Correa v. Grossi, 206 A.3d 971

Background

Days before the June 5, 2018 primary, plaintiff Edward Correa (a local candidate) challenged Dover (Morris County) machine and mail‑in ballots for not being printed bilingually in English and Spanish.
N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 (1974 amendment) requires official primary sample ballots to be printed bilingually where ≥10% of registered voters in a district have Spanish as their primary language. N.J.S.A. 19:23-31 (1930) requires the official primary sample ballot be, "as nearly as possible, a facsimile" of the official primary ballot.
Plaintiffs argued the facsimile rule means official machine and mail‑in ballots must mirror bilingual sample ballots; defendants relied on the absence of an explicit bilingual requirement for official ballots.
Trial court denied emergency injunctive relief before the election and rejected plaintiffs’ statutory claims; the post‑election claim for prospective relief remained and was appealed.
Appellate court addressed statutory interpretation de novo, emphasizing legislative intent to avoid disenfranchising Spanish‑speaking voters and the election laws’ liberal construction in favor of enfranchisement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4’s bilingual requirement for official primary sample ballots requires official primary ballots (machine ballots) to be bilingual	Correa: Sample ballots must be facsimiles of official ballots, so an amended bilingual sample implies official ballots must be bilingual	County: Legislature expressly required bilingual sample ballots only; absence of statutory bilingual requirement for official ballots controls	Held: Yes — reading statutes in pari materia and in light of legislative purpose, official primary ballots in affected districts must be bilingual (prospective relief)
Whether mail‑in ballots must be bilingual where sample ballots are required to be bilingual	Correa: Mail‑in ballots are to be "as nearly as possible facsimiles" of the election ballot, so they must conform to bilingual official ballots	County: No explicit bilingual mandate for mail‑in ballots; literal reading precludes requiring bilingual mail‑in ballots absent statute	Held: Implicitly yes — because official ballots must mirror bilingual sample ballots, mail‑in ballots (as facsimiles) likewise must be bilingual (prospective application)
Whether to apply relief retroactively to the June 5, 2018 primary	Correa: sought immediate injunctive relief before the election	County: practical impediments and timing favored denial	Held: Denied for that election as moot; appellate decision is prospective only to avoid disrupting elections
Whether federal Voting Rights Act claims were viable	Correa: invoked Section 203 and other FVRA provisions	County: Census/designation issues defeat Section 203 claim; other federal claims not raised below	Held: Section 203 claim rejected (trial court reasoning adopted); other federal claims not considered on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327 (court may decide important public questions even if some relief is moot)
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (statutory interpretation review and plain‑meaning rule)
Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581 (de novo review of legal questions)
Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558 (use of extrinsic aids when statutory language is ambiguous)
Haines v. Taft, 237 N.J. 271 (legislative intent controls; statutes read sensibly in context of entire scheme)
Brewer v. Porch, 53 N.J. 167 (resolve contradictory statutory provisions by ascertaining legislative design)
Bd. of Educ. of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1 (read statute in light of old law and related acts)
Afran v. Cty. of Somerset, 244 N.J. Super. 229 (election statutes construed liberally to enfranchise voters)
In re Gray‑Sadler, 164 N.J. 468 (election law construction to deter disenfranchisement)
In re Holmes, 346 N.J. Super. 372 (construe election statutes in a common‑sense way consistent with legislative purpose)