APPEAL SEEKS TO OVERTURN COURT DECISION ON 2024 COUNCIL RACE
HINGES ON WHETHER A DEFECT IN 2013 REFERENDUM QUESTION IS “VOIDABLE”
By Nick Sodano
A Christmas eve appeal delivered to Superior Court on behalf of Sayke Reilley seeks to reverse Judge Harrington’s order that the November 5, 2024 election should be certified and that a runoff election should not occur. The appeal states that “The trial court misinterpreted the plain language of the nonpartisan elections law” and summarized the case facts as follows:
“On November 5, 2024, voters in Mount Holly cast their votes for town leadership. Reilley and eight other candidates ran to fill three open spots on the township council, which consists of five elected officials in total. A total of 9,741 votes were cast. Ultimately, no candidate earned a majority of votes. On November 7, 2024, Reilley approached Marnell to request a run-off election. Marnell responded that Mount Holly was not authorized to conduct run-off elections and therefore none would be held. On the contrary, not only is Mount Holly authorized to conduct run-off elections, but it is required to do so.
The trial court erroneously denied the relief sought by Reilley’s Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint filed on November 21, 2024, concluding that a 2013 referendum introducing partisan elections constituted a sufficient change to Mount Holly’s form of government to eliminate the statutory run-off election requirement. This conclusion is contrary to the plain language of the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law and disregards the strict procedural safeguards required to alter [this] fundamental voter right.”
The key argument appears to be
“Critically, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:45-21, the abandonment of run-off elections can only occur following a voter referendum that explicitly states that purpose. Indeed, the law directs: If the ordinance or petition proposes the abandonment of run-off elections in the municipality, the question shall be posed: ‘Shall (insert name of municipality) abandon the holding of run-off elections as permitted by the "Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law'?’ N.J.S.A. 40:45-21(d)(2) (emphasis added). Mount Holly has never submitted such a question to voters, and no ordinance or petition conforming to this statutory requirement has been adopted, leaving the legal mandate for run-off elections intact.”
The brief summarized Judge Harrington’s decision as follows
“The trial court reasoned that voters were inadequately informed about the potential impact of the 2013 Referendum on run-off elections, but nevertheless held that this deficiency was a “voidable error” that had been effectively ratified because no challenge was raised within eighteen months of the 2013 Referendum’s passage. (3T23, 83, 86). This reasoning directly conflicts with N.J.S.A. 40:45-21, which requires explicit voter approval to abandon run-off elections, and disregards Mount Holly’s continued legal obligation to conduct run-off elections as mandated under its council-manager form of government. The trial court’s interpretation creates ambiguity and contradicts the statutory framework designed to protect voter rights and ensure clear, lawful processes for altering municipal election procedures.”
There are some legal standards not summarized here that will also be reviewed by the court to decide if the case should be heard. The Reporter will follow this matter closely and update readers as the court makes decisions.