[brief] On Saturday, February 15, 2025, [...] in Ocean County, held an election for the position of Fire District Commissioner.  (1T31:22-24).  Both the [...] (“[...]”) and [...] (the “Board”) were closed the following day, Sunday, February 16.  (2T76:24-77:3).  They were also closed the day after that, Monday, February 17, because it was Presidents’ Day (technically called Washington’s Birthday), which is a federal holiday.  (1T41:24-42:2).  Four candidates competed on the ballot for two open seats: [...], [...], [...], and [...].  (Pa1).  And the final certified results showed that Tutela and Cirz had won with 690 and 616 votes respectively, and that Hopson and Golden had received 615 votes each.  (Pa3).  Among the many votes that were not counted by the Board was an “overvote,” which consisted of an individual who cast votes for both Cirz and Golden, and who also filled in the bubble in the write-in spot immediately to the left of Cirz’s name.  (Da9).  However, even though the voter filled in the third bubble, they did not actually cast a write-in vote because they did not write in anyone’s name.  (Id.).  1.  Cirz has combined his statement of procedural history and facts to clarify the record and issues on appeal as they were presented to the trial court.  2.  References to “1T” are to the transcript of the first day of trial, which occurred on April 14, 2025.  References to “2T” are to the transcript of the second day of trial, which occurred on April 15, 2025.  The Board (and trial court) also declined to count the ballot of [...], the niece of [...].  (1T27:14-16).  On or around February 10, Gilham cast her vote using a mail-in ballot.  (1T27:21-28:2).  While Gilham completed the outer envelope of the ballot, including her name and address, she failed to do so on the inner mail-in certificate.  (1T22:8-24).  Gilham provided all information required on the mail-in certificate (including name, address, and municipality) on the exterior of the ballot, aside from her signature.  (Da10-Da11).  Notably, there was no evidence that her ballot had been tampered with or other indicia of fraud.  (1T25:1-3).  Once Gilham realized that her vote had not been counted on Election Day, she visited the Board prior to the certification of results and asked for an opportunity to complete a “cure” letter and fix the deficiencies.  (1T18:13-19).  The Board (and trial court) refused to allow her to do so.  (1T18:11-19).  Three voters, including Marci and [...], and [...] all saw their votes rejected as well.³ (1T32:6-9).  Each timely cast their mail-in ballots on or before Election Day, but they were not postmarked until the [...] was next open, on Tuesday, February 18, and were delivered to the Board that same day.  (2T76:16-21).  For example, Marci and [...] both testified that they mailed the ballots the morning of Election Day, on Saturday, February 15.  (1T37:10-16; 1T46:21-47:1-4).  Duffy testified that he mailed his ballot on “February 7th or 8th,” more than a week before the election, but it was not delivered until February 18.  (1T51:4-5).  --- ³ Cirz initially challenged multiple other similar votes, but these three were the only ones to testify, and therefore their ballots are the only ones being appealed.  2.  Procedural History of the Lawsuit