In late December 2021, after the petition to recount the election failed to change the outcome, the West Amwell Township government and 15 district residents filed a Petition for Election Contest to the South Hunterdon 2021 referendum result.
A redacted version of the complaint can be found here.
As usual, the complaint contains a lot of dense legal language, and spans 25 pages. Here we will break it down for you in simple terms.
The complaint has a very straightforward basis summarized simply as:
- 2 Vote Margin. The result was extraordinarily close, with “yes” winning by a mere 2 votes. This means almost any issue could have swayed the result.
- 15 possible out-of-district votes. 15 individuals are identified who may have voted in the referendum but who actually moved out of the district.
- 1 ballot was improperly rejected. There is one ballot the election board rejected that the complaint alleges should not have been.
- District PR Campaign. The district illegally used taxpayer money to fund and organize a PR campaign in favor of the referendum.
- ETown Gas construction interference. Construction activity around the school may have disenfranchised voters.
- Police activity. A police officer was stationed right outside the LPS polling entrance, which may have disenfranchised voters.
Let’s discuss each bullet in more detail.
2 Vote Margin
This is really important. Many election complaints are futile because it is often hard to prove that a given issue actually changed the outcome e.g. if the referendum passed by 60% Yes vs. 40% No, it would be hard to get a judge to change that. However, a 2 vote margin is razor thin. Only 1 or 2 votes could change the outcome.
Out of District Votes
15 people were identified as potentially having moved out of the district, but voted anyway. Note we say “potentially”, it may be there some people identified moved back here or the legal information obtained was incorrect. Each of these need to be verified.
Most of the individuals identified are young adults that appeared to have moved away during college or shortly after college. It includes people who appear to have moved to NY or Philadelphia, but also several who seemed to have moved as far away as Arizona and California. It may be that their parents or families received mail in ballots and sent them in believing they were valid votes. The reason isn’t important, if they do in fact live out of district then they cannot vote on the referendum. Nearly all of these were mail-in votes.
Rejected Ballot
1 ballot was rejected for having a non-matching signature. The individual involved was in her 90s and her age may have affected her signature appearance.
Ilegal District PR Campaign
The complaint borrows heavily from the ethics complaint and OPRA dump findings to argue that the entire referendum campaign was illegal based on the Board of Ed and district’s behavior. The petition names dozens of violations of law by the district in this regard. The complaint also points out that NJ State law requires any material created by a district within 60 days of an election that involves the district to be reviewed by the County Superintendent, which never occurred.
Not only was this campaign illegal and improper, it almost certainly swung far more than the 2 vote margin in the outcome. In fact, it is clear the district went into overdrive in October when its canvassing operations revealed that they would likely lose if they didn’t increase their PR tempo.
Construction Interference
The complaint mentions inexplicable Elizabethtown Gas construction and road closings on election day in the vicinity of LPS. This activity may have interfered with people’s ability to get to the polls, and thus disenfranchised them. The big issue here is that many residents who lived near LPS were told they had to move their cars from the street on election day for the road closures, and they moved them to the school and adjacent parking lot, leaving almost no parking for voters.
Police Intimidation
Finally, the complaint notes that a police officer was stationed right outside of the LPS polling location. That officer was asked to be there by the district. The officers presence may have intimidated voters who did not wish to walk past a police officer to cast their vote.
Process Going Forward
This complaint is going to take months to wind through the court system. In the meanwhile, the complaint asks that the district be stayed from implementing the referendum in anyway. In particular, they will be enjoined from trying to sell any bonds until the complaint is settled. Early hearings will likely happen in a March timeframe.
