Civil rights group loses effort to block Ocean County voter residency probe

A state judge refused Tuesday to block the Ocean County Board of Elections’ investigation into the voting eligibility of 37 voters registered in Bay Head.

Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy rejected the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey’s claim that the probe was a partisan effort to disenfranchise Democrats and unaffiliated voters there. The ACLU had sought an injunction on behalf of three of the voters targeted as well as the League of Women Voters, saying the board “bombarded” the voters last month with intimidating letters demanding proof of residency and threatening criminal sanctions if they failed to cooperate.

“This was bullying through bureaucracy,” ACLU-NJ attorney Liza Weisberg said.

But Deputy Attorney General Mark Gulbranson, who represents the board and its Republican chairman George Gilmore, insisted the board has the duty and authority to investigate all voter challenges regardless of any partisan motives the challenger might have.

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

But the board also “has a very clear, unambiguous statutory duty to verify voter eligibility,” he added.

The legal fight stemmed from a list that Dennis Shaning, the chair of Bay Head’s all-Republican borough council, sent the board in August of Democratic and unaffiliated voters registered to vote in Bay Head whose tax bills get mailed to addresses outside the borough. Shaning, who excluded similarly situated Republicans from his list, urged the board to consider removing the listed Democrats and unaffiliated voters from the borough’s voter rolls.

Gilmore, who’s also the longtime chairman of the county’s Republican organization, then sent letters to those voters directing them to complete a “domicile questionnaire,” advising them to provide additional proof of residency and attend a board meeting, and warning they might be deemed ineligible to vote in the Nov. 3 election.

The ACLU asked Gilmore to stop the board’s probe, and when he refused, the group sued Gilmore and the board last Thursday.

Gulbranson noted that Shaning wasn’t listed as a defendant, so his motivations were irrelevant.

“Regardless of whether the Shaning letter was partisan, the board treats all complaints regarding registered voters’ eligibility the same,” he said.

He noted the effort already has resulted in three of the targeted voters voluntarily removing themselves from voter rolls because they no longer live in Bay Head. He denied the board bombarded voters with letters, saying they instead sent them to all addresses on file to ensure they were received.

“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.

In a 37-page opinion issued Tuesday, Lougy wrote that the ACLU failed to show irreparable harm, a requirement for an injunction.

He noted that state law doesn’t empower the board to outright purge voters it suspects are ineligible, instead allowing it only to put them on a challenge list maintained by a county’s election superintendent. Challenge-list voters denied a ballot can fight for their right to vote in state court, he added.

He conceded Gilmore’s letter “is susceptible to harsh or less harsh readings” but also found it “truthful” and largely a “request for information.”

“The Legislature has charged the Board with maintaining current voter rolls, investigating complaints, and applying the challenge list procedures. These critical functions outweigh any incidental burden on plaintiffs for having to fill out a questionnaire,” Lougy wrote.

Weisberg said the ACLU is disappointed in the decision but said the lawsuit has produced “important results.”

“At today’s hearing, the Board clarified its position and, contrary to the implication of its letter to the voters and certain public statements, it will not be making any decisions about voters’ eligibility at today’s meeting, nor at any point requiring the challenged voters to use provisional ballots. The Board also confirmed that having a tax bill mailed outside of Bay Head does not by itself make a voter ineligible to vote in Bay Head,” she said.