Skip to content

30% Of Challenged Belmar Votes Tossed *updated

According to an Asbury Park Press story about the Democratic lawsuit, 43 of the 144 challenged votes from last year’s election were ruled ineligible by the Board of Elections.

Tom Brennan beat Mike Seebeck by 36 votes.  *Correction….that was after those 43 votes were disqualified.


  1. Pootsie wrote:

    Part of the election process, and our right, is to challange a voter. There are numorous reasons to place a challange next to a voter’s name. Does he or she live where stated, did they move out of the area 30 days or more before an election, is someone voting in anothers name, etc.They are put in place to keep the vote honest. What’s the big to-do. If you did nothing wrong and are who you say you are, challange me if you think you need to, my vote will stand.

    Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
  2. Anonymous wrote:

    Doherty’s statement at the end of the APP article is ridiculous. After reading the lawsuit, where does it say someone’s right to vote was challenged ?

    Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
  3. callmecynical wrote:

    I believe that this is a vengeance lawsuit. In other words, how dare some people imply that D’Jais influenced the voters! Nothing crooked goes on in this town. The administration was insulted, so now they must get even. Is that the “f” word, ya know, “frivolous”?

    Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
  4. Cathi wrote:

    So sad. 43 ineligible votes? How many votes came in as a result of the Press spreading the story about how challengers were targeting the “elderly gentlemen” who was displaced by Sandy?

    Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  5. Just Passing Through wrote:

    You cant change loyal democratic minds by making ethical points, they don’t care!! Look at the votes, over a thousand voted Democratic.
    The only way things might change if when it affects their pocketbooks!

    Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  6. dave is watching you wrote:

    43 votes were ruled as not eligible (good catch..valid challenges) and 101 votes challenged were allowed to be counted. You are implying that at least 37 more pro-Brennan voters that were challenged and counted should have been denied. On what basis? Now go ahead and say you are not implying anything….typical Nonsense for Belmar fare being served up here….get over it.{Yawn}

    Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 6:30 pm | Permalink
  7. admin wrote:

    No, those 43 were enough to swing the election. If they didn’t vote, and they apparently weren’t supposed to vote, Seebeck would have won by 7 votes. Or does the county’s page already reflect the disqualifications?

    Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
  8. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    Doherty said. “What happened to them could happen to any voter in Belmar so when they stand up for their right to vote they are standing up for everyone’s right to vote.”
    Yeah! …. the problem is EVERYONE does not have a right to vote in Belmar elections.

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink
  9. Confused wrote:

    Does this mean the mayor is going to recall Tom Brennan,Did Mike Seabeck win the council seat?

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  10. admin wrote:

    At this point Seebeck is down by 36 votes but my understanding is they only investigated handwriting differences or failure to provide name of person assisting. I don’t believe the domicile addresses have been investigated.

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 10:02 am | Permalink
  11. OLD MAN wrote:

    Why not . I know where I live. I think.

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
  12. dave is watching you wrote:

    Are you suggesting that the 43 disqualified votes really should have been counted, and if counted at least 37 of them would have been for Mike, even though mail-in trends democratic? Sounds both confusing and a very dubious assumption on your part. Mike lost and no going back and definitely no grounds for recall. Completely unclear on the point you are attempting to make here but regardless, it matters not, which is consistent with the Nonsense for Belmar site.

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
  13. Cathi wrote:

    Do you know if the investigation into the domicile is pending?

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
  14. admin wrote:

    I don’t

    Monday, March 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
  15. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    It is interesting to note that the Monmouth County Board of Elections is named as a defendant in the lawsuit …. the same entity that certified the election results.
    Good luck to the plaintiffs with their attempt to change the election results.

    Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 12:05 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.