## Facts

- On general election day (Nov. 3, 1998), counsel for the Mercer County Republican Committee asked the Mercer County Board of Elections to challenge any absentee ballot cast by residents of Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, alleging an organized effort to register committed patients.
- The Mercer County Democratic Committee joined the challenge.
- Seven absentee ballots were identified as cast by hospital residents; two were rejected for reasons unrelated to competency, leaving five ballots at issue.
- The Attorney General advised that, absent an adjudication or documentary evidence of insanity or incompetency, the ballots should be counted.
- The Board deadlocked and referred the matter to the Superior Court, Law Division.
- In the Law Division proceeding, the political committees, the Attorney General, and New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (representing the five voters) appeared; no evidence was presented regarding the individual voters’ competency.
- The Law Division ordered the five ballots returned to the Board, kept unopened, and segregated under lock until further court order, reasoning this was the “safe approach.”
- New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether involuntarily committed residents of a state psychiatric hospital are presumed incompetent to vote such that their absentee ballots may be challenged and segregated based solely on commitment status.
2. What showing and burden of proof are required to invalidate or withhold counting of ballots on the ground of voter incompetency.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division’s order.
- The court held that voters involuntarily committed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-24 to -80 are presumed competent to vote.
- The court held that such voters may not be challenged and their ballots may not be segregated absent a particularized, individualized showing of incompetence.
- The court required clear and convincing evidence to sustain a competency-based challenge.
- Because the challengers offered no individualized evidence of incompetence, the ballots were required to be opened and counted on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary civil commitment, without an adjudication of insanity or incompetency affecting voting rights, does not by itself establish voting incompetence.
- Voting is a fundamental right; governmental action that denies or substantially burdens the franchise must be justified by a compelling state interest.
- A competency-based voting challenge requires an individualized determination; categorical challenges based on institutional residency are unlawful.
- The burden rests on the challenger to prove voter incompetence by clear and convincing evidence; the presumption favors competency.
- Courts may require competent evidentiary support (often expert proof) to establish incompetence, because lay assessments are inadequate for that determination.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that involuntarily committed psychiatric hospital residents are presumed competent to vote and that election officials and courts may not withhold or segregate their absentee ballots based solely on commitment status; only an individualized challenge supported by clear and convincing evidence can justify refusing to count such ballots.


In re Absentee Ballots Cast by Five Residents of Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, 750 A.2d 790 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000)