Election Day is Nov. 8, but legal challenges already begin
What happens on election day is not the only question looming over the state.
A case challenging the constitutionality of the state’s 2011 voter registration law is winding its way through a New Jersey Superior Court, and challenges against the state’s legislative map also are pending in a federal court.
A lawsuit challenging the state’s constitutionality against the voter registration law is winding its way through a New Jersey Superior Court, and challenges against the state’s legislative map also are pending in a federal court.
And a lawsuit challenging a voter registration law is winding its way through a New Jersey Superior Court, and challenges against a congressional district map in the state also are pending in federal court.
This month in South Jersey may be all we know about the ballot in November.
The court case challenging the 2011 voter registration law is the furthest along, according to a spokesman for the office of the state Attorney General, and it is expected to complete soon.
The state Supreme Court has not taken action in over two years. In the 2011 Legislature, the House voted to continue to maintain the voter registration law, and the Senate voted to enact it for the current year, but rejected it on a 3-2 vote.
The court challenge to the state’s 2011 voter registration law is the farthest along, and is expected to complete soon
A different case has been moving through the courts, with a New Jersey Superior Court judge considering a lawsuit on a congressional district map that is expected to soon take a final vote on the state Supreme Court as he considers the case.
In June, the Supreme Court rejected two lawsuits, and ruled that lawmakers did not violate the state’s constitution.
That ruling came about a month after a district map made by a nonpartisan panel of local elected officials was struck down by a Superior Court judge.
That map was drawn by a panel led by a Republican and had a Democratic commissioner, and the judges said the panel may have violated the state’s open-seat requirements, which require the election of lawmakers of the same party.
The Supreme Court decision in the case was to the effect that the panel’s map was not racially imbalanced, according to the court’s decision, but the judges said they had to look at the partisan
