Trenton, NJ - This case involves allegations of voting rights violations in Mercer County, New Jersey during the 2022 and 2023 general elections. The Plaintiffs claim that the failure of tabulating machines, the improper handling of paper ballots upon the failure of tabulating machines, and the improper use of provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters and the rejection of valid votes. The key points in the case include:
- Failure of Tabulating Machines: The tabulating machines used in Mercer County on Election Day 2022 failed to work properly due to a failure by Dominion Voting Machines to update the numbering of ballot IDs. This led to the rejection of Election Day ballots.
- Improper Handling of Paper Ballots: Due to the failure of the tabulating machines, voters who successfully checked into the pollbook without issue were improperly instructed to vote provisionally instead of using regular paper ballots. The improper use of provisional ballots resulted in the rejection of at least 759 votes.
- Lack of Protocols and Training: The Mercer County Board of Elections and the Superintendent of Elections did not have protocols in place to handle machine malfunctions or train District Board members on how to handle paper ballots. This led to confusion among poll workers and voters.
- Discrepancies in Vote Counting: The mishandling of paper ballots and the lack of proper protocols resulted in the loss and misplacement of ballots. Bags of ballots were misplaced, machines containing ballots were not properly sealed, and 1500 ballots were found left behind in tabulators six days after the election. The final numbers for the election, the Plaintiffs allege, remain unknown.
- Violation of Voting Rights: The Plaintiffs argue that their voting rights were violated because of the issues outlined in the complaint. They claim that they were disenfranchised, and their votes were not counted due to the use of provisional ballots and the mishandling of paper ballots.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, orders for training and corrective actions, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and the appointment of an independent monitor for future elections. The case highlights the importance of proper protocols, training, and equipment in ensuring a secure and fair election process.
The Defendants are requesting the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. They argue for dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity and untimeliness. They assert that qualified immunity protects them from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in their public responsibilities and that their conduct did not violate established rights. They also argue that the Complaint was filed well beyond the time limit prescribed by New Jersey election laws, which require specific procedural requirements and time limits for contesting an election. They request that the court grant their motion to dismiss and dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
The Court awaits the response from the Plaintiffs regarding the Defendants request for dismissal.
