SAYREVILLE – Following a close mayoral race in Sayreville, one candidate has filed legal action against Middlesex County officials, alleging provisional and mail-in ballots that could have changed the outcome of the election were improperly rejected.
A verified petition contesting the results of Sayreville’s 2019 mayoral election and civil rights complaint is being pursued in New Jersey Superior Court by Arthur Rittenhouse, who was the Republican candidate for mayor. Resident Jean Kokoda, whose provisional ballot was allegedly not counted in the election, is also named as a plaintiff in the legal action.
The legal action was filed on the behalf of Rittenhouse and Kokoda by attorney Douglas Steinhardt against Middlesex County Clerk Elaine Flynn, the Middlesex County Board of Elections and an unidentified Middlesex County official who was responsible for part of the election. Documentation for the legal action is dated on Dec. 12.
In the race for mayor, Democrat Victoria Kilpatrick was initially declared the winner over Rittenhouse by a margin of three votes. After Rittenhouse sought a recount of the election results, Kilpatrick was again declared the winner, this time by a margin of six votes.
As alleged in the legal action, 46 provisional ballots from the election have not been counted. Of those ballots, 35 were allegedly not properly locked in the official bag and five were allegedly not placed in official bag. The Board of Elections allegedly did not count the 35 provisional ballots due to concerns with the chain of custody and voted to reject the five provisional ballots at an emergency meeting.
The legal action also alleges that the mail-in ballots had to be re-scanned at the direction of the New Jersey Attorney General’s office because the Board of Election encountered difficulties in the machine that initially scanned the mail-in ballots. The vote tally from the original machines that scanned the mail-in ballots was allegedly erased, preventing a comparison with the re-scan, and jams allegedly occurred on the two machines used for the re-scanning, requiring the machine’s operators to hand count the mail-in ballots. The legal action alleges that it is unclear whether the total mail-in ballots were accurate.
As alleged by the legal action, the 46 provisional ballot voters were disenfranchised due to their votes being rejected and the mail-in voters were disenfranchised because they cannot be assured that their vote was counted.
Due to the closeness of the race, the legal action notes that these ballots could change the outcome.
According to the legal action, Rittenhouse and Kokoda demand that the Superior Court declare the sealed provisional ballots be counted by the Board of Elections and the mail-in ballots be recounted by the Board of Elections by an independent monitor appointed by the court, with an appropriate certificate of election being issued declaring the winner of the race after these votes are counted.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs demand that the Superior Court order the election to be set aside and that a re-rerun election be held.