State tells judge Leguía belongs on ballot — while rejecting her case

In a brief that takes no position and then takes nearly every position, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office told a federal judge Monday that Libertarian Lana Leguía deserves to be restored to the ballot in one of the nation’s most competitive House races — but not for the constitutional reasons she has presented to the court.

Secretary of State Dale Caldwell formally declined to support or oppose Leguía’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  But the 21-page brief filed by the New Jersey Solicitor General’s Office argues that state law, fairness, the public interest and the balance of hardships all favor allowing her to run in November.

“The Secretary agrees that Leguía should appear on the ballot this November as a matter of state severability law,” the brief said.

At the same time, Caldwell’s attorneys contend that Leguía is unlikely to prevail on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims underlying her request for emergency relief—a conclusion that could prevent U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi from granting an injunction even if every other consideration weighs in her favor.

“Defendant Secretary of State Dr. Dale G. Caldwell takes no position on Plaintiff’s motion,” the state said at both the beginning and end of its brief.

Leguía is seeking to run in New Jersey’s 7th congressional district, where two-term Republican Rep. Tom Kean, Jr. faces Democrat Rebecca Bennett, a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot.  The district is among the most closely watched in the country as Republicans and Democrats battle for control of the House.

Leguía submitted 755 petition signatures, more than three times the 250 required to qualify as an independent candidate.  The New Jersey Republican State Committee challenged 670 signatures because circulators who did not live in New Jersey collected them.

State law requires circulators for independent and third-party general election candidates to be New Jersey residents.  The Division of Elections declined to enforce that provision for five years after a federal court invalidated a substantially identical residency requirement for people circulating petitions for major-party primary candidates.

Caldwell, the lieutenant governor, initially upheld Leguía’s petitions, finding “no practical distinction” between circulators gathering signatures for primary candidates and those working for candidates seeking direct access to the general election ballot.

The Appellate Division reversed Caldwell and ordered Leguía removed from the ballot.  The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected her appeal twice in five days, leaving federal court as her last opportunity to return to the ballot.

“The Secretary has told candidates for the past five years that they need not use in-state circulators,” the state told Quraishi. “Candidates have relied on that guidance, and Leguía is no exception.”

State court judges took different positions in three election challenges this summer when local election officials offered incorrect petition information to candidates who were still held to the statutory requirements.

The Attorney General’s Office acknowledged that Leguía faces irreparable harm.  County clerks could begin printing ballots later this month, and the June 2 petition deadline has passed, leaving her with no opportunity to replace the challenged signatures using New Jersey circulators.

“For her to be excluded from the ballot after relying on the Secretary’s longstanding guidance would be deeply unfair,” the state argued in a filing written by Deputy Attorneys Liza Fleming and Nathaniel Rubin.

They also said excluding Leguía would harm voters who want to support her and would abruptly change election rules after candidates had relied on them.

“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” the brief said, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

The state’s strongest argument for restoring Leguía is based not on the federal Constitution, but on New Jersey severability law.

The Legislature enacted materially identical residency requirements for primary and general election petition circulators.  After the primary requirement was struck down, the state argues, the remaining provision cannot be enforced exclusively against independent and third-party candidates unless evidence shows lawmakers intended such unequal treatment.

Continuing to enforce the requirement against Leguía would create a “lopsided scheme” that places a heavier burden on candidates petitioning directly onto the general election ballot than on Democrats and Republicans seeking nominations through party primaries, the state said.

“For that reason, the Secretary properly decided to include Leguía on the ballot,” the brief states.

But the Attorney General’s Office rejected the constitutional theories Leguía placed before Quraishi.

The state contends that limiting circulators to New Jersey residents does not impose a severe First Amendment burden because millions of state residents remain eligible to collect signatures. The requirement also advances the state’s interest in ensuring that circulators can be subpoenaed, investigated, and held accountable by New Jersey election officials and courts.

“While the Secretary sought to include Leguía on the ballot,” the brief said, “she cannot succeed on the merits by showing that section 19:13-7 violates the First or Fourteenth Amendment.”

The state also maintains that different requirements for major-party and third-party candidates would not necessarily violate the Constitution, even though Caldwell believes the Legislature never intended to create that distinction.

“Just because the Legislature may constitutionally impose different circulator requirements on major-party candidates and third-party candidates, that does not mean the Legislature intended to do so,” the brief said.  “To the contrary, the Legislature intended all candidates to be treated equally.”

The state’s emphasis on fairness represents a departure from the position the Attorney General’s Office took in voting-rights cases before the recent primary.  In those cases, the office regularly defended decisions to remove voters from the rolls after Motor Vehicle Commission software glitches, human errors or misunderstandings of election law—even when eligible voters faced disenfranchisement through no fault of their own.  The state did not embrace the same fairness argument it now advances for Leguía.

Quraishi has also encountered an Attorney General’s Office attempting to remain outside an election-law dispute while offering a consequential legal opinion.

In 2024, then-Attorney General Matt Platkin declined to defend New Jersey’s county organization line and submitted a letter saying his office believed the system was unconstitutional.  Quraishi initially questioned whether he would consider the letter and appeared irritated that Platkin had offered an opinion without formally entering the case.

“He’s lobbing his opinion from the cheap seats without anything behind it,” Quraishi said at the time.

Quraishi later issued the landmark decision that ended the county organization line in Democratic primaries and transformed New Jersey politics.

He is scheduled to hold a telephone conference in Leguía’s case this afternoon.