Roselle Councilwoman Denise Wilkerson filed an appeal against a decision that nullified her tight June primary win, asking for a primary redo instead of a decision that essentially hands the nomination to her opponent.
The close primary in Roselle has led to months of legal drama. Wilkerson, the incumbent, defeated a primary challenge from Cynthia Johnson by three votes. Superior Court Judge John Deitch denied Johnson’s request for a recount earlier this summer, but an appellate court overruled him. The recount brought Wilkerson’s margin down to two votes, but kept her in the lead.
Johnson continued the legal challenges, though.
Last week, her attorneys presented three voters whom Deitch ruled were illegally disenfranchised. With those findings, Deitch nullified the election and ordered a redo of the primary. Late last week, Deitch determined he didn’t have the authority to order a new election so late in the process and changed his mind. Instead, he told Roselle Democrats they had until this past Sunday to select a new candidate, which ended up being Johnson.
The appeals court agreed on Monday morning to hear Wilkerson’s appeal. Appellate Judges Jack Sabatino and Stanley Bergman will handle the case. Speed is of the essence, as the general election’s vote-by-mail starts Saturday.
The appeal argues that Deitch improperly applies a 1987 New Jersey Supreme Court decision — Fields v. Hoffman — to his decision to allow the Roselle Democratic Committee to pick a new nominee. The brief states Fields applied to a dispute over write-in votes, and that the case is not “remotely applicable.”
“To apply Fields here would transform a case about protecting voters from disenfranchisement into one that guarantees disenfranchisement by handing the nomination to a party committee,” the appeal states.
The appeal also argues that Deitch has the authority to delay the Roselle general election to schedule a special primary. Wilkerson’s appeal states that there is no reason Deitch cannot “craft an equitable remedy” by ordering new primary and general elections.
“As this Court itself has already recognized, election laws are to be liberally construed to the end that voters are permitted to exercise the franchise and that the will of the people as expressed through an election is heard,” the appeal states. “That principle imposes an affirmative obligation on the judiciary. Where statutory provisions are silent or inadequate, equity must supply the remedy to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised and that the democratic process is preserved.”
Wilkerson’s appeal also criticized Deitch’s handling of the case’s logistics. The appeal says the New Jersey Globe reported on Deitch’s decision before it had been made available to Wilkerson or her attorney, which they argue raised “serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.”
“That a political news outlet and select parties could access and report on the order before it was made available to all litigants undermines confidence in the even-handed administration of justice,” wrote Maximilian Ranzato, Wilkerson’s attorney.
The Union County Board of Elections has until 10 AM tomorrow to respond to Wilkerson’s brief.
