challenge results of election in court
Petitioners may
challenge results of election in court
BY MAURA DOWGIN
Staff Writer
EDISON — A ward system of government won’t be coming to the township anytime soon.
Last week, the Middlesex County Board of Elections completed a recount of the votes on the local ballot question which asked voters to authorize a switch from an at-large council, where all members represent the entire township, to a ward system, where some members would represent specific sections of the township.
After the votes from the Nov. 4 election were counted a second time around, the question still remains 30 votes shy of approval.
The ward petitioners asked the board of elections for a recount on the first municipal referendum question on the November ballot, said William Stephens, former councilman and ward petitioner.
In a ward system, the township would have been divided into five wards, or sections of town, which would all vote for one council person to represent that section.
There would also be four at-large council people chosen by residents from all sections of the township.
A second referendum question, which also failed, would have expanded the number of council people from seven to nine. No recount was sought for this question.
The idea behind the push for a ward system of elections was to "get people broader representation and make sure everyone was better represented," Stephens said.
The final vote after the recount is 6,598 who voted in favor of the ward system, and 6,628 against the ward system, according to the Middlesex County Clerk’s Office.
As for whether the fight to bring wards to the township is over, the petitioners now have to decide whether or not to go to court to challenge the vote, Stephens said.
The petitioners question the number of people who signed up to vote and the number of people logged into the machines, he said.
There are also questions about some of the signatures of people who voted; many of the signatures of people who voted changed drastically from their signatures the previous year, Stephens said.
The petitioners chose not to ask for a recount of the votes on the second question.
"In our opinion, if the first question passes the wards passed," Stephens said.
The first question asked if the people wanted to switch to a system in which there were five ward council people and four at-large council people. The ward petitioners believe that if the first question passes, with the people voting on a scenario with nine council people, the second question did not have to pass, Stephens said. Voter acceptance of the first question would be enough to set up a nine member ward council.
However, Township Attorney Louis Rainone has said that both questions would have had to pass in order for a ward system to be implemented in the township.