"1. In past elections, the main (pretty much only) way we could successfully challenge absentees was to check signatures and challenge the ones that didn’t match the voter files. In this election we were told we couldn’t challenge based on signature match, effectively meaning we couldn’t challenge at all. We took it before a judge and were opposed by the AG’s office. The judge ruled against us.
2. Thirty people in 4-4 voted provisionally because they were listed as having requested absentees. Many of these people claimed to have never requested absentee ballots. Given that one of the campaigns was paying people $10 for each absentee application they obtained, the claim made by these voters that they had not requested the absentee ballots seems plausible. Five of these ballots that the voter denied having even requested had been voted. We believe that the individuals who voted provisionally were the real voters and that there was a strong likelihood that the returned absentees had been fraudulently voted by someone other than the voter.
We asked that these 5 absentee ballots be set aside so that they could be reviewed together with the provisionals. That way a determination could be made whether these absentees had indeed been cast by the voter. If they weren’t we could see who the votes were cast for and perhaps address the fraud in a meaningful way. Once again, the AG opposed us, and the Court, siding with the AG, ruled against us. The result was that these 5 ballots, which may well have been outright fraudulent, were counted, and the 5 corresponding provisionals which were probably honest, will not be.
Obviously, these matters did not have any impact on the election, but they provide some insight into why addressing voter fraud is so difficult in the State of NJ."
My comment: Share your thoughts below. Thankfully these issues didn't impact this election due to the very wide margin of victory this time.
◦
