In the June 2011 primary election, 23 year old political newcomer Hank Lyon ran a quixotic campaign against longtime incumbent Morris County Freeholder Margaret Nordstrom. Like Don Quixote, Lyon dreamed the impossible dream. Unlike Don Quixote, he actually enjoyed some success. After the votes were counted, underdog Lyon found himself with a 10 vote lead, 12,271 to 12,261. Since Morris County is overwhelmingly Republican, the GOP nomination is tantamount to winning the seat. Like many close elections, this one ended up in a courtroom.
But first a recount reduced Lyon’s margin of victory from 10 votes to 6.
Then Nordstrom filed for an election contest. Nordstrom made two distinct challenges. First, she alleged that there were sufficient irregularities to change the outcome of the election. In addition, she argued that the nomination should be voided due to alleged campaign finance law violations by the Lyon campaign. After motion practice and a trial, the trial court took the unusual step of voiding Lyon’s nomination. The Republican nomination was then awarded at a special county Republican convention. The nomination went to Nordstrom. Nordstrom easily beat her Democrat challenger in the general election.
Lyon appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court both on the campaign finance issue and the voting irregularities issue.
As to the campaign finance issue, the Appellate Division ruled that the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC), not the court, had jurisdiction over the alleged campaign finance allegations. The Appellate Division very clearly ruled that the trial court made a reversible error when it asserted jurisdiction over the campaign finance portion of the case. ELEC intervened in the appeal to assert its primary jurisdiction. ELEC asserted that it has the expertise in administering the campaign finance laws. The Appellate Division agreed with Lyon and with ELEC, and found: “The Law Division’s use of a nuclear option - nullification of Lyon’s nomination - was disproportionate to the putative violation and absolutely beyond the range of ELEC’s power, thereby creating the very real potential for disparate outcomes in the future . . .”
As to the issue of voter misconduct, the Appellate Division found that Nordstrom failed to carry her burden of proving that there were sufficient irregularities to change the course of the eleciton. Nordstrom had offered that there had been a number of illegal votes cast, enough to change the course of the election. When she brought some of the voters forward, her counsel did not ask for whom they voted. As for some of the other voters, she did not show that she was unable to locate them. As such, the Appellate Division very clearly reversed the trial court’s decision on the voter misconduct issue.
The Appellate Division’s decision throws the case back into the political arena for now. It is likely that the case will find its way back into the courtroom in the not-too-distant future.
