Original WP 5.1 Version (NOTE: This decision was approved by the court for publication.)
This case can also be found at 324 N.J. Super. 451.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-0004-99T5
NEW JERSEY CONSERVATIVE PARTY,
INC., a Non-profit Corporation
of the State of New Jersey;
LEONARD P. MARSHALL,
individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated;
HOVEY BEST, individually and
on behalf of others similarly
situated; and IVAN SMOLLEN,
individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
JOHN J. FARMER, Jr., in his
capacity as the Attorney General
of the State of New Jersey; NEW
JERSEY STATE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE,
a Non-profit Corporation of the
State of New Jersey; NEW JERSEY
DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE, a
non-profit corporation of the
State of New Jersey; MICHAEL J.
GARVIN, in his capacity as the
Atlantic County Clerk; KATHLEEN
A. DONOVAN, in her capacity as
the Bergen County Clerk; MICHAEL
CONDA, in his capacity as the
Burlington County Clerk; JAMES
BEACH, in his capacity as the
Camden County Clerk; ANGELA F.
PULVINO, in her capacity as the
Cape May County Clerk; GLORIA
NOTO, in her capacity as the
Cumberland County Clerk; PATRICK
J. McNALLY, in his capacity as
the Essex County Clerk; JANET
E. HAYNES, in her capacity as
the Hudson County Clerk; ELAINE FLYNN,
in her capacity as the Middlesex
County Clerk; M. CLAIRE FRENCH, in
her capacity as the Monmouth County
Clerk; ALFONSO W. SCERBO, in his
capacity as the Morris County Clerk;
RONNI NOCHIMSON, in her capacity as
the Passaic County Clerk; R. PETER
WIDIN, hereinafter, Somerset County
Clerk; ERMA GORMLEY, in her capacity
as the Sussex County Clerk; JOANNE
RAJOPPI, in her capacity as the
Union County Clerk; TERRANCE D.
LEE, in his capacity as the Warren
County Clerk,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
JAMES HOGAN, in his capacity as the
Gloucester County Clerk; DOROTHY K.
TIPPOK, in her capacity as the
Hunterdon County Clerk; CATHERINE
DiCONSTANZO, in her capacity as the
Mercer County Clerk; M. DEAN HAINES,
in his capacity as the Ocean County
Clerk; JOHN W. CAWMAN, in his capacity
as the Salem County Clerk,
BERGEN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION
and ESSEX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE,
INC.,
Defendants/Intervenors-Appellants.
Telephonically argued August 27, 1999
Decided September 3, 1999
Before Judges Kleiner and Braithwaite.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County.
Donna Kelly, Senior Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for appellant John J. Farmer,
Jr., Attorney General of the State of New
Jersey (Ms. Kelly, on the brief).
John E. Harrington, Esq., argued the cause for
appellant New Jersey State Democratic
Committee (Mr. Harrington submitted a
statement in lieu of a brief and joins in the
brief of the Attorney General.)
Peter G. Sheridan argued the cause for
appellant New Jersey Republican State
Committee (Graham, Curtin & Sheridan,
attorneys; Mr. Sheridan, of counsel and on the
brief; Dorothy A. Harbeck, Christopher J.
Keale and Lynn B. Kegelman, on the brief).
John M. Carbone argued the cause for
appellants Bergen, Cape May and Somerset
County Clerks (Carbone & Faase, attorneys;
Mr. Carbone, on the brief).
Atlantic County Department of Law, attorney
for appellant Atlantic County Clerk (William
P. Busch, Jr., Assistant County Council, joins
in the brief of the Attorney General).
Evan H.C. Crook, Burlington County Solicitor,
attorney for appellant Burlington County Clerk
(Jean Hartman Culp, Senior Assistant
Solicitor, on the brief).
Zane & Lozuke, attorneys for appellant Camden
County Clerk (Donna Sigel Platt joins in the
brief of the Attorney General).
Richard J. Geiger, Cumberland County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Cumberland County
Clerk, joins in the brief of the Attorney
General.
County of Essex, Office of County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Essex County Clerk
(Thomas M. Bachman, Assistant County Counsel,
joins in the brief of the Attorney General).
Gaetano M. DeSapio, Hunterdon County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Hunterdon County Clerk,
joins in the brief of the Attorney General.
Francis DeLeonardis, Hudson County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Hudson County Clerk,
joins in the brief of the Attorney General.
Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Middlesex County Clerk,
joins in the brief of the Attorney General.
Cassidy, Messina & Laffey, attorneys for
appellant Monmouth County Clerk (Gil D.
Messina, Assistant County Counsel, joins in
the brief of the Attorney General).
Ronald Kevitz, Morris County Counsel, attorney
for appellant Morris County Clerk, joins in
the brief of the Attorney General.
William J. Pascrell III, Passaic County
Counsel, attorney for appellant Passaic County
Clerk, joins in the brief of the Attorney
General.
McConnel & Norton, attorneys for appellant
Sussex County Clerk, join in the brief of the
Attorney General.
Carol I. Cohen, Union County Counsel, attorney
for appellant Union County Clerk, joins in the
brief of the Attorney General.
David A. Wallace, Warren County Counsel,
attorney for appellant Warren County Clerk,
joins in the brief of the Attorney General.
Genova, Burns & Verona, attorneys for
defendant/intervenor-appellant Essex County
Democratic Committee, Inc. (Angelo J. Genova,
on the brief).
Dennis J. Oury argued the cause for
defendant/intervenor-appellant Bergen County
Democratic Organization (Oury & Mizdol,
attorneys; Mr. Oury joins in the brief of the
Attorney General).
Eugene M. LaVergne, argued the cause for
plaintiff-respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BRAITHWAITE, J.A.D.
On August 5, 1999, plaintiffs New Jersey Conservative Party
and three of its individual members who are candidates for elective
office in the 1999 general election,See footnote 1 filed a certified complaint
for declaratory and injuctive relief seeking to enjoin defendants,
county clerks, from drawing separate political party columns for
the Democratic and Republican parties on the official ballot for
the 1999 general election. SeeN.J.S.A. 19:5-1. Defendant John J.
Farmer, Jr., the Attorney General, was sued in his official
capacity because the functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary
of State under the election laws were transferred by the Governor
to the Department of Law and Public Safety under the Executive
Reorganization Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14C-1 to -11. Plaintiffs sought a
declaration that neither the Republican nor Democratic party
qualified as a political party for purposes of "a party column on
the official ballot" at the 1999 general election. N.J.S.A.
19:5-1.
Plaintiffs' complaint was accompanied by an order to show
cause that sought to restrain the county clerks from performing the
statutorily required drawing "to determine which columns the
political parties" would occupy on the 1999 general election
ballot. N.J.S.A. 19:14-12. The Chancery Division judge denied
plaintiffs' requests for restraints on August 9, 1999. The judge,
however, scheduled a subsequent hearing on the merits of
plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief for August 23, 1999.
Defendants were granted an opportunity to submit additional written
opposition and to move for affirmative relief such as dismissal of
plaintiffs' complaint.
The Attorney General moved to transfer venue and, in the
alternative, moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint. The motion for change of venue was adjourned until
October 10, 1999 and the motion for summary judgment was denied.
The judge, however, granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs
declaring:
(1) that the votes cast at the Republican
1999 primary for candidates for the General
Assembly did not exceed 10" of the total votes
cast for candidates for the General Assembly
in the 1997 general election;
(2) that the votes cast at the Democratic
1999 primary for candidates for the General
Assembly did not exceed 10" of the total votes
cast for candidates for the General Assembly
in the 1997 general election;
(3) that, as a result of paragraphs (1) and
(2) above, and in accordance with N.J.S.A.
19:5-1, neither the Democratic nor Republican
Parties are entitled to have a party column
but shall be referred to in the ballots for
the 1999 general election in accordance with
the following provision of N.J.S.A. 19:5-1:
In such cases the names of the
candidates nominated at the primary
election shall be printed in the
column or columns designated
"Nomination by Petition" on the
official ballot under the respective
titles of office for which the
nominations have been made, followed
by the designation of the political
party of which the candidates are
members.
Further, the judge declared that any action taken by the county
clerks inconsistent with his order was void and enjoined the clerks
from taking any further action with respect to preparing the 1999
general elections ballot that was inconsistent with his order.
The defendants moved for leave to appeal, which we granted.
We summarily reversed the partial declaratory judgment and reserved
the right to prepare a written opinion.
The parties and the Chancery Judge agreed that the resolution
of the issue raised by plaintiffs rested on the interpretation of
N.J.S.A. 19:5-1, which provides as follows:
A political party may nominate candidates
for public office at primary elections
provided for in this Title, elect committees
for the party within the State, county or
municipality, as the case may be, and in every
other respect may exercise the rights and
shall be subject to the restrictions herein
provided for political parties; except that no
political party which fails to poll at any
primary election for a general election at
least ten per centum (10") of the votes cast
in the State for members of the General
Assembly at the next preceding general
election, held for the election of all of the
members of the General Assembly, shall be
entitled to have a party column on the
official ballot at the general election for
which the primary election has been held. In
such case the names of the candidates so
nominated at the primary election shall be
printed in the column or columns designated
"Nomination by Petition" on the official
ballot under the respective titles of office
for which the nominations have been made,
followed by the designation of the political
party of which the candidates are members.
[Emphasis added.]
The parties agree that the 1997 general election for the
General Assembly is the relevant election for purposes of arriving
at the "ten per centum (10") of the votes cast in the State," which
is the target that must be met in the 1999 primary election for
purposes of a party column on the official ballot for the 1999
general election. Ibid. The total votes cast in the State in the
1997 General Assembly election was 4,283,042. Ten percent of that
total is 428,304.
The question raised by plaintiffs is what primary elections
are to be considered in determining whether a political party
achieved the ten percent target. Plaintiffs urge that the only
primary elections to be considered are those for the General
Assembly. Because both the Republican and Democratic parties
polled less than 428,304 votes in the 1999 General Assembly primary
elections, plaintiffs claim that these parties are not entitled to
have a party column on the 1999 official ballot for the general
election. Plaintiffs assert that because the text of N.J.S.A.
19:5-1 mentions only the General Assembly, the General Assembly
primary elections are the only elections to be considered in
determining whether the ten percent target had been met. As
noted, the target for both the Democratic and Republican parties is
428,304 votes. The total votes cast for the Democratic and
Republican General Assembly candidates in the 1999 primary were
257,606 and 203,119, respectively. Plaintiffs claim that both
parties have not met the target and are, therefore, not entitled to
a party column on the official ballot.
Defendants assert that all primary elections, including those
for local and county offices, are to be considered in determining
whether a political party has met the ten percent target. The
total votes cast for the Democratic and Republican candidates in
all the 1999 primary elections was 1,247,967 and 717,829,
respectively. Based on these totals, defendants contend that the
Democratic and Republican parties have met the ten percent target
and are, therefore, entitled to a party column on the official
ballot.
The trial judge agreed with plaintiffs and concluded that only
primary elections for the General Assembly are to be considered.
He stated: "[T]he court finds that the threshold of N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 is met by the number of primary votes cast for candidates for the
General Assembly only."
We begin our analysis by noting that "'the meaning of a
statute must . . . be sought in the language in which the act is
framed, and if that is plain, . . . the sole function of the courts
is to enforce it according to its terms.'" Sheeran v. Nationwide
Mutual Ins. Co., Inc.,
80 N.J. 548, 556 (1979) (quoting Caminetti
v. United States,
242 U.S. 470, 485,
37 S. Ct. 192, 194,
61 L. Ed. 442, 452 (1917)). The pivotal language here is "at any primary
election for a general election." N.J.S.A. 19:5-1. We concluded
that this language is plain and requires that all primary elections
for the general election must be considered and not just those for
the General Assembly. Support for this construction is found in
the definition of "any election" which "includes all primary,
general, municipal, school and special elections, as defined
herein." N.J.S.A. 19:1-1 (emphasis added). The meaning of "any
election" in the context of our election statute includes "all"
elections. Ibid.
A "primary election" is "the procedure whereby the members of
a political party in the State or any political subdivision thereof
nominate candidates to be voted for at general elections . . . ."
Ibid. A primary election, therefore, includes elections for
national, State, and local elective offices. "A political party is
an association of persons sponsoring ideas of government, or
maintaining certain political principles or beliefs in the public
policies of the government, and its purpose is to urge the adoption
and execution of such principles in governmental affairs through
officers of like beliefs." Rogers v. State Comm. of the Republican
Party,
96 N.J. Super. 265, 271 (Law Div. 1967). Given these
definitions, it is difficult to perceive that the Legislature
intended, by the language of N.J.S.A. 19:5-1, that only the primary
elections for the General Assembly be considered in determining
whether a political party met its ten percent target to ensure a
party column on the official ballot at the general election.
If plaintiffs' interpretation of the statute is correct, then
in the years in which there are no primary elections for the
General Assembly, such as the even-numbered calendar years, there
would be no method to determine whether a given political party was
entitled to a party column on the official ballot for the general
election. Plaintiffs argue that N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 only applies every
other year, when there are primary elections for the General
Assembly. They assert, therefore, that if a political party meets
its target during the primary elections for the General Assembly,
it has a party column for the next succeeding two-year period.
We find no authority in the statute for that construction.
There is a primary election for the general election every year,
N.J.S.A. 19:23-40, and a general election every year, N.J.S.A.
19:1-1 and 2-3. With such a requirement, we conclude that a
political party must qualify for a party column on the official
ballot in the general election by satisfying the provision of
N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 annually. This necessarily means that in those
years where there are no primary elections for the General
Assembly, other elections are considered in determining political
party status for a party column.
"Political party" is defined to mean "a
party which, at the election held for all of
the members of the General Assembly next
preceding the holding of any primary election
. . . polled for members of the General
Assembly at least ten per centum (10") of the
total vote cast in the State." N.J.S.A. 19:1-1. A party which attains that status is
entitled to a primary election, N.J.S.A. 19:2-1, and such a political party is accorded a
party column on the ballot for the general
election unless the party shall have failed at
its primary to poll the percentage we have
just mentioned, in which event that party's
nominees selected at the primary shall appear
on the general election ballot in "the column
or columns designated 'Nomination by
Petition.'" N.J.S.A. 19:5-1.
[Richardson v. Caputo,
46 N.J. 3, 10 (1965).]
The drawing of positions for the political parties for the
official ballot of the general election is performed by the county
clerks pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:14-12. This function is performed
annually by the clerks on the "eighty-fifth day prior to the day of
the general election." Ibid. This, in our view, is further
support for the position that qualifying for a party column is an
annual event based upon the political parties' performance in the
annual primary election. Because in the even-numbered years such
as 1998 when there are generally no primary elections for the
General Assembly, the other primary elections must be considered to
determine party status for a party column on the official ballot.
A voter affiliated with a political party could vote in a
primary election and decline to vote for the candidate or
candidates for the General Assembly for many reasons. If
plaintiffs' position is correct, then the votes cast by such an
individual would not be counted in determining political party
status for party column purposes. The language of the statute does
not support such a view, nor can we perceive that the Legislature
intended such a result.
Moreover, the record is clear that, for the past fifty years,
defendant Attorney General, and before him, the Secretary of
State, have interpreted N.J.S.A. 19:5-1 to mean that all primary
elections are considered in determining whether a political party
has met its target for party column purposes on the official
ballot. As our Supreme Court has observed that it "'places great
weight on the interpretation of legislation by the administrative
agency to whom enforcement is entrusted.'" Medical Soc'y of N.J.
v. Department of Law. & Pub. Safety,
120 N.J. 18, 26 (1990)
(quoting Peper v. Princeton Univ. Board of Trustees,
77 N.J. 55,
69-70 (1978)). This longstanding and consistent interpretation of
the statute further satisfies us that our interpretation conforms
with the legislative intent. "[A]n agency's construction of a
statute over a period of years without legislative interference
will, under appropriate circumstances, be granted great weight as
evidence of its conformity with the legislative intent." Malone v.
Fender,
80 N.J. 129, 137 (1979). Here, appropriate circumstances
exist to conclude that the defendants' interpretation of N.J.S.A.
19:5-1 is consistent with the intent of the Legislature.
Finally, some defendants raised procedural defenses such as
lack of jurisdiction, laches, waiver, estoppel and a failure of
plaintiffs to timely proceed pursuant to Rule 4:69-6. Because of
the importance of the issue, and the trial judge's decision to
address the merits, we decided to also address the case on the
merits. We, therefore, did not consider the procedural defenses
raised by some defendants.
Reversed.
Footnote: 1Plaintiff Leonard P. Marshall, candidate for the General
Assembly in the 11th Legislative District.
Plaintiff Ivan Smolden, candidate for the Office of Monmouth
County Freeholder.
Plaintiff Hosey Best, candidate for the General Assembly in
the 7th Legislative District.