The case now has two additional dates on the calendar. Mediationis scheduled to begin October 23, 2026, and trial is scheduled tobegin November 16, 2026.
Together, the three dates establish the next major stages of the litigation: the court will first consider the plaintiffs' request for summary judgment; if the case remains unresolved, the parties are scheduled to enter mediation two weeks later; and claims or issues not resolved through summary judgment or mediation are currently scheduled for trial beginning November 16.
Case grew out of Mercer County's 2022 election problems
The lawsuit was originally filed on February 14, 2024, by ten Mercer County voters. It asserts voter disenfranchisement and other claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act.
At the center of the case is the county wide failure of Mercer County's Election Day tabulators on November 8, 2022. According to the plaintiffs' recently filed Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, deposition testimony established that Election Day tabulators could not scan ballots at polling locations and that the problem was countywide.
The plaintiffs contend that some qualified voters were then improperly directed to cast provisional ballots rather than emergency ballots. Several plaintiffs testified that they later received notices saying their provisional ballots had been rejected because they had already "voted by machine," even though they maintain that they had not successfully cast another ballot.
The defendants have contested the plaintiffs' claims throughout the litigation.
Depositions produce new evidence
The significance of the September 2026 motion is that the plaintiffs are no longer relying primarily on the allegations contained in their original complaint. Their motion incorporates testimony obtained during discovery from Board members, election employees and other officials.
Among the testimony cited by plaintiffs is an acknowledgment by the Board's designated representative that early-morning voters who had checked in and were directed to vote provisionally should have received emergency ballots. The plaintiffs also cite testimony that the Board did not issue Election Day instructions specifically addressing voters who had already electronically checked in before being given provisional ballots.
The motion focuses particularly on what happened when provisional ballots were subsequently reviewed. A commissioner testified that she participated in rejecting ballots for the reason "voted by machine, "while also testifying that, technically, nobody voted by machine on November 8, 2022. The filing says the Board did not contact affected voters or poll workers or check internal records to determine whether the individuals actually cast another ballot.
A former Superintendent of Elections testified that a voter could be designated by the system as a machine voter after checking in even if that person's ballot was never successfully scanned. The Board's designated representative also testified that the Board had no information showing that any plaintiff whose provisional ballot was rejected as "voted by machine" had actually inserted a ballot into a tabulator.
Case now encompasses procedures, chain of custody and reconciliation
Discovery also developed evidence concerning broader election controls.
The plaintiffs cite testimony that Mercer County lacked written 2022 procedures for counting paper ballots at the district level, transporting ballots that could not be scanned and reconciling paper ballots against electronic poll-book check-ins. The filing also cites testimony that poll workers were not instructed to count ballots as they were removed from machines.
Chain of custody is another component of the motion. Plaintiffs cite testimony concerning reports of broken seals, the absence of a form for individuals transporting ballots to sign before leaving polling locations and the failure to record ballot counts at each transfer point.
The filing also highlights reconciliation. The Board's designated representative did not recall a reconciliation between electronic poll-book check-ins and paper ballots returned to the Board. She testified that there was "no way to figure" whether the number of ballots removed from tabulators matched the number ultimately delivered to the Board.
The plaintiffs additionally cite their analysis of county records showing what they characterize as numerical discrepancies. Their filing states that Mercer County certified 60,727 Election Day ballots, while the State voter-history file reflected 55,878 Election Day ballots as of November 23, 2022. It also states that 5,528 provisional ballots were received while reported accepted and rejected provisional-ballot totals accounted for 5,150. These figures are part of the plaintiffs' evidentiary presentation and remain subject to the defendants' response and the court's assessment.
Plaintiffs ask judge to decide key issues without a trial
Summary judgment asks a court to decide a claim when there is no genuine dispute over material facts and the moving party contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Here, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Counts One and Two. Their motion argues that the developed record establishes several violations: directing qualified voters to provisional ballots because equipment failed; rejecting ballots as "voted by machine" without determining that another ballot had actually been cast and counted; allegedly treating similarly situated voters differently; and failing to comply with statutory safeguards involving emergency ballots, equipment testing, ballot custody, reconciliation and public observation.
The plaintiffs are also seeking prospective relief intended to govern future elections. Their brief asks the court to require future elections to be administered through procedures that are written, trained, documented, publicly observable and verifiable.
The defendants will have the opportunity to challenge both the plaintiffs' characterization of the evidence and their legal conclusions. The court may grant the motion in whole, deny it, or resolve some issues while leaving others for trial.
Three important dates now shape what happens next
The case therefore faces three significant milestones:
- October 9, 2026 — Summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs' motion is scheduled before the court.
- October 23, 2026 — Mediation begins. The parties are scheduled to attempt to resolve the dispute without completing a trial.
- November 16, 2026 — Trial begins. If unresolved claims remain after the summary-judgment proceedings and mediation, the case is scheduled to proceed to trial.
The scheduled mediation is particularly significant because it falls only about three weeks before trial. Depending on the summary-judgment ruling, mediation could therefore occur after the parties have considerably more clarity about which claims, defendants and factual questions remain for trial.
The lawsuit has consequently moved well beyond the procedural and discovery disputes that occupied much of 2024 and 2025. The parties have now taken extensive testimony, the plaintiffs have assembled a 120-paragraphStatement of Undisputed Material Facts, and the court is being asked to determine whether portions of the case can be decided as a matter of law.
If summary judgment does not dispose of the case and mediation does not produce a settlement, November 16 would mark the first time the underlying allegations concerning Mercer County's handling of the 2022 election are presented for resolution at trial.
