Atlantic Highlands Decision

MON-L-004035-23 04/10/2024 Pg 1 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024921052
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT

THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
______________________________________
I/M/O GENERAL ELECTION CONTEST OF : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
THE NOVEMBER 7, 2023 GENERAL : LAW DIVISION, MONMOUTH CTY.
ELECTION FOR ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS : MON-L-4035-23
MAYOR AND COUNCIL :
______________________________________:
:
:
James Murphy, :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. ;
:
:
Monmouth County Board of Elections; : OPINION
Christine Hanlon, in her official capacity as :
Monmouth County Clerk; Lori Hohenleitner; :
Alyson Forbes; Jon Crowley; Arthur :
Whitehead; and Ellen O’Dwyer-Woods, :
:
Respondents/Parties in Interest. :
_____________________________________ :
Matthew C. Moench, Esq. of King, Moench & Collins, LLP, on behalf of

Petitioner James Murphy
Scott D. Salmon, Esq. of Jardim Meisner Salmon Sprague & Susser, P.C., on
behalf of Respondent Lori Hohenleitner
Jason N. Sena, Esq. of Archer and Greiner P.C., on behalf of Respondent

Christine Hanlon in her official capacity as Monmouth County Clerk
George N. Cohen, Esq. of the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey,
on behalf of Respondent Monmouth County Board of Elections
1
ZAZZALI-HOGAN, J.S.C.
This matter arises out of a challenge of the November 7, 2023 mayoral election
results in Atlantic Highlands. Trial occurred on February 20, February 28 and February
29, 2024. The following witnesses testified: Melodie Kunkler, Michael Edelman, Michelle
Moon, Abigail Hofman, Ryan Huff, Rachael Moffett, Carol Zuzio, Alyson Denzler, Meghan
O’Connor, Lindsay Helmus, Michael Lucas, Derek Lucas, Linda Lucas and George Zaida.
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence unless otherwise noted:
Exhibits1
1. Melodie Kunkler
a. JX4 Voter profile
b. P15 LinkedIn profile
c. P16 Facebook profile
d. P17 Pennsylvania voting history
2. Michael Edleman
b. P10b Voting history
3. Henry Meahan
a. P10a Video of process server
4. Michelle Moon
a. P11 Port Monmouth deed
b. P12 Change of address form
c. P13 Facebook page
1 P = Petitioner Murphy, H = Respondent Hohenleitner and JX = Joint Exhibit.
2
d. P14 Moving Guys document
e. JX13 Voter profile
5. Steven Johnson
6. Abigail Hofman
a. P6 Voter registration application
b. JX17 Voter profile
7. Ryan Huff
b. Referenced/provided during trial – driver’s license, interim license, bank
documents, student loan documents, prescription, doctor bills, travel
documents, receipts, wedding invitation.
8. Rachael Moffett
b. P2 Facebook screenshot
c. P3 Facebook screenshot
d. Referenced/provided during trial – driver’s license, student loan
payment, car loan document, pay stubs, W2 tax return, bank statements
and tax documents.
9. Lindsay Helmus
b. H9 Deed for Manasquan home
c. H10 Social media post
3
10. Michael Lucas
b. H1 Tax return
c. H2 Apartment lease
d. H3 AT&T Bill
e. H4 Paystub
f. H5 Article from Cleveland newspaper
g. H6 Article from Voyage Ohio
h. H7 Twitter page
i. H8 Additional post on social media
11. Derek Lucas
b. H12 Credit card statements
c. H13 ConEd bill
12. Allyson Denzler
b. P1 Application to vote by mail
13. Carol Zuzio
14. Unknown write-in voter
a. JX31 Ballot with write in information
15. Meghan O’Connor
a. P7 Voter profile
4
b. P8a Middletown sample ballot
c. P8b Atlantic Highlands sample ballot
d. P9a Tax assessor card
e. P9b E-mail
Post-trial written summations were filed on March 11, 2024.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter involves a challenge of the November 7, 2023 election results for the
Office of the Mayor of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands. Petitioner James Murphy was
the Democratic candidate for Mayor while Respondent Lori Hohenleitner was the
Republican candidate. Petitioner filed this Petition against Respondents Monmouth
County Board of Elections (BOE); Christine Hanlon, in her capacity as Monmouth County
Clerk; and Lori Hohenleitner. Through their attorneys, the BOE and County Clerk fully
participated in the trial. Because no allegations of wrongdoing were lodged against either
of these entities, they take no position in the matter.
On the day of the election, ballots were cast in voting machines and via mail-in and
provisional ballots. Following the counting of ballots after the election, the BOE released
the unofficial and uncertified report of machine votes, mail-in votes and provisional ballots,
demonstrating that the following votes were cast:
Hohenleitner 846
Murphy 842
In other words, following the General Election, Hohenleitner had four (4) more votes than
Murphy.
Petitioner filed for a recount under docket L-3713-23. The December 7, 2023 order
signed by the Hon. Kathleen A. Sheedy, J.S.C., mandated that the recount occur on
5
December 12, 2023. Accordingly, the BOE conducted a recheck of machine votes and
a recount of mail-in ballots and provisional ballots, and it concluded that Respondent had
gained one (1) vote. Therefore, the BOE certified that the winner of the election for Mayor
was Lori Hohenleitner by five (5) votes.
On December 26, 2023, the Petition was filed and challenged the votes of nineteen
(19) individuals because of where they lived; votes cast by three (3) individuals because
of signature deficiencies; and the rejection of at least one (1) voter’s write-in vote. The
Honorable Owen C. McCarthy, P.J.Civ., held a Case Management Conference on
January 18, 2024, allowing for discovery and scheduling the Trial for February 20, 2024.
Although she had not sought a recount when Petitioner filed for one, Ellen O’Dwyer-
Woods, who was a candidate for Borough Council, joined the Petition contesting the
election, after having lost that election for a council seat by twelve (12) votes.
Meanwhile, Respondents Forbes and Hohenleitner filed a motion to dismiss the
Petition filed by O’Dwyer-Woods against Ms. Forbes because of untimeliness.2 That
motion was granted on February 1, 2024. At that time, the court held a case management
conference to address logistics concerning the trial. On February 2, 2024, after O’Dwyer-
Woods was dismissed, Petitioner Murphy amended his Petition to reflect that dismissal.
That petition challenged the residency of thirty-six (36) voters; challenged votes cast by
two (2) individuals because of signature deficiencies; challenged the rejection of at least
one (1) voter’s write-in vote; and asserted that the vote of an individual, who had moved
to Middletown on October 5, 2023, should be cancelled because he was not a resident of
2 Alyson Forbes, John Crowley, Arthur Whitehead and Ellen O’Dwyer-Woods were all candidates for
council and have been characterized by Petitioner as “Parties in Interest” for purposes of a potential
appeal. The first three individuals ultimately won the three (3) council seats.
6
Atlantic Highlands.
On February 7, 2024, Respondent Hohenleitner filed an Answer to the Amended
Petition and a Counter-Petition. There, Respondent asserted that if the court were to
count certain ballots, that it should also count the vote of a mail-in voter whose ballot was
rejected because of the postmark date. Respondent also challenged the votes of five
(5) individuals based upon residency.
Prior to the second day of trial, Petitioner sought testimony of two voters who had
not been named in the Original or First Amended Petitions -- Henry Meahan and Meghan
O’Connor. The court noted that the informal request was improper because those voters
were not named in the pleadings. Accordingly, on the second day of trial, Petitioner
sought leave to amend his Petition, which was granted for the reasons stated on the
record over Respondent’s objection. In that amendment, Petitioner challenged the
residence of nineteen (19) voters (although not the same nineteen (19) voters in the
original Petition); the rejection of two (2) mail in ballots; and the rejection of the ballot of
the person who had moved to Middletown. Petitioner, however, added a count, asserting
that Meghan O’Connor was a disenfranchised voter because she voted in the incorrect
district.
The trial was conducted over three (3) days, during which time, the court ultimately
heard the testimony regarding the voters enumerated below:
1.Melodie Kunkler
2.Michael Edelman
3.Henry Meahan
4. Michelle Moon
7
5. Steven Johnson
6. Abigail Hofman
7. Ryan Huff
8. Rachael Moffett
9.Write in voter
10. Carol Zuzio
11. Alyson Denzler
12.Meghan O’Connor
13.Lindsay Helmus
14. Michael Lucas
15. Derek Lucas
All of the above-referenced voters at issue testified except for Henry Meahan and the
unidentified write-in voter. Although her vote was not at issue, Linda Lucas provided
testimony about the residence of her two sons, Michael and Derek Lucas. While
Petitioner elicited testimony to challenge the votes of Alina Carr, George Zaidan, Katie
Edwards, Mary Heinze and Herbert Voelckers, he ultimately withdrew those challenges.
Mr. Zaidan, however, provided testimony regarding Mr. Meahan.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As a general proposition, "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." Matter of Election for Atlantic County Freeholder Dist. 3
2020 General Election, 468 N.J. Super. 341, 353 (App. Div. 2021) (In re Atlantic County
Freeholder) (quoting In re Contest of Nov. 8, 2005 Gen. Election for Off. of Mayor of Twp.
8
of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 192 N.J. 546, 559 (2007) (Parsippany II)).
"A citizen's constitutional right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice
necessarily includes the corollary right to have that vote counted 'at full value without
dilution or discount.' " In re Gray-Sadler, 164 N.J. 464, 474 (2000) (quoting Reynolds v.
Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 n.29, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964)). As reiterated in
In re Atlantic County Freeholder, "[t]he fundamental purpose of an election contest is 'to
ascertain the true will of the electorate.’” 468 N.J. Super. at 353.
Our highest court has made clear that election laws “provide us with the framework
within which our Legislature has directed an election contest must proceed." Parsippany
II, 192 N.J. at 560. In particular, the election statute specifies "both the grounds on
which an election may be contested, and the manner in which the contest may be brought
and decided." Id. at 559. A judge hearing a contest petition, following a trial "similar to
those in a civil action so far as practicable . . . under the control and direction of the court,"
must "pronounce judgment whether the incumbent or any contestant was duly elected."
N.J.S.A. 19:29-5; N.J.S.A. 19:29-8. "If the judge finds that no person was duly elected,
the judgment shall be that the election be set aside." N.J.S.A. 19:29-9. "A judge may not
speculate as to the voter's intent in order to validate a ballot marked contrary to that
permitted by statute." In re Mallon, 232 N.J. Super. 249, 262 (App. Div. 1989).
N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 sets forth nine ways to challenge an election although the
challenges in this matter are being made pursuant to subsection 19:29-1(e), which states
in relevant part that, “[t]he . . . election of any person to any public office . . . may be
contested by the voters of this State or of any of its political subdivisions affected thereby
upon 1 or more of the following grounds: . . . .e. When illegal votes have been received,
9
or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change the result . . . “N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(e).
The person challenging the vote has the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the
evidence that illegal votes were received, or legal votes were rejected.” In Re November
2, 2010 Gen. Election for Office of Mayor in Borough of South Amboy, Middlesex, 423
N.J. Super. 190, 200 (App. Div. 2011) (In re Mayor of South Amboy).
When addressing an election challenge, a court must always be mindful of the
legislative intent “that not only the voter but the process of exercising the vote be secure
from the opportunity for fraud.” In re: Petition of Battle, 190 N.J. Super. 232, 245 (App.
Div. 1983), aff’d as modified 95 N.J. 63 (1984). Procedural deficiencies must be
considered in light of the overall legislative scheme and “in a common-sense way which
accords with the legislative purpose.” In re: Application of Langbaum, 201 N.J. Super.
486, 489 (App. Div. 1985).
In interpreting N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(e), the Supreme Court has made clear that,
"[s]imple deviance from statutory election procedures, absent fraud or malconduct, will
not vitiate an election unless those contesting it can show that as a result of irregularities
'the free expression of the popular will in all human likelihood has been thwarted.' " In re
Gray-Sadler, 164 N.J. at 482. "In determining whether certain irregularities rise to a level
which requires nullifying an election . . . [i]t is only where the irregularities at an election
are such that the court cannot with reasonable certainty determine who received the
majority of the legal vote, that an election will be set aside." Mallon, 232 N.J. at Super.
270.
10
A. CHALLENGES BASED UPON RESIDENCE
To be qualified to vote, the voter must be 18 years-old by the next election, a United
States citizen and a resident of the County for 30 days. See N.J.S.A. 19:31-5. Every
person who is qualified by the New Jersey State Constitution of 1947 who is not otherwise
disqualified to vote shall be entitled to vote in the election district in which one “actually
resides and not elsewhere.” N.J.S.A. 19:4-1. The individual who meets those
requirements shall have the right to be registered and vote. Ibid.
Title 19 explains various nuances related to voters changing residence. When a
voter moves, they are required to file a change of residence “on or before the 21 st day
preceding any election.” N.J.S.A. 19:31-11. For the voter who has moved within the
same election district, the voter may vote at the polling place upon “written affirmation by
voter” to the BOE. N.J.S.A. 19:53C-3(a). If the voter moves within a municipality but in
a different election district or to a different municipality within the same county, “(1) the
person must go to that polling place to vote; and (2) the person will be permitted to vote
thereat by provisional ballot after completing an affirmation statement.” N.J.S.A. 19:53C-
3(b) and (c) and N.J.S.A.19:31-11(b). If the voter moved to a new county before the 21
days of the election and did not re-register, the voter can register in the new county on
election day but cannot vote in that county at that election. N.J.S.A. 19:53C-3(d). If the
voter moved to another county within 21 days of the election, the voter may be able to
vote in their former county. N.J.S.A. 19:53C-3(e). As evident from the statutory
framework above, there is no law that says that a person must necessarily “be entitled
to vote somewhere.” Snyder v. Callahan, 129 A. 410, 412, 3 N.J. Misc. 269 (N.J. Cir. Ct.
1925); see also In re Ocean Cnty. Com'r of Registration for a Recheck of the Voting
11
Machines for the May 11, 2004, Mun. Elections, 379 N.J. Super. 461, 473 (App. Div. 2005)
(In re Ocean County Com’r of Registration) (stating that “the voter . . . just like every
person . . . is charged with knowledge of the law . . .”).
In election law, a voter’s residency is determined by the voter’s domicile. See In re
Mayor of South Amboy, 423 N.J. Super. at 200. The concept of domicile, however, is
“not a unitary concept.” Worden v. County Bd. Of Elections, 61 N.J. 325 (1972). For
example, a person may have multiple residences but only one “domicile” for purposes of
voting. See In re General Election of November 5, 1991 for Office of Tp. Committee of
Tp. Of Maplewood, Essex County, 255 N.J. Super. 690, 726 (Law Div. 1992) (In re
Maplewood). Ultimately, if an individual maintains a permanent home in the voting
district, they have the right to vote in that district even if they are temporarily absent from
it; they do not vote elsewhere; and the factual context reveals their intention to return to
that home as a permanent abode. See In re Petition of Hartnett, 163 N.J. Super. 257,
263-64 (App. Div. 1978) .
To aid the court, there are factors to consider when determining one’s domicile for
purposes of establishing eligibility to vote as explained in Mayor of S. Amboy:
The permanent home of a person is considered his domicile

and the place of his domicile determines his right to vote.
Factors relevant in determining domicile include billing
address, residence from which tax returns are filed, mailing
address, membership in local clubs, driver's license, place
where a person spends the greatest amount of time,
newspaper subscriptions, and the like. If a voter's residence
is challenged, determination of domicile necessitates
consideration of these factors. Courts have construed the
issue of domicile broadly and flexibly.
[423 N.J. Super. at 207].
12
Some additional considerations for residency include “official changes of
address...filed with [the voter’s] employer, credit card companies, banks, insurance
carrier, the telephone company, the State of New Jersey, and statements made by [voter]
at the polls.” In re Maplewood, 255 N.J. Super. at 728. In Ivkovich v. Green, the Appellate
Division addressed the issue and concluded that “a statement of dual residency setting
forth [the voter’s] places of residence and claiming [the particular] residence to be the
residence at which [the voter] is domiciled for voting, [was] in conformance with N.J.S.A.
19:4-4.1 et seq.” 174 N.J. Super. 225, 230 (App. Div. 1980).
In this case, although the number of residency challenges fluctuated between the
filing of the Petition and submission of Post-Trial Briefs, Petitioner ultimately challenged
the residence of eight (8) voters: Melodie Kunkler, Michael Edelman, Henry Meahan,
Michelle Moon, Steven Johnson, Abigail Hofman, Ryan Huff and Rachael Moffett.
Meanwhile, Respondent challenged the residence of three (3) voters: Lindsay Helmus,
Derek Lucas and Michael Lucas. Therefore, the parties challenged a total of eleven (11)
votes based upon residence concerns.
Petitioner’s Challenges
1. Melodie Kunkler (Machine)
Ms. Kunkler testified that she moved from Philadelphia to Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic
Highlands in May 2023 with her fiancée Michael Edelman. Their one-year lease is dated
May 12, 2023. At the time of her testimony, she was uncertain whether she will remain
in Atlantic Highlands when the lease terminates. Ms. Kunkler testified, however, that she
very much enjoys living in Atlantic Highlands.
Her Facebook page refers to her living in Philadelphia. P16. Her LinkedIn Page
13
indicates that she is in the “greater Philadelphia area” but still works for the Honest
Company, which has its headquarters in California and a warehouse in Allentown,
Pennsylvania where she travels once a week. P15. Her driver’s license, however, lists
New Jersey as her residence. Ms. Kunkler testified that she has no homes or leases for
any property anywhere else besides Atlantic Highlands. Ms. Kunkler registered to vote
in Atlantic Highlands on October 17, 2023. JX4.
The court finds Ms. Kunkler’s testimony to be credible, even though her social media
pages list Philadelphia as her address. Her lease and driver’s license make clear that
she is a resident of Atlantic Highlands. Although she was not certain, she is inclined to
remain in Atlantic Highlands and did not mention the possibility of moving to any other
town or state. Based on her credible testimony, the court finds that Ms. Kunkel properly
voted in the November 2023 election because she is domiciled in and resides in Atlantic
Highlands.
2. Michael Edelman (Machine)
Mr. Edelman resides with Ms. Kunkler and works out of their home as a software
consultant. Like Ms. Edelman, he timely registered to vote on October 17, 2023, in
Atlantic Highlands, (JX-5), and has not voted in Pennsylvania since having moved here
with Ms. Kunkle. P9b. He too assumed that he would stay in Atlantic Highlands when
the lease is up because it has “everything you want.” When asked why he had not
changed his Pennsylvania license to New Jersey, he candidly replied that he was a
“procrastinator.”
The court finds Mr. Edelman’s testimony to be credible even though his license states
he resides in Pennsylvania. His name is also on the lease, and he properly registered
14
to vote in Atlantic Highlands. As with Ms. Kunkler, he believes he will continue to live in
Atlantic Highlands after the lease terminates. Based upon his testimony, the court finds
that Mr. Edelman properly voted in Atlantic Highlands because he resides and is
domiciled in Atlantic Highlands.
3. Henry Meahan (VBM)
Mr. Meahan, who did not testify, is the brother-in-law of another voter, George
Zaidan, whose residency was originally challenged although that challenge was
subsequently withdrawn. Mr. Zaidan testified that Mr. Meahan has lived with him and his
wife, Norah Zaidan, in Atlantic Highlands since 2013. Mr. Zaidan also testified that he
could not recall how many nights a month Mr. Meahan sleeps at the Atlantic Highlands
residence although he estimated approximately ten (10) nights per month. Mr. Zaidan
explained, however, that Mr. Meahan spends time in Florida to care for Meahan’s
mother/Zaidan’s mother-in-law.
During trial, Petitioner played the video of the process server attempting to serve
Mr. Meahan with a subpoena, in which Mr. Zaidan answered the door. P10. Mr. Zaidan
advised the process server that Mr. Meahan would not return from Florida until “maybe”
April 2024.
Petitioner, however, failed to proffer any documents to demonstrate that Mr.
Meahan was not a resident of Atlantic Highlands when he voted in November 2023.
Petitioner’s challenge is based solely upon the testimony of Mr. Zaidan that Meahan
spends “maybe” ten days a month in New Jersey and is in Florida for several months at
a time. It is unclear, for example, where Mr. Meahan collects his mail, lists his address
on tax documents, and whether he considers Atlantic Highlands and/or Florida to be his
15
residence(s).
Although Petitioner characterized Mr. Zaidan’s testimony as evasive and
combative, the court characterizes it as reflecting his reluctance to speak on behalf of Mr.
Meahan. Although Mr. Meahan’s sister, Norah Zaidan, was originally named as a
witness, Petitioner declined to call her as a witness. Petitioner, however, made no other
efforts to contact or serve Mr. Meahan or to corroborate his theory. For this voter,
Petitioner fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that Mr. Meahan is not domiciled in
Atlantic Highlands.
4. Michelle Moon (Machine) (
MSLMs. Moon rented a home with her husband Steven Johson at 28 Navesink Avenue
in Atlantic Highlands between 2018 and 2023. By its terms, the lease ended on
December 31, 2023. She had been registered to vote in Atlantic Highlands for several
years including the date at issue. JX13.
Given the challenges of the housing market in Atlantic Highlands, she and her
husband bought a house in Port Monmouth as reflected by the deed dated October 5,
2023. P11. The receipt from the moving company indicated that they transported their
belongings from Atlantic Highlands to Port Monmouth on October 23, 2023. P14. She
posted a picture of the new house on Facebook on October 24, 2023. P13. Their last
full day living in Atlantic Highlands was October 31, 2023, which is the date they officially
notified the post office of their change of address. P12. Ms. Moon did indicate, however,
that she did go back and forth between the homes until December 31, 2023, when the
lease ended, to move some smaller belongings and clean the house. Because they were
living in Atlantic Highlands only eight (8) days before the election, they did not think they
16
could vote in Port Monmouth.
While Petitioner contends that Ms. Moon was required to vote in the town in which
they actually resided (Port Monmouth), Respondent asserts that she was permitted to
vote in either Port Monmouth or Atlantic Highlands. N.J.S.A. 19:4-1 requires an individual
to vote in the town in which that person “actually” resides. N.J.S.A. 19:31-11 requires
that an application for a change of residence “shall be filed . . . on or before the 21st day
preceding the election.” As set forth above, subsection (b) of that provision allows a
person who cannot meet that deadline to vote where they moved “upon making a written
affirmation regarding the change of address at the polling place of the district in which the
voter resides on the day of the election.” N.J.S.A. 19:31-11(b) provides that if a voter
moved within the County, but outside the election district where they were registered at
any time before the election and failed to notify the commissioner of registration of the
change of address, she votes in the election district of the current address by provisional
ballot – but not in the election at issue.
Here, Ms. Moon moved on October 31, 2023, which was only seven days before
the election. To change her registration, she needed to file the request by October 17,
2023. Because she did not file a timely affirmation in Port Monmouth to vote there, she
also could not have voted in Port Monmouth. Based upon Ms. Moon’s testimony, the
court finds that she was not domiciled in Atlantic Highlands when she voted by machine
on election day and therefore, her vote must be rejected.
5. Steven Johnson
The court applies the same analysis for Mr. Johnson as it did for Ms. Moon’s vote.
JX14. Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s vote should be rejected because he was not domiciled in
17
or a resident of Atlantic Highlands.
6. Abigail Hofman
Ms. Hofman testified that she has been living with her aunt at Simpson Avenue in
Atlantic Highlands since mid-September 2023 when she moved from Red Bank. The
amendment to her Voter Registration Application to vote in Atlantic Highlands is dated
October 19, 2023, which is two days beyond the October 17, 2023 deadline. P6, JX17.
A strict interpretation of the twenty-one-day requirement was addressed in the
context of the advance registration requirement under N.J.S.A. 19:31-6.3(b) in Rutgers
Univ. Student Assembly v. Middlesex County Bd. Of Elections, 441 N.J. Super. 221, 238-
39 (App. Div. 2016) (In re Rutgers Univ. Student Assembly). There, the court
acknowledged that the State “has a strong interest in ensuring that all of its registered
voters meet the constitutional and statutory requirements to vote, namely having been a
resident of this State and the county in which he claims his or her vote for thirty days prior
to the election . . .” Ibid. Therefore, the court rejected a constitutional challenge of that
statute and upheld the twenty-one-day advance registration, concluding that the deadline
protects the State’s interests in “preventing voter fraud, ensuring public confidence in the
integrity of the electoral process, and enabling voters to cast their ballots in an orderly
fashion.” Id. at 236. Ultimately, the court rejected the voters’ ballots because they failed
to abide by the twenty-one-day requirement even though they lived in the town at issue
for three and half months. Ibid.
In this matter, other than her testimony and Ms. Hofman’s voter profile, there is no
other evidence of “acts of living, dwelling, lodging or residing sufficient to reasonably
establish that it is the real and actual residence of the voter.” In re South Amboy, 423
18
N.J. Super. at 208. Likewise, there is no evidence that Atlantic Highlands is Ms.
Hoffman’s domicile by for example, proof of her billing address, tax returns, mailing
address, membership in local clubs, driver’s license, or any subscriptions. See id. at
207.
The court finds that Petitioner’s reliance on Friends of Jim Usry v. Matthews, 187
N.J. Super. 176 (App. Div. 1982) to be misplaced. In that case, the voters at issue failed
to notify the Commissioner of a change of address within Atlantic City. They did not,
however, fail to meet a substantive requirement because they were residents of Atlantic
City during the requisite timeframe. Id. at 181. Here, Ms. Hofman was not always a
resident of Atlantic Highlands as were the voters in Friends of Jim Usry.
Although the court recognizes that Ms. Hofman only missed the deadline by days
in comparison to the petitioners’ three-month delay in the In re Rutgers Univ. Student
Assembly, the court is concerned about the lack of any other evidence indicating that she
was domiciled in Atlantic Highlands as was required in Election of South Amboy, 423
Super. at 207. Based upon the foregoing, because the court finds that Ms. Hofman failed
to timely register and provided no other evidence of being domiciled in Atlantic Highlands,
her vote should be rejected. To conclude otherwise, would create a dangerous, slippery
slope regarding the twenty-one-day requirement.
7. Ryan Huff (VBM)
Mr. Huff explained that he “goes back and forth” between Atlantic Highlands and
New York City. Mr. Huff also testified that he has lived in Atlantic Highlands since 2000.
He considers Atlantic Highlands to be his residence although he rents an apartment in
New York City. He entered the lease for the New York apartment in October 2021,
19
although he never stayed there until February 2022. Mr. Huff’s voter profile lists Atlantic
Highlands as his residence, and he has never voted anywhere else. JX19.
He works at Snapchat, which is in New York City, although he primarily works
remotely. His LinkedIn profile corroborates that his employer is located in New York.
Given the fluidity of that industry, he is not sure if he will be working there for an extended
period of time. Likewise, Mr. Huff is unsure whether he will purchase a home in New
Jersey because of prices. He did note, however, that if he lost his job, he would return
to New Jersey. He testified that he was in New Jersey anywhere from 50-80% of the
time in 2023.
In support of his testimony that he is a New Jersey resident, Mr. Hoff brought to
court a driver’s license, interim license, bank documents, student loan documents,
prescriptions, doctor bills, travel documents, and wedding invitations with his Atlantic
Highlands address. He also provided receipts from purchases in Atlantic Highlands or
the surrounding area.
Petitioner characterized Mr. Huff’s testimony as being “combative,” “evasive,”
“inconsistent” and “not credible” and that “he appeared to have a political agenda.”
Although he may have sparred with counsel during his examination, the court would
characterize his testimony as exhibiting annoyance for being called to testify. While
Petitioner contends that Huff “goes back and forth” between New York City and Atlantic
Highlands, that does not mean his testimony was inconsistent. The case law is clear that
a person can have more than one residence. He was credible that Atlantic Highlands
was his home and his domicile. Given the abundance of proof that Mr. Huff provided,
and because his testimony was credible regarding his present and future intentions
20
regarding residence, the court finds that he properly voted in Atlantic Highlands.
8. Rachael Moffatt (VBM)
Indeed, some documents listed Ms. Moffatt as living on Lower Prospect Road while
others referred to Prospect Road. Moffatt explained that Lower Prospect and Prospect
Road are essentially the same, but that her mailing address is Prospect Road in Atlantic
Highlands, which is her family home where she grew up. To prove her Atlantic Highlands
residence she provided her license, a student loan payment, car loan document, pay
stubs, W2 tax return, bank statements and tax documents.
Ms. Moffatt testified that she has lived in Atlantic Highlands her entire life with
limited exceptions; considers Atlantic Highlands to be her home; does not intend to live
anywhere else; and tells people she lives in Atlantic Highlands. She admitted, however,
that she lived in an apartment in Manhattan during medical school.
More importantly, she has a lease at Linden Avenue in Highlands, where she has
lived for the last five to six years. When asked why her Facebook profile says at one
page that she lives in Highlands and the other post does not indicate where she lives, she
could not explain why. P2 and P3. Likewise, when asked whether she changed the first
profile (on Facebook) to reflect she lives in Atlantic Highlands after this lawsuit
commenced, she could not recall, which give the court pause in terms of credibility.
In weighing the totality of the evidence related to her domicile, however, the court
declines to disturb the vote she cast, particularly in light of the importance of honoring the
intent of the voter. Indeed, Ms. Moffatt has spent several years living in Highlands, but
it is possible to have two residences. Moreover, the court cannot ignore the
overwhelming documentation indicating her connection to Atlantic Highlands including
21
bills, tax documents, loan documents, insurance documents and her license, as well as
her credible intention to eventually purchase a home in Atlantic Highlands. Because
the court finds that she is domiciled in Atlantic Highlands, and her vote will remain
accepted because Petitioner failed to meet his burden to challenge it.
Respondent’s residence challenges
1. Lindsay Helmus (Machine)
Ms. Helmus admitted that she moved to Manasquan, which is part of Wall Township,
in August 2023, when she purchased a home with her husband. H10. Prior to that she
lived in Atlantic Highlands where she voted in the 2023 election because she had not
changed her voter registration or driver’s license. Helmus unequivocally testified,
however, that she did not consider herself to be a resident of Atlantic Highlands when she
voted. H10 Her testimony was straightforward and credible. The court finds that
Respondent met her burden of proof in demonstrating that this voter did not meet the
residency requirement for purposes of voting in the November 2023 election and
therefore, her vote should be stricken as an illegal vote.
2. Michael Lucas (VBM)
Michael Lucas testified remotely and indicated that he has lived in Cleveland, Ohio
since March or April 2022. He has not lived full-time at his family home in Atlantic
Highlands since college and was in Cleveland on election day. JX34. He provided several
documents to demonstrate he is a resident of Cleveland including his tax return (H1),
lease (H2), November 2023 AT& T bill (H3), pay stub from November 2023 (H4), a news
article in which he talked about his move to Cleveland (H5), and his Twitter page (H7).
He also noted that he works at Cleveland Sports and plans to stay in Cleveland
22
indefinitely. (H6). He has no intention of returning to New Jersey at this time.
Because Michael has received mail in ballots, however, he has voted in the Atlantic
Highlands elections including the one at issue out of habit. Mr. Lucas was credible and
provided an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that he was a resident of Cleveland
for purposes of the November 2023 election. Consequently, the court finds that
Respondent met her burden of proof in demonstrating that this voter did not meet the
residency requirement for purposes of voting in the November 2023 election and
therefore, his vote should be stricken as an illegal vote.
3. Derek Lucas3 (VBM)
Derek testified that he lives in Brooklyn and has not lived in New Jersey since
2021, when he finished college. His W9, Lease Agreement (H11), credit card statements
from November 2023 (H12) and ConEd bill (H13), clearly indicate that he was residing in
Brooklyn in November 2023. (H11) The one-year lease began in June 2023, and he
explained he was likely to renew it though he was not certain. He also testified that he
works for IBM in New York. Like his brother, he was credible and clear about living in
New York and not intending to return to Atlantic Highlands in the near future He also
provided evidence that he has lived in New York and did live in New York in 2023.
Consequently, the court finds that Respondent met her burden of proof in demonstrating
that this voter did not meet the residency requirement for purposes of voting in the
November 2023 election and therefore, his vote should be stricken as an illegal vote.
3 Derek’s and Michael’s mother, Linda Lucas, also credibly testified that Derek has not lived at their
residence in Atlantic Highlands for two and a half years and that Michael had not lived there in four years.
She added that her sons come back and forth, but clearly testified that no one lived with her for the six
months leading up to the November 2023 election.
23
B. MAIL IN PROVISIONAL BALLOTS (VBM)
Mail-in ballots are governed by the "Vote by Mail Law of New Jersey," N.J.S.A.
10:63-1 to -28. A vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot is accompanied by an inner envelope and a
larger outer envelope. A completed VBM ballot must be placed in the inner envelope
and sealed. N.J.S.A. 19:63-16(a). The voter must also complete the attached certificate
and place the inner envelope with the accompanying certificate inside the outer envelope
and seal the envelope. Ibid. This constitutes a completed mail-in ballot. That certification
page appears below.
A review of the document indicates in all capitalization the following directive: “FOR
YOUR VOTE TO COUNT, YOU MUST SEAL YOUR BALLOT IN THIS ENVELOPE AND
COMPLETE & SIGN THIS CERTIFICATE.” JX30. Although the above-referenced copy
of the Certificate is in grayscale, the actual exhibit demonstrates that the text is in bright
red. And as self-evident from the language above the signature line, the person is
certifying subject to the penalties for fraudulent voting, that the person who signed the
24
certificate is the person who completed the ballot and sealed the ballot in secrecy.
N.J.S.A. 19:63-17 governs the actions of the Board upon receiving the ballot
package in terms of removing the inner envelope from the outer envelope, ensuring that
the envelope has been sealed and that neither envelope has been tampered with and
confirming that the signature matches the voter records. If those requirements are not
met, the BOE is required to give the voter the opportunity to cure the ballot pursuant to
the Ballot Cure Act, which the Legislature passed in 2020. See P.L. 2020, c. 71, S. 12,
eff. Aug. 8, 2020. If a voter’s mail-in or provisional ballot is rejected because of a missing
signature, the Board:
shall . . issue a “Cure Letter” by mail or email to the voter whose ballot was rejected,
which shall inform the voter of that fact and provide the reasoning for rejection, and
attempt to contact the voter by telephone, if a telephone number is available. The
cure letter shall include a “Cure Form” and the form shall include the voter’s name
and instruct the voter on how to cure the alleged or actual deficiency. . . .
[N.J.S.A. 19:63-17(b)(1)].
After the cure letter is sent by the Board,
the county board of elections shall make a final determination about whether or not
the mail-in ballot alleged to be deficient shall be counted. The failure or alleged
failure of any voter to cure alleged deficiencies in the voter’s mail-in ballot shall not
create a presumption that the vote is improper or invalid, nor shall it be considered
evidence that the vote is improper or invalid.
[N.J.S.A. 19:63-17.1(a)].
Following the final determination, “disputes about the qualifications of a voter to vote, or
about whether or not or how any mail-in ballot shall be counted in that election, [and]
shall be referred to the Superior Court for determination.” N.J.S.A. 19:63-17.1(b).
1. Allyson Denzler (VMB)
Ms. Denzler has voted in every election since 1990, including the eight (8) prior
25
occasions on which she voted by mail. JX30. For this election, however, she did not, fill
in the certificate of Mail In Voter. P1. She claims it was an oversight and that she
probably simply forgot. Ms. Denzler does not recall seeing a cure letter.
2. Carol Zuzio (VBM)
Ms. Zuzio, who testified remotely, lives at Navesink Avenue in Atlantic Highlands and
also failed to fill in the Certificate of Mail In Voter. JX29. She advised that at the time, she
was “blind in [her] left eye” with cataracts. There is no particular reason why she left the
address line blank. She did not recall ever seeing a cure letter advising her that the ballot
had been rejected. She believes she fully complied with her obligations. When asked
why she did not fill out that address she said she said “there is no reason…I probably
forgot….I didn’t think I needed to” even though she had previously voted by mail on
approximately four (4) occasions without any issue.
In support of the argument that these two ballots were improperly rejected,
Petitioner also relies on “The Guide to Signature Verification of Mail In and Provisional
Ballots and Cure of Discrepant or Missing Signatures,” which was not referenced during
the trial, and states that “[s]ome voters will forget to sign their return envelopes all
together. Such scenarios underly the importance of giving voters a path to cure or remedy
the discrepancy so every legally cast ballot may be counted.” See Guide at 3-4. That
provision merely acknowledges that sometimes people simply forget to sign signatures
or “miss” that instruction, as did Ms. Denzler and Ms. Zuzio. While that may be true, it
does not by itself absolve the voter of that failure.
More importantly, precedent demonstrates that an unsigned flap on the outside of
the envelope of mail-in ballots should result in their being rejected. See Matter of Gen.
26
Election for the Twp. Council in the Twp. of Livingston, 247 N.J. Super. 589, 594 (Law Div.
1990) (In re General Election in Livingston). In General Election in Livingston, the court
stated that the stringent signature requirements for in-person voting should be applied to
absentee ballots and therefore, should be deemed “essential to the proper function of the
election board, in the interest of preventing fraud.” Ibid. To that end, the court
emphasized that “[u]nder no circumstances should an uncertified absentee ballot be
counted.” Ibid. In fact, the court underscored that the “’absentee’ nature of the absentee
voting privilege warrants even closer scrutiny to ensure untainted elections.” Ibid. The
court emphasized that not voting in person was not so much a right but a privilege,
because of the greater potential for fraud and therefore, greater chance of the integrity of
an election being compromised. Although that decision preceded the Cure Act, its
holding remains undisturbed.
Here, that the two voters did not recall receiving a cure letter does not carry the
day because it is Petitioner’s burden as the challenger to prove “by a preponderance of
the evidence that illegal votes were received, or legal votes were rejected.” In re South
Amboy, 423 N.J. Super. at 200. Sending a cure letter is statutorily required. Petitioner,
however, provided no evidence of details from the Board of Elections how the deficiency
was handled upon its discovery. For example, there were no copies of any cure or
related letters or any testimony from anyone from the BOE. More importantly, the BOE
made clear its intention not to take a position about this election except to say that the
law must be followed. Also, that these two voters may have been forgetful about properly
certifying their ballot and could not recall having received a cure letter, does not bolster
27
Petitioner’s contention that they did not receive any cure letter. For the foregoing reasons,
the court declines to modify the Board’s decision to reject those two ballots.
C. WRITE IN VOTE
Write in votes cause problems because of the free form handwriting or entry of the
proposed candidate’s name. N.J.S.A. 19:16-3(f) makes clear that “[i]f a voter . . .writes
or pastes the name of any person in the column designated personal choice, whose name
is printed upon the ballot as a candidate under the same title of office, or his choice cannot
be determined, his ballot shall not be counted for that office.” (Emphasis added).
There is significant guidance on this point synthesized in Gray-Sadler, where the
court stated as follows:
Although the statute appears straightforward, it must be read

in light of the broad purpose of the election laws to prevent
disenfranchisement of qualified voters. In cases involving
invalidated write-in votes, our courts have distinguished errors
due to extrinsic problems from errors caused by a voter's own
neglect. In re Hartnett, 163 N.J. Super. 257, 268, 394 A.2d
871 (App. Div. 1978) (holding that vote properly voided where
intent was clear but error was within voter's control); In re
Fifteen Registered Voters on Behalf of Flanagan, 129 N.J.
Super. 296, 301-02, 323 A.2d 521 (App. Div.)(holding that
write-in votes bearing only surname should not have been
voided where desired candidate was obvious and voter
sufficiently complied with instructions), certif. denied, 65 N.J.
577, 325 A.2d 711 (1974); In re Klayman, 97 N.J. Super. 295,
304, 235 A.2d 45 (Law Div. 1967)(holding that incorrect
spelling or absence of middle initial should not void write-in
vote where intent clear and write-in space small); but see In
re Sweetwood, 91 N.J. Super. 496, 499, 221 A.2d 543 (App.
Div. 1966) (holding that although ballot did not instruct voter
to designate office for selected candidate, failure to do so
invalidated vote). Those cases generally adhere to the
28
principle that rigid application of technical rules should not

prevent otherwise valid write-in votes from being counted.
[164 N.J. at 476-77 (2000) (emphasis added)].

Regardless, the burden on the challenger for write in voters denied the ability to vote is
the same as for legal votes rejected.
Although Petitioner relies on In re Gen. Election Held in Tp. Of Monroe, Gloucester
Cty., N.J. on Nov. 6, 1990, that case is easily distinguishable. 245 N.J. Super. 70 (App.
Div. 1990). There, the voter indicated their choice by doing two things – punching the
circle next to the name as well as writing that name in as a personal choice. Id. at 72.
The court declined to disenfranchise the voter because it was unequivocal that the two
expressions of his vote were in favor of one candidate.
Here, the voter electronically wrote in “Murphy.” Petitioner contends that because
that vote was cast for him, that the vote be counted in his favor. He contends that the
ballot is clear that the voter had a choice between Hohenleitner or Murphy for Mayor.
JX31. That write in, however, in and of itself is sufficient to void the vote. One additional
salient fact also supports why the vote should not be counted. More specifically, the
writing of “Murphy” is problematic for this particular election because another Murphy was
on the ballot as a candidate for the Board of Education as set on the next page, making
the reference to “Murphy” equivocal.
29
Most importantly, the failure to conform with the rules was due solely to the voter’s
own neglect and not some extrinsic problems that were out of his control, a distinction
that was emphasized in Gray-Sadler. Therefore, the court finds that Petitioner did not
meet his burden in demonstrating that this vote should have been counted, making that
vote properly rejected.
D. WHETHER VOTER WAS DISENFRANCHISED (IN PERSON)
After moving from Montclair, New Jersey, Meghan O’Connor bought her home in
Atlantic Highlands in October 2022 at which time, she registered to vote. She has resided
at E. Highlands Avenue in Atlantic Highlands since February 2023. P7. It was not clear
whether she received a sample ballot for the primary in June 2023. Although there was
a Special Election in September 2023, she does not recall receiving any directions
regarding where she should vote.
30
As a threshold issue, no one disputes that Ms. O’Connor resided in Atlantic
Highlands on Election Day even though she actually cast her vote in Middletown at the
Navesink Elementary School. While the Navesink School has an Atlantic Highlands
address, it is located in Middletown District 2. Although she testified that her sample ballot
sent her to that location, she no longer has it in her possession. That sample ballot offered
during trial lists refers to Middletown at two places and does not refer to Atlantic Highlands
as reflected below.
During her testimony, Ms. O’Connor provided a very detailed account of how she
actually cast her vote. Upon her arrival, she went to one of the tables and signed her
name in the poll book and was given the voting authority ticket to hand to the poll worker
before she entered the voting booth. Shortly thereafter, she was allowed into the voting
booth itself. After she closed the curtain, she looked at who the candidates were. She
31
claims that she noticed, however, that there was no one listed as a candidate for Mayor
and that Petitioner’s name did not appear on the ballot. Rather than make any inquiries
of, for example, the poll workers, she cast her vote and exited the polling station.
Later that day, she learned that one of her neighbors had voted at a different
location and in Atlantic Highlands, although that information is technically inadmissible
hearsay. None of those neighbors testified. Regardless, she never advised poll workers
in Middletown or Atlantic Highlands of her discovery or attempted to rectify her concerns
on the day she voted. She claims that later in the week, she went to the Municipal
Building to ask why she had been sent to Middletown. Although Ms. O’Connor could not
recall to whom she spoke, she contends that no one could answer her question. Ms.
O’Connor never followed up with anyone else such as the County Clerk or the Board of
Elections because she did not know she had such options.
In fact, Ms. O’Connor did not take any additional action until almost four months
later when she emailed Petitioner on February 22, 2024. P9b. That email was not shared
with Respondent until approximately 6:00 p.m. on February 27, 2024, which was the
evening before the second day of the three-day trial, although there is no evidence of
intentional delay by counsel. By that point, as noted by at least one witness, the election
dispute had appeared in a local newspaper. Regardless, both Petitioner and
Respondent agreed that if indeed the sample ballot directed her to vote in a Middletown
election, it was in error.
In light of the foregoing, Petitioner contends that Ms. O’Connor’s vote was
effectively “rejected” because of her misassignment to Middletown rather than Atlantic
Highlands. In Gray-Sadler, the court explained that a vote has been rejected “in any
32
situation in which qualified voters are denied access to the polls” or “who, through no fault
of their own have been prohibited from voting for a specific candidate by some irregularity
in the voting procedures.” 164 N.J. at 465-76. The voter, however, “need not be
physically barred from voting” to have a vote rejected. Id. at 476. The court posited that
the “essential question is whether voters were denied the opportunity to vote for a specific
candidate by some irregularity in the voting procedures.” Ibid.
Relying on that case, the court in Matter of Election for Atlantic, 468 N.J. Super.
341 (App. Div. 2021), concluded that votes had been improperly rejected. There, 328
voters had received defective ballots because they did not include the candidates for
County Commissioner even though others had received the proper ballots. The margin
of victory was 286 votes and therefore, the defective votes exceeded the margin of victory.
The parties stipulated that the error was caused by the Office of the County Clerk and not
the voters. Id. at 360. Ultimately, the court concluded that those votes had been
improperly “rejected” as defined by the case law and statute through no fault of the voters
and that the missing votes were “sufficient to change the result.” Id. at 356.
Here, applying the framework from In re Gray-Sadler, Ms. O’Connor was not
denied access to the polls. The next inquiry, therefore, is whether “through no fault of
[her own, she was] prohibited from voting for a specific candidate by some irregularity in
the voting procedures.” No one here disputes that Ms. O’Connor should have voted in
the Atlantic Highlands election.
The finer point is whether this error was due in any way to her own fault. Nowhere
on the ballot does “Murphy,” “Mayor” or “Atlantic Highlands” appear. She did not recall
opening the sample ballot, which could have triggered an earlier inquiry by Ms. O’Connor
33
had she reviewed it in advance. If this election was so important to her, it begs the
question as to why she did not make an inquiry while at the polling station. In other
words, Ms. O’Connor was not entirely without fault. Similarly, if her right to vote in Atlantic
Highlands was so important, she failed to explain why, at the time of her testimony, she
still had not corrected her voter information.
The ultimate issue, however, is whether she was deprived of the ability to vote for
the candidate of her choice. Except for an email to Petitioner four months after she cast
her ballot and her own uncorroborated testimony, there is no evidence that at the time
she voted, Ms. O’Connor intended to vote for Petitioner. Regardless of her motivation,
which is irrelevant, Ms. O’Connor credibly testified at trial that she would have voted for
Petitioner. Consequently, applying the case law to Ms. O’Connor’s vote, the court finds
that her vote was technically rejected.
The case of In re Gray-Sadler addressed how to assess a vote that was improperly
rejected, noting that whether a petitioner may prevail on a challenge pursuant to N.J.S.A.
19:29-1(e) “depends on whether the ‘rejected’ votes were sufficient to change the
result.”164 N.J. at 481-82. There, the court explained that in so doing, the court must
decide “under the totality of the circumstances, whether the election irregularities were so
significant as to warrant a new election.” Ibid.
Simple deviance from statutory election procedures, absent fraud or malconduct,
will not vitiate an election unless those contesting it can show that as a result of
irregularities "the free expression of the popular will in all human likelihood has been
thwarted." Ibid. (quoting Wene v. Meyner, 13 N.J. 185, 196 (N.J. 1953)). Only when those
irregularities "are such that the court cannot with reasonable certainty determine who
34
received the majority of the legal vote," can a court set aside an election. Id. at 482.
Petitioner’s burden may be met "by a demonstration that had the votes been cast for
[them], the result would have been different." Id. at 482-83 (stating that the “standard
we apply is one of reasonable certainty as opposed to absolute certitude”).
Reyling on Mallon, the court expanded that inquiry stating that:
In undertaking this analysis our "courts [have] consider[ed] the nature of the
irregularity, its materiality, the significance of its influence and consequential
derivations in order to determine whether the digression or deviation from the
prescribed statutory requisitions had in reasonable probability so imposing and so
vital an influence on the election proceeding as to have repressed or contravened
a full and free expression of the popular will. . . ."
Gray-Sadler, 164 N.J. at 482 (quoting In re Mallon, 232 N.J. Super. at 270).
The court continued about the policy considerations involved with reviewing
election results as follows:
At the heart of the inquiry is the need to safeguard the franchise of not only the
voters who cast valid votes at the election, but also those whose votes were
rejected. See Sharrock, supra, 15 N.J. Super. at 19, 83 A.2d 11. If
the irregularities are found to have been so serious as to prejudice the election
result, N.J.S.A. 19:29-9 requires the election to be set aside, the results declared
null and void, and a special election held.
[Ibid.]
In Gray, there were irregularities related to the election for mayor and council because
of conflicting instructions inside the voting machine as well as the lack of instructions
outside the machine on how to vote for a write-in candidate.
Although the confusing instructions in Gray-Sadler were not enough to sway the
court, the court had a more pressing concern. Specifically, there was a discrepancy
between the number of voters who entered the booth and the number of votes. For
35
example, eighty-three (83) people who entered the voting booth did not cast a vote for
mayor, and 215 votes that could have been cast for borough council were not cast. Id. at
483. The number of write-in votes for Gray that were rejected, together with the certified
total exceeded his opponent’s votes. Id. at 482.
Here, Ms. O’Connor’s dilemma is distinguishable from Gray-Sadler for several
reasons. First, she recognized there was an issue and did nothing to rectify it before she
cast her vote. In other words, she contributed to the error. But the court in Kirk stated
that the court must “view[ ] the circumstances particular to the particular voter” and not a
reasonable voter in general. 324 N.J. Super. at 554. Although the court noted some
concerns with some of Ms. O’Connor’s testimony in this case, the court found her credible
regarding what her vote would have been. Second, here, Ms. O’Connor’s single vote,
by itself, would not alter the results. It was an isolated error in contrast to Gray-Sadler,
where the number of rejected votes significantly exceeded the margin of victory. Gray-
Sadler, 164 N.J. at 471.
As for the remedy, it appears that Petitioner would like O’Connor to be able to cast
her vote nunc pro tunc. In Kirk v. French, the court rejected such a request, stating that
the state legislature has not provided such a remedy. 324 N.J. Super. 548, 551 (Law Div.
1998). Regardless, because her one vote would not necessarily change the results, the
court will focus on how, if at all, the six (6) originally accepted but ultimately rejected votes
would affect the election.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing principles of law and facts cited, the Court finds that
Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof that the votes of Melodie Kunkler, Michael
36
Edelman, Rachel Moffett, Henry Meahan and Ryan Huff were illegal and should be
rejected. The votes from each of these voters shall remain accepted and valid. The
court finds that Petitioner did meet his burden of proof regarding the votes of Michelle
Moon, Steven Johnson and Abigail Hofman being illegal and should be rejected. The
Court also finds that the rejected votes of Carol Zuzio, Alyson Denzler and the voter who
wrote in shall remain rejected and shall not be counted as Petitioner failed to sustain the
burden of proof. Likewise, the court finds that the votes of Lindsay Helmus, Michael Lucas
and Derek Lucas were improperly accepted and shall not be counted because
Respondent sustained her burden of proof. Lastly, the court finds that although
O’Connor’s vote was rejected, it alone is not enough to overturn the election. All of these
findings are reflected in Appendix A of this Opinion.
Going forward, the court may require additional testimony for the reasons set forth
in Parsippany I because the six (6) illegal votes exceed Respondent’s margin of victory
of five (5) votes. See In re Mayor of Parsippany, 388 N.J. Super. 663 (App. Div.
2006)(Parsippany I), aff’d as modified on other grounds by Parsippany II, 192 N.J. at 572.
There, the court stated that “the statute specifically grants the judge the power to require
voters to disclose relevant information, including the authority to ‘compel [a voter] to
disclose for whom he voted,’ N.J.S.A. 19:29-7, in order to determine whether the election
results should be overturned.” 192 N.J. at 559-60.4 To void the election, Petitioner must
ultimately prove that (1) “illegal votes were cast in number sufficient to change the result
if they had in fact been cast for the contestee” and (2) “to the extent possible under the
4 In contrast, if a wrongfully disenfranchised voter is able to be identified, that voter cannot be compelled
to disclose for whom he did or would have voted. In re Atlantic County Freeholder, 468 N.J. Super. at
355.
37
circumstances, [to show] for whom the illegal votes were cast.” Nordstrom v. Lyon, 424
N.J. Super. 80, 103-04 ((App. Div. 2012) (citing Mallon, 232 N.J. Super. at 268 and
Application of Murphy, 101 N.J. Super. 163, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 172
(1968)). As set forth in the attached order, the court shall conference this matter to
address the effect of these findings of fact and conclusions of law on this election
challenge.
/s/ Mara Zazzali-Hogan, J.S.C.
Dated: April 10, 2024
38
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF TRIAL RESULTS
Name How Ballot Challenger Reason for Conclusion

Ballot status Challenge regarding whether
Was Cast vote was properly
accepted/rejected
1.Melodie Kunkler Machine Accepted Murphy Residence Properly accepted
2.Michael Edelman Machine Accepted Murphy Residence Properly accepted
3.Henry Meahan VBM Accepted Murphy Residence Properly accepted
4. Michelle Moon Machine Accepted Murphy Residence Improperly

accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
5. Steven Johnson Machine Accepted Murphy Residence Improperly
accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
6. Abigail Hofman Machine Accepted Murphy Residence Improperly
accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
7. Ryan Huff VBM Accepted Murphy Residence Properly accepted
8. Rachael Moffatt VBM Accepted Murphy Residence Properly accepted
9.Write in voter Machine Rejected Murphy Write in Properly rejected

vote should
not be
considered
10. Carol Zuzio VBM Rejected Murphy Not signed/ Properly rejected
incomplete
certification
11. Alyson Denzler VBM Rejected Murphy Not signed/ Properly rejected
incomplete
certification
12.Meghan O’Connor Machine Rejected Murphy Should No additional
have been analysis required
permitted to
vote in
Atlantic
Highlands
13.Lindsay Helmus Machine Accepted Hohenleitner Residence Improperly
accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
14. Michael Lucas VBM Accepted Hohenleitner Residence Improperly
accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
15. Derek Lucas VBM Accepted Hohenleitner Residence Improperly
accepted/Should be
rejected (Illegal)
39

Atlantic Highlands Decision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atlantic Highlands Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MON-L-004035-23 04/10/2024 Pg 1 of 39 Trans ID: LCV2024921052

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT

Matthew C. Moench, Esq. of King, Moench & Collins, LLP, on behalf of

Jason N. Sena, Esq. of Archer and Greiner P.C., on behalf of Respondent

a. JX4 Voter profile

b. P15 LinkedIn profile

c. P16 Facebook profile

d. P17 Pennsylvania voting history

a. JX5 Voter profile

b. P10b Voting history

a. P10a Video of process server

a. P11 Port Monmouth deed

b. P12 Change of address form

c. P13 Facebook page

1 P = Petitioner Murphy, H = Respondent Hohenleitner and JX = Joint Exhibit.

d. P14 Moving Guys document

e. JX13 Voter profile

a. JX14 Voter profile

a. P6 Voter registration application

b. JX17 Voter profile

a. JX19 Voter profile

b. Referenced/provided during trial – driver’s license, interim license, bank

documents, student loan documents, prescription, doctor bills, travel

documents, receipts, wedding invitation.

a. JX6 Voter profile

d. Referenced/provided during trial – driver’s license, student loan

and tax documents.

a. JX32 Voter profile

b. H9 Deed for Manasquan home

c. H10 Social media post

10. Michael Lucas

a. JX33 Voter profile

f. H5 Article from Cleveland newspaper

g. H6 Article from Voyage Ohio

i. H8 Additional post on social media

11. Derek Lucas

a. JX34 Voter profile

b. H12 Credit card statements

c. H13 ConEd bill

12. Allyson Denzler

a. JX30 Voter profile

b. P1 Application to vote by mail

13. Carol Zuzio

a. JX29 Voter profile

14. Unknown write-in voter

a. JX31 Ballot with write in information

15. Meghan O’Connor

b. P8a Middletown sample ballot

c. P8b Atlantic Highlands sample ballot

d. P9a Tax assessor card

Post-trial written summations were filed on March 11, 2024.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Republican candidate. Petitioner filed this Petition against Respondents Monmouth

of these entities, they take no position in the matter.

demonstrating that the following votes were cast:

was Lori Hohenleitner by five (5) votes.

Honorable Owen C. McCarthy, P.J.Civ., held a Case Management Conference on

Meanwhile, Respondents Forbes and Hohenleitner filed a motion to dismiss the

Petition filed by O’Dwyer-Woods against Ms. Forbes because of untimeliness.2 That

to Middletown on October 5, 2023, should be cancelled because he was not a resident of

On February 7, 2024, Respondent Hohenleitner filed an Answer to the Amended

(5) individuals based upon residency.

record over Respondent’s objection. In that amendment, Petitioner challenged the