By David Kilby, Staff Writer
MONROE – Several residents in Fire District 3 have filed a lawsuit claiming that constitutional rights were infringed upon in the district’s fire elections Feb. 19. The case will be heard in the Superior Court in New Brunswick on Monday.
The lawsuit was filed by Patrick Hye and Michael Konowicz, two of the candidates in the Fire District 3 commissioner elections. Several residents from Fire District 3 are also supporting Mr. Hye and Mr. Konowicz.
The lawsuit was filed against Central Monroe Volunteer Fire Company, Monroe Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners, and Township Clerk Sharon Doerfler, not as an individual but in her capacity as chief election officer and registrar of voters.
Monroe Township Council President Gerald Tamburro, at the council meeting Monday, said Fire District 3 is responsible for its own elections.
”Ms. Doerfler was not involved in the election,” he said.
He recommended that Ms. Doerfler be removed from the lawsuit.
”I stand behind our township clerk and I’m sure the council does the same,” he said.
The township received the lawsuit March 29. The case will be heard by Judge Heidi Currier.
”As a result of what we feel are a series of procedural errors and significant inconsistencies, several residents of Monroe Township District 3 are seeking to challenge the election results,” said Matthew Major of Leonard & Major, LLC, representing the plaintiffs.
”Defending the election process at any level is the backbone of upholding democratic integrity,” Mr. Major said.The lawsuit claims that Fire District 3 provided misleading information regarding polling places, denied certain voters entry to certain polling areas, didn’t provide proper ballots for the election, and disqualified many votes.
In the Cranbury Press’ Feb. 11 edition, it was mistakenly printed that one of the polling places for District 3 voters would be the new firehouse on Centre Drive, when the polling place was the old firehouse on Schoolhouse Road.
Title 19 and Title 40 of New Jersey state statutes govern the electoral process, but Title 40 covers municipal corporations whereas Title 19 cover elections in non-municipal corporations.
When John Keuhns, representing the concerned voters, noticed that his voting rights might have been infringed upon, he started asking around for the charter and by-laws of District 3, which would establish it as a municipal corporation, but no one in the township could provide them.
Mr. Keuhns also said that candidates ran in to problems when searching for petitions to run for commissioner.
”No one knew how to get one,” he said.
The lawsuit lists a series of other grievances that the plaintiffs claim infringed upon citizens’ voting rights.
The lawsuit states that a week before the elections, a 6×9 postcard was sent out by Fire District 2, telling several Fire District 3 voters to vote in District 2.
Maurice Mahler, chairman of District 2, said this happened mainly because of a confusion regarding the borders of District 2 and 3.
It is also believed that more than one voter voted in multiple districts, states the lawsuit.
When certain voters came to vote at the Regency at Monroe polls, they were denied entry in to the community since their names were not on the hand-written registered voter’s list, which is an improper form for a voter’s list according to NJSA statute 40, states the lawsuit.
Douglas Martin, who won the commissioner election, said the district made it clear that the Regency polls were for Regency residents only.
”For many years we’ve voted in Regency,” Mr. Hye said.
”Someone had scratched my name off the registry,” he said.
”To arbitrarily take someone’s name off the list without notifying them is illegal,” said Danielle Leonard of Leonard & Major, LLC.Mr. Konowicz and Mr. Hye also claim that they had difficulty campaigning in the gated communities in District 3.
Title 40 also states that the candidates names on the ballot must be in alphabetical order, and the lawsuit states they were not.
Mr. Hye’s first name was also misspelled on the absentee ballot.
The lawsuit states 1109 votes were received, 49 of which were disqualified for reasons not given.
”I don’t participate in the decision of who’s qualified,” Commissioner Martin said. “Basically we’re alleging that legal votes weren’t accepted,” Mr. Major said.
Commissioner Martin won the election with 283 votes, and Joseph Haff won with 224. Robert McCloskey received 222 votes, Mr. Konowicz received 185 and Mr. Hye received 143.
The budget of $4,179,956 to be raised by taxation, with a tax rate of 29.3 cents per $100 of assessed value, passed 340 to 305.
”This isn’t about losing by votes,” Mr. Keuhns said. “It’s not a matter of overturning the election.”
”We want the electoral process to be fair,” Mr. Major said.
”We’re not asking for anything,” Mr. Keuhns said. “We’re presenting our grievances to a judge and saying ‘you decide what to do with this.”
”Our most important right in a democracy is to voice our opinion,” Mr. Keuhns said. “This is just how I feel as an American.”
”The overall goal of this (lawsuit) is to prevent this from happening in the future, not to take someone’s position,” Ms. Leonard said.
