|
Posted by GET NJ on January 27, 2004 at 15:03:42:
The parties are bitter Democrat adversaries in the highly-
charged atmosphere of Hudson County party politics. In
September 2001 Robert Janiszewski, a Democrat and the Hudson
County Executive, resigned his position under a cloud of
allegations of government corruption. Janiszewski's resignation
led to a rift in the Hudson County Democrat Committee (HCDC)
over who should become the interim County Executive. The HCDC
named Bernard Hartnett to the position until the next general
election, scheduled for November 2002. As the June 2002 primary election approached, the Democrat
Party could not unite behind a single candidate. One faction
supported Thomas DeGise, while the other faction supported
Hartnett. DeGise won the primary election and later the 2002
general election for County Executive. After Hartnett's defeat in the June 2002 primary, Joseph
Cardwell and Robert Jackson, whom the judge described as the
appellants' principal witnesses in this case, desired to restore
control of the Hudson County Democrat Party to the Hartnett
faction. To that end, on August 26, 2002 Cardwell registered a
new "continuing political committee" named Jersey City First
(JCF).4 Meanwhile, in October 2002 Jackson created the Reform
Democratic Committee of Jersey City (RDC), also a continuing
political committee, although he did not file any registration
papers with ELEC until April 2003. Like JCF, Jackson's
testimony described RDC as composed of candidates for committee
seats who were not aligned with the DeGise camp. Both camps proceeded to prepare for the June 2003 primary
election which would determine the party nominations for the
Thirty-First District's State Senator and the two State Assembly
seats. Aligned on the Hartnett side, and thus with JCF and RDC,
were respondents Cunningham, Manzo, and Chiappone. On the other
side were appellants Smith, Doria, and Perez-Cinciarelli.
Cunningham announced his candidacy on March 5, 2003. He
began accepting contributions and making expenditures
immediately. The judge found that Cunningham did not, as per
N.J.S.A. 19:44A-9a, establish his candidate committee at that
time but rather on May 2, 2003. Cunningham's committee was
called "Cunningham for Senate." On the same day he established
Cunningham for Senate, Cunningham also established "The
Cunningham Democratic Team," a "joint candidates committee"
under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-3r.5 Thus, during the June 2003 primary election campaign, there
existed: (a) two continuing political committees - JCF and RDC
- aligned with the Hartnett group; (b) Cunningham's own
political committee, Cunningham for Senate, aligned with the
Hartnett group; and (c) a joint candidates committee, The
Cunningham Democratic Team, aligned with the Hartnett group.
On May 27, 2003 appellants sued to enjoin The Cunningham
Democratic Team and related organizations from further spending
in violation of the Act. As we discuss below, the Act allows a
candidate to institute a summary action in the Superior Court to
enjoin spending and contribution violations of an opponent prior
to an election. See N.J.S.A. 19:44A-22.1. This matter was
heard before the Hudson County Chancery Judge, not the Law
Division judge who decided the case before us on this appeal. The Chancery judge was "troubled by . . . . the blatant, blatant
excessive overspending by the [RDC]." He enjoined further RDC
spending. He believed RDC had "overspent considerably in
violation of the election law." The judge also asked ELEC to
"investigate whether or not there are any violations by the
Cunningham Inaugural Committee and the Reform Democratic
Committee." ELEC has not acted on the matter, apparently
awaiting our decision in this case.
In June, Cunningham, Manzo and Chiappone won the primary
election. The appellants petitioned for and received a recount,
but it did not yield results contrary to the initial count.
After the recount, the results were, for Senate: (1) Cunningham
(10,715 votes); (2) Smith (8,630); and (3) Vincent Militello,
not a party to this case (3,004). For Assembly, the results
were: (1) Chiappone (11,154); (2) Manzo (11,134); (3) Doria
(10,519); and Perez-Cianciarelli (9,624).
On July 25 appellants filed this verified petition
contesting the election under N.J.S.A. 19:29-1h. In the
complaint they incorporated allegations that The Cunningham
Democratic Team, Cunningham for Senate, JCF, RDC, and others, in
raising and spending money on behalf of Cunningham, Manzo, and
Chiappone had: routinely ignored and violated the filing
requirements of [the Act] and have failed to
file those reports which would permit ELEC,
opposing candidates, or the public to know
the names of contributors, the nature and
amount of contributions and expenditures,
and the other information disclosed by the
required forms. In addition, appellants stated these individuals and entities
"directed, coordinated, authorized and allowed campaign spending
to occur in violation of the law," and that "such spending was
in excess of $50,000." Appellants asserted that the
respondents' "knowing, intentional, negligent, or grossly
negligent overspending, failure to report, violation of the laws
and court orders, had a significant impact on the election and
voters which was sufficient to change the results and outcome of
the election." After the filing of the election contest petition,
respondents moved to dismiss the petition. They argued, among
other things, that ELEC had exclusive jurisdiction of the
complaint, that appellants must exhaust administrative remedies,
and that the complaint failed to state a claim under R. 4:6-
2(e). On August 14, 2003 the Law Division judge denied the
motions. He refused to transfer the case to ELEC. In early September 2003 the respondents again moved to
dismiss the charges under the Act, terming their motion an
"involuntary dismissal" or, in the alternative, "summary
judgment." On September 11, 2003, after hearing testimony, the
trial judge dismissed the action. He ruled (1) relevant
provisions of the Act do not apply to primary elections; and (2)
even if such provisions did apply and there were violations,
appellants did not establish a "prima facie case" of any
violation of the Act sufficient to void the election.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
| |
