Voter Registration Defect did not Disqualify Candidate

Voter Registration Defect did not Disqualify Candidate

A trial court ruled last week that a candidate for the Haledon school board was not disqualified even though she was not a registered voter when she signed the candidate’s acceptance and oath of allegiance. In the case, Superior Court Judge Joseph J. Riva ruled on April 1 that the prospective candidate should be allowed to run because her failure to be a registered voter when she took the oath was an innocent mistake or oversight, and because she did register before filing her nominating petition. At the time she signed her nominating petition, the candidate believed that she was registered to vote in the district – one of the legal qualifications to serve. However, she was not aware that election officials had removed her name from the list of eligible voters due to voter inactivity. The day after learning of her error, the candidate registered and filed her nominating petition by the submission deadline. Because her certification was inaccurate, a challenge to her nominating petition was filed. After a hearing, the school board determined that the nominating petition was defective, and the candidate appealed the board’s decision. First Case on Point Writing that “no reported New Jersey decisions… have squarely addressed this issue,” Judge Riva found previous rulings that were similar, but distinguishable. Ultimately, he relied largely on the approach taken in a 1996 Supreme Court decision in a Toms River school board race, where one of the signers of a petition (but not the candidate, as in Haledon) was an unregistered voter. The signer registered six days after the petition was due. The Supreme Court ruled that the signer’s late registration was a mere “technical deficiency” that did not undermine the electoral process. Because there was no evidence that the candidate realized her certification was false, and because she became a registered voter before filing her petition, the judge said allowing her to run would “neither promote election fraud nor frustrate administration of the electoral process.” Riva also warned against interpreting the election laws in a way that would deprive voters of their choices or invalidate an election on a technicality. Case Provides Guidance Although the Superior Court ruling only applies to cases in Passaic County, boards across the state will find its guidance helpful when deciding how to resolve challenges based on alleged voter registration defects. Judge Riva’s analysis suggests that if a candidate’s error is made innocently and the candidate registers before filing the petition (or presumably by the deadline for amending a defective petition), the candidate’s name should be allowed to go on the ballot.

Copyright © 2009 New Jersey School Boards Association. All rights reserved.