Democratic candidates Maggie Goodlander and Colin Van Ostern made their case to voters Monday night at Dartmouth College, doubling down on their widely similar plans to represent New Hampshire’s second district in Congress.

Some voters left the forum saying their views on each candidate were reinforced, while some said they’re now torn over who will get their vote. The forum, hosted by the college’s Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences and moderated by two Dartmouth students, explored topics like abortion access, firearm restrictions and LGBTQ rights.

There were well over 100 attendees in the auditorium, plus about 100 online. Voters are weighing the candidates’ records — many said they are impressed with Van Ostern’s experience serving in New Hampshire but are also wowed by Goodlander’s resume in Washington.

David Corriveau, 67, from Lebanon, said he’s been leaning toward voting for Van Ostern in the primary, but the more he learns about Goodlander’s experience on the national stage and Washington connections, the harder it is to decide. He also puts a lot of stock in Van Ostern’s name recognition in the Granite State and endorsement from current Rep. Annie Kuster.

Here’s what changed some voters’ minds, and where Goodlander and Van Ostern stand on the issues.

Reproductive care, abortion access

When asked about the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and how they’d work to restore reproductive freedom, both candidates said that abortion access and women’s bodily autonomy should be protected federally.

Goodlander shared her personal experience — at 20 weeks pregnant, she lost her baby last year. She got the medical care she needed but said too many women in the U.S. don’t get that. She tied it back to New Hampshire’s identity as the Live Free or Die state and said that freedom, including abortion, is on the ballot this fall. Warning of Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a second Trump presidency, Goodlander said the U.S. is in danger of a nationwide abortion ban.

Van Ostern said he decided to run for Executive Council when Planned Parenthood funding was shut off in New Hampshire, and he campaigns on having helped to restore that funding. He laid out specific ways Congress can enshrine access to reproductive rights, including passing national laws that protect access to birth control, IVF and abortion. The U.S. should also make it easier for low-income people to access reproductive care through Medicaid, he said, and repeal the global gag rule, which prevents organizations around the world that receive American funding from providing or advocating for abortion services and information.

Gun regulation

Both candidates agreed the U.S. needs stricter gun laws. Van Ostern said that as a gun owner and a father, he supports the Second Amendment but emphasized that the Constitution says such rights should be “well-regulated.” He doesn’t believe there should be any competing interests between parties — during an active shooter situation, he said no one cares who you voted for. Van Ostern supports universal background checks and banning assault weapons.

Goodlander agreed with Van Ostern, saying the Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit commonsense solutions. She said she’ll fight to ban assault weapons and bump stocks, enact universal background checks and close loopholes to make sure guns don’t get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. In addition, Goodlander vowed she’d take on the National Rifle Association and the gun industry, which she said have gone “unchecked” for too long, and she’ll take a proactive stance by investing in more mental health services.

Immigration

When asked about how they’d legislate to protect the rights of immigrants entering the U.S., Goodlander talked about her grandfather, who came to the U.S. from Greece at age 16. America is a “nation of immigrants,” she said, and federal law is outdated when it comes to immigration policies. Early in her career, Goodlander helped to build an ill-fated bipartisan border security and immigration reform bill. From that process, she said, she learned that “sometimes comprehensive can be the enemy of progress.” Congress should be ready to act swiftly on any piece of immigration legislation that’ll help immigrants.

Van Ostern, on the other hand, believes these policies should be comprehensive. He mentioned two main priorities: border security and immigration reform. It can take several years for legal immigrants to get a fair asylum hearing upon entering the country, Van Ostern said, a process that needs to be streamlined. For immigration reform, he said Congress needs to help people on their path to citizenship: Immigrants are important for the economy and workforce and will strengthen the country, he said.

The war in Gaza

Van Ostern and Goodlander both called for a ceasefire and the return of hostages in the Israel-Hamas War. Van Ostern said he believes that long term, there needs to be a two-state solution that gives separation, independence and self-governance to both Israel and Palestine. He also warned of rising anti-Semitism here in the U.S., saying free speech must be protected and communities must be kept safe.

“Israel has a right to defend itself. It has a right to exist. It is an important and special ally of our country,” Van Ostern said. “There’s nothing contradictory with those words to also acknowledge the humanitarian crisis we have seen since is untenable. That cannot continue.”

Goodlander focused more on immediate relief, saying she’d back a United Nations deal that’s currently on the table and that both groups have already signaled support for. This deal would instate an immediate ceasefire, usher in humanitarian aid like food and medical supplies, and set in motion the return of hostages.

Affordable housing

On affordable housing, one of the most prominent issues facing New Hampshire, Goodlander said she’d advocate for more money to improve water and sewer infrastructure and crack down on corporate landlords and algorithmic price-fixing. Housing needs local legislation, too, Goodlander said, especially in the form of zoning laws that encourage affordable housing developments.

By taxing wealthy people and large corporations, Van Ostern said he’d hope to fund things like tax credits for first-time home buyers, cutting the federal deficit to decrease interest rates. He also said he’ll fight to get federal dollars funneled to New Hampshire for infrastructure and other needs. Both candidates have previously supported all these ideas in more detailed interviews with the Monitor.

LGBTQ issues

New Hampshire recently passed three new laws restricting the rights of transgender students, including a ban on gender-affirming surgery for minors and a prohibition of letting trans athletes participate in organized school sports. When asked about how they’ll protect trans youth and access to gender-affirming care, both candidates denounced the recent bills signed by Gov. Chris Sununu and said they’d support pro-LGBTQ bills in Congress.

Van Ostern said his kids love playing basketball, where they’ve learned discipline, hard work and teamwork. The idea of taking that away from them is “appalling” and “fundamentally wrong,” Van Ostern said, and he promised to support national laws that would protect LGBTQ rights. Goodlander, too, said these bills are “wrong” and once again emphasized that freedom is on the ballot this fall.

“It’s an attack on our ability to control and have freedom over our own bodies, but it’s a deeper attack on freedom to be who we are,” Goodlander said.

Who’s better positioned to defeat a Republican?

Goodlander touted her New Hampshire values, saying this state made her who she is today. With Project 2025 on the line, Goodlander said, freedom and democracy are on the ballot. She also served as counsel in the first impeachment of former president Donald Trump.

Van Ostern, on the other hand, emphasized that he’s won in this district before against a Republican when he ran for governor — he previously came out on top in the second district but lost the overall election to Sununu.