Lawsuit Says N.J. Secretary of State Using Taxes for Private Benefit

Published: 17 Dec, 2014
4 min read

Appellants in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New Jersey primary structure filed a reply to the secretary of state’s opposition brief with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. The EndPartisanship.org coalition reasserts its argument that because primary elections are an integral stage of the public election process, the state has an obligation to protect every voter’s fundamental right to equal and meaningful participation.

Since March, when the EndPartisanship.org coalition (along with registered Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters in New Jersey) filed the lawsuit, the secretary of state has argued that the plaintiffs are trying to force the state to allow nonmembers access to the private nomination proceedings of the Republican and Democratic parties.

However, at no point in the last 9 months has the coalition argued that the Constitution entitles voters participation rights in the private nomination proceedings of political organizations or that the state should force parties to open their doors to nonmembers.

“Appellants are not seeking to participate in the nomination of a political party’s candidates,” the reply states. “Rather, Appellants are asking the state to respect their right to participate in the state’s election process on an equal footing as political parties and their members."

Though primary elections are pivotal in electing candidates, approximately 48 percent of New Jersey voters are denied access to them, giving the Republican and Democratic parties — two private organizations — an unfair advantage in elections.

nj-primary-election

For those who have not followed the progress of the lawsuit to date, a district court judge in Newark ruled in favor of the state in August, citing the defendant’s argument that the lawsuit “proceeds from the premise that all registered voters have a fundamental right to vote in the primary election conducted by political parties they are not members of.”

In November, the coalition appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit.

In her opposition to the appeal, Secretary of State Kim Guadagno argues that unaffiliated voters do not have a fundamental right to participate in state-funded primary elections, even if those elections are an integral stage of the elections process.

“[N]either this court nor the Supreme Court has recognized that unaffiliated voters have a fundamental right to participate in primary elections even when those elections are an integral part of the electoral process,” she argues.

IVP Donate

Later in the brief, the state admits that “it is beyond cavil that ‘voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.’” (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (quoting Illinois Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979).)

Yet, the state goes on to argue that the right to participate is conditioned on joining one of two private organizations. This argument seems to contradict the concept of a fundamental right.

“The fundamental right to vote, by its very nature, is a nonpartisan right,” appellants argues in their reply.

A fundamental right, like the right to vote, cannot come with such caveats that require voters to join a private organization like a political party before they can exercise this right.

Appellants further argue that the secretary of state cannot “articulate a legitimate public interest” to justify her arguments and she says she doesn’t have to because the party registration burden is not great enough.

[I]f voting is of such fundamental significance (OB 7), as well as the right to not associate (OB 10), how can the exercise of one fundamental right be conditioned on the forfeiture of another, yet characterized as a minimal burden?  - Appellants' reply to the Opposition to Appeal

Very few would argue against the claim that primaries are an integral stage of the election process. The state does not even provide an argument against this claim. In New Jersey alone, only one congressional race every election cycle is considered even remotely competitive in the general election, meaning nearly every race is decided after the primary stage.

Yet, nearly half of New Jersey voters are denied full access to the public election process unless they sacrifice their constitutionally-protected right to non-association. Further, because of current election law and heavily gerrymandered districts, a majority of voters (regardless of political persuasion) are denied an equal voice in who represents them at the state and federal levels of government.

Read all motions and court filings in the New Jersey lawsuit on Independent Voter Project's website.

Let Us Vote : Sign Now!

You Might Also Like

Don’t Kill Top Two. Upgrade It: A Smarter Way to Elect California’s Governor
Don’t Kill Top Two. Upgrade It: A Smarter Way to Elect California’s Governor
The answer to today’s crowded field is not retreat. It is modernization. Instead of empowering party gatekeepers, we can empower voters with more choice, less vote splitting, and majority-supported outcomes....
03 Mar, 2026
-
4 min read
No Referee in the Midterms? Trump’s FEC Nominations Come After 10 Months of Zero Federal Oversight
No Referee in the Midterms? Trump’s FEC Nominations Come After 10 Months of Zero Federal Oversight
As February wrapped up, it was reported that President Donald Trump had nominated two Republicans for the Federal Elections Commission after 10 months of the agency being unable to perform its basic functions....
02 Mar, 2026
-
9 min read
America at 250: Independent Voters Declare Independence from the Two-Party System
America at 250: Independent Voters Declare Independence from the Two-Party System
On February 27, 2026, the better elections group Open Primaries released a sweeping public statement titled Declaration of Independents, framing the exclusion of independent voters from critical taxpayer-funded elections as the unfinished business of 1776....
27 Feb, 2026
-
3 min read
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read