Skip to content

New Ballots Received

The new (and legally correct) ballots are out:


With an explanation from County Clerk Christine Hanlon:

Hanlon letter to voters


  1. Resident wrote:

    Doherty was well aware of this letter and decision when he allowed a resident at a council meeting to whine about being disenfranchised as she had already voted.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
  2. Katrina wrote:

    So no one is disenfranchised! The only worry voters had was the explanation that the administration put out to try the influence the vote. Thankfully Judge Gummer put a stop to that.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
  3. Anonymous wrote:

    Do not ratify is the cry.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
  4. Pootsie wrote:

    I voted absentee for the second time and my vote is still the same. NO on the pavilion.

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:37 am | Permalink
  5. claire deicke wrote:

    #1-Don’t think I was whining when I expressed genuine concern for my vbm vote and those of my son and husband (at the most recent council meeting) Poor choice of wording on your part….the mayor “ALLOWED me to whine?” Derogatory phrasing, don’t you think? Was I sing-songy and about to cry?? I get your meaning-the mayor should have stopped me and explained what was in the works regarding the vbms….but no decision had been handed down at the time of the council meeting (when I whined) Anyway, isn’t the public forum session at council meetings meant for residents to express their concerns? Or is “whining” frowned upon? Also, just spoke to a friend in Florida vacationing there over an extended period of time…she received the first ballot, but not the second with the corrected wording…what about the residents in transit?… Also I’ve heard people say they’ve already voted…they’re not going to vote a second time….even though there was an explanation from the county that came with the second ballot…some other residents aren’t sure of what’s happening after they voted by mail once……..My family and I have revoted-but for some there’s confusion

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
  6. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    #5 …. Judge Gummer’s decision is dated October 2, 2015 …. and was posted on this website October 3, 2015 …. the M&C meeting was October 6, 2015.

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
  7. claire deicke wrote:

    Guess what, Gene? The decision was clear when I spoke at the council meeting-that’s why I raised my concerns-but nothing about how the problem was going to be resolved was included in the judgement (what the next steps would be to correct/handle vbms that were already posted)-that’s what I was referencing in my commentary–not the judgement itself…read carefully…save your corrections for someone who needs it..

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
  8. Clara Bow wrote:

    The 2nd absentee ballot mailing was necessitated as a result of the uncovered chicanery foisted upon Belmar’s voters. Belmar’s negligent administration tried to mislead, confuse and fool the electorate and it looks like Judge Gummer struck that type of Flim flam down.

    Thankfully all the voters will be able to Vote No.

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
  9. Media Moguls wrote:

    Who pays for the electrical usage at the 9th Avenue Pier. The average was about $3,000.00 per month for just about 5 months this year. Hummmmm. And the rental paid to the boro is What? And the Insurance premium, water bills, etc paid by the boro is What????? So the borough actually nets WHAT for the Chefs venture at the marina? WHATTTTT?

    Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
  10. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    I feel sorry for all the voters who received poisoned ballots.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:26 am | Permalink
  11. Ken Pringle wrote:

    Claire – The irony here is that during conference calls with Judge Gummer on the Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning before the Mayor & Council meeting in question, representatives of the parties, including myself for Plaintiffs, Michael Dupont, Esq. for the Borough, and counsel for the County Clerk and Board of Elections reached agreement on the terms of the letter that was to be sent out to voters who had already received absentee ballots. The only reason the Judge did not issue an order approving the terms of the letter on Tuesday morning is because Mr. Dupont requested an opportunity to discuss the letter with the Mayor & Council in executive session that evening. The Mayor ordered him to submit his resignation less than an hour after the Tuesday morning call, and he was told not to attend that evening’s Council meeting. While I accept your representation that you had no knowledge of the language of the letter, I have no doubt the Mayor knew full well what the letter said, but chose instead to keep the public in the dark and allowed the effect of the Judge’s decision to be distorted. On the morning after the meeting, Colleen Connolly appeared in Court and told Judge Gummer that the Mayor and Council had no objection to the language of the letter.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:46 am | Permalink
  12. Ken Pringle wrote:

    Gene – Just to be clear, in the case of a voter who submitted the original VBM ballot, and for some reason fails to submit a replacement ballot, the only part of their original ballot that will be disqualified will be the vote on the referendum question. Their votes for candidates will all be counted.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink
  13. elemental wrote:

    #5 Try hand-delivering the Belmar administration a bill for your wasted postage (assuming it was not prepaid) for the first ballot mailing. Maybe that will make you feel better for getting stiffed by the faulty wording by the same people. I am glad that your civil rights were restored by the corrected ballot.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
  14. South Side wrote:

    Can’t wait till the Seafood Festival Folks get into that $4 Million Pavilion—ketchup on the walls, food on the floor, beer and soda spilled everywhere, and imagine those new bathrooms…

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
  15. The Truth wrote:

    Crickets Claire , so unlike you ? Mr.Pringle even used his name , wow the silence is deafening ?

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
  16. belmarguy wrote:

    #15 – LOL!

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
  17. claire deicke wrote:

    Ken-Thank you for laying out the sequence of events leading up to my comments at the last council meeting. At that point, my family and I didn’t know what course of action would be taken with the decision rendered by Judge Gummer. Mayor Doherty’s remarks seemed to coincide with the Coast Star’s reporting on the Thursday following the meeting….after quoting me in the piece the reporter stated that as of the Wednesday before publication and after the decision had been made as to what procedure would take place regarding those who had already voted by mail and how it all would be rectified. I assumed that the reporter had done her homework and had received that information from a reliable, unbiased source……so I took the Mayor at his word. Also, it makes sense for those who choose not to vote again that votes cast for candidates will be indeed honored. Because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control the timing of the decision seemed to come when many had already voted by mail. As I stated in previously commentary, we had no issue voting again-that is my family and I-but for some the matter is confusing….why, i don’t know-that’s just how it is . PS Too bad about the Yankees-they really performed poorly in the wild-card game.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:03 pm | Permalink
  18. DJais Drunkard wrote:

    My vote is for whoever supports the town’s bars! Let’s hear that on the campaign trail. Where is the referendum for a high speed rail from DJais to the Parker House, BAYBAY!!!???

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
  19. claire deicke wrote:

    #15-What’s with the question marks-are you asking me rhetorical questions?…you need a refresher course on punctuation marks-what’s the plan here? Just got in from a long day of running around-were you gloating over the fact that I wouldn’t answer Ken’s remarks? Just checked in on the blog about 10 minutes ago..think again, my weak-minded friend……you really are absurd..don’t be so quick to think you’ve gotten the best of me-you are a person with no real direction and void of common sense- Just becuase you have all the time in the world …sitting around-hoping I won’t respond-I have a busy life and don’t check in as often as you, apparently…Belmar Guy-learn something else other than LOL-still on my case, are you? Not good…..

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
  20. Jvk wrote:

    Since when is there a question about voting more than once by Belmar’s jersey city gang?

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
  21. sweetiepieface wrote:

    …..Finally adopted July 7, 2015, be ratified? WHAT???? The answer to the heavily weighted ballot question can only be NO.

    The Belmar House of Cards tried dealing from the bottom of the deck AGAIN. Let’s do a reverse “STING”. GIVE THEM A ZERO by Voting NO

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
  22. Katrina wrote:

    claire, i ask this in all sincerity. now that you know the facts aren’t you just a little bothered by the fact that the mayor could have calmed your fears and done a good public service to other voters by telling the truth about the letter to be sent along with the new ballot, instead of pretending that HE was going to make sure no one was disenfranchised. After all it was his misleading ballot explanation that lead to the problem in the first place.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
  23. Anonymous wrote:

    After all it was his “BelmarMayorMatt’s” misleading ballot interpretation that lead to the Judgment to strike it from the ballot. As a result the County Boar of Election had to send out revised absentee ballots to the voters who were misled.

    Don’t ever expect Matt to own up to his homemade blunder.

    Friday, October 16, 2015 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
  24. claire deicke wrote:

    Katrina-Thank you for your kind and respectful remarks, and for using your actual name. I was unaware that a second ballot was to be sent out(to remediate the situation) when I spoke at the council meeting-exasperated with the fact that the public was unaware, at that point, of what was coming next-how the situation would be handled for those of us who had already voted…I believe to be a legtimate concern.That said, I will speak to Mayor Doherty about what he knew, and possibly didn’t know..and sort through, with him, the allegations posted above. … I was a bit surprised at the length of time it took to receive the second ballot, wondering if it would, in fact, be mailed…the turn-around took longer than I had anticipated. If I gave it any real thought, a second vote was the only logical way to go, given Judge Gummer’s decision. Without a background in the law, I was unaware that the wording of the first question was improper, or slanted in context. ..Perhaps that’s because I was voting YES. I still have concerns about those individuals who are possibly in transit, or away on vacation who probably think all’s well with their vote-unaware of what’s happening here in Belmar….and the second VBM ballot…..those who may have been called away on a family emergency-or residents who decided to take vacations leaving no forwarding addresses….or any other circumstances that would take them away from Belmar.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:11 am | Permalink
  25. Ken Pringle wrote:

    Here is what troubles me most about this episode. During the period when Colleen Connolly drafted the Explanatory Statement, circulated it to the Mayor and Boro Attorney for their review, and finally submitted it to the County Clerk, two other lawyers from my office and I were in regular, almost daily, contact with Mr. Dupont, either by phone, email or in person as we worked on the Susko case. Even if they somehow genuinely thought the statement did not have to be adopted by resolution at a public meeting, they surely knew our clients and I would have an interest in knowing what the statement said. Yet, no one ever emailed to say, “Please take a look at this statement before we send it the County Clerk, and let us know if you have any objections.” That proves three things to me: First, they knew all along that the statement was misleading and improper. Otherwise, why not run it by us? Second, they were betting that by the time we found out what they’d done, it would be too late for us to do anything about it, and they’d get away with it. Third, they obviously didn’t care about the potential negative impact on voters that might result; they cared only about getting an unfair advantage at the polls on this referendum question. We know from Colleen Connolly’s testimony in court that she drafted the explanatory statement and the Mayor and DuPont approved it. But I think the voters deserve to know what each of the Council members knew about the Mayor and Colleen’s plan to try to sneak the statement onto the ballot, and when they knew it. Too bad that three days after the Judge threw out the Explanatory Statement, the Council voted to cancel the last meeting before Election Day.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 6:16 am | Permalink
  26. The Truth wrote:

    That’s what happens when you take Matt at his word !?,'();:/. I don’t know who is the bigger tool you or him ?,’)(://

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 7:33 am | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    What I find incredible i that we as voters were forced to seek help from our fellow citizens by referendum vote 3 separate times because of the 5th Avenue pavilion shenanigans by the Mayor.

    Regardless of how the wolf was painted to look like a cute puppy, the wolf was still the wolf.

    Shame on anyone who was involved in trying to trick the voters.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 9:55 am | Permalink
  28. Anonymous wrote:

    I can’t get Macbeth out of my thoughts. 3 witches churning the bubbling, burning cauldron bubbling and burning. Connelly, DOHERTY and DuPont collaboration to deceive the public. It has to stop. We need everyone’s vote NO.

    No dashes;
    No dots;
    No question marks and especially,
    No more tricks

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:28 am | Permalink
  29. claire deicke wrote:

    #26-As a councilwoman I had a wonderful collaboration with Mayor Doherty-particularly because he allowed me free reign in developing/carrying out projects and programs that would benefit the good people of Belmar. This is also true of Mayor Pringle when we worked together …….as I served as councilwoman with him as well. Mayor Pringle encouraged my activities and, according to him, appreciated my “hands-on” approach as councilwoman. I took both Mayors at their word, and to this day, still do. Don’t see myself as a tool or fool, or however you phrase it…..(look out for those punctuation marks!) I have no regrets with supporting Mayor Doherty and his heartfelt efforts on behalf of our community. He is a Mayor of the people-his outreach extends beyond what one can ever imagine. The Democrats constitute the party of the people-Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, along with other well-known Democrats set the standard for helping the people of this great country. Belmar’s leadership, for many years, have followed suit with this type of thinking. Not downing Republicans-my parents supported the Republican philosophy until their dying days.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
  30. The Truth wrote:

    The only “Heartfelt” thing he has done is divide this town.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
  31. #30-I don’t agree-you are not privy to all of the great gestures the Mayor has extended to residents in need-Aren’t you the same person who said that I had a big head, and enormous ego? You couldn’t be more right…..I love myself!-you don’t understand the meaning of the word….heart felt-as you have no information….you’re just going along with the negativities regarding our town and those who govern it… are the one dividing the town-The Truth? don’t think this is a fitting title for you-is it Pat or Patricia ?

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
  32. younger woman wrote:

    SHEEPEOPLE have a strong instinct to follow the sheep in front of them. When one SHEEPEOPLE decides to do something, the rest of the flock usually follows, even if it is not a good “decision”. E.g., SHEEP will follow each other to slaughter. Kind of likened to being hardwired from birth to follow the old members of a flock.

    There is great danger on the horizon people. Please help the SHEEPEOPLE to Vote No in order to save their homes and their way of life.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 7:47 pm | Permalink
  33. anibody wrote:

    The most ridiculous trend out there now is being referred to as Matt’s fantasy pavilion game.

    Give us a break, that bubble and burn scheme has cost the Borough of Belmar dearly.

    Wagering on our homes is not funny. And you know that pushing people over the edge to get your narcissistic jollies is ischemic. VOTE NO.

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
  34. The Truth wrote:

    Not me

    Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.