Lawsuit alleges referendum on moving Jersey City elections is misleading
Updated: Oct. 12, 2015, 12:33 p.m. |
Published: Oct. 12, 2015, 11:33 a.m.
Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
jersey city hall.jpg
The language of a non-binding referendum asking voters whether the city's elections should move from May to November is vague, misleading and contains inappropriate advocacy, a new lawsuit alleges.
(Journal file photo)
The lawsuit, filed Friday in Hudson County Superior Court by a group of prominent critics of Mayor Steve Fulop, whose administration is behind the referendum, seeks to amend the language of the public question to make it more neutral.
The five plaintiffs are Yvonne Balcer, Pat McCarthy, Josephine Paige, Mia Scanga and former Councilwoman Viola Richardson. They are represented by Bill Matsikoudis, a former top city attorney under Fulop's predecessor and political rival, Jerramiah Healy.
A Fulop administration official told The Jersey Journal that the identities of the plaintiffs and their attorney reveal the true purpose of the suit.
"This is not a legal concern. This is politics," the official said.
Matsikoudis penned an op-ed for The Jersey Journal last week objecting to moving the city's elections to November.
Fulop has argued that moving the city's quadrennial races for mayor and City Council would save money and "minimize voter fatigue," language that is included in the question proposed for November's ballot. But it is "unlawfully unfair" to make those arguments in the referendum, Matsikoudis said in a statement.
"New Jersey Law mandates that ballot questions cannot be biased, one-sided or worded to 'encourage' voters to cast ballots in a certain way," Matsikoudis said.
"Yet, the current question make dubious assertions regarding alleged costs savings and the elimination of voter fatigue without mentioning any countervailing points."
The plaintiffs also object to the lack of mention of the city's runoff elections in the referendum language.
If no candidate fails to win more than 50 percent of the vote in May's municipal races, the two candidates with the most votes then meet one-and-one in a runoff four weeks later. If elections move to November, the runoff would be in early December, leading to a "potentially dramatic drop in voter turnout," the plaintiffs say.
The suit aims to force the city to declare that runoff elections cannot be eliminated unless voters, in a separate, binding referendum, choose to do so.
Since city officials proposed moving the municipal race, they have dodged questions about whether they plan to eliminate the runoff or move it to mid-December.
City spokesman Ryan Jacobs said the city is "happy" to revise the referendum language, suggesting, "Would you like to see the May municipal election and subsequent runoff election in June, or combined into one single election in November?"
Jacobs added that the city thinks it would be "reasonable" for the plaintiffs to cough up the dough for making new ballots.
"Some of the ballot materials are already printed," Jacobs said. "And since the plaintiffs strategically waited until $70,000 worth of taxpayer dollars were spent on that printing, they should pick up the tab for the reprinting."
The mayor's critics claim he wants to move elections so he has a "backup" plan in case he runs for governor in a June 2017 primary and loses. The next Jersey City mayoral race is scheduled for May 2017, so if the race moves to November, he could lose the gubernatorial primary and still run for re-election five months later.
Fulop's camp points out that he's advocated for moving municipal elections to November since at least 2010, when he was a councilman.
The state Legislature in 2010 voted to allow towns with nonpartisan races to move them from May to November. The races would remain nonpartisan.
The two sides are due in court tomorrow at 2 p.m. in front of Judge Hector R. Velazquez