Case of Rittenhouse vs. Kilpatrick for Sayreville mayor moves forward

 

SAYREVILLE – In roughly 60 days, the case of Republican mayoral candidate Arthur Rittenhouse against elected mayor Victoria Kilpatrick will be moving forward.

In a tight race for the mayor’s office in Sayreville, Democrat Kilpatrick was elected by a gap of six votes on Election Day, Nov. 5. A recount took place on Dec. 5 following the Nov. 5 general election.

According to the results posted online by the Middlesex County Clerk’s Office after the election, Kilpatrick edged Rittenhouse.

Kilpatrick received 3,629 votes and Rittenhouse recorded 3,626 votes.

The Republican candidate Rittenhouse officially filed a petition in New Jersey Superior Court on Dec. 13 to seek a recount of the election due to what he deems “many irregularities.”

“At the recount we were not allowed to ask questions about the other irregularities such as the 41 provisional ballots that were not counted due to poll clerk errors or other irregularities that occurred in processing and counting the ballots. In addition, I asked that the Sayreville business administrator, who is a commissioner on the Board of Elections, recuse himself and he refused and made decisions regarding the Sayreville election. Now that the recount is done we can contest the election in court,” Rittenhouse had said.

According to information provided by Douglas J. Steinhardt of Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Cappelli, Phillipsburg, “[On] Feb. 5, the court held a scheduling conference for the purpose of laying out the procedural steps in the case. We have 30 days in which to propound interrogatories. The defendants will then have 30 days to respond. All parties will then have 30 days to take depositions if any, at which point the court will schedule a second conference.

“Both sides reserved the right to request experts/reports. That issue would likely be discussed at the next conference. The next conference date is not presently scheduled. My office will be preparing the order reflecting the above, subject to the defendants’ review and court’s approval.”