Halloween is upon us, and Hoboken's 2018 ballot proves that one is never too old for a Halloween trick. Because the City of Hoboken Municipal Question No. 1 (whether to bring back run-off elections) is either invalid and/or subject to legal challenge, because it is missing an "Interpretive Statement."
What are they? "Interpretive Statements" explain in plain language what the public question means, so that it is clear that voters understand all implications of their "Yes" or "No" choice. Haven't you seen them? Interpretive Statements have appeared with Public Questions since cavemen were banging out votes on rock-ballots.
The problem with omitting this is clear. Public Question No 1 asks Hoboken voters: "Shall Run-off Elections be held in the City of Hoboken as permitted by the "Uniform Non-Partisan Elections Law"? The municipal government should not expect voters to know the "Uniform Non-Partisans Elections Law." Without the Interpretive Statement it is clear that every Hoboken voter who is not fluent in election law will not fully understand the question and its implications.
Moreover, the New Jersey statute reference for "Uniform Non-Partisan Elections law" is missing (N.J.S.A.... bla, bla, bla.)
GA believes this "Municipal Question" is so defective it should be struck from the ballot. It is not simply misleading voters, it is a legal liability to the City of Hoboken. Whichever side loses, has instant grounds to challenge.
And the Board of Elections made no printing error. The language was approved by the Hoboken City Council on January 17, 2018, on Second Reading of Ordinance B-3. Whose defective handiwork was it? Ordinance B-3 sponsored by Mike DeFusco and co-sponsored by Ruben Ramos. (May I call them nitwits?)
From the January 17, 2018 meeting minutes:
 |
| City Council Meeting Minutes: January 17, 2018 |
Of course, it's possible to cure the referendum, at the Council The ordinance would have to go back for First Reading, for approval with an Interpretive Statement. But alas, the clock has run out for November 6. The ballots have likely been printed. Perhaps a large piece of masking tape over the referendum at each voting machine may be the only option.
Now, pay attention Council nitwits.
Here is how to write an election reform referendum correctly. GA refers you to 2012's Public Question #1 (assembled by non-nitwits).
 |
| November 6, 2012 election: Hoboken ballot |
2012 HOBOKEN PUBLIC QUESTION #1
Shall the City of Hoboken abandon the holding of rn-off elections as permitted by the "Uniform Nonpartisan Election Law" (N.J.S.A. 40:45-5 et. seq.)?
INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT:
This amendment to the city charter asks whether Hoboken voters prefer electing candidates for municipal office in a single election wherein the candidate with the most votes is elected to the office. Presently, municipal elections require that the winner receive fore than 50% of the votes cast: if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, an additional "run-off" election is required 4 weeks after the initial election.If Hoboken voters answer this question affirmatively, Hoboken voters can decide to vote in a single election for what is usually required for two election. An affirmative vote would also result in reduced costs to the City of Hoboken associated with administering run-off elections.
GA Note: I would like to thank the readers who flagged the error on the Council's 2018 ballot referendum. It takes a village!
So my takeaway here is the CC is not only vindictive in trying to subvert the will of the people out of spite against the mayor but they are potentially also incredibly stupid. What a wonderful combination.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the laugh! Almost certainly, the nitwits had to know that Public Questions always appear with Interpretive Statements. But in order to fix the result, they omitted what voters should know before making a decsion.
DeleteI do not practice election law, so take this with a grain of salt, but an interpretive statement might not be required here under NJSA 19:3-6 because the public question does not concern a State constitutional matter/amendment, statute, or any "legal titles" and the question is presented in simple language. See generally Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar, (https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/published/a1074-16.pdf). See also Town of Harrison Board of Education v. Netchert, 439 NJ Super 164 (Law Div 2014). It is permissible to include a statement when that criteria is not met, but not mandatory.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kevin. Okay, I'm definitely no lawyer at all but according to my reading of the statute, Hoboken Ballot Q#1 would require an Interpretive Statement. The Public Question asks the voter to approve run-offs as permitted under the Uniform Nonpartisan Election Law- omitting an Interpretive Statement assumes that the voter knows the rules of holding run-off elections under the Uniform Nonpartisan Election Law. IMO the question isn't as simple as it is vague. If a public question refers to a statute or legal title (Uniform Nonpartisan Election Law) isn't that the same as saying it "concerns" that law, and how is the voter expected to know what that means without an Interpretive Statement?
DeleteNJSA 19:3-6: Any public question voted upon at an election shall be presented in simple language that can be easily understood by the voter. The printed phrasing of said question on the ballots shall clearly set forth the true purpose of the matter being voted upon. Where the question concerns any amendment to the State Constitution, or any act or statute or other legal titles of any nature, the printed phrasing on the ballots shall include a brief statement interpreting same.
well the matter definitely involves state law as local elections are governed by state law. and since nobody has a clue what the text of the Nonpartisan Election Law states, I would argue an explanation is required so that voters know what they are voting upon.
DeleteHowever, I doubt the core supporters of this ballot initiative want voters knowing what they are voting on which is why the interpretive statement was deliberately withheld. God forbid they tell folks they want runoffs in December so they can buy elections.
Since we all know what this is about, here's an honest "interpretive statement":
ReplyDeleteINTERPRETIVE STATEMENT:
This amendment to the city charter asks whether Hoboken voters prefer electing allegedly corrupt candidates for municipal office in a runoff election, wherein a candidate who lost the last mayoral election gets another bite at the apple in a runoff election, several weeks into the holiday season, insuring a much smaller turnout, with fewer people voting than came to the polls in the first place, because nitwits on City Council do not understand the difference between plurality vs. majority.
If Hoboken voters answer this question affirmatively, Hoboken voters, using the voting booth as a time travel machine, will go back to the bad old days of rampant corruption, cronyism, nepotism and fiscal malfeasance. An affirmative vote would also result in greatly expanded costs to the City of Hoboken associated with administering run-off elections, and greatly expanded costs to the allegedly corrupt candidates, now that paying for Votes by Mail is off the table.