Defendants in a Burlington County ballot slogan lawsuit filed their initial responses to the case Thursday as officials approach printing deadlines.
Three Mount Holly Council candidates who filed to run under the slogan “Mount Holly United” in June suddenly had their slogan invalidated when the Mount Holly United Corporation, which was founded in July, filed an objection to the slogan’s use. The trio of candidates are now suing Mount Holly Clerk Sherry Marnell and the corporation’s three founders in an attempt to get their slogan back on the ballot.
New Jersey law prohibits candidates from using a slogan that includes the name of a corporation without written permission. The candidates—Casey Carty, Jason Fajgier, and Bjana Swinson—argued the objection to the slogan constituted a “dirty trick” and that because the company did not exist when they originally filed the slogan, they did not have to obtain permission to use the “Mount Holly United” slogan.
Both sets of defendants asked for the case to be dismissed in their Thursday briefs.
An attorney for Marnell filed a brief arguing that the clerk had followed all proper procedures and policies in her decision to remove the slogan from the ballot.
In a separate brief, an attorney representing the corporation’s founders claimed the corporation was founded for nonpolitical, charitable purposes. The attorney, John Adams, also said that even if the corporation were founded for political purposes, it would not make a difference in the eyes of the law.
The clerk’s defense
Stephen Raymond, attorney for Mount Holly Clerk Sherry Marnell, wrote in his brief that Marnell’s job is efficiently administering election law, which she did. Raymond wrote that New Jersey law does not allow clerks to determine whether filings or objections are “political tricks.”
Raymond argued that because the candidates began using “Mount Holly United” in January without trademarking or protecting the slogan, the registration of the Mount Holly United Corporation” was likely legal and that Marnell didn’t have standing to question the motives behind the filing.
The attorney wrote that giving clerks the responsibility of determining the motive of every filing and objection, as he suggests the plaintiffs want, would be “wholly unworkable.”
“However, it is important to recognize, that plaintiffs, by their own admission, had from January to June to ‘protect’ their slogan Mount Holly United and they took no such action,” the brief said. “This, unfortunately, would not be the first, nor will it be the last time that a political candidate was outmaneuvered by a more savvy political opponent.”
In a separate point, the brief argued that Marnell had no authority to extend the date to amend ballot slogans past the Aug. 26 deadline. Marnell informed the candidates that their slogan was removed at about 4 p.m. on Aug. 26, which left the candidates limited time to consider legal options or submit an alternative slogan. The brief argues Marnell had no standing to offer the group additional time.
Mount Holly United Corporations’ defense
John Adams, who represents Mount Holly United Corporation founders Jason Carty, Jules Thiessen, and James Rydarowski, likewise asked Superior Court Judge John Harrington to dismiss the case.
In his brief to Harrington, the attorney wrote that the defendants first discussed establishing the corporation “shortly after” the December 2023 holidays. He said they formed the group as a nonprofit to help feed the poor.
Adams said the date of the corporation’s establishment — which came after the slogan submission by the three candidates — is not relevant. He said the four-day challenge window after the filing Aug. 22 deadline is the only date that matters, and that the June candidate filing is irrelevant.
“Petition challengers view Petitions and challenge them in the short 4-day window after the Petition Filing deadline — the Petition filing deadline is the date that is relevant for determining … that the Petition is properly completed, the signatures are valid, and the names listed are registered voters for the district in the applicable election.”
Adams also argued the motive of the corporation’s establishment is irrelevant, and noted “ it is a long-standing accepted practice in New Jersey to register names of potential slogans and/or to incorporate said names to deprive political opponents of the use of the slogan in an election.”
“Any person or entity could have registered or incorporated the name, and such would have required the Clerk to make the same Determination as in the instant matter,” Adams wrote.
The next hearing of the case is scheduled for Monday at 10 a.m.