NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4883-17T4

EDWARD CORREA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATIC

STATE COMMITTEE,

Plaintiff/IntervenorAppellant,

v.

ANN GROSSI, JOHN WOJTAZEK

and TARA PETTONI,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________

Submitted January 9, 2019 – Decided April 8, 2019

Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1026-18.

Genova Burns, LLC, attorneys for appellant New 

Jersey State Democratic Committee; Jardim, Meisner & 

Susser, PC, attorneys for appellant Edward Correa 

(Rajiv D. Parikh and Scott D. Salmon, of counsel; Rajiv 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

April 11, 2019

APPELLATE DIVISION
2

A-4883-17T4

D. Parikh, Matthew Baker and Paul J. DeMartino, Jr.,

on the joint brief).

Carbone and Faasse, attorneys for respondents Ann 

Grossi and John Wojtazek (John M. Carbone, on the 

brief).

Antonelli Kantor, PC, attorneys for respondent Tara 

Pettoni (Jarrid H. Kantor, of counsel; Jarrid H. Kantor 

and Yulieika Tamayo, on the brief).

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden and American Civil 

Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys 

for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of 

New Jersey (CJ Griffin, Jeanne M. LoCicero, and 

Alexander R. Shalom, of counsel; CJ Griffin, on the 

brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

REISNER, J.A.D.

In this opinion, we address the one novel issue placed before us. Where 

N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 requires that sample primary ballots be printed in Spanish 

as well as English, must the official primary ballots, including mail-in ballots,

also be printed in Spanish and English? Reading N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 in pari 

materia with related sections of the election laws, and considering the 

Legislature's policy to avoid disenfranchising voters whose primary language is 

Spanish, we conclude that the answer to the question is yes. To avoid disrupting

the electoral process, our decision is prospective only, and any future challenge 
3

A-4883-17T4

based on this decision must be filed in sufficient time to permit effectuation of

the relief sought without delaying the election.

 I

Before continuing our discussion, we address the procedural posture of 

the case. A few days before the June 5, 2018 primary election, plaintiff Edward 

Correa filed an order to show cause challenging the machine and mail-in ballots 

in Dover, Morris County. At the time, Correa was a "declared candidate" for a 

seat on the district committee in Ward 3, District 1 in Dover. Because at least 

ten percent of the registered voters in Dover spoke Spanish as their primary 

language, N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 required that the sample ballots be printed in both 

English and Spanish. Relying on N.J.S.A. 19:23-31 and N.J.S.A. 19:63-7, 

Correa argued that the machine and mail-in ballots likewise should have been 

bilingual. The New Jersey Democratic State Committee intervened as a plaintiff 

in the action.1

The order to show cause, seeking injunctive relief, was heard on the Friday 

before the scheduled Tuesday election. After hearing arguments addressing both

the legal issues and the practical impediments to granting plaintiffs the relief 

they sought, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' legal contentions and denied the 

 

1 We will refer to Correa and the intervenor collectively as plaintiffs.
4

A-4883-17T4

application for an injunction. The trial court noted that the Legislature 

specifically added the bilingual-printing requirement only as to sample ballots 

and not as to official ballots, and reasoned that if the Legislature intended to 

change the language requirement for official ballots it would have specifically 

so provided.

The application for injunctive relief with respect to the June 5, 2018

primary election is now moot, since the election is long over. However, 

plaintiffs also sought an order requiring the County Clerk to provide bilingual 

ballots in future elections. The appeal from the denial of that relief is not moot. 

However, even if the entire appeal were moot, we would address it because the

State election law issue concerns a matter of significant public importance.2 See

Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327, 330 (1996).

 

2 We reject plaintiffs' arguments under section 203 of the Federal Voting Rights 

Act (FVRA), 52 U.S.C. § 10503(b)(2)(A), for the reasons stated by the trial 

court. As the trial court stated, the claim is without merit because the Federal 

Director of the Census did not designate Morris County as being subject to 

section 203. We will not address plaintiffs' arguments under sections 2(a) and 

4(e) of the FVRA. Those issues were not raised in the trial court. See Nieder 

v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., Inc., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). We also decline to 

consider census documents that were improperly included in plaintiffs' appendix 

although not presented to the trial court. See R. 2:5-4(a). Plaintiffs' argument 

concerning alleged improper formatting of the mail-in ballot is moot, and we 

decline to address it. We will not address plaintiffs' New Jersey Civil Rights 

Act claim because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Nieder, 62 N.J. at 

234.
5

A-4883-17T4

 II

The appeal before us presents a question of statutory interpretation, as to 

which our review is de novo. Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581, 

584 (2012).

The issue arises from an apparent contradiction between N.J.S.A. 19:23-

31, which requires the official primary sample ballot to be, as closely as 

possible, a facsimile of the official primary ballot, and a 1974 amendment to a 

separate section of the election law that requires the official sample primary 

ballot to be printed in Spanish and English where ten percent of an election 

district's registered voters' primary language is Spanish.

3 N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4. 

Plaintiffs also rely on N.J.S.A. 19:63-7, which requires that mail-in ballots "shall 

be as nearly as possible facsimiles of the election ballot to be voted at the 

election."

The general sample ballot statute provides as follows:

The official primary sample ballot shall be, as 

nearly as possible, a facsimile of the official primary 

ballot to be voted at the primary election and shall be 

printed on paper different in color from the official 

 

3 A similar facial contradiction exists between the general statute concerning 

sample ballots for the general election, N.J.S.A. 19:14-22, and the statute 

requiring bilingual general election sample ballots in certain districts, N.J.S.A. 

19:14-21. However, the issue concerning general election ballots is not before 

us.
6

A-4883-17T4

primary ballot, so that the same may be readily 

distinguished from the official primary ballot. The 

official primary sample ballot shall have printed at the 

top in large type the words: "This official primary 

sample ballot is an exact copy of the official primary 

ballot to be used on primary election day. This ballot 

cannot be voted." The official primary sample ballot 

shall also have printed thereon, following the words 

which indicate the election district, the following 

words: "The polling place for this election district is

(Stating the location of said polling 

place)."

[N.J.S.A. 19:23-31 (emphasis added; bold in original).]

Section 31 was adopted in 1930, L. 1930, c. 187, § 293, and has never been 

amended.

The primary sample ballot provision requiring bilingual printing reads as 

follows:

In all counties the county clerk shall cause to be 

printed a sufficient number of official primary ballots 

and official primary sample ballots of each political 

party, in proper form for the mailing of such sample 

ballots at the times and in the manner and number as 

required by the provisions of Title 19 of the Revised 

Statutes, and shall furnish such official primary sample 

ballots to the proper officer or officers on the earliest 

possible date preceding the primary election.

In the counties described by this section, for each 

election district within the county in which the primary 

language of 10% or more of the registered voters is 

Spanish, the county clerk shall similarly cause to be 
7

A-4883-17T4

printed bilingually in English and Spanish a sufficient 

number of official primary sample ballots of each 

political party, and shall similarly furnish such official 

primary sample ballots to the proper officer or officers.

[N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 (emphasis added).]

The first paragraph of section 22.4 was adopted in 1965. L. 1965, c. 29, § 2. 

The second paragraph, highlighted above, was adopted in 1974. L. 1974, c. 51, 

§ 1.

The mail-in ballot provision on which plaintiffs rely reads as follows:

a. Each county clerk shall have printed sufficient 

mail-in ballots for each primary election for the general 

election, and for the general election. Along with such 

ballots the clerk shall also furnish inner and outer 

envelopes and printed directions for the preparation and 

transmitting of such ballots used in the election in the 

county.

b. The mail-in ballots shall be printed on paper of 

a different color from that used for any primary or 

general election ballot, but in all other respects, shall be 

as nearly as possible facsimiles of the election ballot to 

be voted at the election.

[N.J.S.A. 19:63-7 (emphasis added).]
8

A-4883-17T4

This section, L. 2009, c. 79, § 7, was adopted in 2009, as part of the Vote By 

Mail Law, which was designed to simplify the voting process.

4

 See N.J.S.A. 

19:63-1; Senate State Gov't Comm., Statement to Senate Comm. Substitute for 

S. 1380 (June 12, 2008).

On this appeal, defendants urge us to adopt the trial court's reasoning and 

look to the literal words of the statute, particularly the absence of a "bilingual 

language" requirement in the statutory provisions pertaining to official ballots.

Plaintiffs, joined by amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New 

Jersey, contend that once the Legislature amended the sample ballot law, the 

"facsimile" provision in N.J.S.A. 19:23-31 would automatically require that the 

official ballots follow the required format of the sample ballots. They further 

argue that if the official machine ballots must conform to the sample ballots, the 

mail-in ballots must likewise conform, because they must be exact duplicates of 

the machine ballots. See N.J.S.A. 19:63-7. While plaintiffs concede the law is 

ambiguous on those points, they urge that we resolve the ambiguity by 

considering the absurd result of defendants' proffered interpretation, and by 

 

4 As part of an omnibus amendment to the election laws, L. 2011, c. 134, the 

section was amended in 2011, to eliminate a reference to a separate presidential 

primary. L. 2011, c. 134, § 51.
9

A-4883-17T4

considering the Legislative purpose of statutory amendments designed to protect 

Spanish-speaking voters.

Where the plain language of a statute is clear, we enforce the statute as 

written. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005). However, our basic 

rules of statutory interpretation recognize that not every statute is clear, and in 

case of ambiguity, our guiding light is the Legislature's intent.

Our paramount goal in interpreting a statute is to 

give effect to the Legislature's intent. When that intent 

is revealed by a statute's plain language – ascribing to 

the words used "their ordinary meaning and 

significance" – we need look no further. However, not 

every statute is a model of clarity. When the statutory 

language is sufficiently ambiguous that it may be 

susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation, 

we may turn to such extrinsic guides as legislative 

history, including sponsor statements and committee 

reports. We may also turn to extrinsic guides if a literal 

reading of the statute would yield an absurd result, 

particularly one at odds with the overall statutory 

scheme. An enactment that is part of a larger statutory 

framework should not be read in isolation, but in 

relation to other constituent parts so that a sensible 

meaning may be given to the whole of the legislative 

scheme. We also must be guided by the legislative 

objectives sought to be achieved by enacting the 

statute.

[Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 

558, 572 (2012)(citations omitted).]
10 A-4883-17T4

As our Supreme Court recently reminded us, when we are faced with 

ambiguity in a statute, we should consider the legislative intent animating the 

entire statutory scheme of which the specific provision is a part.

[L]egislative intent controls because "statutes are to be 

read sensibly rather than literally and the controlling 

legislative intent is to be presumed as consonant to 

reason and good discretion." When "discerning that 

[legislative] intent we consider not only the particular 

statute in question, but also the entire legislative 

scheme of which it is a part."

[Haines v. Taft, __ N.J. __, __ (2019) (slip op. at 17)

(second alteration in original) (citations omitted).]

Even an election statute that is facially "straightforward" must be 

construed "in a common-sense way that accords with the legislative purpose" of 

the election laws to avoid disenfranchising qualified voters. In re Holmes, 346 

N.J. Super. 372, 376-77 (App. Div. 2002).

"Where there are two contradictory provisions in a statute, the primary 

object is to ascertain the legislative design with reasonable certainty[.]" Brewer 

v. Porch, 53 N.J. 167, 174 (1969). The Legislature is presumed to be familiar 

with its existing enactments and is presumed to intend that its newer enactments 

be harmonized with the existing ones, in light of the Legislature's purpose.

When attempting "to discover the legislative intent, the 

statute must be read in light of the old law, the mischief 

sought to be eliminated and the proposed remedy."
11 A-4883-17T4

Also, "[a]cts in pari materia as well as related acts not 

strictly in pari materia, should be examined."

[Bd. of Educ. of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1, 

13 (2008) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).]

In construing election laws, we bear in mind their fundamental purpose. 

"Because the right to vote is the bedrock upon which the entire structure of our 

system of government rests, our jurisprudence is steadfastly committed to the 

principle that election laws must be liberally construed to effectuate the 

overriding public policy in favor of the enfranchisement of voters." Afran v. 

Cty. of Somerset, 244 N.J. Super. 229, 232 (App. Div. 1990). "[O]ur state 

election laws are designed to deter fraud, safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, 

and prevent disenfranchisement of qualified voters. In furtherance of those 

goals, we have held that it is our duty to construe elections laws liberally." In 

re Gray-Sadler, 164 N.J. 468, 474-75 (2000) (citations omitted).

Considering the statutory scheme as a whole, it is clear that the Legislature 

has expressed a strong policy interest in protecting Spanish-speaking voters 

from being disenfranchised. The Legislature has adopted a panoply of 

protections in voting districts where the primary language of at least ten percent 

of registered voters is Spanish. See N.J.S.A. 19:14-21 (bilingual sample ballots

for general elections); N.J.S.A. 19:6-1 (appointment of additional District Board 
12 A-4883-17T4

of Elections members who are of Hispanic origin and fluent in Spanish); 

N.J.S.A. 19:49-4(a)(2), (b) (delivery and display of bilingual sample ballots at

a polling places). In counties where the primary language of at least ten percent 

of registered voters is Spanish, notices for challenging voters, instructions and 

affidavits to be completed by challenged voters, and complaint forms concerning 

the conduct of elections, must all be bilingual. See N.J.S.A. 19:12-9; N.J.S.A. 

19:15-18.1; N.J.S.A. 19:32-4.1. Additionally, bilingual voter registration forms 

must be available in any county where bilingual sample ballots are required in 

at least one of the county's election districts. N.J.S.A. 19:31-6.4(c).

As previously noted, defendants contend that if the Legislature intended 

to require bilingual official ballots, it would have included that requirement at 

the same time that it amended the statutes to require bilingual sample ballots. 

Plaintiffs respond that the Legislature should be deemed to be aware that sample 

ballots must be an exact copy, or facsimile, of the official ballot, and we should 

infer from the "facsimile" provisions of the election laws that the Legislature 

would expect the official ballots to mirror any required changes in the sample 

ballots.

Plaintiffs also contend that accepting defendants' argument will lead to an 

absurd result which is contrary to the Legislature's intent to protect Spanish-
13 A-4883-17T4

speaking voters. They point out that having an official ballot that is only in 

English defeats the purpose of issuing bilingual sample ballots. In particular, 

they contend that, even if the sample ballot is bilingual, a voter whose primary 

language is Spanish will then enter a voting booth and be confronted with a 

ballot printed only in English. A voter who is confused or unable to read the 

ballot due to a language barrier cannot leave the voting booth to seek an 

explanation and then re-enter the booth. N.J.S.A. 19:52-3 (stating that a voter 

who leaves the voting booth may not thereafter re-enter the booth "on any 

pretext whatever"). Moreover, because the sample ballot advises voters that it 

is an exact copy of the official ballot, voters receiving a bilingual sample ballot 

can fairly expect that the official ballot will likewise be bilingual. 5

Both sides have colorable arguments to make in this case. However, 

bearing in mind that our polestar is the Legislature's intent, that the election laws 

are to be construed liberally with an eye to facilitating rather than obstructing 

the right to vote, and that absurd results are to be avoided in statutory 

 

5 We note that by statute the county clerks are to begin sending out mail-in 

ballots "on or before the 45th day before the day an election is held." N.J.S.A. 

19:63-9(a). However, sample ballots need not be mailed to voters until the 

Wednesday before the primary day. N.J.S.A. 19:23-34. As a result, if the mailin ballots are not bilingual, voters whose primary language is Spanish will first 

receive an English-only mail-in ballot several weeks before the primary, but 

they will not receive a Spanish translation until a few days before the election.
14 A-4883-17T4

construction, we conclude that plaintiffs have the better arguments. As a 

practical matter, it makes no sense to provide bilingual sample ballots because 

voters are not fluent in English, but to expect those same voters to navigate an 

official balloting process that is English-only. We will not presume that the 

Legislature intended that result. Rather, we presume that the Legislature, being 

familiar with its own enactments, would have expected that the "facsimile" 

language pertaining to sample and official ballots would result in the official 

ballots mirroring the sample ballots where the Legislature required the sample 

ballots to be printed in both Spanish and English. We acknowledge that if we 

have misconstrued the Legislature's purpose, the Legislature is free, as always, 

to amend the statutes to clarify its intent.

We reverse the order on appeal insofar as it denied plaintiffs' application 

for prospective relief, and we remand this matter to the trial court for the limited 

purpose of entering an order conforming to this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.