A legal battle over who will appear on the ballot for Hopewell Township’s new Charter Study Commission has reached Superior Court just days before Mercer County is scheduled to print ballots for the November election.
Three certified candidates — Michael Markulec, Vanessa Sandom and Stephen Klopfer — filed suit seeking to remove five other candidates — Christopher Pazdan, Joshua Wilson, Melanie Walter, Francis Guenther and Grace Rarich — alleging problems with their nominating petitions.
The five challenged candidates dispute the plaintiffs’ characterization of the problems and contend that errors in their petition paperwork can be corrected and should not prevent them from appearing before voters.
The dispute is unfolding on a tight election timetable. Superior Court Judge William Anklowitz scheduled a video trial for 1 p.m. Friday and reserved a decision on whether to delay the Aug. 31 deadline for preparing ballots for printing. If the case cannot be completed Friday, Anklowitz said he is inclined to stay that deadline and continue the trial Sept. 3.
Mercer County Clerk Paula Sollami Covello previously told MercerMe that ballots were expected to be printed Aug. 31. Her office announced separately this week that mail-in ballots are scheduled to begin going out to voters Sept. 19.
A Mercer County elections official told MercerMe Thursday that the county can delay the printing process if ordered to do so by the court and will follow whatever order the judge issues.
Challenge filed against five candidates
Hopewell Township voters approved to put on the ballot the question of forming the commission and electing the commissioners. Five commissioners will be elected this November to study the township’s current form of government and ultimately make recommendations about whether it should remain in place or be changed.
The court fight involves two groups of candidates seeking those five seats.
Markulec, Sandom and Klopfer are three members of a five-candidate group identified in the court filings as “Chart New Course,” or CNC. The other two candidates in that group are Chad Goerner and Tamera Matteo.
The lawsuit challenges the certifications of Pazdan, Wilson, Walter, Guenther and Rarich, another group of five candidates whose petition effort was organized with help from Township Committee member and former Mayor Courtney Peters-Manning.
The plaintiffs allege several deficiencies in that group’s nominating petitions.
Among them, the lawsuit contends that Guenther did not have the required 100 valid voter signatures. The plaintiffs say the municipal clerk’s own markings on his petitions leave him below that threshold.
The complaint also alleges problems with circulator affidavits — the sworn statements used to verify who collected and witnessed petition signatures.
According to the plaintiffs, a group of signatures collected by Rarich appeared in several candidates’ petition sets but, in some instances, was accompanied by affidavits from other people stating that they had witnessed the signatures. The plaintiffs argue that those discrepancies make the affidavits false and invalidate the petitions.
The lawsuit further alleges that circulator affidavits notarized by Hopewell Township Municipal Clerk Katherine Fenton-Newman lacked a notary commission expiration date and official stamp or seal required under state law.
Fenton-Newman, who certified the candidates, is also named as a defendant in her official capacity.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to revoke the certifications of all five challenged candidates, remove their names from the ballot and conduct a new ballot-position drawing with the candidates who remain qualified.
Those claims remain allegations. The court has not determined that the petitions were fraudulent or that any of the five candidates should be removed from the ballot.
Who are the challenged candidates?
The five challenged candidates bring a range of local government, public service and community experience. According to biographies submitted as part of the Charter Study Commission candidate process, Christopher Pazdan is a lifelong township resident and farmer who serves on several township boards and committees, including the Zoning Board and Agricultural Advisory Committee. Francis “Frank” Guenther, a psychologist and six-year township resident, serves as vice chair of the Hopewell Township Senior Advisory Board.
Grace Rarich is a lifelong township resident and Timberlane Middle School science teacher who has held leadership roles with the Mercer County Education Association. Melanie Walter is an attorney and former director of the New Jersey Division of Local Government Services. Joshua Wilson is a longtime township resident and deputy fire chief with the Hopewell Township Fire District.
Challenged candidates say mistakes can be corrected
An attorney representing the five challenged candidates has argued that the case involves correctable petition errors, not fraudulent voter signatures.
In a filing Wednesday, attorney Paul Norris of Stark & Stark argued that the plaintiffs do not allege that voter signatures were forged or fraudulently obtained. Instead, he said, the dispute centers on affidavits accompanying those signatures.
Norris cited previous election cases in arguing that technical or nonfraudulent errors should not invalidate petitions when the underlying voter signatures are legitimate. He asked the court to dismiss the challenge or allow the candidates to correct their paperwork.
Peters-Manning acknowledged in an interview with MercerMe that mistakes were made while the group gathered and assembled hundreds of petition signatures, but she strongly rejected the allegation that they amounted to fraud.
“The allegations are outrageous, and yes, we made some mistakes,” Peters-Manning said. “They were all innocent mistakes.”
She described a rushed effort in which supporters were collecting signatures for multiple candidates and some signature sheets and circulator affidavits were incorrectly matched or missing.
“We absolutely made some mistakes,” Peters-Manning said. “But they were innocent mistakes, and, you know, these five people should be allowed to be on the ballot.”
Peters-Manning told MercerMe Thursday that corrected circulator affidavits had been filed with the municipal clerk ahead of a court-imposed deadline.
Judge allows corrections while questions remain
Anklowitz has not yet decided whether the alleged problems can legally be cured.
In an order Thursday, he allowed the five candidates to file amended or corrected petitions and affidavits with the municipal clerk by 4 p.m. They were not permitted to add new petitions or change the name of any candidate.
In an accompanying opinion, Anklowitz drew a distinction between petition defects that can be corrected and false affidavits that can invalidate a petition.
“A defective oath can be cured by timely submitting a new oath,” the judge wrote, citing a previous New Jersey case. But he also cited another case holding that the “demonstrated falsity of the authenticating affidavit robs it of any effective force.”
“Whether the issues in this case fall more toward” one precedent or the other “remains to be determined at trial,” Anklowitz wrote.
The judge said allowing the candidates to submit corrections before trial will give the court a complete record if he ultimately determines the defects were curable.
The case has also raised a more technical question about exactly when Charter Study Commission petitions were due.
The challenged candidates argued that a provision of the Faulkner Act sets the filing deadline at 60 days before the election, which would make Sept. 4 the deadline, rather than the earlier Aug. 21 date used in the candidate instructions. On that basis, they argued that the lawsuit was premature and that amendments could still be made.
Anklowitz, however, identified a competing state law governing nonpartisan municipal elections that establishes a 75-day deadline and allows certain petition deficiencies to be corrected up to 72 days before an election.
The judge wrote that he intends to be guided by the principle that candidates who submitted sufficient petitions on time should be allowed on the ballot “so that the voters can decide.”
Ballot deadline adds urgency
The compressed schedule is significant because Mercer County is preparing ballots for the Nov. 3 general election.
State law sets Aug. 31 as the deadline for preparing ballots for printing, a deadline the court has repeatedly referenced in its orders.
Anklowitz wrote that election disputes need to be resolved quickly and that efforts should be made to decide this case before the county prepares the ballots, “even if a short stay is required to do so.”
The judge is expected to decide Friday whether the Aug. 31 deadline needs to be put on hold. If the trial cannot be completed Friday, it is scheduled to continue in person Sept. 3.
The County Clerk’s Office has separately announced that mail-in ballots are scheduled to begin going out Sept. 19 and continue to be mailed throughout that week.
MercerMe sought comment from Fenton-Newman Thursday about the lawsuit and the status of the candidate petitions. Calls were not returned.
