In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly
40 A.3d 684
N.J.2012Background
- Fourth District NJ General Assembly election November 8, 2011; Mosquera (Democrat) had second-most votes; Lovett (Republican) challenged Mosquera’s eligibility under Article IV, §1, ¶2 (one-year durational residency).
- Robertson v. Bartels (D.N.J.2001) federal injunction held the one-year residency provision unconstitutional; state courts remained independent to decide the state constitution question.
- Trial court ruled the one-year residency requirement is facially and as-applied constitutional under intermediate scrutiny and annulled Mosquera’s election; vacancy to be filled by party interim appointment
- Appellate and Supreme Court involvement focused on whether to apply the ruling prospectively; the majority held the residency requirement constitutional and applicable retroactively to Mosquera’s election; federal injunction remained in place but not controlling on state courts.
- Court determined vacancy process under N.J.S.A. 19:27-11.2 permits the Democratic county committee to appoint an interim successor; the one-year residency requirement runs from appointment date for eligibility purposes.
- Court declined to overrule Robertson injunction or to dissolve it; directed parties to pursue federal relief if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the one-year residency requirement constitutional under equal protection? | Mosquera argues strict scrutiny due to burden on voting/candidacy rights. | Lovett argues the requirement is constitutional under rational/intermediate scrutiny given state interests. | Constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. |
| Should Robertson be applied prospectively only? | Robertson should control as a prior decision; should apply prospectively. | Robertson addressed federal rights; state courts may rule independently. | Not limited to prospective application; held facially and as-applied constitutional. |
| What remedy for the vacancy properly effectuates the will of voters? | Vacancy to be filled by interim appointment from Mosquera’s party. | Interim appointment should be by the party’s county committee; ensure compliance with law. | Vacancy filled by Democratic county committee interim appointee; election for unexpired term at next general election. |
| Does the injunction in Robertson affect the state court remedy? | Injunction binds state officers; affects timing/effect of ruling. | Injunction is limited and does not restrict state court interpretation. | Injunction not dissolved; parties urged to seek federal relief to resolve ongoing conflicts. |
| Is the one-year residency restriction facially unconstitutional due to redistricting-year impacts? | Redistricting moves residents across districts undermine residency enforcement. | Residency rule serves legitimate state interests; not invalid under facial challenge. | Constitutional facially and as applied; not invalid due to redistricting-year considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Bartels, 150 F.Supp.2d 691 (D.N.J.2001) (federal injunction; residency requirement unconstitutional)
- Matthews v. City of Atlantic City, 84 N.J. 153 (N.J. 1980) (intermediate scrutiny for durational residency in municipal context)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (Supreme Court 1969) (fundamental rights considerations in travel and eligibility)
- Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1972) (right to run for office; scrutiny when tied to voting effects)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court 1972) (durational residency impacts on voting; strict scrutiny applicable)
- Callaway v. Samson, 193 F.Supp.2d 783 (D.N.J.2002) (as-applied challenges to residency requirements; distinguishable facts)
- Whirlpool Props., Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 208 N.J. 141 (N.J. 2011) (Salerno test for facial challenges; statutory presumptions)
- Sununu v. Stark, 383 F.Supp. 1287 (D.N.H.1974) (state residency restrictions for statewide offices)
- Chimento v. Stark, 353 F.Supp. 1211 (D.N.H.1973) (longstanding residency requirements have constitutional support)