Lawsuit alleges partisan bias in Bay Head voter residency review

Ocean County election officials allegedly singled out Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Harvard Election Law Clinic have sued the Ocean County Board of Elections for allegedly targeting Democratic and unaffiliated voters whose tax bills are sent to addresses outside the town where they’re registered to vote.

The Oct. 8 lawsuit, filed in Mercer County Superior Court, said the election board, chaired by Ocean County Republican Chairman George Gilmore, sent letters to 39 voters in the Borough of Bay Head demanding that they prove their residency by completing an extensive questionnaire by Sept. 30.

The questionnaire contained 16 numbered questions with more than 30 requests for personal information and documents, according to the complaint. It sought copies of voters’ state and federal tax returns and homestead tax rebate forms, along with information about boat registrations and their children’s schools.

In the letter, the board asked voters to confirm by Oct. 9 whether they would attend an Oct. 13 election board meeting to defend their eligibility. The lawsuit argues that the requests effectively forced voters to appear or risk challenges to their voting rights.

If voters did not respond, their right to vote in the Nov. 3 election and future elections could be challenged, according to the complaint.

The ACLU-NJ and Harvard Election Law Clinic called the letters unlawful intimidation and said they violated the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey and the state Constitution.

The lawsuit invokes a voter-intimidation provision of the new law that took effect Aug. 15, a month before the election board sent the letters.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also argue that New Jersey law takes a broad view of voting residency and that having tax bills mailed to another address does not, by itself, make someone ineligible to vote where they are registered.

“The Ocean County Board of Elections has intimidated and discriminated against voters in Bay Head and put unconstitutional barriers in the way of the exercise of their fundamental right to vote,” Liza Weisberg, supervising attorney for the ACLU of New Jersey, said in a statement. “We are urging the court to provide immediate relief, and we are confident our courageous clients will prevail.”

On Thursday night, Gilmore told The Jersey Vindicator that the board had acted in accordance with the law and that two voters had already asked to have their names removed from Bay Head’s voter rolls because they don’t live there.

“We’re going to follow whatever the law requires,” Gilmore said. “And the legal advice we’ve been given so far is that we’ve acted properly in accordance with the law. And we’ll leave it that way until we see what a court wants to do.”

The two organizations brought the suit on behalf of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey and three people registered to vote in the borough who received letters.

On Sept. 29, the ACLU-NJ sent the board a letter saying Dennis Shaning, president of the Bay Head Borough Council and the Bay Head GOP, had given county election officials a list of people registered to vote in the tiny Shore town whose tax bills were sent to addresses outside Bay Head.

Shaning sent the list sometime between Aug. 21 and Sept. 1, according to the complaint. The letter was printed on Bay Head GOP letterhead and identified him as both the borough council president and local Republican Party president.

The list included 39 registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters but no registered Republicans, according to the lawsuit.

In at least one case, a registered Democrat received a letter questioning the voter’s eligibility, while the voter’s spouse, a registered Republican living in the same household, did not, according to the complaint.

Shaning wrote that the listed voters “should not be voting in Bay Head.”

“If, in fact, they are living the majority of the year at a different location, we feel they should be voting in the municipality where they receive their tax bills,” he wrote.

One of the voters represented by the two organizations, 84-year-old Ada Draesel, has owned a home in Bay Head for 53 years and lived there full time for nearly 25 years, according to the lawsuit.

But Draesel, a widow who lives alone, has her tax documents sent to her daughter and son-in-law’s home in Concord, Massachusetts, so they can help manage her finances.

According to the complaint, Draesel received five or six copies of the same letter and questionnaire, and a board representative called her on Oct. 6 seeking personal information.

Overwhelmed by the questionnaire, she turned to her son-in-law for help. She also has plans to visit her daughter in Massachusetts and cannot attend the Oct. 13 board meeting, according to the complaint.

“As a result of these continued contacts, she feels she is being harassed and has decided not to pick up if the board calls again,” lawyers wrote. “Overall, the efforts to question her eligibility have left Ms. Draesel confused and distraught.”

Heather Robertson, a longtime resident and business owner who has served on the town’s planning board and environmental commission, was equally shocked to receive one of the election board’s letters, especially because she knows Shaning personally.

Robertson has lived in Bay Head for 24 years. Although she previously had her tax bills sent to her parents’ home in North Arlington, she now receives them at her Bay Head residence, according to the complaint.

She responded to the questionnaire, gathering and copying documents to support her residency. She even made copies of her dog’s prescriptions to help establish that Bay Head is her home.

But Robertson may not be able to take off work to attend the Oct. 13 meeting. Now, she’s worried she’ll have to vote by provisional ballot and that it may not be counted.

Robertson, who is unaffiliated with a political party, also knows Republicans in Bay Head whose tax bills are sent elsewhere but who did not receive similar letters, according to the lawsuit.

The third person represented by the organizations is Scott Colby, a Bay Head native who moved back to the borough in late 2025.

Colby and his wife returned to Bay Head to retire after living in Madison. According to the lawsuit, they updated their tax records, driver’s licenses, bank accounts, insurance policies, and voter registrations to reflect their Bay Head address. The couple spent several days gathering documents for the questionnaire and redacting sensitive information before submitting them to the election board.

“Given his deep roots in the borough, Mr. Colby was dismayed that county officials would question his right to vote,” lawyers wrote in the complaint. “Because of the efforts to question his eligibility to vote, Mr. Colby now distrusts that any ballot (including any provisional ballot) that he may cast in the upcoming November 2026 election will be counted.”

Lawyers for the residents argue that the board has required voters to “jump through onerous and unnecessary hoops to justify their registered addresses” and that the motivation for sending the letters is to stop the voters from voting for non-Republican candidates in the November election.

Without court intervention, the board’s actions might become a blueprint for abusing voter challenge laws to discourage targeted voters from casting ballots, lawyers for the ACLU-NJ and Harvard Election Law Clinic said in a statement.

The lawyers for the residents are asking a judge to prohibit the Ocean County Board of Elections from ruling on the eligibility of the 39 Bay Head voters before the Nov. 3 election. They also want the court to prohibit the board from requiring those voters to cast provisional ballots for the same reasons, and to declare the board’s challenge process unlawful. They are seeking attorneys’ fees, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

“We are proud to stand with Bay Head voters, the League, and our partners at the ACLU of New Jersey in this first-ever lawsuit under the NJVEA,” Omeed Alerasool, litigation counsel at the Harvard Election Law Clinic, said in a statement. “The board’s actions here, just weeks before an election, offend core principles of democracy, and we are hopeful the court will be able to act promptly to preserve voters’ rights.”