The latest filing comes just days before court-ordered mediation is scheduled to begin Friday, October 23, 2026. If the dispute remains unresolved, the case, Murranko v. Mercer County Board of Elections, Docket No. MER-L-000324-24, is scheduled for trial beginning November 16, 2026.
The competing motions place several important questions before the court, including whether qualified voters were improperly denied having their ballots counted, whether Mercer County followed legally required procedures during its countywide voting-machine failure, and whether the plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to establish violations of election law.
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 ballot scanners on November 8, 2022.
The scanners could not read ballots at polling locations because of a ballot-identification mismatch involving election programming and ballot printing. Election officials subsequently directed poll workers to collect completed paper ballots for counting at a central location.
However, many voters who had already successfully checked in and were qualified to receive regular ballots were instead directed to cast provisional ballots.
Several plaintiffs subsequently received notices informing them that their provisional ballots had been rejected because election records indicated they had already "voted by machine."
The plaintiffs contend that they never successfully cast another ballot and that election officials improperly equated an electronic poll-book check-in with a completed vote.
The defendants dispute those allegations and maintain that the county's response to the equipment failure preserved voters' ballots and allowed the election to be completed.
Defendants respond with cross-motion seeking dismissal
In their October 13 filing, the defendants reject the plaintiffs' characterization of the evidence and argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Their principal defense is that Mercer County successfully collected and counted the regular Election Day ballots after the scanning problems were identified.
The defendants maintain that the rejection of certain provisional ballots was appropriate because election records indicated those voters had already voted. They submitted Statewide Voter Registration System records showing voting-history classifications for individual plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, however, dispute whether those records establish that a ballot was actually cast and counted.
This distinction—between checking into an electronic poll book and successfully casting a ballot—remains one of the most consequential factual disputes in the case.
The defendants also argue that equipment malfunctions, administrative mistakes, and negligence do not automatically constitute constitutional violations.
They contend that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated the intentional or sufficiently serious misconduct necessary to establish their civil-rights claims.
Additionally, the defense argues that the plaintiffs cannot pursue claims on behalf of other Mercer County voters because the lawsuit has not been certified as a class action.
Defendants challenge plaintiffs' analysis of election records
Another significant development in the October 13 filing is the defendants 'challenge to an analysis of Mercer County election records prepared by Mark Demo.
The plaintiffs' September motion cited that analysis as evidence of discrepancies between voter check-ins, provisional-ballot dispositions, and reported election totals.
One finding identified 1,091 voters who checked in during the first hour of Election Day, including 518 whose provisional ballots were subsequently classified as rejected for having already "voted by machine."
The plaintiffs argue that the figures raise serious questions about whether eligible voters were denied having their ballots counted.
The defendants challenge the analysis on evidentiary grounds, arguing that it lacks the necessary expert qualifications, supporting documentation, and methodology to be admitted as expert testimony.
The plaintiffs' position is that comparisons of official election records can establish factual discrepancies without necessarily requiring specialized expert opinions.
The court will need to determine what portions of the analysis are admissible and what conclusions, if any, the evidence supports.
Disagreements remain over ballot reconciliation and chain of custody
The competing motions also address broader concerns about how Mercer County accounted for ballots during and after the equipment failure.
The plaintiffs cite deposition testimony indicating that the county lacked written procedures for reconciling electronic poll-book check-ins with paper ballots returned to the Board of Elections.
They also point to testimony concerning the absence of ballot counts at certain transfer points, missing transportation documentation, reports of broken ballot-bag seals, and uncertainty over whether all ballots were accounted for.
The plaintiffs' September filing identified numerical discrepancies, including a difference between the 60,727 Election Day ballots reportedly certified and the 55,878 reflected in a November 23, 2022 state voter-history file.
The filing also identified 5,528 provisional ballots received compared with reported accepted and rejected totals accounting for 5,150.
The defendants dispute the significance of these figures and maintain that the county properly preserved and counted ballots. They also point to post-election auditing and other procedures as evidence that the results were accurately reported.
However, the defendants' response acknowledges certain testimony concerning missing written reconciliation procedures, the absence of ballot counts at some transfer points, and uncertainty about whether ballots removed from tabulators matched those ultimately delivered to the Board.
Whether those deficiencies constituted violations of New Jersey election law, and whether they caused any votes to go uncounted, remains disputed.
Court must now consider competing requests for summary judgment
Summary judgment allows a court to resolve claims without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact prevents judgment as a matter of law.
The plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on their claims that election officials violated constitutional and statutory protections governing the right to vote.
They also seek prospective relief requiring more reliable, documented, and transparent election procedures in the future.
The defendants' cross-motion asks the court to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that the plaintiffs have not established actionable constitutional violations or demonstrated that their votes were improperly excluded.
The competing filings present the court with sharply different interpretations of much of the same deposition testimony.
The plaintiffs maintain that election officials' own admissions establish that provisional ballots were rejected without adequate verification.
The defendants contend that the election was completed successfully, that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated the necessary legal elements of their claims, and that the disputed records do not establish disenfranchisement.
The defendants' motion lists October 30, 2026, as its return date and requests oral argument. The court may grant either motion in whole or in part, deny both, or leave disputed issues for trial.
Mediation begins Friday, October 23
The next scheduled development is mediation, which is set to begin Friday, October 23, 2026, less than four weeks before the scheduled trial.
Mediation provides the parties an opportunity to explore a negotiated resolution without completing a trial.
Potential areas for discussion could include future election procedures, emergency-ballot instructions, provisional-ballot review, ballot reconciliation, chain-of-custody documentation, and public observation of election activities.
Whether the parties can reach agreement remains uncertain.
The trial is currently scheduled to begin November 16, 2026, if unresolved claims remain after mediation and the court's consideration of the pending motions.
The October 30 return date for the defendants' motion is another significant milestone, although a ruling is not necessarily expected on that date.
Why the outcome matters
The Mercer County litigation has moved well beyond the initial voting-machine malfunction that disrupted the November 2022 election.
Nearly four years later, the case centers on a broader question of election accountability: What evidence must election officials possess before determining that a qualified voter has already voted and rejecting that voter's provisional ballot?
The distinction is particularly important when an electronic poll book records a successful check-in but the equipment intended to accept the voter's ballot is not functioning.
The case also raises questions about whether election officials must reconcile voter check-ins, voting authorizations, physical ballots, and certified results to establish that all votes have been properly accounted for.
The defendants maintain that Mercer County successfully completed the election and that the plaintiffs have failed to establish violations warranting judicial relief.
The plaintiffs contend that the record demonstrates significant failures in election administration and that the court should require corrective procedures to protect voters in future elections.
With both sides now seeking summary judgment, mediation beginning October 23, and trial scheduled for November 16, the Mercer County election lawsuit is approaching a potentially decisive conclusion.
Whatever the outcome, the case highlights the importance of ensuring that election records distinguish between a voter who was authorized to vote and a voter whose ballot was actually cast and counted.
