PRESS RELEASE
Citizens for NJ Election Integrity Raises Questions About State Guidance for Reviewing Potentially Ineligible Voters
State says guidance will ensure consistent standards across all 21 counties — but important questions remain about how citizenship will be determined and the results made transparent
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Citizens for NJ Election Integrity is raising questions about the New Jersey Division of Elections' August 19, 2026 Guide to MVC Voter Registration Error.
The State acknowledges that between June 2023 and June 2024, information for individuals who answered “No” when asked whether they were U.S. citizens were transferred from the MVC system to the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) for voter-registration processing.
Some affected records have been deleted, while individuals with a separate registration, another SVRS transaction that may contain an eligibility attestation, or a voting history have been referred to County Commissioners of Registration for further inquiry.
The Division says its guidance is intended to protect eligible voters, remove additional ineligible individuals, and “apply consistent standards across the State.”
Citizens for NJ Election Integrity supports those objectives. But the guidance leaves several important questions unanswered.
Six Questions New Jersey Voters Deserve Answered
1. What does the State actually require counties to do to determine citizenship?
The guidance says an individual may be restored to active status if the Commissioner is “satisfied that the individual is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.”
But what does “satisfied” mean? What evidence must be examined, what government records should be consulted, and what statewide standard must be met?
2. How should counties resolve conflicting citizenship attestations — and why can't they use resources available through the Department of Homeland Security?
The guidance allows a new voter registration containing an attestation of citizenship to support restoration to active status.
But what happens when government records contain coflicting answers—an MVC transaction saying “No” to citizenship and another registration saying “Yes”?
There may be legitimate explanations, including naturalization between the two transactions. But the conflict still needs to be resolved.
Why doesn't the guidance address whether counties should use citizenship or immigration-status verification resources available through the Department of Homeland Security or other appropriate federal agencies?
3. Why doesn't the State establish a uniform documentary-verification process?
The guidance specifically addresses voluntarily offered documentary proof of citizenship, but merely says it should be treated like “any other correspondence from the voter.”
Why doesn't the State establish what documentation constitutes reliable evidence of citizenship so that the same standards are applied in every county?
4. What happens when the individual doesn't respond?
The State says someone who doesn't respond to a letter or telephone call should simply remain in “rejected” status.
How many contact attempts are required? How long can the case remain unresolved? What additional investigation should occur?
Most importantly, how and when is the underlying citizenship question ultimately resolved?
5. Why did the State give counties referral lists based on driver's-license numbers— and how will the public evaluate the results?
The State says the referral list provided to counties “will reflect the driver's license number for each individual.”
Yet the same guidance cautions counties that driver's-license numbers generally cannot be disclosed in response to public-records requests.
Why structure the referral list around an identifier the State itself says generally cannot be publicly disclosed?
Why wasn't a non-confidential case number also provided so that referrals could be tracked through final disposition without disclosing protected personal information?
And how will the public, journalists and independent researchers be able to determine whether every referral was investigated and resolved?
The Goal Should Be Clear: Resolve Every Case
The State says its goal is to ensure consistent standards across New Jersey. The public deserves to know why the guidance does not provide counties with the necessary tools and standards necessary to accomplish that goal.
Call to Action: Help Us Follow the Investigation
Citizens for NJ Election Integrity is asking New Jersey residents to help follow how this guidance is being implemented across all 21 counties.
If you have information about how your county is handling these referrals, have obtained public records concerning the MVC review, have questions about our research, or would like to assist with our county-by-county effort, we want to hear from you.
Citizens for NJ Election Integrity
