The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a lower court's decision in *Cynthia Johnson v. Denise Wilkerson*, resolving an election dispute that began with a narrow three-vote margin in a Democratic primary race for Roselle Borough Council. Chief Justice Rabner wrote for the court in the opinion filed Oct. 27, 2025.
The dispute originated from the June 10, 2025 Democratic primary election, where Denise Wilkerson defeated Cynthia Johnson by three votes for a council seat in the Borough of Roselle. Following the close result, Johnson requested both a recount and a recheck on June 25. The trial court initially denied the recount request on July 10 but permitted a recheck to proceed.
Johnson filed an emergent appeal challenging the denial of the recount. The Appellate Division summarily reversed the trial court's decision, ordering the recount to move forward. When the recount was conducted on Aug. 4, Wilkerson's margin of victory was reduced from three votes to just two votes.
The case took a significant turn on Aug. 7 when Johnson filed an amended petition for an election contest in the trial court. In a Sept. 9 decision, the trial court found sufficient evidence that three voters had been improperly denied their right to vote and initially ordered a new election.
However, following a motion to clarify filed by the Attorney General, the trial court heard oral argument and reconsidered its decision. In a Sept. 12 order, the court removed the requirement for a new election and instead directed that the candidate be selected pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 by Sept. 14.
Under this statutory process, the Democratic County Committee was tasked with selecting the party's nominee. The committee voted 20 to 7 to select Johnson as the Democratic candidate for the general election.
Wilkerson challenged this outcome by asking the Appellate Division to reverse the trial court's Sept. 12 order. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the use of the process outlined in N.J.S.A. 19:13-20, which resulted in Johnson's selection as the party nominee.
Not satisfied with this result, Wilkerson filed an emergent application with the New Jersey Supreme Court. She requested that the court direct both a special primary election and a special general election be held after Election Day. Alternatively, she sought to have the names of both Democratic primary candidates placed on the general election ballot.
The Supreme Court rejected both of Wilkerson's proposed remedies in its Sept. 19 order, which affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. The court's Oct. 27 opinion provided the detailed reasoning behind this decision.
The case highlights the complex procedural framework governing election disputes in New Jersey, particularly when margins of victory are extremely narrow. The statutory provision N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 provides an alternative mechanism for candidate selection when election irregularities are found, allowing county committees to step in rather than requiring costly and time-consuming special elections.
The dispute also underscores the importance of voting access rights, as the trial court's finding that three voters were improperly denied the right to vote played a crucial role in the case's progression. While the court ultimately did not order a new election, the finding influenced the decision to invoke the county committee selection process.
For municipal elections in New Jersey, the case establishes precedent for how courts may handle similar close contests where voting irregularities are alleged. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision suggests strong support for the statutory framework that allows county committees to resolve such disputes without requiring special elections.
The resolution came just weeks before the general election, highlighting the time-sensitive nature of election disputes and the need for expedited judicial review. The court's handling of the case through its Sept. 19 order, followed by the detailed opinion in October, demonstrates the dual approach of providing immediate resolution while ensuring thorough legal reasoning is preserved for future cases.
While Johnson ultimately secured the Democratic nomination through the county committee process, the case illustrates how even the smallest municipal elections can generate complex legal questions about voting rights, election integrity, and the appropriate remedies when irregularities are discovered. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision provides guidance for future election contests involving similar narrow margins and procedural challenges.