Yesterday, a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously affirmed the trial court’s September 2, 2020 ruling that ordered One Village One Vote’s election consolidation question to be placed on the November ballot in Ridgewood. The panel of Appellate Division judges refused to void the results of the election and reiterated the trial judge’s finding that the Village Clerk, in trying to keep this issue off the ballot, violated the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. As a reminder, this appeal arose from the Village’s appeal attempting to overturn a previous trial court ruling as well as the overwhelmingly approved election consolidation question.
You can read the complete ruling here. However, below are a few selected highlights that we believe capture key points within the opinion:
- “Ridgewood voters…were free to vote against the initiative. There was no statutory requirement that two separate questions had to be placed on the ballot.”
- “…we conclude that the use of a single question on the ballot did not disenfranchise voters, who were clearly informed that voting in favor of the election date change would affect both the BOE election and the Council election…. We are satisfied that the result of the election was not affected by using a single question. ‘Therefore, the expressed will of the [Ridgewood] electorate will not be disturbed.'”
- “…it would be improper for this court to overturn the voters’ mandate because the number of signatures on the petition was insufficient… The full and free expression of the popular will was to adopt the initiative and consolidate the elections.“
- “By not informing plaintiffs until much later, and refusing to accept the initiative petition, defendant essentially created a dead end for plaintiffs…“
- “…when municipality moves the BOE election to November, voters no longer approve the general budget, but may vote on the expenditure of additional amounts that exceed the two percent cap. Defendant’s… role is not to take sides on the public policy implications of initiative petitions…. Defendant’s perception of the advantages or disadvantages of moving the BOE election are not relevant to performing those duties.”
We are saddened that what should have been a cooperative democratic process between concerned citizens and their local government instead was forced into the courts at unnecessary taxpayer expense. Judge Geiger, speaking for the panel, reminded us that “The Faulkner Act was adopted in order to encourage public participation in municipal affairs in the face of normal apathy and lethargy in such matters.” The Village Council majority’s efforts to prevent this question from even appearing on a ballot, and then on appeal to void the results of the election that overwhelmingly approved the question (by nearly a 20-point margin), go well beyond “normal apathy and lethargy” into outright obstructionism at the expense of the taxpayers.
We call upon the Village Council to drop any further litigation, to acknowledge the Village’s mishandling of this situation, and to productively work with the community to ensure our November local elections are a success for all of Ridgewood. It is time for us to all move on, together.
One Village, One Vote!
Siobhan Crann Winograd
Be sure to sign up for emails at www.onevillageonevote.com in order to receive all of the latest information and learn how you can help support this change in our Village. Thank you.