Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Lawyer pays to change disputed ballot question on Jersey City elections By Jersey City's former top attorney is footing the $2,500 bill to change the language of a non-binding referendum asking voters whether the city's elections should move from May to November. On Tuesday, a Hudson County Superior Court judge ruled to strike phrases out of the question that Bill Matsikoudis and his five plaintiffs said were misleading. But in order to do so, Matsikoudis and his clients had to pay $2,500 to the Hudson County Clerk for new labels in time for the Nov. 3 election. Read more: http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... isputed.html#incart_river
Posted on: 2015/10/19 16:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
 |
Quote:
of course none of them had a full slate. and it will never happen, especially with such low turnout in municipal elections as it is hard enough to find 2 candidates for ward council positions to run. i hope the city bonds to pay for any re-printing costs required.
Posted on: 2015/10/15 16:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For once T-Bird, I agree with you. Why would the city hire an outside law firm? The city also had a municipal lawyer observing the proceedings, sitting with the public.
Posted on: 2015/10/14 19:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
So, question: Why did the city hire outside counsel to handle such a trivial matter? Surely one of the 15 or so attorneys in the city's law department is qualified to handle something like this, no?
From the article: Edward J. Florio, one of the lawyers representing the city, explained that the supportive statement was necessary to explain the purpose of the non-binding referendum. "Anything that helps a voter to understand what's happening inside that booth is better for the electoral process," Florio said. (Ed Florio, of the politically active firm of Florio Kenny - Kenny being Bernie Kenny, former state senator and HCDO chairman.)
Posted on: 2015/10/14 17:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So, as per Yvonne's latest post, it sure seems like it. What a bunch of kooks.
Posted on: 2015/10/14 16:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
So are the plaintiffs coughing up the $2,500?
Posted on: 2015/10/14 15:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Why would our ballot be any worse than the municipalities that have concurrent federal state and municipal elections?
Posted on: 2015/10/14 5:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Here is my letter to the editor:
October 13, 2015 Dear Editor, I think democracy happened today in Judge Barisco?s court concerning the referendum on moving the Jersey City?s elections. The reason for the lawsuit was the fear of no runoffs in the municipal elections. Judge Barisco stated that does not change, runoffs will continue in our elections. I also thank the Judge from removing language that was not necessary for the voting process. I went to the Freeholders to ask about the change of election from the Jersey City and was told they received nothing so I gave them the resolution which eventually lead to the mock-up ballot. I urge the public to vote no. We do not need a crowded ballot. I remember 20 people running for mayor. If each mayoral candidate had a full slate, then that is 60 candidates plus perhaps a dozen ward candidates. No one can predict the future so let?s not overwhelmed the ballot. The judge request a payment of $2,500 to fix the ballot, sometimes it is worth spending money to keep democracy safe. My grandmother went to jail as a suffrage to give women the right to vote so this is a small price to pay. I also want to thank Bill Matsidoudis for representing this matter in court. Yvonne Balcer
Posted on: 2015/10/14 2:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
jj coments: Quote:
Quote:
Posted on: 2015/10/14 0:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
I agree with the change in language and I will vote for the change in the election date. So it won't change a thing for me. I wish we had instant runoff...
Posted on: 2015/10/14 0:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It's 'shortened' to remove language that was put in to influence people to approve it, you silly goose.
Posted on: 2015/10/14 0:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Win? How so? The ballot question will remain. The Court ordered that the question remains, just with shortened language (assuming Yvonne and her buttbuddy Viola Richardson waste another $2,500 on this. Imagine if Yvonne put her obsessive efforts towards something like ending hunger? How many meals would $2,500 create for homeless people? Sad. p.s.: check out this picture! Classic! 
Posted on: 2015/10/13 23:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Judge rules for changes to be made to referendum on moving Jersey City electionsBy JERSEY CITY – A Hudson County Superior Court judge ruled to make adjustments to the language of a non-binding referendum asking voters if the city's elections should move from May to November -- but only if those asking for the change can cough up $2,500 by tomorrow. Judge Peter F. Bariso pointed out that the question to appear on November's ballot was passed by the City Council on January 14. He asked Bill Matsikoudis, who is representing five plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city to change the language of the question, why he waited nearly 10 months to bring the case to court. "Your paperwork seems to imply that you didn't know until October 5 that this was going to be on the ballot," Bariso said, later adding, "Why did you wait until now to question the language?" Matsikoudis responded by eventually saying that the "timing wasn't the best here." "The response is simply that, I guess, people really started to think about it more as it came close to the Election Day," Matsikoudis responded. Read more: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... hanged_if_plaintiffs.html
Posted on: 2015/10/13 23:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2015/10/13 23:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
Sure. Other than new language, last I checked the JC vote in November was still proceeding forward with no disaster in view... but we may still be hit. Is Fulop still going to hold the election if there is a carmageddon? Readers are holding their breath...
Posted on: 2015/10/12 1:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am just stating the fact, the Fulop and his people would state Hoboken voted on the change but in reality many in Hoboken wanted to do this again, they were not happy many were not able to get to the polls.
Posted on: 2015/10/12 0:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
Are you expecting something bad to happen this November Yvonne?
Posted on: 2015/10/12 0:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hoboken voted to move the elections during Sandy. People could not get to the polls and asked to have the election pulled. That did not happened. A lot of people wanted a new election based on this question. For the record, NYC was having an election on 9/11 and decided to pull the election, realizing something bad was happening that day and people would not go to the polls.
Posted on: 2015/10/11 23:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JC Registered voters : 138,911 Voters
May 2013 Election Day Turnout 38,418 ?..27.66% Sad
Posted on: 2015/10/11 23:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Let's get a couple of things out of the way first.
1. Yes, Fulop is likely looking to move the election so he can run for re-election if he loses as Governor. Personally I would be surprised if the electorate would have much confidence in a candidate that ran for re-election only after losing in a primary for higher office. But I assume he thinks he can swing it. 2. It is equally true that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and their counsel are doing this to take a shot at Fulop. If you look at that list Ms. Balcer is really one of the tamer ones in her animus toward the Mayor. 3. Now that we have established that everyone is a scoundrel the focus should be on whether it in fact is a good idea to move the election to November, and whether the non-binding referendum is misleading. On the former I am agnostic. Plenty of municipalities in New Jersey have November elections and there is no indication that they have been unworkable or that voters can't read the ballot. What I think it goes to is whether you want to have an electorate that is broader but perhaps more focused on broader political concerns or a smaller electorate that is focused on municipal issues. I don't remember the numbers for turnout last mayoral election but it seemed that there was a pretty strong turnout as is. It's not like a school board election where the difference in turnout is much more pronounced. On the latter, I don't really care. So change the wording. Big deal.
Posted on: 2015/10/11 23:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So do you think it is worth the 75,000+ dollars to reprint taking the line ?to effectuate efficiencies and cost savings of at least $400,000?" off of the JC ballot question? It is in the interpretive statement in both the Hoboken and JC ballots anyway. The voters are going to see it if they move their eyeballs down a half an inch. PS ? notice Hoboken does not have a countervailing statement. What a waste of time and money but that?s the Healy?err I mean Matsikoudis way.
Question and interpretive statement on Hoboken?s Nov 2012 ballot which passed?. HOBOKEN PUBLIC QUESTION #3 Shall the ?Ordinance to Move Hoboken Nonpartisan Municipal Elections to November? providing for Hoboken?s nonpartisan municipal elections to be held on the day of the general election, the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in the years in which municipal officers are to be elected (with the change resulting, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:45-7.1, in a one-time 6 month extension of the terms of existing office holders), be approved? INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT This proposed ordinance would change the date of Hoboken?s municipal elections from May to November, the same date as state and federal elections. A vote in the affirmative would reduce the number of elections in Hoboken, and reduce costs to the City associated with holding a separate election in May. The purpose of the ordinance is to increase voter participation in municipal elections by having them on the same date as state and federal elections, and to reduce costs to the City of Hoboken associated with holding a separate election in May. Question and interpretive statement on Jersey City?s Nov 2015 ballot?. Question"Should the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City change the date of its regular municipal elections from the second Tuesday in May to the day of the general election in November, pursuant to the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, N.J.S.A. 40:45-7, to effectuate efficiencies and cost savings of at least $400,000?" Interpretive statement:"The purpose of this non-binding referendum vote is to ascertain the publics support for the change in the date of the regular municipal elections from the second Tuesday in May to the date of the general election of November pursuant to the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, N.J.S.A. 40:45-7. A referendum will provide the Municipal Council with an indication of whether or not the public favors the change. If the vote is favorable, the Municipal Council may adopt an ordinance to effectuate the change. This change would mean that the Municipality would not have to undertake the expense of funding a separate, additional election in May, which costs at least $400,000. A November election should also minimize voter fatigue. The term of those elected officials presently holding office would be extended from July 1st to December 31st. The Municipal Council would be precluded from adopting an ordinance to change the regular municipal elections back to the second Tuesday in May for a period of at least 10 years"
Posted on: 2015/10/11 22:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Quote:
This x1000!! This is a leading question standing on its own, and that is WRONG and un-demcratic. A ballot should use neutral positioning.
Posted on: 2015/10/11 21:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The question will be on this Novembers (2015) Election Day ballot. That is what the hubbub is all about ..Healy/Matsikoudis waited until the ballots were printed to bring this up. I think it will cost 70k to reprint them. Funny thing is I read that Mayor Fulop didn?t need to even put this to a public vote. The City Council has the last say as to whether it is implemented or not. He is just being nice and letting us have a say.  Cheers
Posted on: 2015/10/11 1:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
When is the election to decide this? I tend to agree that the last part of the sentence should be removed and put in the interpretative statement with a countervailing argument on opponents thinking it might make the ballot harder to read.
That being said, I find the choice of lawyer VERY funny and Yvonne may benefit explaining herself here including whether she initiated this or just joined the bandwagon. Btw is Yun, the independent voice on the council also part of this lawsuit? About the ballot expense, I think that LeFric should pay for it. He has been the fat cat benefiting from Chilltown councils and taxpayers for a while. We can address the budget on another thread, that cocktail is not mixing well tonight obviously.
Posted on: 2015/10/10 23:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Terrencemcd Quote:
"Should the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City change the date of its regular municipal elections from the second Tuesday in May to the day of the general election in November, pursuant to the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, N.J.S.A. 40:45-7, to effectuate efficiencies and cost savings of at least $400,000?" Thanks Terrence got it so Healy/Matsikoudis wants the ?cost savings of at least $400,000? removed or the line ?old people won?t be able to read the congested ballot and may have to vote in a runoff held December when it is dark and cold? added. This ridiculous law suit reminds me of the 3 or 4 Team Healy lawsuits against Fulop in the 2013 election all of which were throw out of court. I recall one of them was the Fulop 2013 commercial showing the Medical Center Diner where Healy and his crew met with Dwek? Team Healy said it was unfair to show. lol Hilarious I found a piece from the JC Independent 1/8/2010 Healy was against the actual Assembly bill creation as it was being discussed in 2008. He wanted it limited to towns smaller than Jersey City. Funny I guess even back then he knew Fulop would run for Governor in 2017. Ha
Posted on: 2015/10/10 23:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hmmm I will give Fulop credit he knew he was going to run for Governor back in 2010 BEFORE he became Mayor in 2013. Forward thinking indeed! By Melissa Hayes/The Jersey Journal on March 09, 2010 at 9:26 PM, updated March 09, 2010 at 9:41 PM ?Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop plans to introduce an ordinance tomorrow night to allow voters to decide whether to move the election to November and also eliminate the runoff election. "All I'm saying is respect the voters, give them the opportunity," Fulop said at the council caucus on Monday. ?
Posted on: 2015/10/10 23:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thanks never heard of it before it sounds interesting.
Posted on: 2015/10/10 23:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2015/10/10 20:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
Instant runoff for dummies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Posted on: 2015/10/10 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Question: "Should the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City change the date of its regular municipal elections from the second Tuesday in May to the day of the general election in November, pursuant to the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, N.J.S.A. 40:45-7, to effectuate efficiencies and cost savings of at least $400,000?" Interpretive statement: "The purpose of this non-binding referendum vote is to ascertain the publics support for the change in the date of the regular municipal elections from the second Tuesday in May to the date of the general election of November pursuant to the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, N.J.S.A. 40:45-7. A referendum will provide the Municipal Council with an indication of whether or not the public favors the change. If the vote is favorable, the Municipal Council may adopt an ordinance to effectuate the change. This change would mean that the Municipality would not have to undertake the expense of funding a separate, additional election in May, which costs at least $400,000. A November election should also minimize voter fatigue. The term of those elected officials presently holding office would be extended from July 1st to December 31st. The Municipal Council would be precluded from adopting an ordinance to change the regular municipal elections back to the second Tuesday in May for a period of at least 10 years"
Posted on: 2015/10/10 19:46
|
|||
|
||||