Title: IMO the Petition of Kati Gray-Sadler, John Sturgis and Edward Geiger

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). PORITZ, CJ., writing for a unanimous Court. This appeal concerns a challenge of the results of the November 2, 1999 general election by write-in candidates for the offices of mayor and borough council in the Borough of Chesilhurst, Camden County. Four-hundred eleven of Chesilhurst's 880 registered voters participated in the November 2, 1999 election for the offices of general assembly, county freeholder, mayor, and borough council. The election took place at a single polling place with two of the older type of voting machines that use paper rolls to record write-in votes. Kati Gray-Sadler was a write-in candidate for mayor. John Sturgis and Edward Geiger were write-in candidates for borough council seats. The incumbent candidates for the mayoral and council seats were the only candidates whose names appeared on the voting machine ballot. To vote for a write-in candidate, a voter was required to hold down a lever with one hand, simultaneously slide open a metal window with the other hand, and then insert the name of the desired candidate in writing or with a sticker on the paper revealed in the open window. Prior to the election, voters received sample ballots that depicted the face of the voting machine. Gray Sadler, Sturgis, and Geiger (petitioners) ran a spirited campaign, distributing pre-printed stickers bearing their names, together with information about their backgrounds and platforms. No information on how to cast a write-in vote was available at the polling place prior to entering the voting machines. Inside the voting machines, the face of the ballot contained an extremely small instruction in the top left hand corner: PERSONAL CHOICE WARNING! Do not touch personal choice unless you intend to write-in. Ask Election Judge for instructions before entering machine to vote. On the ballot, there were seven lines for each of the available offices and forty-three extra blank lines. On the left wall of the voting booths, a poster provided separate instructions. The incumbents were declared the winners of the mayoral and council seats. On December 3, 1999, petitioners filed a complaint challenging the election results essentially on the grounds that the instructions concerning write-in votes were confusing and that the voting machines had scraped off certain write-in stickers, a claim not made before the Supreme Court. The trial court held a hearing during which the Borough of Chesilhurst and the Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Camden County Board of Elections and the Camden County Superintendent of Elections, defended the results. Six witnesses testified for petitioners and all claimed that they had difficulty figuring out how to cast a write-in vote because the instructions were sparse and confusing. One witness testified that she was so confused that it actually prevented her from casting a write-in vote, and another testified that she lost the chance to vote when she stepped out of the booth to ask an election official for instructions about write in votes. The Board of Elections also disclosed that it had rejected votes. The trial court ordered a review of the paper rolls and discovered that there were sixty-four write-in votes, either hand written or affixed by sticker, that had not been counted by election officials. Forty-nine of those were placed on the voting machine in spaces that did not specify any office. The Board of Elections deemed those votes void. Another fifteen votes were placed in spaces designated for offices that were not sought by petitioners. Those votes were counted as votes for those offices, not the offices for which petitioners were running. The trial court concluded that serious irregularities in the conduct of the election denied qualified write-in voters their constitutional right to vote for any person they chose. Because the voting machines were not accompanied by proper mechanical models and because voting instructions were not provided to each voter in the manner required by statute, the court voided the results for the offices of mayor and borough council and ordered a special election to be held. The Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court granted petitioners' request for certification and cross-petitions filed by Camden County and the Attorney General in respect of the appropriate procedures in the event of a new election. HELD: In light of all the circumstances, it cannot be determined with reasonable certainty those candidates who received a majority of votes for either the mayor or borough council seats. Therefore, the election for the offices of mayor and borough council are null and void. A special election must be held to fill the resulting vacancies not less than 45 days nor more than 50 days from the effective date of this opinion. 1. One of the statutory grounds for contesting an election occurs when legal votes have been rejected at the polls sufficient to change the result. Rejection of votes can be demonstrated when, through no fault of their own, voters were prohibited from voting for a specific candidate by some irregularity in the voting procedures. The essential question is whether Chesilhurst voters were denied the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choice. (Pp. 7-9) 2. The statutory language, requiring election officials to reject votes if a write-in vote is not in its appropriate place in the voting machine, must be read in light of the broad purpose of the election laws to prevent voter disenfranchisement. Errors due to extrinsic problems are distinguished from errors caused by a voter's own neglect. The Legislature did not intend for the statute to be applied in a manner that would frustrate the free expression of the voters' will when incorrect placement of the write-in vote is the result of mistakes or problems beyond the voters' control. (Pp. 10-12) 3. The record illustrates a failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 19:50-3, which directs election officials to instruct voters on the proper use of the voting machines. No information was provided outside of the voting booths explaining how properly to cast write-in votes nor were there mechanical models. Voter confusion is attributable to defects outside of their control: sincere efforts to cast write-in votes were thwarted by insufficient instructions provided inside the booths; there were clear and precise instructions on the top of the ballot describing how to cast a vote for the candidates printed on the ballot but not for casting write-in votes; and the personal choice warning was easy to miss, difficult to read, and, if voters followed the instruction to seek help outside the booth, they were barred from reentering the booth to finish voting. Overall it was much easier to vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot as opposed to write-in candidates, regardless of voter preference. (Pp. 12-16) 4. Furthermore, the poster on the left wall of each booth omitted an essential piece of information necessary for casting a write-in vote and the sample ballots sent to voters prior to the election lacked clear instructions for casting a write-in vote. Thus, the Chesilhurst voters were given patently inadequate instructions or none at all, differentiating this case from those where the voters' failure to comply with specific procedural instructions invalidated their votes. (Pp. 16-18) 5. An election can be vitiated only if those contesting it can show that as a result of the irregularities, the free expression of popular will has in all likelihood been thwarted. Petitioners meet the statutory requirement for successfully contesting the results of the election, requiring a special election. (Pp 18-23) 6. For the new election, and for all future elections throughout the State, explicit instructions on how to cast a write in vote must be provided with the sample ballots sent to registered voters. The instructions must offer clear, step-by step directions that describe the mechanics of the voting machine, explain how to operate the windows and levers, and emphasize the need to cast write-in votes on the appropriate lines. Voters must be warned that an improperly cast vote will be deemed void. Similarly clear instructions must be provided at the polling place, giving the voter the opportunity for review prior to going into the booth. A mechanical model or demonstration machine is preferred but not required if it would pose an undue burden on the locality. Camden County should fund the cost of this special election. (Pp. 23-25) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED. A special election is to be held in Chesilhurst for the offices of mayor and borough council as set forth herein. The effective date of the opinion is deferred to July 31, 2000 to permit the scheduling of the special election in September pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:16-16. JUSTICES O'HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, and LaVECCHIA join in CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ's opinion. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KATI GRAY-SADLER, JOHN STURGIS AND EDWARD GEIGER, WRITE-IN CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF CHESILHURST BOROUGH, CONTESTING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1999. Argued May 1, 2000 -- Decided June 30, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Shirley Grasso argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents Kati Gray Sadler, John Sturgis and Edward Geiger (Grasso & Inferrera, attorneys). Robert G. Millenky, Camden County Counsel, argued the cause for respondent and cross appellant County of Camden. Donna Kelly, Senior Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents and cross appellants Camden County Superintendent of Elections and Camden County Board of Elections (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mark J. Fleming, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Kelly and Karen Griffin, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). John B. Kearney argued the cause for respondent and cross-respondent Arland Poindexter (Kearney & Castillo, attorneys, Carol R. Cobb, on the brief). David E. Mapp argued the cause for respondent and cross-respondent Borough of Chesilhurst (Harvey C. Johnson, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by In this appeal, write-in candidates for the offices of mayor and borough council in the Borough of Chesilhurst challenge the results of the November 2, 1999, general election. After hearing testimony and reviewing the voting rolls, the Law Division ruled that irregularities related to the write-in instructions and non compliant voting machines required the election results for those offices to be set aside. The court ordered a special election to fill the resulting vacancies. The Appellate Division reversed. We now reinstate the decision of the trial court, with certain modifications, and order that a special election be held. To vote for a candidate of your personal choice, place finger of left hand on small lever indicated. Pull lever to right, this will release window slides. Pull to right the window slide of the designated office for which you desire to cast your vote. Paper will then be exposed for your write-in vote. You must place an X after written name. It is also permissible to attach a sticker to the paper with a candidates [sic] name plus the X. The written instructions were accompanied by a photograph of two hands, one pointing to the small lever and the other to a metal window. The initial election return sheet indicated that Poindexter received 164 votes for mayor and Gray-Sadler received 146 votes. With the addition of absentee and provisional ballots, Poindexter's total rose to 172 and Gray-Sadler's to 154. After a recount of the paper rolls, Gray-Sadler's total vote count was decreased from 154 to 152. The return sheet showed that incumbent Councilmen Congleton and Johnson received 166 and 164 votes, respectively, whereas write-in candidates Sturgis and Geiger received 123 and 113 votes. After the recount and the addition of absentee ballots, Sturgis's final total was 135 and Geiger's was 134. On December 3, 1999, petitioners filed a complaint challenging the election results essentially on the grounds that the write-in instructions were confusing and that the voting machines had scraped off certain write-in stickers, a claim not raised before this Court. The trial court conducted a hearing in which the Borough of Chesilhurst and the Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Camden County Board of Elections and the Camden County Superintendent of Elections, defended the results. Six witnesses testified for petitioners and all claimed that they had had difficulty in determining how to cast a write-in vote because the instructions were sparse and confusing. One witness testified that the confusion was so great it actually prevented her from casting a write-in vote, and another testified that she lost the opportunity to vote when she stepped out of the booth to ask an election official for instructions about write-in votes. The Board of Elections also disclosed for the first time that it had rejected votes, contrary to both the notation on the return sheet that no votes were rejected and the silence of the recount report concerning rejected votes. The trial court subsequently ordered a review of the paper rolls and discovered that there were sixty-four write-in votes, either hand-written or affixed by sticker, that had not been counted by election officials. Forty-nine were placed on the voting machine in spaces that did not specify any office. Of those forty-nine, fifteen votes were for Gray-Sadler, nineteen for Sturgis, and fifteen for Geiger. The Board deemed those forty-nine votes void. Another fifteen votes were placed in spaces designated for offices that were not sought by petitioners (e.g., Gray-Sadler was placed twice in general assembly spaces and six times in borough council spaces). Those votes were counted as votes for those offices, not the offices for which petitioners were running. The trial court concluded that serious irregularities in the conduct of the election denied qualified write-in voters their constitutional right to vote for any person they chose. Because the voting machines were not accompanied by proper mechanical models, as specified in N.J.S.A. 19:48-1(l), and because voting instructions were not provided to each voter in the manner required by N.J.S.A. 19:50-3, the court voided the results for the offices of mayor and borough council and ordered a special election to be held. On emergency appeal, the Appellate Division reversed. We granted petitioners' request for certification and cross -petitions filed by Camden County and the Attorney General in respect of the appropriate procedures in the event of a new election. 163 N.J. 398 (2000). e. When . . . legal votes [have been] rejected at the polls sufficient to change the result; f. For any error by any board of canvassers in counting the votes or declaring the result of the election, if such error would change the result; [or] g. For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally elected. All three petitioners claim that write-in votes placed on the wrong line due to insufficient and unintelligible instructions were ignored or counted as votes for offices that the candidates were not seeking. They also claim that the inadequate instructions prevented other voters from casting any write-in votes at all. The gravamen of those claims is that legal votes cast for the petitioners were rejected. See N.J.S.A. 19:29 1(e). Petitioners' reading of the term rejected is supported by prior caselaw that defines the term 'to include any situation in which qualified voters are denied access to the polls.' In re 1984 Maple Shade Gen. Election, 203 N.J. Super. 563, 590 (App. Div. 1985) (quoting Magura v. Smith, 131 N.J. Super. 395, 399 (Law Div. 1974), overruled in part on other grounds, In re Mallon, 232 N.J. Super. 249, 271 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 166 (1989)); accord In re Moffat, 142 N.J. Super. 217, 223 (App. Div.) (holding that votes rejected when partially malfunctioning voting machine prevented recording of votes for one candidate), certif. denied, 71 N.J. 527 (1976). Voters need not be physically barred from voting to have their votes rejected, but may instead show that, through no fault of their own, they were prohibited from voting for a specific candidate by some irregularity in the voting procedures. In re Moffat, supra, 142 N.J. Super. at 223. The essential question is whether voters were denied the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choice. Ibid. Respondents admit that many write-in votes were ignored because they were placed on the wrong line. They argue, however, that N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 required election officials to reject those votes, based on a plain reading of the statute, which states that if a write-in vote, or irregular ballot, is not in its appropriate place on the [voting] machine, . . . it shall be void and not counted. Although the statute appears straightforward, it must be read in light of the broad purpose of the election laws to prevent disenfranchisement of qualified voters. In cases involving invalidated write-in votes, our courts have distinguished errors due to extrinsic problems from errors caused by a voter's own neglect. In re Hartnett, 163 N.J. Super. 257, 268 (App. Div. 1978) (holding that vote properly voided where intent was clear but error was within voter's control); In re Fifteen Registered Voters on Behalf of Flanagan, 129 N.J. Super. 296, 301-02 (App. Div.) (holding that write-in votes bearing only surname should not have been voided where desired candidate was obvious and voter sufficiently complied with instructions), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 577 (1974); In re Klayman, 97 N.J. Super. 295, 304 (Law Div. 1967) (holding that incorrect spelling or absence of middle initial should not void write-in vote where intent clear and write-in space small); but see In re Sweetwood, 91 N.J. Super. 496, 499 (App. Div. 1966) (holding that although ballot did not instruct voter to designate office for selected candidate, failure to do so invalidated vote). Those cases generally adhere to the principle that rigid application of technical rules should not prevent otherwise valid write-in votes from being counted. See Riecker v. Hartmann, 130 N.J. Super. 266, 272 (Law Div. 1974) (stating that the technical restraints of the election laws should not restrict voters' will). We do not believe that the Legislature intended N.J.S.A. 19:49-5 to be applied in a manner that would frustrate the free expression of the voters' will when the incorrect placement of the write-in vote is the result of mistakes or problems beyond the voters' control. To determine the nature of any alleged mistakes or problems and their impact on the voters, we consider extrinsic factors such as the notoriety of the candidates' campaign and the character of the electorate. See In re Fifteen Voters, supra, 129 N.J. Super. at 300-01. Reliable extrinsic evidence, which, in light of human experience might reasonably be expected to demonstrate intent expressed on the ballot but less than perfectly, should be searched to effectuate the voter's wish and preserve the franchise. Id. at 301. We observe, in the case before us, that this was a small election in a small borough with only seven offices to be filled. Like Harry Wright, the candidate for office in In re Fifteen Voters, petitioners campaigned vigorously for write-in votes and sent publicity mailings to all of the registered voters in the borough. Petitioners also campaigned together in opposition to the incumbent candidates and made it quite clear that they were running as a mayor/council team. Cf. id. at 298 (noting joint campaign of write-in candidate and other candidates). On the paper rolls, many of the voided votes were cast in groups of three, but on lines just above or just below the designated spaces. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from those groupings is that the intention of the voters who cast those votes was to elect Gray-Sadler for mayor, and Sturgis and Geiger for borough council. courts [have] consider[ed] the nature of the irregularity, its materiality, the significance of its influence and consequential derivations in order to determine whether the digression or deviation from the prescribed statutory requisitions had in reasonable probability so imposing and so vital an influence on the election proceeding as to have repressed or contravened a full and free expression of the popular will. . . . [In re Mallon, supra, 232 N.J. Super. at 270 (quoting Sharrock v. Borough of Keansburg, 15 N.J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 1951).] NO. A-97/103/104 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF KATI GRAY-SADLER, JOHN STURGIS AND EDWARD GEIGER, WRITE-IN CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF CHESILHURST BOROUGH, CONTESTING THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1999. DECIDED June 30, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz