Toms River Opposes Proposed Early Voting Legislation

Toms River is opposed to early voting legislation proposed by New Jersey lawmakers, the Township Council said last week. 

The state and assembly bills propose that counties to open a set amount of polling places 15 days before a primary or general election. Toms River officials said that the bill could wind up being costly to taxpayers and residents already have the option to vote early through absentee ballots.

"This is not anti-voting rights," said Councilman Mo Hill.

Even though the legislation does provide a state funding mechanism, Toms River officials said that they do not trust that funding will be available. Even if funding is provided, that money comes from the taxpayers.

"We've all seen legislation passed by this great state's government and the funding never shows up," Hill said. "I think to make the assumption that they're going to fund this is a little naive."

According to NJ.com, the bill, which was approved by the state Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee in early March, would cost about $22 million in its first year and require a county the size of Ocean to operate seven polling sites. 

Toms River Resident Nels Luthman said that the legislation as proposed does fund the early voting initiative. 

"If it was passed, it has the funding in it," he said. "I could see if you rejected it if there was no funding, but as written now there is funding."

Township Clerk Mark Mutter said that several municipal clerks associations are against the legislation, "not because we're against early voting. We already have early voting in New Jersey with mail-in voting," he said. Voters do not need to indicate a reason when voting by mail. 

The legislation could mean hundreds of hours of manpower and tens of thousands of dollars in overtime costs to municipalities, according to Mutter. 

Early voting in New Jersey "must be our priority," said state Senator Nia H. Gill (D-34), who sponsored the legislation.

"Early voting will expand voter access and ensure that even in an emergency, such as a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy, or in the case of an unforeseen personal scheduling conflict, residents will still be able to get to the polls and exercise their fundamental right to vote," Gill said in a statement. 

The passing of the resolution also brought up procedural complaints from residents, including Luthman, who said they were not allowed to comment or discuss the matter before a council vote. 

"You voted on this resolution without even telling the public what it's about," Luthman said. "I want to have a discussion about it.

"The biggest point is you were going to have this here and not give anybody a chance to speak on it, and you're expressing my opinion. You're expressing the opinion of the town and I thought there should have been a dialog."

Resident Carol Benson expressed a similar concern about procedure since the council voted on the opposition to early voting and other without afforded a chance for comment beforehand. Residents are invited to make comments and ask questions before consent agenda votes and during an open session near the end of council meetings.