Why in exercising our Legal Right are we demonized?

It may not have turned out the way he would have liked, but one thing is sure. Atlantic Highlands Councilman James Murphy has the courage of his convictions. He fought … as was his legal right.

And whether it is because of his actions or sheer coincidence, certainly the Monmouth County Board of Elections paid attention to his questioning of some election votes and is making changes itself.

Murphy chose to call for a recount when he lost the November election for mayor by a handful of votes. He exercised his legal right

When it showed he still lost in the recount, the first step in challenging the results of any election, he remained convinced there were some folks who did not have the right to vote but cast ballots anyway.

So he took it another, more expensive step further. He named a number of voters his investigation showed might not have had the right to vote and asked a Superior Court judge to look into some of them.  He exercised his legal right

A bold step, one that drew a lot of criticism, a frenzy of disparaging remarks on social media, and very little admiration for James Murphy having the guts to take a stand about upholding the American right to vote.

It was only after he took that step, naming voters whose right he questioned, that his opponent, the winning candidate, Mayor Lori Hohenleitner, did what Murphy had dared to do. She put forth some names of others she did not think should have voted. She exercised her legal right.

Apparently, while there were others she felt or knew did not have the right to vote in the Atlantic Highlands election, after she won, she did not question those voters or whether they were legally correct ballots. It was only after Murphy put forth the names and reasons of some voters that Mayor Hohenleitner also did the same.

The judge did not hear the arguments on every one of the names that had been put forth. But she did look closely at many of them. She researched the law, she pondered, and she decided that both Murphy and Hohenleitner were right at least part of the time. Three of the votes Murphy challenged were deemed to be invalid; three of the votes the mayor challenged were deemed to be invalid.

Six votes. Six votes. Certainly enough to turn an election in just about all of the small municipalities in Monmouth County.

It was only four years ago that the Highlands Mayor won by a single vote; in her last election, she was unchallenged, the first time that has ever happened in that borough. How different would Highlands be today had that one vote not been counted five years ago?

Murphy exercised his right to question an election. He was sharply and harshly criticized for it. But he did it because he thought some things were wrong. Not evil. Not criminal. Simply wrong.

In some cases, he was proven absolutely right in his convictions. In others, he was proven wrong. But he questioned, and he got legal answers. It took guts, even if he still lost.  He exercised his legal right

The Mayor should, and does, feel good that the election she felt was correct in the first place in spite of later challenging some votes, was upheld after being questioned.

Hopefully, all voters can recognize sometimes it takes battles to right wrongs or define accuracies, but in the end, all should work towards making the system better.

Since the Murphy challenge, the Board of Elections has issued press releases urging people to check their sample ballots to be sure they know their correct polling places. Press releases have urged people to notify the board of elections should there be a death in the family, so names can be removed from the voter lists. Press releases have reminded voters to change their registration information when they move. That’s all great. People need to be reminded. Individuals and boards make honest errors or fail to take corrective actions. So these reminders are a great first step.

But it should not stop here. Voters should urge their legislators to bring back the directive that proof be shown at the polling place before a ballot can be cast. Remember the days of having to show a voter registration card? Why has that stopped? Why is it so wrong for a poll worker to ask a voter for proof of where he says he lives?  Legislatures should defend our legal right.

Voting is a distinct American privilege. Our legal right.  It is a right so few in other countries around the world can exercise. Yet our elected leaders have let this privilege become abused simply by taking away some of the mandates that helped guarantee accuracy. It really isn’t only about dishonesty; it is also about being certain honest mistakes are not made either.

In one small way, Murphy’s gutsy and controversial challenge at two diverse levels is a giant step in making elections more accurate and secure. He deserves congratulations and respect for exercising his legal right.

Dueling Opinions – Which Attorney is Right?

“They shouldn’t vote, they’re not supposed to,” Borough Attorney Peg Schaffer said at this week’s Atlantic Highlands borough council meeting

Her response was to the question whether it’s necessary for a commissioner to attend a meeting in order to vote to approve minutes of that meeting at the next meeting.

Certainly makes sense, and it’s no surprise that Ms Schaffer’s answer means just that. After all, how can someone put their name down saying the minutes are true and accurate if he or she wasn’t there to attend the meeting?

Perhaps it’s possible if the absentee actually listens to a recording of that meeting or watches a video of it on line some where. But even then, recordings don’t always capture everything and videos might not be complete. Besides, if minutes are a formal and accepted proof of something that happened at a meeting, shouldn’t the absentee voter also have to swear he really listened to the whole meeting before voting on it?

There’s no doubt things are done correctly at the Borough Council meetings; Ms Schaffer is a stickler for not only knowing but doing the right thing.

But the Harbor Commission attorney gave a different opinion to the harbor commissioners at their meeting last week. In response to a question from resident Mark Fisher, who nobody doubts knows what ‘s going on at every municipal meeting, Commission attorney Gregory Cannon said it’s okay for an absentee member to approve minutes he was not present to hear. They’re just approving it as an official record, he said. HUH?

So the question was asked at the council meeting simply to learn whether minutes are going to be kept in different ways by different municipal boards.

Ms Schaffer could set the record straight right away and even give exceptions to it. She explained that the planning board members, for example, have a rule that enables a member who has not heard the full application for a variance application, to vote on the application when it is ready for a vote. But, she added, in order to do that, the member must also sign that he has heard a recording of the entire application.

When it was explained that another attorney had said voting when absent was ok in a specific incident, Attorney Schaffer simply said, “in my opinion, she should not have voted at the meeting.”

Nevertheless, Schaffer said to be certain she might “call and find out”: whether she is in error, and will “report at the next meeting.”Opinions …