Photo illustration by SJP staff

By Audry Themen

Jersey City, N.J.

On a recent afternoon, reporters from The Princeton Summer Journal scoured the town for opinions on the current 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Though the youth interviewed had varied opinions on which candidates appealed to them, many of the students also had a limited understanding of the candidates’ proposals.

Sophia, a rising senior from Bordentown, N.J., felt that Bernie Sanders was a promising candidate, citing his policies on free college and “Medicare for all” as compelling factors for her support. She likened Sanders to Trump in the sense that he “backed up his words with actions,” though she did not elaborate on the instances where Trump substantiated his words with policy.

Lauren, a rising senior from New Brunswick, New Jersey, also had Sanders as her candidate of choice. As an environmentally conscious democratic socialist, Sanders’ progressive policies, specifically his climate change proposals, appealed to her immensely. Lauren cited Joe Biden as her second choice based on his accomplishments as vice president under the Obama administration.

Grace Hutapea, a 16-year-old from Guam, liked Elizabeth Warren. As a citizen of an island territory, she advocated for action on climate change, especially since the coral reefs surrounding Guam are heavily impacted by global warming. Grace also believed that Biden would be a good presidential candidate because of his history, noting that in terms of political experience, he has a “strong foot in the door.”

Not every teenager advocated for a progressive candidate, however. Friends Shikar, Dean, and Siji, moderate Democrats from Texas, believed that Sanders was “too extreme” and impractical. “We can’t ‘Feel the Bern,’” Dean, a 16-year-old from Houston, said. He claimed that Bernie’s “Medicare for all” policies are “not feasible” and would take “too much time and legislation” to implement.

Siji, a Houstonian, admitted that he did not follow politics too closely, but he does favor Biden. “I just think he’s a fun guy,” Siji said. “I like him as a person.”

When asked which candidate has the best chance of winning the primaries, the three students agreed that the state of affairs were not settled. “All candidates, even the lower-tier candidates, have a shot,” Shikar said.

The other two boys agreed. “It’s really anyone’s game right now,” Dean added.

By Jarlem Lopez Morel and JC Villon

New York, N.Y. and Brooklyn, N.Y.

Two sets of Democratic debates and countless candidate interviews have sought to clarify the candidates’ stances on various issues. Yet some Princeton residents interviewed this month said they are still unsure what the 2020 hopefuls believe and what their policies and plans are. Jason Green, 42, who is “very interested” in following the campaign, said voters are not “receiving authenticity from the Democratic candidates.”

Cynthia Medley, 24, said she’s still waiting to find out “what the candidates are really about,” adding that she wasn’t following the race very closely. “Nobody is completely wrong on anything,” she said.

The theatrics seen on all four nights of Democratic debates led some Princeton viewers to feel indifferent regarding the candidates’ policies. Residents said the contenders focused too much on attacking the other candidates rather than discussing their own plans.

Annemarie Porter, 58, followed the debates attentively. The candidates, she said, failed to stand out and provide the Democrats with a “strong enough candidate to beat [President Donald] Trump.”

Many residents said they believe that, because the candidates were aiming to capture independent votes, they were not proposing extreme policy positions. However, independent voters, such as Porter and Medley, said a candidate who can beat Trump is as important as a candidate who represents their beliefs.

The August debates, which drew more than 10 million viewers, did little to change the position of frontrunner Joe Biden. The poll numbers of the candidates below him, however, did fluctuate.

Biden is still at 32 percent in the Aug. 6 Quinnipiac University poll, with Elizabeth Warren at 21 percent (an increase of six points from before the debate) and Bernie Sanders at 14 percent. Kamala Harris’ approval rating, which after the first debate surged to 13 percent, fell to seven percent in the poll.

By Kesia Oliveros

Doral, Fla.

OBJECTIVE:
To find the results of the election of a representative with a doctorate degree in physics and a career as a physicist to the highly energetic environment of the state legislature as well as to determine the effectiveness of experimentation in this environment.

THEORY:
If one elects a scientist to office then his proposed bills will be evidence-based, effective and conscious of long-term solutions.

PROCEDURE:
1. Inspire a lifelong advocate for science and education to run for elected office to champion unlimited clean energy, deterring global warming, and curing cancer.
2. Win the first election by a margin of 78 votes with bipartisan support.
3. Support declared goals of job growth and environmental protection with bills that:
• Require Rutgers University to study gun violence.
• Incentivize veterans to attend college and demand that they receive credit for their service.
• Provide grants for new farmers to implement sustainable agricultural practices as well as providing tax incentives to those who lease land to new farmers.
• Require New Jersey to uphold the Paris climate agreement.
• Add student representatives to the board of Rutgers University.
• Encourage planning for the location of electric car chargers.
• Provide a loan forgiveness plan for STEM professionals.
• Make the bog turtle the state reptile of New Jersey.

CONCLUSIONS:
The election of a pragmatist with a solution-based mindset that aims to improve the community’s future welfare is what the people wanted when they elected Andrew Zwicker in 2015. Charming and charismatic, Zwicker is down to earth and willing to admit that like the rest of his voters he’s “making it up as I go,” at least when it comes to his new life in politics.

It is a different type of trust that he gains from his supporters. Maybe every policy won’t be successful, but by experimenting in the legislature, he’s aiming to improve his district.

FUTURE EXPERIMENTS INCLUDE:
Engineers for Secretaries of Defense, data scientists for governors and chemists for senators.

By Natalee Litchfield

Molalla, Ore.

On his first day as an intern for a legal aid office in Cincinnati, Ohio, Scott Overbey was feeling hopeful. His boss had invited him to witness an average day in court, where he thought he’d see the law making a difference in people’s lives.

But on this day, a grandmother was being sued by her landlord. Her apartment had become mold-infested and her granddaughter had asthma, which made the home a danger zone. The grandmother had been holding her rent in an escrow fund while waiting to get the mold removed from her apartment. But the landlord refused to remove it, and sued her for the money. While the judge was examining her nails and fiddling with her watch, the grandmother gave her testimony. Overbey was aghast at what he saw. He wanted to do something to help people like the woman in court. That’s why he joined sociologist Matthew Desmond’s Eviction Lab at Princeton.

This story is not an extraordinary one, as eviction is a widespread epidemic in the United States. Researchers at Princeton’s Eviction Lab are studying the problem, and trying to figure out precisely how to fix it.

Desmond, who founded the lab in 2017, began his work on eviction in 2008 by living alongside poor tenants in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Through studying the relationship between tenants and their landlords in poor communities, he became the first to recognize the need for a comprehensive set of data in order to analyze the crisis. In his acclaimed book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” he coined the idea that “eviction functions as a cause, not just a condition of poverty.”

“Between 2000 and 2016, the number [of evictions] we estimate is 84 million,” said Joe Fish, a newly hired research assistant at the Eviction Lab. That number accounts only for the cases filed in court, meaning the actual total is likely higher.

While there isn’t a singular cause for the eviction crisis, much of it can be attributed to a tremendous imbalance of power between tenants and landlords.

“Landlords definitely know what the rules [are] and what the laws are, but the tenants don’t always,” said Mary- Ann Placheril, an intern at the lab. Although there are restrictions to prevent landlords from discriminating against their tenants, the laws vary from one state to the next. In leases, landlords often use trivial fine print restrictions that are easily violated such as “no pets” or “no loud noises” in order to kick people out of their homes.

Fish and Overbey both hope that the work of the Eviction Lab will spur policy that changes the balance of power between landlord and tenant. In identifying the top 10 cities with the highest eviction rates, the lab was able to prompt community- based legislation that extends tenant rights throughout the United States.

“We have found that cities, when finding out they have high eviction rates, enact legislation,” Fish said. The fact is that the numbers the Eviction Lab are finding matter immensely. It is up to judges, legislators, home developers and landlords to fix the crisis. It means the difference between living and hardly surviving—for grandmothers like the one in Ohio, children, parents, and everyone else too.

By Aminata Touray

East Orange, N.J.

I woke up to banging on my door. I thought it was the kids my mom babysits. Instead, it was my landlord. He barged into our apartment in East Orange, N.J., where my family had lived for 17 years.

“You guys have to leave. Now,” he said.

I will never forget the look in my mom’s eyes: anger and embarrassment.

“You’re gonna do this in front of my kids?” she said. The landlord ushered us out. I was still in my pajamas.

Between 2000 and 2016, more than 84 million evictions happened in America—and that’s almost certainly an undercount. Communities of color, like mine, have been the hardest hit.

These statistics come from the Eviction Lab at Princeton. More than a dozen researchers there are gathering data about evictions to raise awareness and change public policy. Professor Matthew Desmond created the lab after the publication of his book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” which vaulted the eviction crisis into the national conversation. Joe Fish, a research assistant at the lab, said, “If you don’t have a home, then kind of nothing else matters.”

Fish began working at the lab this summer. He decided to study evictions after seeing a close friend in his hometown of San Francisco kicked out of his place. He was surprised to discover that eviction wasn’t just a symptom of poverty—it was a cause.

There’s an imbalance of power between landlords and tenants, Fish said. Some landlords turn away renters with kids; others reject renters with housing vouchers. Even if you get the apartment, your lease is often larded with clauses that allow a landlord to easily break it if, for example, you have a pet or make too much noise. Because renters are often not aware of their rights, they can fall for discriminatory tactics. Then, once they’ve been evicted, it’s harder to rent a new apartment.

The Eviction Lab researchers hope their findings lead to new laws and more stability for renters. “Housing should basically be a right,” Fish said. People who’ve been evicted aren’t lazy or con artists; in many cases, he said, they’re working people struggling to navigate a system that’s rigged against them.

As for my family, we soon found a new apartment. But within a year, we were threatened with eviction again.