New Jersey

New Jersey is Ready to Vote by Mail, But the Trump Campaign is Trying to Stop Them

Election Law Society · September 30, 2020 ·

By: Brianna Mashel

On August 14^th, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed an executive order mandating all approximately 6.3 million registered voters to automatically receive mail-in ballots. After he announced the order, the governor exclaimed, “Everybody gets a ballot!”

Four days after the executive order was signed, however, the Trump campaign, national GOP Committee, and state GOP Committee launched a suit accusing Governor Murphy of usurping the state legislature’s authority to regulate elections and creating “a recipe for disaster” with respect to invalid voting. Almost a month later, on September 16^th, Governor Murphy and his administration found themselves in a New Jersey Federal Court arguing against a preliminary injunction that would block this proposed expansion of mail-in voting.

New Jersey 2016: Election Watchdog, Lacking Quorum, Has Bark But No Bite

Election Law Society · November 3, 2016 ·

By: Ian Cummings

In New Jersey, this year’s state and local elections may forgo monitoring or oversight with any enforcement power if co-branch – and personal – politics between the state’s governor and state legislative leaders continues. The Election Law Enforcement Commission, a state agency tasked to safeguard election integrity by regulating campaign finance reports, lobbying, play-to-play, and political fundraising rules, has been without a quorum since May. The four-person body has three-quarters of its commissioners’ seats vacant, with only one, its chairman, in office. The commission, which traditionally splits evenly with two Republican and two Democratic appointees, only has Republican appointee Ronald DeFilippis serving as of present.

Recent New Jersey State Election Law Limits Delivery of Mail-In Ballots by Authorized Individuals

Election Law Society · April 8, 2016 ·

By Briana Cornelius

On August 10, 2015, the New Jersey legislature passed a new state election law, Public Law 2015, Chapter 84, which limits the number of “Vote by Mail” ballots that a designated delivery person can pick up and deliver on behalf of other registered voters. Under the New Jersey “Vote by Mail Law,” an “authorized messenger” is an individual who is permitted to obtain mail-in ballots for other qualified voters. Previously, authorized messengers were allowed to obtain up to ten ballots for delivery to other voters, and “bearers” were permitted to return an unlimited number of completed ballots to county election boards on behalf of other voters. The new law, which took effect immediately, reduces the number of ballots that both an authorized messenger and bearer can deliver to just three. This change in the law (you can see the previous version of the law here) represents the first time there has been any limit on the number of ballots that a bearer can deliver to county election officials.

The Changing Face of Elections Technology in New Jersey: An Interview with Paula Sollami Covello, County Clerk, Mercer County, New Jersey

Election Law Society · November 27, 2012 ·

by Melanie Walter

On October 19, 2012, I had the opportunity to speak with Paula Sollami Covello, the County Clerk in Mercer County, New Jersey. She is responsible for ballots, positioning on the ballots, and Election Day counting of returns. She was first elected to this office in 2006.

Mrs. Covello described the three offices responsible for running elections. “The Clerk’s office draws the ballots and positions. We also print the ballots, and prep sample and print and issue vote-by-mail ballots…The Clerk’s office also counts votes on Election Night.” She also described the roles of the other two offices, “The Superintendant of elections deals with voter registration… The Board of Elections is a bipartisan board, two Democrats and two Republicans. The Board counts all the vote-by-mail ballots. They are also in charge of polling locations and training poll workers.” Mrs. Covello expressed faith in this process, saying that this three-office system “provides good checks and balances. There are multiple offices with responsibilities, and it functions in a bipartisan way. The County Clerk is elected, but the staff is all civil servants, and the Superintendant is from one party, but the deputy Superintendant is from the other major party.” [Read more…] about The Changing Face of Elections Technology in New Jersey: An Interview with Paula Sollami Covello, County Clerk, Mercer County, New Jersey

“It’s the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen in politics.”

Election Law Society · November 1, 2012 ·

by Aaron C. Carter

Whether hyperbole or not, Rep. Bill Pascrell had harsh words for his Democratic primary opponent Rep. Steve Rothman in their June 5, 2012 primary election contest. After redistricting, New Jersey lost a congressional seat and two sitting Congressional members faced head to head in the 9^th Congressional district, which is comfortably Democratic. Rep. Pascrell won the primary 30,227 (61%) to 19,118 (39%)but there was an interesting maneuver by the Rothman campaign and their attorneys that raised the ire of Congressman Pascrell.

A lawyer for the Rothman Campaign complained about irregularities in the absentee voting process in a request to have 2,000 absentee ballots from Passaic County impounded. The Passaic County Superintendent of Elections felt that to protect the election process the ballots should be impounded Monday afternoon before the Tuesday election to give the parties time to review them. Judge Ernest M. Caposela later vacated the order. Judge Caposela ruled that the Rothman campaign could inspect the ballots, but required the ballots to be counted starting the next morning.

The initial impoundment was possible under N.J.S.A. 19:58-30. The statute reads “Specific power is hereby granted to the superintendent of elections in counties having a superintendent of elections and the prosecutor in all other counties to impound all such ballots whenever he shall deem such action to be necessary.” Superintendent Robert J. De Mers exercised this power in the face of possible irregularities. These irregularities included a Paterson storefront covered with signs for Rep. Bill Pascrell, telling passers-by they could fill out mail-in ballots inside and a Facebook wall post by a Passaic County Sheriff deputy that said he had a number of ballots he “collected for Bill. “

In reaching his decision to release the impoundment ballots, Judge Caposela, helped shine some light on why he considered the action “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.” Traditionally, [the Court] will not reverse an agency’s decision unless: (1) it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; (2) it violated express or implied legislative policies; (3) it offended the State or Federal Constitution; or (4) the findings on which it was based were not supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999).

Judge Caposela looked to In re Absentee Ballots Cast by Five Residents of Trenton Psychiatric Hosp. 331 N.J. Super. 31(App. Div. 2000) for guidance on what the court considered reasonable in regards to impounding absentee ballots. The Judge in that case, similar to Supervisor of Elections De Mers reasoned “that the ‘safe approach’ was to segregate the ballots now, and only allow the ballots to be opened if the voter was later determined competent.”

The Appeals Court for the Psychiatric Hosp. case held, “(1) a challenge based on residency at the psychiatric hospital alone is illegal; (2) the voters were deprived of their fundamental right to vote because their ballots were segregated; and (3) the judge erred by not placing the burden on the challengers to show by clear and convincing evidence that the voters were ineligible to vote.”

These determinations were deemed applicable for the Rothman case as well. Judge Caposela considered the wholesale impoundment of ballots from a particular county disturbing in light of the evidence. There was definitely a strategic aspect to going after specifically Passaic County vote-by-mail ballots in a wholesale fashion. Pascrell overwhelmed Rothman 9-to-1 in his home county base, running up a 22,000-vote cushion that Rothman could not offset in parts of Bergen and Hudson counties that had sent him to Congress for eight terms before. A Facebook post and darkened windows were not considered “evidence” in the legal sense of the word according to Judge Caposela. With a fundamental right at stake, the action was considered “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”

The impoundment statute, N.J.S.A. 19:58-30, vests significant discretion in the prosecutor or Superintendent of Elections to take action. Often in an effort to protect elections, these parties slow down the process to the detriment of one candidate or another. While there is recourse in the courts for these maneuvers, if the Superintendent of Elections’ actions were upheld, 2,000 people could have lost their voice until all the in-person votes were counted. Whether justified or not, these type of maneuvers raise significant questions on the vote by mail process. If the legislature is interested in upholding the integrity of the electoral process, it may want to reconsider the power it vests in the Superintendent of Elections and prosecutors to impound ballots.

Aaron C. Carter is a second-year student at William & Mary Law School.

permalink: http://stateofelections.pages.wm.edu/2012/11/01/most-pathetic-thing-ever/

https://essayclick.net