A Democratic mayor in New Jersey just announced he’s supporting the Republican gubernatorial candidate backed by President Trump. James P. Dodd, mayor of Dover, says he’s tired of sanctuary policies, rising taxes, and Democrats who complain without offering solutions.
He’s also suggesting he might switch parties entirely – and take his town council with him.
When a Democratic Mayor Says Republicans Have Real Solutions
Dodd appeared on “Fox & Friends First” on Tuesday to explain his endorsement of Jack Ciattarelli over Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill. The decision breaks with his party leadership and contradicts his previous support for Sherrill in past elections.
“I’ve had the opportunity twice now to have Jack Ciattarelli come to the town of Dover, explain his vision, his views on how to fix the state of New Jersey,” Dodd said. “He has real solutions to fix these problems in our state. And that’s what we need right now.”
Dover is located about 40 miles west of Manhattan in a region that’s traditionally voted Democratic but has been trending toward Republicans in recent elections. Dodd describes his community as “primarily Hispanic” and claims he’s witnessing a significant political realignment.
“We’re seeing a lot of Hispanics go from Democrat, which they predominantly are, to Republicans because they’re tired of the system that’s failed, that doesn’t work any longer in our town and in our state,” Dodd said.
The immigration issue that Dodd says drove his endorsement centers on New Jersey’s sanctuary policies and whether local law enforcement should cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Sanctuary Policy Nobody Will Defend By Name
New Jersey operates under the Immigrant Trust Directive, which limits how state and local police can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The policy is designed to ensure undocumented immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and interacting with local authorities without fear of deportation.
Dodd wants it gone. “On day one, Jack made a commitment to end sanctuary cities and the state of New Jersey will no longer be a sanctuary state. We need to let our law enforcement do their job. And I see these constant problems here in my small community in the town of Dover, and we need real solutions,” he said.
During the state’s gubernatorial debate, Sherrill declined to clarify whether she would continue the Immigrant Trust Directive – a policy she previously signaled support for. That non-answer gave Dodd and other critics an opening to characterize her as avoiding tough questions on immigration enforcement.
Ciattarelli has made ending sanctuary policies a centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that protecting undocumented immigrants from federal authorities undermines law enforcement and creates public safety risks. It’s a message that’s resonating with voters like Dodd who see immigration enforcement as a local issue rather than just a federal concern.
The political calculation for Sherrill is difficult. Supporting the Immigrant Trust Directive alienates voters who want stronger immigration enforcement. Opposing it alienates progressive voters and immigrant communities who depend on those protections. Her debate non-answer suggests she’s trying to avoid making either choice explicit.
What Real Solutions Actually Mean in New Jersey Politics
Dodd’s repeated emphasis on “real solutions” is doing rhetorical work that deserves examination. He contrasts Ciattarelli’s concrete policy proposals with what he characterizes as Sherrill’s complaints without answers.
“We don’t hear real solutions from Mikie,” Dodd said, citing rising retirement costs, higher taxes and increased state spending as issues where Sherrill identifies problems but doesn’t offer clear fixes.
New Jersey has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, the highest cost of living in the region, and a state budget that’s grown substantially under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration. These are legitimate fiscal concerns that affect residents regardless of party affiliation.
Ciattarelli is campaigning on tax reduction, spending restraint, and eliminating what he characterizes as wasteful government programs. Whether those proposals constitute “real solutions” depends on whether they’re fiscally possible without devastating cuts to services New Jersey residents depend on.
But in political messaging, “real solutions” functions as a placeholder for specificity that may or may not exist in actual policy proposals. It sounds substantive without requiring voters to evaluate complex fiscal trade-offs or acknowledge that solving budget problems requires either raising revenue or cutting popular programs.
Dodd is endorsing the candidate who makes tax reduction sound achievable without explaining what gets cut to pay for it. That’s politically effective even if it’s fiscally questionable.
The Hispanic Voter Realignment That May or May Not Be Happening
Dodd’s claim that Dover’s Hispanic community is shifting from Democratic to Republican aligns with national narratives about Latino voter realignment. Trump made significant gains among Hispanic voters in 2024, particularly in working-class communities concerned about economic issues and immigration enforcement.
But one mayor’s observation about his town doesn’t constitute data about statewide trends. Dover’s Hispanic population may be shifting Republican, or Dodd may be seeing anecdotal examples and generalizing from limited evidence.
What’s notable is that Dodd – a Democratic mayor in a Hispanic-majority community – feels comfortable making this claim publicly. He’s either confident the trend is real and demonstrable, or he’s confident that saying it helps create the impression of momentum that becomes self-fulfilling.
If Hispanic voters in Dover and similar communities are genuinely moving toward Republicans on immigration enforcement and economic issues, that’s a significant problem for Democrats in a state where Latino voters represent a crucial part of the coalition. If Dodd is overstating the trend, his endorsement still plants the idea that Hispanic voters are abandoning Democrats – which can influence other voters’ perceptions about which party has momentum.
The Council Members Who Might Follow Their Mayor
Dodd suggested he may switch parties entirely, adding that “a lot of council members will go with me” if he does. That’s a remarkable statement for multiple reasons.
First, it suggests Dodd has already had conversations with other local officials about leaving the Democratic Party together. This isn’t an impulsive individual decision – it’s a coordinated defection being planned at the local government level.
Second, it demonstrates that Dodd believes his decision will face criticism from Democrats but that criticism won’t stop him or the officials who follow. He’s already calculated that the political cost of staying Democrat exceeds the cost of switching parties and facing backlash.
Third, it signals to other Democratic officials in similar communities that party-switching is becoming acceptable – perhaps even advantageous – if local political winds are shifting Republican. Dodd isn’t an outlier breaking party ranks in isolation. He’s potentially the first of several local officials making the same calculation.
Democratic Party leadership will respond to this endorsement, but their response faces a dilemma. Criticize Dodd too harshly, and it reinforces his narrative that Democrats don’t tolerate dissent or listen to concerns from officials in working-class communities. Ignore the endorsement, and it suggests they have no answer for the issues Dodd raised.
Either way, a Democratic mayor endorsing the Trump-backed Republican candidate is the kind of story that creates permission structures for other Democratic voters considering the same choice.
What Ciattarelli’s 2021 Loss Teaches About 2025 Prospects
Ciattarelli lost to Phil Murphy in 2021 by just 3 percentage points – much closer than polls predicted. He performed well in suburban communities and made significant inroads in areas that typically vote Democratic.
Now he’s running against Mikie Sherrill, who brings different strengths and weaknesses than Murphy. Sherrill is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who represents a swing district in Congress. She can credibly claim centrist credentials and appeal to suburban voters concerned about both public safety and social issues.
But Sherrill is also tied to national Democratic positions on immigration, spending, and cultural issues that have become increasingly unpopular in working-class communities. Ciattarelli’s campaign is working to define her as a progressive hiding behind moderate rhetoric – exactly the vulnerability Dodd’s endorsement exposes.
If Ciattarelli can convince voters that Sherrill won’t take concrete action on immigration enforcement, won’t reduce taxes meaningfully, and represents Democratic establishment positions despite centrist branding, he has a path to victory in a state Democrats have controlled for years.
Murphy is term-limited and backing Sherrill, but his endorsement may be less valuable than it appears. Murphy’s approval ratings have declined as voters express frustration with taxes, cost of living, and state spending growth. Inheriting his endorsement means inheriting his political baggage.
Why This Endorsement Matters More Than Most
Local officials endorsing candidates from the opposing party happens occasionally in American politics. It’s usually notable within that locality but rarely signals broader trends.
Dodd’s endorsement is different because it combines several factors that suggest deeper voter realignment: a Democratic mayor in a Hispanic-majority community breaking party ranks over immigration policy, explicitly criticizing his own party for lacking solutions, and suggesting multiple local officials might follow him out of the Democratic Party entirely.
That’s not typical dissatisfaction with a particular candidate. That’s systemic rejection of party priorities and messaging in communities Democrats assumed they could count on.
Trump’s endorsement of Ciattarelli adds national attention to what would otherwise be a state race. The president is testing whether his political movement can flip a Democratic state by appealing to working-class voters who feel abandoned by Democratic policies on immigration, taxes, and economic opportunity.
Dodd’s endorsement provides evidence that strategy might work – not because one mayor’s opinion is decisive, but because it demonstrates that Democratic officials themselves are questioning whether their party still represents the communities they serve.
If Ciattarelli wins in November, it will be partly because Democratic mayors like James Dodd decided their party had stopped offering real solutions to the problems their constituents face. If Sherrill wins, it will be despite losing Democratic officials who should be her most reliable supporters.
Either outcome reveals a Democratic Party struggling to maintain coalition unity in working-class communities where immigration enforcement and economic frustration are driving voters toward Republicans promising concrete action rather than progressive rhetoric.
Dodd acknowledged he’s heard criticism from Democrats about his endorsement. He doesn’t seem particularly concerned. That’s the part that should worry Democratic strategists most – not that one mayor is breaking ranks, but that he’s doing it publicly, unapologetically, and with the confidence that other local officials will follow.