In a spectacular display of democracy, record numbers of voters across New Jersey spoke up during early voting, appearing before Superior Court Judges to challenge their possible disenfranchisement — and winning. Sometimes, honest mistakes are made, underscoring the need for voters to self-advocate

After observing a large number of court hearings over the last week — and in advance of Election Day hearings where voters may seek to protect their own right to vote — here are seven takeaways:

1.  Voter Registration in New Jersey is not one-size-fits-all.   Judges have to apply the law to the facts. Still, since very few voters show up in court with an election lawyer, sometimes identical facts are presented differently by deputy attorneys general and the prospective voter – and interpreted differently by a Superior Court Judge.  In one county, a judge allowed a man who registered one day late to vote (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but in other counties, judges strictly followed the statute.  |

2.  The U.S. Postal Service is erratic regarding returning sample ballots to election officials.  In a different era, letter carriers were front line workers who knew their mail route well enough to realize when a voter no longer lived at an address – even when a family member moved out – and returned the sample ballot as undeliverable.  That’s not necessarily the case anymore.  Some voters turned away from early voting centers in their new county are still registered at their old addresses, while others have been removed from the voter roll in their new county.

3.  Arguments by Deputy Attorneys General and rulings by judges, no doubt well-intentioned, were inconsistent.  Some judges erred on the side of voters; others did not.  Some DAGs pulled from other Division of Law assignments to take an election shift had no idea what they were talking about.  Most judges knew what they were doing, but not all.  Disenfranchisement was less likely when someone was there to advocate on their behalf; to their credit, lawyers for both parties put the right to vote ahead of partisanship.  Among the problems: most hearings involved a would-be voter, a deputy attorney general aiming to prevent them from voting, and a judge.

4. The Motor Vehicles Commission bears some responsibility for the disenfranchisement of voters, and its frightened director, Latrecia Littles-Floyd, ought to be held accountable for not having her act together.  Lots of voter registration issues stemmed from the MVC (several judges still refer to them as the DMV).  Too many would-be voters told judges they believed they changed addresses at an MVC office when records show otherwise.  Some – but not all – judges opted to believe the voter.

5. The lack of understanding of New Jersey election laws by many voters was overwhelming.  Most voters rejected by judges – young and old — had no idea there was a voter registration deadline.  There was a chilling lack of knowledge on changing voter registrations to new addresses.  Some newly minted U.S. citizens were unaware they didn’t automatically become voters.

6. While large numbers of voters appeared before a judge, others likely didn’t know that was an option.  It’s statistically unlikely that zero voters challenged their disenfranchisement in Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Salem, Sussex, and Warren counties, but that’s what happened.  It’s possible poll workers didn’t tell voters they turned away about their right to appear before a judge; it’s also possible that voters in those counties will have a higher-than-usual number of provisional ballots.

7. There is nothing nefarious going on here.  The New Jersey Globe didn’t observe any instances of fraud – just regular people wanting to vote.