On June 12, New Jersey Secretary of State removed an independent candidate for U.S. House from the ballot even though the candidate had won before an Administrative Law Judge earlier. The candidate, Vincent Matrisciano, had prepared his own blank petition forms instead of using the forms provided by the Secretary of State. See this story. The home-made petition omitted language that said the signer supports the candidate named on the petition. Ironically, that type of language has been declared unconstitutional in decisions some other states, including Kentucky, Michigan, and West Virginia.
Is that what an article written by AI sounds like?
https://abc7.com/post/spencer-pratt-responds-los-angeles-mayoral-race-loss-video/19283238/
W-A-R IN LA ??? TWO COMMIES FOR MAYOR ???
COMMIE CITIES OF USA WITH COMMIE GOVTS — NY / SF / LA /CHI/ DET/ ETC ???
EXCUSE FOR TYRANT TRUMP FOR MORE RAIDS / ARRESTS / PRISONERS OF WAR / DEAD ???
I’m very curious about New Jersey law here, and the linked article doesn’t help me. How/why does the Secretary of State get to “overrule” the judge’s decision? And why is an “administrative law judge” hearing this case in the first place? Doesn’t it belong in county or state court? More questions than answers in this article.
An administrative law judge is not a judicial branch judge, they are part of the executive branch.
If I understand the NJ statute (and it is not organized in an easy to understand fashion), the SOS is responsible for determining the candidates who appear on the ballot, and informing county election officials who prepare the ballots in their counties. This applies to state offices, multi-county offices, congress, and legislative offices. There are similar processes for county offices.
In a legal sense, a petition is not by the candidate, but rather by the petitioners (e.g., we think Bob Richard would make a great candidate for the legislature, put him on the ballot. Bob Richard may then accept or decline the nomination). In practice, the candidate may have organized the petition. Statute says that unless there are objections, that the petition shall be accepted.
The SOS then rules on the objections, and his decision is subject to court review. But the SOS is not going to personally review dozens of objections. In New Jersey this is determined by an administrative judge.
A determination of whether a petition is sufficient comes down to determining if there are enough legitimate signatures. This would require a determination of whether “John Smith” actually signed the petition, and whether Smith was entitled to sign the petition (e.g., registered to vote, lives in the district, signed in a timely fashion, didn’t sign another petition, knew what he was signing, etc.). These are all administrative decisions. But to simplify the procedure, the process is inverted, with the objector having to prove that sufficient signatures were invalid such that there were not enough valid signatures.
This describes the process in New Jersey.
https://www.nj.gov/state/elections/candidate-petition-challenge.shtml
In essence, the administrative judge is making somewhat of a recommendation to the SOS, but in a stronger legal sense, and also providing a record for possible court review.
The NJ Globe was misleading in that the headline said the SOS “overruled” the “judge”. The SOS chose to reject the decision of the administrative law judge. That decision could now be considered by a court.
@Bob Richard,
See the administrative law decision posted by Richard Winger in article about use of out-of-state circulators.
https://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/STE-09209-26-NJRSC-v.-Leguia.pdf
Skip down to the bottom of page 6, where the administrative law judge is saying that the ban is probably unconstitutional, but is authority is limited to ruling on the law (i.e., NJ statutes says signatures from out-of-state circulators are invalid). It then goes on to explain that the SOS may accept, amend, or reject the decision.
I found some indication that the SOS accepted the decision, making it the final decision (i.e., the SOS also does not have authority to rule on constitutionality).
If this is the case, then both the administrative law judge and SOS are inviting a court to overturn their decision, and even providing the case citations.
Jim Riley’s explanations of the New Jersey situation are extremely helpful. Thanks.