Judge refuses to halt Ocean County voter challenges in Bay Head

A Superior Court judge on Tuesday refused to stop the Ocean County Board of Elections from investigating voters’ residency in Bay Head, rejecting an emergency request by voting rights advocates who allege Democrats and unaffiliated voters were selectively targeted for challenges just weeks before the November 3 general election.

Mercer County Assignment Judge Robert Lougy denied the request for immediate relief in a lawsuit filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Harvard Election Law Clinic on behalf of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey and three Bay Head voters.

At the center of the dispute is whether county election officials are conducting legitimate inquiries into voter eligibility or using residency challenges to intimidate voters based on their political affiliation.

With Election Day three weeks away, the central question remains whether the Ocean County board’s actions constitute a legitimate effort to verify voter eligibility or an improper use of election procedures against voters singled out because of their political affiliation.

The controversy began after the president of the Bay Head Republican organization provided county election officials with a list of voters whose property tax bills were allegedly mailed to addresses outside the borough.

The Ocean County Board of Elections subsequently began contacting voters to question whether Bay Head was their legal residence.

The ACLU alleges that the board disproportionately targeted Democrats and unaffiliated voters while leaving Republicans with similar property tax mailing arrangements unchallenged.

The distinction matters in a shore community like Bay Head, where property owners may receive tax bills at addresses outside the municipality even if they consider Bay Head their primary residence.  A property tax mailing address alone does not necessarily establish where someone is legally entitled to vote.

“This was bullying through bureaucracy,” Liza Weisberg, an attorney for the ACLU of New Jersey, told Lougy during Tuesday’s proceedings.

The plaintiffs contend that the board’s actions amount to voter intimidation and violate the recently enacted John Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey, as well as constitutional protections guaranteeing equal treatment and voting rights.

But Deputy Attorney General Mark Gulbranson, representing the county election board, disputed the suggestion that officials were attempting to prevent anyone from voting.

“The board is keenly aware of how important the right to vote is,” Gulbranson said.

He argued that the lawsuit rests on “a misunderstanding of the board’s investigatory efforts,” which he described as an attempt to determine whether voters are legally domiciled in Bay Head.

“The voters themselves are the best possible sources of information as to whether or not they are properly domiciled in Bay Head,” he said.

Gulbranson maintained that the inquiries have not deprived voters of their ability to cast regular ballots.

“No voter is being disenfranchised,” he said.  “No voter is being asked to fill out a provisional ballot.”

He also defended the board’s practice of sending letters to voters at multiple addresses, arguing the procedure is meant to ensure voters receive notice of the inquiries.

“The board sends letters via certified and regular mail to every address it has for the challenged voter precisely because it recognizes how important the right to vote is,” Gulbranson said.

The legal dispute raises questions about how far county election boards can go in investigating voter residency, particularly when the initial information comes from a local political organization and the resulting inquiries allegedly fall disproportionately on members of other political groups.

New Jersey law requires voters to be legally domiciled in the municipality where they are registered. But the plaintiffs argue that the board’s approach improperly treats an out-of-town property tax mailing address as grounds for questioning eligibility while failing to apply the same scrutiny to similarly situated Republicans.

The lawsuit is the first brought under New Jersey’s new John Lewis Voter Empowerment Act, according to the ACLU, making the case an early test of the law’s protections against voter intimidation.

“The Board’s actions here, just weeks before an election, offend core principles of democracy, and we are hopeful the court will be able to act promptly to preserve voters’ rights,” said Omeed Alerasool, litigation counsel at the Harvard Election Law Clinic, when the lawsuit was announced last week.

The plaintiffs warn that permitting politically selective residency investigations could establish a precedent for using voter challenges to discourage participation, even when voters ultimately retain their legal right to cast ballots.

Lougy’s refusal to grant immediate relief allows the board’s inquiries to continue, but does not, by itself, resolve the underlying allegations of discriminatory treatment or voter intimidation.