Credit: (NJ Spotlight News)A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an injunction preventing the use of the state’s unique “county-line” ballot design, all but ensuring Democrats will make their primary election choices in June on ballots with a standard office-block design.
In a 35-page decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals called U.S. District Court Judge Zahid N. Quraishi’s decision “thorough and carefully reasoned” in upholding his March 29 order that county clerks use an office-block ballot for the Democratic primary.
The order does not apply to Republicans because it was only Democrats — led by Senate candidate Andy Kim, who currently represents the 3rd Congressional District in South Jersey — who had sought the ballot design change.
Barring the unlikely intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, the appellate decision appears the final word on the use of the county-line ballots, at least for this year.
The Third Circuit decision came just days before the April 20 deadline for clerks to start sending mail-in ballots for the June primary. It followed oral arguments last Friday by a lawyer representing the Camden County Democratic Committee, which pursued an appeal of Quraishi’s ruling after all the county clerks who initially had been named in the suit bowed out and began to implement the office-block design.
The appellate ruling ordered the Camden Democrats to pay court costs. Their attorney William Tambussi could not be reached for comment.
In upholding Quraishi’s ruling, the appellate judges seemed to agree with his finding that the county line gives an advantage to candidates who get party backing — long an argument of advocates who contended the system was unfair and unconstitutional.
‘Preferential treatment’
“Securing a local political party’s endorsement is important in every primary election, but it is nowhere more important than in New Jersey, where endorsements and ballot placement on the so-called ‘county line’ have significant electoral value,” the judges wrote.
The appeals court’s decision “makes clear that New Jersey’s anti-democratic practice of the county line places an unconstitutional ‘governmental thumb on the scale’ and will not be tolerated by the courts.” — Excerpt from a statement by attorneys for U.S. Rep Andy Kim (D-3rd)
“Voters must navigate complex and sometimes contradictory ballots in order to vote for candidates who are left off the county line. This structure of preferential treatment — with candidates chosen by local party leaders eligible for prime ballot placement by county clerks — favors the Democratic and Republican political parties and their leaders, which suggests why this appeal continues even after the county-clerk defendants have all withdrawn.”
‘A monumental ruling’
Advocates praised the ruling and said they will continue working to end the use of the line permanently and for both the Democratic and Republican parties. “Today’s unanimous decision by a federal appeals court is a victory for New Jersey voters and another step forward in the march towards eliminating New Jersey’s corrupt ballot system,” said Antoinette Miles, state director of the New Jersey Working Families Party.
“The Court’s well-reasoned opinion highlights the serious constitutional violations that undergird our broken county line system and represent a clarion call for further reforms. While we hope that party bosses will reevaluate their commitment to this dying system, we know that people rarely relinquish corrupt power without a fight. We will continue to build a grassroots movement to ensure that the county line is permanently eliminated in every race and every election so that voters, not party insiders, select who represents them,” Miles said.
In a joint statement, Kim’s attorneys Yael Bromberg, Brett Pugach and Flavio Komuves called the ruling “monumental” and said it likely signals the end of the line in the future. They said the decision “makes clear that New Jersey’s anti-democratic practice of the county line places an unconstitutional ‘governmental thumb on the scale’ and will not be tolerated by the courts. The panel recognized that the burden on candidates’ rights is severe, and that there is ‘a very substantial likelihood’ that the Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits as we pursue permanent relief for future elections.”
