According to this story, New Jersey state courts are still enforcing the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators. The story is about a petition challenge to a Democratic candidate for U.S. House, Sue Altman. She submitted approximately 1,000 signatures and she needed 500. She survived the challenge, but all her signatures collected by out-of-state students were invalidated.
However, a U.S. District Court declared the residency requirement for circulators to be unconstitutional in Arsenault v Way in 2021. Here is that decision. 3:16cv-01854.
I don’t know off hand whether the NJ monitor is fake news, but I’ll be surprised if it’s not.
US District courts need to stop overstepping their authority in such outrageous ways. States need to start telling them to go pound sand with more regularity.
How exactly do they enforce it? When they catch them, are they shot on sight? Taken to prisoners of war camps? Trespssed from entering the state or passing through it ever again? If so, do they get microchipped with a tracker to enforce the ban? Etc
Wow, this law was not enforced in New Jeesey for the candidate petitions in 2025.
How can they get away with enforcing a law which the court threw out in 2021?
Is anyone challenging this? It should be an easy case to win.
They need Thomas W Jones. Shame he is dead.
“Wow, this law was not enforced in New Jeesey for the candidate petitions in 2025.”
Jeepers creepers, most laws about anything don’t get enforced consistently most of the time anywhere. That’s because there are way too many laws, lots and lots of people breaking them all the time both knowingly and unknowingly, and a bunch of other reasons we can get into some other time, maybe.
“How can they get away with enforcing a law which the court threw out in 2021?”
Because the court was sticking its nose where it has no jurisdiction. It happens all the time all over the time and all over the place.
As President Jackson, still the greatest President of all time unless and until President Trump fulfills his role in the greater plan, once famously and wisely said:
“[Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
Would it surprise you to know that many past court edicts are often ignored as a matter of course, and far more should be?
“Is anyone challenging this? It should be an easy case to win.”
Win, lose or draw as many times as you want. Hopefully whatever courts agree with you will continue to be ignored, and better yet have their noses punished for being stuck in places they shouldn’t be in ways they will remember – better yet, that will teach their ilk to stop doing so in general ….
It’s disputed whether President Jackson actually said that, but even if he didn’t, the sentiment is indisputably his. Not disputed, but less poetic:
“the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”
A thousand Amens and Hallelujahs!
The real problem here is that Marbury v Madison was decided incorrectly, and the improperly adopted and thus illegitimate from the get go 14th amendment has been further misinterpreted by the courts to extend federal jurisdiction to State matters far outside the constitutional design of US Founding Patriarchs.
Q: How exactly do they enforce it?
A: By throwing out signatures gathered by migrant signature gatherers who are citizens and subjects of other States (nation’s) contrary to State law, when the validity of those signatures is challenged in a court of law.
A,
Interesting. When Mr. Winger says courts in the plural, is that correct? Or was it one judge of one court in one case?
Andy,
“Wow, this law was not enforced in New Jeesey for the candidate petitions in 2025.”
Were those petitions challenged in court?
Q,
“When Mr. Winger says courts in the plural, is that correct? Or was it one judge of one court in one case?”
I don’t know.
To my knowledge it’s one judge of one court in one case. But perhaps I missed something, and or Mr. Winger will elaborate, and or someone else with greater knowledge will grace us and shed additional light on that.
Posted on April 5, 2026 by Richard Winger:
“According to this story, New Jersey state courts are still enforcing the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators.”
The story:
“Hundreds of her signatures were contested by petition challengers tied to Plainfield Mayor Adrian O. Mapp and Princeton professor Sam Wang, two of the other Democrats in the race. A third petition challenger, Eric Salcedo, appeared on behalf of a new and relatively unknown group, the Concerned Citizens’ Coalition Against Carpetbagging.
Administrative Law Judge Michael Stanzione heard all three challenges simultaneously during a 14-hour, two-day hearing that ended Tuesday. Throughout the hearing, he and two state election employees compared hundreds of signatures and verified names and addresses of the petition signers before deciding whether they were valid. Among those declared invalid were signatures purporting to be from Jesus Christ, Louie Lunchmeat, and Joe Jackson.
Eighty-three signatures were tossed over a legal technicality involving student circulators. The signatures were gathered by Princeton University students who registered as Democrats in other states. Pugach objected, but Stanzione said he was bound by statute to reject them.”
What part of this story says any other court has, will, or does enforce or attempt to enforce this law? Has Judge Stanzione or any other judge issued any such rulings? If they have, where does it say that in the Nj monitor article linked herein?
Jesus Christ, Louie Lunchmeat, and Joe Jackson,
Are you saying that the article doesn’t say what Mr. Winger says it says, at least as far as the pluralization of courts?
Would it be more accurate to say that the linked story says that Judge Stanzione’s ruling in this case enforced it, at least unless and until he is overruled upon appeal, than to say as Mr. Winger did that it says that New Jersey courts are enforcing it?
Jesus Christ. I’m more confused than ever!
I don’t know about Jesus Christ or Louie Lunchmeat, but I actually signed the petition. I’m not sure why they rejected my signature. Maybe they were thinking of some other Joe Jackson. Maybe I need to double check if I’m registered to vote in New Jersey or in that district or not.
It also says
“Stanzione said he will issue an initial ruling Wednesday, and an official ruling will subsequently be issued by Secretary of State Dale Caldwell, who also serves as lieutenant governor. Caldwell will have the discretion to adopt, reject, or modify the administrative law judge’s decision.”
Cool story, bro,
Does that mean that anything Judge Stanzione rejected or allowed might still be changed by his initial ruling and then adopted, rejected, or modified by New Jersey’s version of Marco Rubio?
The BAN headline confuses me.
It says the (entire state government of) New Jersey is “Still Enforcing Ban on Out-of-State Circulators.”
Mr. Winger’s article says, far less dramatically than his headline, that the NJ Monitor story says that New Jersey state courts are still enforcing the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators.
If you follow the link to see what the story actually says, it’s far less dramatically still, that one administrative law judge in one case threw out 83 signatures of one challenged petition because the circulators are registered to vote in other states, on his way to an initial ruling which he said he will issue on Wednesday, and an official ruling will subsequently be issued by Secretary of State Dale Caldwell, who will have the discretion to adopt, reject, or modify the administrative law judge’s decision.
So, what’s the real story?
Facts Matter:
The real story is that going from what the NJ Monitor story says to what the BAN story says to what the BAN headline says is reminiscent of the children’s game of telephone.
Which is a lot like what US courts do routinely as they interpret and reinterpret constitutions, laws, and the constitutionality of laws, stacking misinterpretations on top of others (precedents) continuously.
And that’s why President Jackson was right, and they need to be told to go pound sand, and told again and again until they learn to listen, remember, go back to where they once belonged, and stick to and stay in their place.
Capice?
Cool story, bro,
What’s a good place to learn more about that?
Q,
There are many good places to learn more. If you’re into reading books, a good popular reading introduction might be:
Levin, M. R. (2005). Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. Regnery Publishing
C) The author, Mark Levin, also has shows syndicated on radio and Fox News. He also has numerous articles on the subject published and republished through various outlets on the subject.
You can find many reproduced online, along with audio and video clips of him expounding on the subject, through a variety of online platforms, websites, search engines, apps, etc.
As well, you can likewise find many other audio, video, and written materials by others on the same subject through all these various methods, at various lengths.
Choose your own adventure, and happy hunting!
The NJ Monitor story doesn’t say NJ is doing thst. It doesn’t even say NJ courts are doing it. See more details in long winded comments above for the difference between what it says and what Richard Winger says it says.
Putin It Super Simple,
So Richard Winger and BAN spun the story and turned it into.fake news even if the NJ Monitor did not?
Did I understand that correctly?
Q,
Yes, you understood correctly.
I’m not saying it was necessarily spun onto fake news on purpose.
Maybe it was an honest mistake, or maybe there’s more to the story that Richard Winger knows which is not discussed in.the NJ Monitor story he linked.
Fake news doesn’t mean it has to be fake on purpose or that it has no basis at all in reality.
Putin It Super Simple,
But the part where he says that that is what the linked article says is fake here, whether on.purpose or by mistake?
Q,
Exactly.
That’s how fake news works. A grain of truth is taken and distorted into something far different, whether on purpose or not, to serve a particular agenda.
Putin It Super Simple on
Ok.
So what is the agenda here that caused the news to be spun and made fake, especially in the headline, regardless of whether that was a conscious or unconscious process?
Q,
“There is no letter similar to the sound of English “H” in the Russian alphabet, so the guttural sound of “G” is often represented with “H” in translations. Similarly, the hard “K” as in Kherson or Kharkiv often goes unpronounced.”
That’s not true. The letter in the Cyrillic alphabet which corresponds to Roman alphabet H looks like Roman alphabet X. Borderline personality/people just pronounce letter G as in Lugansk as H due to defectiveness.
Q,
“So what is the agenda here that caused the news to be spun and made fake, especially in the (BAN) headline, regardless of whether that was a conscious or unconscious process?”
Mr. Winger wants federal US courts to freely interfere in state laws using the US constitution as an excuse, even when the US Constitution doesn’t say anything like what those courts say it says, and was never meant to imply anything of the sort.
He also wants organised groups motivated by money and/or ideology to freely interfere in laws, elections of politicians, and the travesty of ballot measures (including state constitutional amendments by plebiscite) anywhere and everywhere.
He believes the ends justify any means and local sovereignty is just a bump in the road to overcome by the enlightened federal courts in their progressive progress as they progress on their shining red path, much like the original intent and plain text of federal and state constitutions are just some other bumps along that same path, aka jihad or people’s gradually revolutionary struggle session.
Facts can be twisted beyond recognition, whether or not on purpose, as in the headline here, much like the text and intent of federal and state constitutions and the results of elections.
All that matters is the goal – by any means it requires.
And that is how fake news happens.
Here, we see it happening in real time. Whether it was an honest error to say that the link says what it doesn’t come close to saying or not is besides the point.
Fake news came out of whatever process it took to make it come out. And the headline here at BAN is the most fakest part of the fake news.
Should anyone be surprised that an administrative law judge threw out challenged signatures on the basis of statute law
even though that subsection of statute law was deemed federally unconstitutional by their sublime majesties of the United States District Court five years ago?
Bearing in mind that this was after 14 hours of hearings over 2 days where individual signatures were exhaustingly examined in an adversarial process
and also that he’s still days from an initial ruling which might then be adopted, rejected, or modified in a final ruling by the Secretary of State to be issued later at some unspecified date?
Q,
Nobody should be surprised by any of that.
Neither the NJ Monitor Story nor this Ballot Access News story which is very loosely based on it says whether that US district court ruling was even mentioned, much less discussed, during those 14 hours of arguments over evidence during the course of two days.
There hasn’t even been an initial ruling yet, much less a final ruling.
The question of appeals is way premature.
And it’s 83 challenged signatures preliminarily thrown out by one administrative judge (who as far as we know so far may have been unaware of the 5 year old federal court ruling) in one case – which is way way way different from the State of New Jersey enforcing a banned ban as it has been portrayed here at BAN.
I’m not saying that deception had to be intentional. I’m just saying it’s deceptive. The story doesn’t say what Richard Winger says it says. Full stop.