News

HFHA calls Appellate Court action ‘election theft’



HFHA announces:

Court Affirms Developer/Real Estate Group Election Theft
Hoboken, NJ (September 13, 2013) – On Wednesday the Hoboken Fair Housing Association (HFHA)
learned that the NJ Appellate Division denied justice by affirming the lower court’s
decision to overturn the legitimate result of the 2012 election ballot question
where the voters rejected proposed changes to the Rent Control Law which would
have eliminated rent control protections for Hoboken tenants.  While the appeals court had previously
affirmed that tenant leader Cheryl Fallick was legally allowed to intervene in
this court battle, they nevertheless refused to allow her to introduce the
crucial evidence which would have conclusively proven that the there was no
legitimate basis for the lower court to overturn the election result.
The central question in
this decision was whether 114 voters who voted by provisional ballot outside of
Hoboken were “disenfranchised” because those ballots did not contain the
Hoboken rent control question.  A list of
these 114 voters was filed with the lower court as evidence of voter
disenfranchisement by Charles X. Gormally, representing the big landlord/
developer group, Mile Square Taxpayers Association (MSTA).  Gormally, and later the appeals court in
their decision, repeatedly referred to these 114 voters as “Hoboken voters”
entitled to vote on Hoboken Public Question #2 (HPQ2.)  Election law allows for an election result to
be overturned if it can be demonstrated that enough legitimate voters were
prevented from voting to change the result of the election.
HFHA has proof that, while
these voters had a Hoboken address listed as their address on the registration
records, most of them did not, in fact, live in Hoboken on the date of the
election, and were therefore not entitled to vote on HPQ2.
Here are the facts:
1.  5 of the 114 names
submitted to the lower court by Gormally were duplicates.  There were
actually only 109 different names on the list. 
Whether this was knowingly false or just careless, the lower court’s
uncritical acceptance of this sloppy, inaccurate list casts doubt on the entire
list of names that attorney Gormally submitted to the court on behalf of his
client, the MSTA.
2.  Election law
requires that an “affirmation statement” must be attached to each and every
provisional ballot cast which specifies the voter’s name, address at which the
voter was last registered to vote, address at which the voter lives at the time
of the election, and the polling location at which the provisional ballot was
cast.  According to the
82 affirmation statements that were supplied per Cheryl Fallick’s
OPRA request for all of the affirmation statements attached to the
114 provisional ballots submitted as evidence,  52 of the 109 voters did not live in Hoboken
on the date of the election.  These people swore in a public
document that they did not live in Hoboken. 
They were not entitled to vote on HPQ2. 
3.  According to
certifications obtained by HFHA members, 21 of the remaining 57 voters on the
list either did not live in Hoboken, or were ineligible to vote in Hoboken, or
specifically said they either would not have voted on the rent control
question, or would have voted against it.
This shows that at most 36
of the 109 provisional voters submitted as evidence could have legitimately
changed the election result;  even if all
of those 36 voters had voted for the question, the outcome of the election –
decided by 52 votes – could not have been changed.
The courts also changed the
rules of the election almost a year after the election was held, wrongly ruling
that every polling location in the New Jersey should have provided a
provisional ballot containing the local questions and candidates for any
municipality in the entire state to any voter in real time upon request.  This change to election rules gives wrong
doers the means to challenge and overturn the legitmate results of any local
election question or candidate.
It is a disgrace that the
vast majority of the 109 people listed on the alleged displaced voters list did
not live in Hoboken and did not claim to live in Hoboken but were used by
powerful developer moneyed interests to steal an election in the
courtroom.  The courts have stifled justice. The courts did not allow
a legitimate intervenor to submit what can only be described as the DNA
evidence of the case – the proof that the so-called evidence submitted to the
court by MSTA was not credible. 
In a court battle over an
election result, every stone should be turned to uncover the truth, before
taking the drastic step of ordering a new election.  In this case the
court made sure that every stone was kept carefully in place so that the truth
would remain hidden.
This appellate court
decision ordering a new election, overturning the legitimate democratic will of
the voters, is a travesty.  

Leave a Reply