http://www.njcases.com/index.php/ NJ Legal Beat en tim.howes@njcases.com Copyright 2012 2012-05-03T15:45:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/does_dyfs_abuse_the_order_to_investigate/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/does_dyfs_abuse_the_order_to_investigate/#When:16:45:00Z In recent years, DYFS has used the “Order to Show Cause for Investigation” to obtain restraints on parenting time, and to obtain court ordered evaluations.  DYFS’s attorneys recently conceded to the Appellate Division that this practice is not supported by New Jersey law.  Only time will tell whether the Division will reform this practice. New Jersey law empowers DYFS to conduct investigations of allegations of child abuse or neglect.  When parents or guardians do not cooperate, the law allows DYFS to obtain an “Order to Show Cause for Investigation” from a Judge of the Superior Court, Family Part.  (See N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12).  In recent years, DYFS has been using this process to obtain significant restraints on parental rights.  We have seen it in our representation of privately retained clients at Howes & Howes, and the Office of the Public Defender recently reported the problem to the Appellate Division.  (See Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. L.C., Docket No. A-4380-09.) DYFS’s practice in recent years has been to seek some of the following results through the “Order to Show Cause for Investigation”: (1) Supervised visitation; (2) Change in custody from one parent to another: (3) Suspended visitation; (4) Psychological evaluation; (5) Psychiatric evaluation; (6) Drug or alcohol evaluation. The problem with this practice is that an “Order to Show Cause for Investigation” does not require DYFS either to prove or to substantiate child abuse or neglect.  Further, the above list are not typically investigative tools.  Investigative tools tend to be records requests, parent interviews or child interviews.  In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division has voiced its discomfort with the practice of placing parental restraints in orders involving investigation.  Additionally, DYFS, through its attorney “acknowledged that the order should not have contained provisions restraining [the parent’s] contact with her children or ordering evaluations or therapy.” (See Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. L.C., supra) Now that DYFS has committed to this position in the Appellate Division, one would hope that they would change their own practices. NJ Legal Beat 2012-05-03T16:45:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/trail_mix_filing_deadline_week_2012/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/trail_mix_filing_deadline_week_2012/#When:16:28:00Z The April 2 filing deadline brought a lot of activity to the New Jersey Division of Elections.  There were several nights in which the Division workers stayed on the job until midnight processing nominating petitions for federal and state offices, as well as delegates to the Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention.  The filing deadline also brought with it petition challenges, some with merit and some without, all of which were handled by the Office of Administrative Law on April 10.  The following entry highlights some of the legal issues that surfaced during filing week and its aftermath. 1.  “All Quiet on the Western Front”: Howes & Howes represented the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in several legal matters.  Specifically, we represented Gov. Romney in four challenges to slates of delegates to the Republican National Convention filed by supporters of Senator Rick Santorum.  We challenged these petitions on the grounds that they did not contain enough legally sufficient signatures of registered voters.  The law and GOP rules require that convention delegates from each congressional district collect a minimum of 100 qualified signatures from voters within the congressional district.  Further, the persons collecting those signatures must reside within the congressional district and the delegates themselves must reside within the congressional district.  The Office of Administrative Law held three hearings, and Gov. Romney prevailed in all three.  During the fourth hearing, both Team Santorum and I received information from our respective campaigns.  The news bulletin was that Senator Santorum had suspended his campaign.  Our hearing continued.  It reminded me a bit of the classic novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” in which the fighting continued on past the announcement of the Armistice, and one of the protagonists was killed after the “all quiet” was sounded.  Unlike the novel, no one died in this battle.  We settled the issues of the hearing about a half hour after the announcement. 2.  Andrews v. Rajoppi:  Is it precedent or is it not?: Once the petition challenges pass, the Secretary of State certifies the federal and state candidates to the county clerks.  The county clerks then prepare the primary election ballot.  One of the steps in the preparation of the ballot is the drawing for ballot position.  In the drawing, the county clerk’s office draws names at random.  The county clerk determines ballot position based on the results of that draw.  Like almost anything else in elections, there has been significant litigation surrounding the drawing and the arrangement of the primary election ballot.  The most recent of these decisions was Andrews v. Rajoppi.  In the Andrews decision, the Appellate Division laid out a standard for how each county clerk should conduct the draw and the design in years in which there is a statewide election for US Senate or Governor.  This year involves, among other things, a US Senate election.  Oddly enough, the county clerks do not all agree on whether the Andrews case is binding on them.  The group that holds that Andrews is not binding points to the fact that the Appellate Division did not publish Andrews, and as such, the decision has less precedential value than a published opinion.  The group that holds that Andrews is binding can point to the fact that the Supreme Court did not grant certification, and that it binds all twenty-one county clerks because they were all parties to the litigation.  Apparently, this will be an open issue going into the 2013 gubernatorial election.  There will likely be a contested Democratic primary for the nomination. 3.  Empower Our Neighborhoods: Lurking in the background of the filing deadline was the lawsuit known as Empower Our Neighborhoods v Guadango et al.  One of the main issues in the suit is the validity of the requirement that a petition circulator be a voter who is eligible to sign the petition that he or she is circulating.  That is, there is a legal requirement that NJ Election Law Blog 2012-04-17T16:28:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/the_new_jersey_constitution_prevails_in_the_fourth_legislative_district_ele/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/the_new_jersey_constitution_prevails_in_the_fourth_legislative_district_ele/#When:20:13:01Z The New Jersey Constitution provides a one year durational residency requirement for membership in the New Jersey Assembly.  For ten years, the entire New Jersey political establishment operated on the understanding that this provision of the New Jersey Constitution itself violated the United States Constitution.  That all changed when the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the provision was valid and enforceable.  This decision will make the next legislative reapportionment process even more tense than it already is. The decennial legislative reapportionment process in New Jersey is blood sport.  The outcome of the process determines for the most part which party will control the New Jersey legislature for the succeeding decade.  The political parties jockey for position both in the press and within the process itself.  In addition to control of the legislature, the reapportionment process determines the political fate of a handful of state legislators. Many times when the boundaries of the legislative districts move, that movement displaces a sitting legislator.  That is, the town of residence “moves” into a new legislative district.  In 2011, this fate befell several legislators.  The displacement causes problems for the legislator in question, and perhaps those around him/her.  The displacement could place the legislator in a district that contained other legislators of his or her own party, or it might land that legislator in a district that he or she has not chance of winning.  Displaced legislators all believed that they had at least three options:  (1) move to another town and run in the more agreeable district; (2) remain in their home and run in the new district; or (3) retire. The entire New Jersey political establishment believed that option number one above existed despite the fact that it flies in the face of the New Jersey Constitution.  Article IV, section 1, paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution mandates a one-year durational residency requirement for members of the New Jersey Assembly.  As with many aspects of New Jersey law, it was more complicated than the plain language of the constitution.  In Robertson v. Bartels, 150 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2001), the United States District Court fond that the durational residency requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and enjoined the New Jersey Attorney General from enforcing it. As such, in 2011, at least two displaced legislators relied on the Robinson case, and moved to new municipalities in favorable districts.  In addition, a new candidate moved into a district and ran successfully for the office.  One of her opponents challenged her election in court, arguing that the New Jersey Constitution barred her from serving. The case found its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The New Jersey Supreme Court is the final arbitor of the interpretation of the New Jersey Constitution.  It is not bound by the decisions of a federal trial court like the one in Roberston.  The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the durational residency requirement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and disqualified the incumbent.  (Note:  The incumbent later took office as the interim successor because she later satisfied the durational residency requirement.) The importance of this decision is not so much in this past years’s displaced legislators, but in those that may be displaced in 2021.  Those future displaced legislators will be in a more difficult position because one of their options no longer exists.  NJ Election Law Blog 2012-03-06T20:13:01-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/appellate_division_parental_error_is_not_the_same_as_child_neglect_under_ne/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/appellate_division_parental_error_is_not_the_same_as_child_neglect_under_ne/#When:20:48:00Z The law requires a fact-finding hearing in every child protective lawsuit.  The purpose of a fact-finding hearing is for the court to determine whether there was abuse or neglect of a child or children under New Jersey law.  At that posture, a parent accused of abuse or neglect is entitled to a full evidential hearing (a trial).  If the trial court finds against the parent, the parent then may appeal.  This past week a parent was vindicated in the Appellate Division case of DYFS vs. FM and LM. The Appellate Division in DYFS v. F.M. and L.M. reversed neglect and abuse findings against a mother and step-father who got drawn into a difficult intervention with a 17 year old daughter who was high on drugs, ending with her bolting from their car.  The appellate panel reversed a fact-finding decision which had held the parents’ failure to restrain their daughter physically, or heighten the physical confrontation, or go after her or seek help from authorities amounted to neglect and abuse.  The unreasonableness of that finding was reflected in the Appellate Division opinion, but it clearly was not a slam-dunk of a case.  Trial counsel established a strong record and appellate counsel persuasively used it. Indeed, the appellate court was presented with a difficult finding by a highly respected trial court judge concerned about a child in a state of crisis, who had ruled:  “"no one went after this child, no one tried to get her help after she disappeared out of this car. Nobody acted to protect her.” Yet the facts brought out at trial, which appellate counsel marshaled successfully on appeal, demonstrated that parental error is not the same as child neglect under New Jersey law.  As the Appellate Division held: “In this instance, the age of the child, the fact that the family had lived with K.R.’s drug use for some unspecified period of time, the daylight hour in which the incident occurred, that mother and child engaged in a major conflict in order to get K.R. in the car, and the fact that K.R. was in her own community, are circumstances that weigh towards the conclusion that although L.M. and F.M. were negligent in their response to the crisis, their conduct was not gross negligence.” NJ Legal Beat 2012-02-10T20:48:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/stunning_reversal_in_nordstrom_v_lyon/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/stunning_reversal_in_nordstrom_v_lyon/#When:20:02:00Z On February 7, 2012, the Appellate Division delivered its decision and opinion in the Morris County Freeholder litigation.  In a stunning reversal of the trial court, the three-judge panel removed incumbent freeholder Margaret Nordstrom from office and declared a vacancy in the particular seat on the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders.  The decision set off yet another scramble for this freeholder seat. 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. NJ Election Law Blog 2012-02-10T20:02:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/changes_in_the_howes_howes_practice_in_2012/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/changes_in_the_howes_howes_practice_in_2012/#When:18:11:00Z Howes & Howes is a small law firm located in the heart of New Jersey.  We are in the twentieth year of service to clients in New Jersey.  With two experienced lawyers and two top-notch legal assistants, we will continue to provide the same level of service to clients as we have for the past two decades, with some small changes due to the appointment of H&H partner Katherine Howes as Judge of the Bound Brook Municipal Court. 2012 is off to a good start at Howes & Howes.  That good start has necessitated some minor changes to our practice. Howes & Howes will continue to operate the same full-time practice of law at our Raritan office.  It will remain fully staffed and open for business a minimum of five days each week.  That will not change.  What will change is some refinement in our areas of practice as follows: 1.  Municipal court:  Katherine Howes will no longer represent clients in the municipal courts of New Jersey.  She can no longer do so as a result of an appointment that took effect on January 1, 2012. 2.  Municipal court:  Tim Howes will no longer represent clients in the municipal courts in Somerset County. He will continue to bring his two decades of experience in municipal court practice to the table as he represents clients in the municipal courts of all other New Jersey counties. 3.  Juvenile court:  Tim Howes will no longer represent clients in the juvenile part in Somerset County. He will continue to bring his 23 years of experience in juvenile part practice to the table as he represents clients in the juvenile part of all other New Jersey counties. 4.  Criminal court:  Tim Howes will no longer represent clients in the criminal court in Somerset County. He will continue to bring his quarter century of experience in criminal court practice to the table as he represents clients in the criminal courts of all other New Jersey counties. If you have any questions about our areas of practice you can contact Pamela Vail or Jennifer Starr at the Howes & Howes office. NJ Legal Beat 2012-01-29T18:11:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/the_2012_primary_ballot_storm_clouds_on_the_horizon/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/the_2012_primary_ballot_storm_clouds_on_the_horizon/#When:17:33:00Z There is one aspect of elections that receives little public attention:  The creation of the ballot in primary elections.  There are statutes and constitutional principles that undergird the ballot creation process.  Each and every one of those legal principles will be in play in the coming months as County Clerks all across the Garden State design primary election ballots for the June primary.  H&H partner Tim Howes has been involved in significant ballot litigation since 2001, and currently serves as Associate General Counsel to the NJGOP, and is keeping a watchful eye on the ballot design process.Ballot construction for a primary election can be a tricky process, especially in a year in which there are elections for many different offices on the primary ballot, and especially where there are a large number of competing candidates.  The 2012 primary promises to be such a year, and the ballot construction process may well land where it has landed twice in the past decade:  The New Jersey Superior Court. New Jersey law vests the County Clerk in each of New Jersey’s twenty-one counties with the authority to construct the primary election ballot.  The County Clerk has a degree of discretion in how to arrange the offices and names of candidates on the grid of the ballot for use in the voting machine.  For the most part, logic prevails and the candidates are placed in the familiar grid.  When there are statewide elections, the process is more complicated.  It is more complicated because statewide elections tend give rise to “slates” of candidates who wish to “bracket” together on the ballot.  Two New Jersey statewide primaries in the past decade resulted in significant litigation and reported decisions.  The 2001 Republican gubernatorial primary gave rise to the Schunder v. Donovan decision.  The 2008 Democratic primary gave rise to the Andrews v. Rajoppi decision.  Both of those decisions establish interpretive principles for the County Clerks. This year, the County Clerks will have to use those principles, together with the specific mandate of New Jersey statutes to design the ballot in a year in which there are a multiplicity of offices on the ballot:  (1) Presidential preference; (2) At-large delegates to the national convention; (3) Congressional district delegates to the national convention; (4) United States Senate; (5) House of Representatives in all 12 Congressional Districts; (6) State Assembly in at least two districts; (7) County Freeholders in most counties; (8) County Constitutional officers in many counties; (9) Municipal mayors and council people in most municipalities (as many as four in some places); (10) Local party county committee persons (Two in each voting district.). In addition to the proliferation of offices on the 2012 primary election ballot, there are potentially several competing slates of candidates.  Candidates for different offices who share a philosophy or agenda have a right under the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution to be associated together on the primary election ballot.  This applies both to candidates who are endorsed by county party committees, and to those who are not.  There are limitations on that right, however.  In order to bracket together on the ballot, candidates must comply with certain legal requirements before the County Clerk will group them together in a column or row on the ballot. In the 2012 Republican primary, there are four presidential candidates who may still be in the race when the ballot is designed.  That means that there may be four slates of delegates to the Republican National Convention on the ballot in addition to the presidential preference.  At present there are three candidates in the Republican primary for the United States Senate.  The great unknown is how the presidential candidates and U.S. Senate candidates will choose to appear on the ballot.  Will they associate with candidates for other office?  If the answer is yes, then there may be entire columns or rows of competing candidate slates on the ballot. With competing slates for all the different offices, the ballot design process promises to be both complex and interesting.  As counsel to the NJGOP, I will be keeping a close eye on the process. NJ Election Law Blog 2012-01-29T17:33:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/legislative_vacancy_law_in_new_jersey/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/legislative_vacancy_law_in_new_jersey/#When:18:30:01Z During the past two months, New Jersey has lost two well-loved veteran legislatures, both of whom passed away before they could begin a new term in office.  Hon. Peter Biondi passed away two days after winning another term in the 2011 General Election.  Hon. Alex DeCroce passed away the day before he was to begin a new term.  New Jersey election law anticipates even tragic events like these and provides a roadmap to fill the vacancy.  H&H partner Tim Howes served as counsel and parliamentarian to the Title 19 convention held to determine the interim successor in New Jersey’s Sixteenth Legislative District. It was a good night for democracy in Hillsborough as over 200 elected county committee people from four counties met at the Hillsborough Municipal Complex to select an interim successor to the late Peter Biondi.  Assemblyman Biondi served the Sixteenth Legislative District for seven two-year terms.  On November 8, 2011, the voters elected him to to an eighth.  Sadly, two days later, Assemblyman Biondi passed away, exactly two months before his eighth term was scheduled to begin.  His passing created a vacancy in the New Jersey Legislature.  According to the New Jersey Constitution, a new legislative session begins on the second Tuesday of January following a statewide legislative election.  As such, Assemblyman Biondi’s seat became vacant on January 10, 2012. There are portions of four counties in the Sixteenth:  Mercer, Middlesex, Hunterdon and Somerset.  Following New Jersey law to the tee, the elected Republican county chairs of those four counties notified the members of their county committees of the vacancy, and of the scheduling of a convention to name the interim successor.  Those four county chairs then worked together to formulated proposed rules for the convention.  Once those rules were drafted, they were circulated to the county chairs and the candidates, then on the night of the convention, they were distributed to all of the county committee persons in attendance. Legislative vacancy law requires a quorum of at least one-half of the eligible county committee people.  Only those county committee people who were elected in a primary election, and those who have been chosen to fill vacancies pursuant to local rules are eligible.  And only those county committee persons whose election and/or membership in the county committee is duly registered with the County Clerk are deemed to be lawful members of the county committee.  In all, 300 county committee persons were eligible to vote at the convention.  215 appeared and registered.  After the ceremonials, the Convention Rules were moved and seconded from the floor with minimal turbulence.  Once the rules were adopted and the chair established, the convention moved on to its business. There are some very basic points of law covering a Title 19 Convention: 1.  Notice from the county committee chairs to the members must occur within seven days of the vacancy. 2.  There must be a quorum of at least one-half of the eligible voters. 3.  Only duly registered county committee persons, registered seven days prior to the convention are eligible to vote. 4.  The convention rules must be moved and seconded from the floor of the convention.  (County party rules do not apply.) 5.  The chair of the convention must be nominated and seconded from the floor. Since the chairs of the convention followed these very basic rules to a tee, the convention went well, and a clear winner was established.  NJ Election Law Blog 2012-01-21T18:30:01-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/congratultions_to_judge_howes/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/congratultions_to_judge_howes/#When:23:03:01Z On January 1, 2011, Howes & Howes rang in the new year with a big accomplishment. Bound Brook Mayor Carey Pilato nominated H&H partner Katherine Howes to be the Judge of the Bound Brook Municipal Court.  The borough council unanimously confirmed her. This is a part-time job.  It will not cause any major changes in the practice or operation of Howes & Howes. We will still serve our clients here in New Jersey, just as we have since 1991. The Borough of Bound Brook has appointed Katherine Howes to a three-year term as its municipal court judge.  Ms. Howes brings a strong resume to the bench.  In 1991 Ms. Howes became only the second woman judge in the history of Somerset County when she was appointed to the first of two terms as the Judge of the Raritan Borough Municipal Court.  She was known as a tough but fair judge, who ran a tight ship and spoke Spanish from the bench. Since then, she has served as a municipal prosecutor in Far Hills and Robbinsville, municipal public defender in Bernardsville and most recently as a member of the Peapack-Gladstone Borough Council. This appointment is an honor.  Ms. Howes is thankful for the opportunity to return to the bench.  This appointment will not alter her practice in any dramatic way.  She will continue as a partner in Howes & Howes, which will continue to be her primary occupation.  Municipal court is a part-time job She is not giving up any of her current clients. The appointment has, however, altered Ms. Howes’ participation in other community activities.  She has resigned from the Peapack-Gladstone Borough Council, from the Board of Directors of Anderson House and from the District XIII Ethics Committee. NJ Legal Beat 2012-01-02T23:03:01-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/south_amboy_election_contest_appellate_division_disqualifies_a_voter/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/south_amboy_election_contest_appellate_division_disqualifies_a_voter/#When:17:24:00Z The 2010 election for Mayor of South Amboy is still not over.  The Appellate Division handed challenger Mary O’Connor a victory in a decision reported today (November 23, 2011) when it disqualified one voter on the basis that she was not properly domiciled in South Amboy.  Practically speaking, that leaves a one vote margin between the two leading candidates.  The opinion is of interest for its analysis of the law governing domicile. Election day in 2010 was an interesting day for South Amboy.  South Amboy has long been a stronghold of the Middlesex County Democratic machine.  Independent candidate Mary O’Connor nearly pulled off the upset of the year.  After the votes were counted, Ms. O’Connor trailed Fred Henry by one vote, 1,128 to 1,127.  With the election a virtual tie, she filed for an election contest.  During the election contest the Middlesex County Board of Elections discovered six previously uncounted provisional ballots, which changed the margin, placing Henry in the lead by three votes at 1,030 to 1,127. The matter proceeded to trial.  The trial reduced the margin to two votes.  Ms. O’Connor appealed, and raised three issues. One of those issues was the domicile of some of the voters.  One in particular testified that her only connection with South Amboy was a room in the back of her business.  The Appellate Division disqualified her vote, and provided some very clear guidance on the issue.  There are some very important concepts to remember: (1) In order to vote in an election, the voter must be registered at his or her domicile. (2) One may have multiple residences but only one “domicile” for purposes of voting. (3) The permanent home of a person is considered his domicile and the place of his or her domicile determines the right to vote. (4) Additionally, and this is not part of the opinion, the law provides for a procedure for a person with multiple residences to elect one of them as his or her domicile.  Such an action is taken through the Board of Elections. When in the course of an election contest, a candidate challenges a voter’s domicile, the court must make a factual determination on the record.  The relevant factors in determining domicile include billing address, residence from which tax returns are filed, mailing address, membership in local clubs, driver’s license, place where a person spends the greatest amount of time, newspaper subscriptions, etc.  Common sense will also uncover other factors relevant to an individual case. The South Amboy case may well head to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  There are other legal issues that Ms. O’Connor may ask the Supreme Court to address, but it remains to be seen if she will proceed. NJ Election Law Blog 2011-11-23T17:24:00-05:00