---

A judge may decide today whether the Monmouth County Board of Elections correctly voided 252 vote-by-mail [VBM] ballots in the Asbury Park city council election. Otherwise, the controversy will proceed to trial with additional witness testimony.

Monmouth Superior Court Judge Dennis O’Brien heard testimony yesterday from Monmouth County Clerk M. Claire French and Monmouth County Board of Elections Commissioner Christine Hanlon regarding the ballots, which were voided for a lack of information about those who assisted the voter in filling out the application for the ballot.

An additional 68 ballots were voided by the board for various reasons, such as signatures on the returned VBM ballot not matching county records or not matching the voter’s signature on the VBM application. O’Brien is not ruling on those ballots today.

Daniel Harris III, an unsuccessful candidate on the A-Team slate, filed a challenge to the election last month and requested that ballots rejected by the Board of Elections be counted. His A-Team running mates Jim Keady and Duanne Small are 178 votes away from unseating Mayor Myra Campbell and Deputy Mayor Susan Henderson, the two lowest vote-getters who won seats on the five-member city council.

During a conference on the case earlier this week, Harris’s attorney, Kristie M. Howard of Montclair, agreed that 32 ballots had been property rejected by the board, leaving a total of 320 in dispute — including the 252 involving the lack of assister information, which O’Brien is expected to focus on in his ruling today.

Under the state’s election law, anyone who assists a voter in the completion of a mail-in ballot application must provide their name, address and signature on the application for it to be valid and processed.

Yesterday’s proceedings in the case focused on that issue.

Of the 252 ballots rejected for lack of assister information, 99 were voided by the board because they did not list an assistor on the ballot application. The board determined an assister was used because it contained different handwritings.

While 147 of the 252 listed an assistor, through the review process the board determined the actual assistor was not disclosed, or additional assistors were used and no information on the other assistor or assistors was provided. The board made most of their decisions based on the handwritings on both the ballot application and the ballot itself.

Six other ballots of the 252 in review yesterday were voided for other reasons, like multiple handwritings and different color inks used on the ballot application or the actual ballot.

At 1:30 p.m., O’Brien is scheduled to issue his ruling.

“The question is, did they abuse their discretion in following the law?” O’Brien said during yesterday’s proceedings.

————————————————————

Follow the Asbury Park Sun on Facebook and Twitter

 

---