receive life-saving care.
Women and pregnant people have died at far higher rates since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the infant mortality rate actually rose 7%. There are a million arguments you can make for abortion but the simple truth is that without abortion, people will die. People will die because doctors are scared to treat patients. People will die because an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating and dangerous. People will die because they would rather be dead than be pregnant. Abortion should be allowed under any circumstance, under any situation, for the sake of human life.
’25
more vulnerable. For example, reducing support for N.A.T.O. weakens our collective defense and could embolden adversaries who seek to destabilize us.
Additionally, Trump’s policies on authoritarian regimes are deeply concerning. Under his previous administration from 2017 to 2021, he frequently praised leaders with questionable human records, from Russia’s Vladimir Putin to North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un. Such rhetoric matters! It sends a troubling message to the world that America’s values are negotiable and that the U.S. might look the other way when democracy and freedom are at stake if it serves our interests. For young Americans like myself who believe in universal human rights and global accountability, this stance is more than just disappointing — it’s antithetical to what we stand for.
However, both candidates fall short on one critical aspect of foreign policy: addressing climate change as the global crisis it is. Yes, Harris has expressed support for international climate efforts, but I’d like to see her take a firmer stance on reducing our nation’s fossil fuel dependency and holding other nations accountable. A comprehensive foreign policy cannot, by any means, deny or ignore climate change, which threatens the most vulnerable populations worldwide and intensifies global instability.
Trump’s position on climate is, frankly, a non-starter; his policies favor fossil fuel production and he has previously pulled the U.S. out of international climate agreements. Ignoring climate change as a pillar of foreign policy is irresponsible, places short-term economic interests over the well-being of future generations and is not a quality that I desire or respect within a potential face of our democracy.
In this election, foreign policy may not be front and center to the extent of other social policies and issues, but it is nonetheless foundational to the world we are building. Harris’ platform is imperfect but rooted in the belief that America should lead through collaboration, not intimidation. Trump’s approach, on the other hand, is a throwback to isolationism and selective engagement that doesn’t address the realities of our interconnected world. As a young voter, I choose a version of America that stands firm in its alliances, upholds human rights and takes the climate crisis seriously; our future depends on it.
— Campbell Wood, ’27
— Luke Farberman, ’27
— Grace Lassila,
2024 Election Survey Results
