A bill that would allow elections officials to count votes ahead of Election Day failed in the state Senate on Thursday. After a relatively lengthy debate during which a bipartisan group of senators raised concerns about the legislation, Senate President Nick Scutari pulled the measure from the board after its total hung at 20 yes votes to 16 no votes — one vote short of passage. The bill, NJ S856 (22R), would allow county boards of elections to open and count mail-in ballots beginning 10 days before Election Day and for county clerks to tally in-person early votes 24 hours after that voting period ends. Vote counting was slow in some counties in last year’s election. Because of that, high-profile politicians like Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli and Senate President Steve Sweeney took more than a week to concede their races. The bill is similar to a measure that was put in place for only the 2020 election, which was conducted almost entirely by mail-in ballot because of the pandemic. But while there were no reported problems with that law, several senators — including one Democrat — raised concerns about results leaking out and giving certain candidates advantages, even though doing so would be a third-degree crime.
New Jersey: District Judge has skepticism for both sides in first half of county line hearing | Joey Fox/New Jersey Globe
The federal case addressing the constitutionality of the county organizational line in New Jersey’s primary ballots commenced with U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi expressing skepticism toward aspects of both parties’ arguments. Rep. Andy Kim and two congressional candidates brought the lawsuit, asserting that the county line unfairly benefits certain candidates. Quraishi raised concerns about considering a letter from New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, who expressed agreement with Kim’s stance but is not directly involved in the case. The proceedings included arguments regarding the feasibility of altering the ballot design before the primary, with the plaintiffs advocating for changes and the defendants asserting that such alterations could cause disruption. Read Article