NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
County Government with a Unified Voice!
BRENDAN GILL
NJAC President
Essex County Freeholder

JOHN G. DONNADIO
Executive Director

October 23, 2019
By email and overnight mail
Honorable John A. Sweeney, Chair
New Jersey Council on Local Mandates
135 West Hanover Street, 4th Floor
PO Box 627
Trenton, NJ 08625-0627
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
COMPLAINT NO. 1-19
Dear Judge Sweeney:
Please accept this letter on behalf of the New Jersey Association of Counties (NJAC) as
the Association’s final summation of the matter, where NJAC has demonstrated that P.L.
2018, c.72 (2018 VBM Law) and P.L. 2019 c.265 (2019 VBM Law) constitute unfunded
mandates in violation of the Constitution. NJAC has proven that both measures: impose
mandates on the county clerk of each county; require the use of direct expenditures; do
not authorize resources other than property taxes to offset direct expenditures; and, do
not fall within one of the limited and narrow exemptions. As such, the New Jersey
Council on Local Mandates should invalidate the laws accordingly.
1. NEW MANDATES ON COUNTY CLERKS
The 2018 VBM Law imposed a new mandate on the county clerk of each county as the
law required each clerk to add to the list of registered voters receiving vote-by-mail
ballots in all future elections: all voters who requested and received vote-by-mail ballots

1

 for the 2016 presidential election.

The 2018 VBM Law imposed an additional and

untimely burden on the county clerk of each county as it also required each clerk to
provide written notice to such voters that they would automatically receive vote-bymail ballots in all future elections. The law permits a voter to opt-out of voting-by-mail
if the voter informs a clerk, in writing, that the voter no longer chooses to vote in this
manner.
Similarly, the 2019 VBM Law imposed an additional mandate on the county clerk of each
county as this law required each clerk to add to the list of registered voters receiving
vote-by-mail ballots in all future elections: all voters who requested and received voteby-mail ballots for any election in 2017 and 2018. Again, the 2019 VBM Law imposed
an untimely burden on the county clerk of each county as it also required each clerk to
provide written notice to voters that voted-by-mail in any election in 2017 and 2018,
that they would automatically receive vote-by-mail ballots in all future elections. The
law continues to authorize a voter to opt-out of voting-by-mail if the voter informs a
clerk, in writing, that the voter no longer chooses to vote in this capacity.
Importantly note that all future elections include all general, primary, school, municipal,
fire district, and special elections and that both measures took effect on dates close to
the general elections in 2018 and 2019 as the county clerk of each county was in the
process of conducting regular election duties.
2. INITIAL AND ONGOING DIRECT EXPENDITURES.
The 2018 VBM Law forced the county clerks of all 21 counties to spend at least
$1,147,043.00 to implement the 2018 general election. The table and footnotes
contained in Appendix A summarize the actual expenditures the clerk of each county
2

 incurred as a direct result of implementing the 2018 VBM Law for the 2018 general
election. The clerk of each county plans to submit the amounts contained therein for
reimbursement by the Department of State pursuant to the 2019 VBM Law. The costs
incurred by the county clerk of each county were directly related to sending written
notice to each voter that voted by mail in the 2016 general election that they would
automatically receive vote-by-ballots in all future elections unless they opted-out in
writing. The costs also include the expenses incurred in preparing, issuing, receiving,
and processing new vote-by-mail ballots.
The 2018 VBM Law forced the county clerks of all 21 counties to spend at least
$743,428.00 to implement the 2019 primary election. The table and footnotes
contained in Appendix B summarize the actual expenditures the clerk of each county
incurred as a direct result of implementing the 2018 VBM Law for the 2019 primary
election. The clerk of each county plans to submit the amounts contained therein for
reimbursement by the Department of State pursuant to the 2019 VBM Law. The costs
incurred by the county clerk of each county were directly related to the expenses
incurred in preparing, issuing, receiving, and processing new vote-by-mail ballots.
The 2019 VBM Law forced the county clerks of all 21 counties to spend at least
$912,148.00 to implement the 2019 general election.

The table and footnotes

contained in Appendix C summarize the actual expenditures the clerk of each county
incurred as a direct result of implementing the 2019 VBM Law for the 2019 general
election. The clerk of each county plans to submit the amounts contained therein for
reimbursement by the Department of State pursuant to the 2019. The costs incurred
by the county clerk of each county were directly related to sending written notice to
3

 each voter that voted by mail in any election in 2017 and 2018 that they would
automatically receive vote-by-ballots in all future elections unless they opted-out in
writing. The costs also include the expenses incurred in preparing, issuing, receiving,
and processing new vote-by-mail ballots.
To further exacerbate the increased workload and operating expenses incurred by
county clerk of each county, the new vote-by-laws forced the clerks to use valuable staff
time and other resources normally dedicated to regular pre-election duties as it
required the clerks to manually convert 437,481 new vote-by-mail voters as the
Statewide Voter Registration System did not have the capability to manage the transfers
otherwise.
Please also note that the above figures do not include the costs to implement any
school, municipal, fire district, or special elections in 2018 or 2019 nor do the figures
take into consideration the costs incurred by the county board of elections in each
county. For example, the Monmouth County Board of Elections reported that the 2018
VBM Law cost the Board approximately $62,988.00 in additional labor, supply, and
contracted costs to manage the general election in 2018 and the primary election in
2019. County boards of elections are independent autonomous agencies whose
members are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, but
county boards of chosen freeholders are responsible for funding their operations.
County boards of elections perform very different election functions than the
constitutionally elected county clerks and their budgets are separate and apart from the
budgets of the county clerks. Neither of the new vote-by-mail laws included a funding
mechanism to address the costs incurred by the county boards of elections.
4

 In total, the county clerks of all 21 counties will spend a minimum of $2,802,619.00 to
implement the 2018 general and primary elections and 2019 general election. Moving
forward, the county clerks of all 21 counties will spend an estimated $1,872,429.00 each
year to implement all future primary and general elections. As documented in the table
and footnotes contained in Appendix E, the cost to prepare a single vote-by-mail ballot
is 5 times greater than the cost to prepare a single sample ballot as a vote-by-mail ballot
must be printed on special bonded paper that permits scanning and bar coding. For the
purposes of projecting future costs, NJAC uses the figure of $2.14, which is the
difference between the average cost to prepare a single vote-by-mail ballot for the five
randomly selected counites in Appendix E and the average cost to prepare a single
sample ballot, the latter of which the new law no longer requires the county clerk of
each county to prepare for those receiving vote-by-mail ballots. Of significance, the
$1,872,429.00 only includes ballot printing and postage but does not include labor or
the costs to implement all future school, municipal, fire district, and special elections.
In summary, the clerks of all 21 counties have spent at least $2,802,619.00 to
implement the general and primary elections in 2018 and the general election in 2019
and will spend an estimated $1,872,429.00 each year to implement all future primary
and general elections.
3. FAILS TO AUTHORIZE RESOURCES
Despite the fact that the 2018 VBM Law forced the county clerk of each county to spend
property taxpayer dollars to implement the 2018 general election and the 2019 primary
election and will further force the county clerk of each county to spend property
taxpayer dollars to deliver vote-by-mail ballots in all future elections, the 2018 VBM Law
5

 did not provide any resources to offset its actual and direct expenditures. As such, on
January 23, 2019, NJAC filed a complaint with the New Jersey Council on Local Mandates
that the 2018 VBM law imposed an unfunded mandate on county governments in
violation of the State’s constitution.
On July 24, 2019, the Council considered oral arguments on the State’s motion to
dismiss NJAC’s complaint and decided to hold a plenary hearing on the matter on
September 23, 2019. Prior to the hearing, the Senate held a special session to consider
the 2019 VBM law and passed the measure along partisan lines by a vote of 22-10 on
August 26, 2019. The very next day, the General Assembly held a special session to
consider the 2019 VBM Law and passed the measure along partisan lines as well by a
vote of 45-14.
Although the 2019 VBM Law imposed a new mandate on the county clerk of each
county, the Legislature recognized its failure to include funding for the 2018 VBM Law,
and appropriated $2.0 million to be distributed among the county clerks of all 21
counties, but not the county boards of elections, as reimbursement for the costs
associated with implementing the 2018 and 2019 VBM Laws. However, upon signing,
Governor Phil Murphy directed the Division of Budget and Accounting to place the $2.0
million in reserve pursuant to Executive Order, No. 73, which the Governor signed on
June 30, 2019, and of which authorizes the State Treasurer to release such funds when
enough revenue is collected to maintain an $875.0 million surplus and deposit an
additional $401.0 million into the State’s rainy-day fund.
In other words, the monies are not readily available, nor do we know when or if the
State Treasurer will release the funds. Yet, county governments have already spent at
6

 least $2,802,619 to implement the general and primary elections in 2018 and the
general election in 2019 and will continue to spend an estimated $1,872,429.00 in all
future primary and general elections. As the Constitution and prior Council decisions
require the Council to consider all laws, rules, regulations, directives, and actions taken
by the State that impose unfunded mandates, the Governor’s action upon signing the
2019 VBM Law makes the $2.0 million appropriation by the Legislature illusory. See N.J.
Const., art. VIII, section 2, paragraph 2(5)(a) and N.J.S.A. 52:13H-2. Additionally, in the
Complaint of the Counties of Morris, Warren, Monmouth, and Middlesex (2006), the
Council held that the mere notice by the Department of Transportation of a change in
policy constituted an unfunded mandate.
Moreover, the State has not provided any guidance on the reimbursement process as
directed under the 2019 VBM Law, which is of great concern to the county clerk of each
county as they must prepare their 2020 calendar year budgets accordingly. To further
complicate matters, the $2.0 million appropriation in the 2019 VBM Law appears to be a
one-time appropriation as the measure did not establish a dedicated, non-lapsing,
funding mechanism to address the recurring expenses in mandating the county clerk of
each county issue 437,481 new vote-by-mail ballots in all future primary, general,
school, municipal, and fire district elections. The Legislative Fiscal Estimate dated
September 4, 2019 appears to support this conclusion as it estimates local and State
costs at an amount “indeterminate, not exceeding $2,000,000” in year 1, but projects
“$0” in years 2 and 3. Even if the Treasurer eventually releases the $2.0 million, the
funding is flawed as it does not address the costs associated with implementing the
general election in 2018, the primary election in 2019, the costs incurred by the county
7

 boards of elections, or the ongoing annual expenses of delivering vote-by-mail ballots to
over 437,481 new vote-by-mail voters in all future general, primary, school, municipal,
fire district, and special elections.
The Council recently reasoned in the Complaint of Deptford Township (2015), which
expanded on its earlier decision in the Complaint of Ocean/Frankford Townships (2002):
There would be little substance in the constitutional State mandate, State
pay directive, if the Legislature could avoid it by expressly electing to
provide a specified partial amount of funding and leave an acknowledged
balance of the cost to be shouldered by local unit.… The Council cannot
allow the constitution to be frustrated by giving blind deference to the
Legislature’s method of funding the costs of the mandate, if that method
is seriously flawed to the point of being illusory.
Similarly, here, NJAC has demonstrated that the $2.0 million appropriation made by the
Legislature in the 2019 VBM Law is illusory as the monies are not readily available; and
at best, is flawed as the appropriation does not contemplate the totality of the expenses
the new law imposed, and will continue to impose, on the county clerk of each county.
4. INAPPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTIONS
Neither the 2018 VBM Law nor the 2019 VBM Law fall within one of the limited and
narrow exemptions as the laws do not implement an element of the Constitution; and,
the “repeal, revise, or ease” exemption is inapplicable because both laws increased the
funding obligations for the county clerk of each county.
The new vote-by-mail laws do not implement an element of the Constitution as the
Legislature failed to explicitly state that the laws were in fact implementing such a
provision as required by the Council in the Complaint of Monmouth-Ocean Educational
Services Commission (2004). Here, the Legislature never explicitly stated that the new
laws implemented the fundamental right to vote. In fact, the legislation, legislative
8

 findings, bill statements, committee substitute statements, floor statements, and press
releases are all silent on the matter.
Moreover, the State has failed to meet its burden of making a “specific, precise, and
fact-based showing” that the new vote-by-mail laws implement an element of the
constitution as also required in the Complaint of Monmouth-Ocean Educational Services
Commission (2004) when the Legislature is silent. Here, the State’s contention that the
new laws implement the fundamental right to vote are unfounded as citizens of the
State of New Jersey have enjoyed the privilege of voting without appearing at a polling
station on election day for more than 60 years. The new vote-by-mail laws did nothing
to change this fact. Instead, the laws established a new voting-by-mail procedure that
often led to confusion, anger, and frustration for many of the 437,481 voters who were
converted to vote-by-mail ballot voters without their consent as evidenced by the
substantial increase in the number of provisional ballots counted in the 2018 general
election.
In cases were the Council has ruled that a law, rule, or regulation implements a
provision of the Constitution and is exempt as an unfunded mandate, the Legislature
generally enacted the law in question in the furtherance of a constitutional amendment
or Supreme Court decision.

For example, in the Complaint of the New Jersey

Association of Counties (2017), the Council determined that the approved ballot
question, which amended the Constitution, and the legislation under Criminal Justice
Reform Act, had “… a significant temporal connection, having been moved through the
legislative adoption process nearly simultaneously. Indeed, the challenged legislation
could not have taken effect without enactment of the Amendment.”
9

 Also, in the Complaint of the Township of Medford (2009), the Legislature enacted the
Fair Housing Act (FHA) after the Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of the Mount
Laurel doctrine pursuant to Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of
Mounty Laurel 92 N.J. 158 (1983) is “better left to the Legislature.” The Council
concluded that “the legislative history and language thus are explicit and unambiguous:
the aim of the FHA and role of COAH are to effectuate the Mount Laurel doctrine.” The
Council’s decision in this matter also reaffirmed its narrow application of the exemption
in that the Legislature must be explicit and unambiguous. Here, the Legislature did not
act pursuant to a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision; and, as noted
above, did not explicitly state that the new vote-by-laws implement the fundamental
right to vote. As such, the “implements a provision of the Constitution” exemption
cannot apply in this matter.
Finally, in the Council’s dispositive case concerning the scope of the “repeal, revise, or
ease” exemption decided in the Complaint of the Highland Park Board of Education
(1999), the Council considered the broad remedial purpose of Council’s enabling law
under N.J.S.A. 52:13H-1 and reasoned that New Jersey Courts liberally construe
remedial statutes to give effect to the legislative intent. See Bodnarchuk v. Board of
Review, 309 N.J. Super. 399, 403 (App. Div. 1998). Accordingly, the Council held “where,
as here, a regulation changes an earlier obligation and that change has the clear
potential to increase a claimant’s funding obligation, we hold repeal, revise, or ease
exemption inapplicable.” Here, NJAC has clearly established that the 2018 and 2019
vote-by-mail laws increased the funding obligations, and will continue to increase the

10

 funding obligations, of the county clerks of all 21 counties; and as such, the “repeal,
revise, or ease” exemption resolves itself and is inapplicable.
For the reasons set forth above, neither the 2018 VBM Law nor the 2019 VBM Law fall
within one of the limited and narrow exemptions as the laws do not implement an
element of the Constitution; and, the “repeal, revise, or ease” exemption is inapplicable
because both laws increased the funding obligations for the county clerk of each county.
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, NJAC has proven that the 2018 VBM Law and the 2019 VBM Law: impose
mandates on the county clerk of each county; require the use of direct expenditures; do
not authorize resources other than property taxes to offset direct expenditures; and, do
not fall within one of the limited and narrow exemptions. As such, the New Jersey
Council on Local Mandates should invalidate the laws accordingly.
By:
__________________________________
John G. Donnadio, Esq.
Executive Director
New Jersey Association of Counties

11

 APPENDIX A
2018 GENERAL ELECTION EXPENSES
______________________________________________________________________________________
The table and footnotes below summarize the actual expenses incurred by the county clerk of each
county as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2018, c.72 for the 2018 general election. The county clerk
of each county submitted the data contained in this table and plans to submit the same information to
the Department of State for reimbursement pursuant to P.L. 2019, c.265. The costs incurred by the
county clerk of each county included in this table were directly related to sending written notice to each
voter that voted by mail in the 2016 general election that they would automatically receive vote-byballots in all future elections unless they opted-out in writing. The costs also include the expenses
incurred in preparing, issuing, receiving, and processing new vote-by-ballots as mandated by P.L. 2018,
c.72.
COUNTY
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Totals

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

LABOR1
$0
TBD
$20,026
$4,964
$4,572
$4,819
TBD
$2,165
$65,201
$5,606
$20,475
TBD
$30,237
$72,436
$54,816
$6,500
$0
$5,235
$7,715
$15,946
$4,118
$324,831

PRINTING2
$34,115
TBD
$17,884
$27,585
$5,239
$27,548
TBD
$34,768
$29,335
$2,200
$28,383
TBD
$18,093
$51,489
$34,898
$47,350
$10,260
$26,812
$15,217
$90,610
$2,052
$503,836

POSTAGE3
$5,625
TBD
$7,885
$9,882
$4.040
$648
TBD
$18,923
$8,439
$16,996
$9,497
TBD
S21,050
$9,651
$22,120
$12,762
$2,280
$21,399
$9,186
$1,106
$4,565
$186,055

CONTRACTED4
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$5,372
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$8,436
$0
TBD
$7,383
$4,626
$4,950
$9,750
TBD
$2,390
$0
$0
$0
$43,107

OTHER5
$4,566
TBD
$672
$0
$3,963
$0
TBD
$0
$382
$933
$100
TBD
$57,762
$20,395
$1,086
$0
TBD
$0
$315
$0
$0
$90,171

TOTALS
$44,306
TBD
$46,467
$42,431
$23,186
$33,015
TBD
$55,856
$103,357
$34,171
$58,455
TBD
$134,725
$158,597
$117,870
$76,362
$12,540
$55,836
$32,433
$107,662
$10,735
$1,147,043

The labor costs reported in this column include the additional employee salaries and wages and
overtime expenses incurred by the county clerk of each county as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2018, c.72.
The printing costs reported in this column include the additional printing costs incurred by the county
clerk of each county for printing the written notice and new vote-by-mail ballots pursuant to P.L.
2018, c.72.
The postage costs reported in this column include the additional postage expenses incurred by the
county clerk of each county for the additional postage required as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2018, c.72.
The contracted costs reported in this column include the hiring of any additional temporary staff or
other services the county clerk in each county may have incurred as a direct result of implementing
P.L. 2018, c.72.
The other costs reported this column may include any other costs the county clerk of each county
may have incurred as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2018, c.72 and will be itemized accordingly.

12

 APPENDIX B
2019 PRIMARY ELECTION EXPENSES
______________________________________________________________________________________
The table and footnotes below summarize the actual expenses incurred by each county clerk of each
county as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2018, c.72 for the 2019 primary election. The county clerk
of each county submitted the data contained in this table and plans to submit the same information to
the Department of State for reimbursement pursuant to P.L. 2019, c.265. The costs incurred by the
county clerk of each county included in this table were directly related to preparing, issuing, receiving,
and processing new vote-by-ballots as mandated by P.L. 2018, c.72.
COUNTY
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Totals

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

LABOR1
$0
TBD
$4,235
$11,722
$120
$5,601
TBD
$8,274
$30,818
$2,841
$4,010
TBD
$10,749
$6,049
$3,797
$1,980
TBD
$0
$1,267
$15,779
$832
$108,074

PRINTING2
$10,540
TBD
$16,748
$76,224
$5,418
$20,508
TBD
$17,339
$107,884
$1,580
$38,552
TBD
$21,495
$39,250
$16,403
$45,930
TBD
$0
$2,939
$9,851
$2,495
$443,417

POSTAGE3
$5,935
TBD
$5,610
$27,296
$2,903
$395
TBD
$14,592
$12,234
$3,575
$11,908
TBD
$20,086
$6,375
$6,120
$10,000
TBD
$14,000
$0
$3,403
$2,163
$148,923

CONTRACTED4
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$0
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$7,276
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$5,400
$0
TBD
$6,748
$0
$980
$0
$20,404

OTHER5
$0
TBD
$672
$0
$5,872
$0
TBD
$0
$773
$380
$0
TBD
$3,790
$15,474
$0
$400
TBD
$0
$301
$0
$0
$27,622

TOTALS
$16,524
TBD
$27,265
$115,242
$14,313
$26,504
TBD
$40,205
$151,709
$15,652
$54,470
TBD
$56,120
$67,148
$31,720
$58,310
TBD
$20,748
$4,507
$30,013
$5,490
$743,428

The labor costs reported in this column include the additional employee salaries and wages and
overtime expenses incurred by the county clerk of each county as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2019, c.265.
The printing costs reported in this column include the additional printing costs incurred by the county
clerk of each county for printing the written notice and new vote-by-mail ballots pursuant to P.L.
2019, c.265.
The postage costs reported in this column include the additional postage expenses incurred by the
county clerk of each county for the additional postage required as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2019, c.265.
The contracted costs reported in this column include the hiring of any additional temporary staff or
other services the county clerk in each county may have incurred as a direct result of implementing
P.L. 2019, c.265.
The other costs reported this column may include any other costs the county clerk of each county
may have incurred as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2019, c.265 and will be itemized
accordingly.

13

 APPENDIX C
2019 GENERAL ELECTION EXPENSES
______________________________________________________________________________________
The table and footnotes below summarize the actual expenses incurred by the county clerk of county of
each county as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2019, c.265 for the 2019 general election. The county
clerk of each county submitted the data contained in this table and plans to submit the same information
to the Department of State for reimbursement pursuant to P.L. 2019, c.265. The costs incurred by the
county clerk of each county included in this table were directly related to sending written notice to each
voter that voted by mail in any election in 2017 and 2018 that they would automatically receive vote-byballots in all future elections unless they opted-out in writing. The costs also include expenses incurred in
preparing, issuing, receiving, and processing new vote-by-ballots as mandated by P.L. 2019, c.265.
COUNTY
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Totals

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

LABOR1
$0
$50,000
$3,815
$0
$2,422
$6,837
TBD
$1,567
$27,847
$3,882
$3,937
TBD
$25,426
$12,951
$3,867
$9,500
$100
$0
$3,403
$21,496
$1,851
$235,079

PRINTING2
$56,279
$13,185
$14,244
$88,738
$5,469
$15,875
TBD
$18,064
$25,490
$1,839
$31,503
TBD
$27,438
TBD
$38,079
$50,547
$9,600
$0
$3,546
$5,482
$3,612
$349,260

POSTAGE3
$6149
$50,000
$5,580
$31,777
$4,101
$438
TBD
$11,325
$13,547
$10,927
$10,419
TBD
$31,923
$8768
$9,819
$1,361
$1,400
$11,740
$2,443
$2,764
$3,905
$210,837

CONTRACTED4
$0
$1,900
$6,202
$0
$4,060
$0
TBD
$0
$0
$12,351
$0
TBD
$0
$9,835
$0
$0
$0
$17,185
$1,643
$2,190
$0
$55,365

OTHER5
$15,036
$110
$668
$0
$4000
$0
TBD
$0
$1,074
$380
$0
TBD
$31,367
$881
$0
$400
$170
$0
$121
$6,424
$0
$59,580

TOTALS
$77,465.00
$115,195
$30,509
$120,515
$21,556
$23,150
TBD
$30,596
$67,958
$29,379
$45,859
TBD
$116,154
$32,435
$51,765
$61,808
$11,270
$28,925
$11,156
$38,356
$9,368
$912,148

The labor costs reported in this column include the additional employee salaries and wages and
overtime expenses incurred by the county clerk of each county as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2019, c.265.
The printing costs reported in this column include the additional printing costs incurred by the county
clerk of each county for printing the written notice and new vote-by-mail ballots pursuant to P.L.
2019, c.265.
The postage costs reported in this column include the additional postage expenses incurred by the
county clerk of each county for the additional postage required as a direct result of implementing P.L.
2019, c.265.
The contracted costs reported in this column include the hiring of any additional temporary staff or
other services the county clerk in each county may have incurred as a direct result of implementing
P.L. 2019, c.265.
The other costs reported this column may include any other costs the county clerk of each county
may have incurred as a direct result of implementing P.L. 2019, c.265 and will be itemized
accordingly.

14

 APPENDIX D
VOTERS CONVERTED BY MANDATE

________________________________________________________________________
The table and footnotes below summarize the total number of voters converted to vote-by-mail ballot
voters who will continue to receive such ballots in all future general, primary, school, municipal, fire
district, and special elections pursuant to pursuant to P.L. 2018, c.72 and P.L. 2019, c.265.

COUNTY
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Totals

1.

2.

3.

2018
VOTERS

2019
VOTERS

TOTAL
VOTERS

CONVERTED1
4,442
22,727
8,500
40,740
2,893
953
29,159
20,808
10,045
4,400
8,475
19,534
20,334
9,808
11,711
7,188
1,900
14,000
6,233
16,167
3,927
270,064

CONVERTED2
8,531
19,191
8,454
6,688
3,147
1,754
16,379
4,387
8,355
3,365
7,310
13,677
13,521
13,489
9,504
11,340
1,400
8,000
2,241
12,483
1,684
173,500

CONVERTED3
12,973
41,918
16,994
47,428
6,040
2,707
45,535
25,195
18,400
7,765
15,785
33,211
33,855
23,297
21,215
18,528
3,300
22,000
8,474
28,650
5,611
437,481

This column summarizes the number of voters converted to vote-by-mail ballot voters who will continue
to receive such ballots in all future general, primary, school, municipal, fire district, and special elections
pursuant to P.L. 2018, c.72 less the voters who chose to opt-out of voting-by-mail.
This column summarizes the number of voters converted to vote-by-mail ballot voters who will continue
to receive such ballots in all future general, primary, school, municipal, fire district, and special elections
pursuant to P.L. 2019, c.265 less the voters who chose to opt-out of voting by mail.
This column summarizes the total number of voters converted to vote-by-mail ballot voters who will
continue to receive such ballots in all future general, primary, school, municipal, fire district, and special
elections pursuant to P.L. 2018, c.72 and P.L. c.265 less the voters who chose to opt-out of voting by mail.

15

 APPENDIX E
ONGOING ELECTION EXPENSES

________________________________________________________________________
The table and footnotes below summarize the total ongoing expenses the county clerk of each of the five
randomly selected counties will incur as a direct result of issuing vote-by-mail ballots each year in all
future general and primary elections pursuant to P.L. 2018, c.72 and P.L. 2019, c.265.
TOTAL
VOTERS
COUNTY
Camden
Cape May
Hunterdon
Sussex
Union

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

CONVERTED1
47,428
6,040
7,765
8,474
28,650
98,357

AVG VBM
BALLOT
COST2
$3.15
$2.25
$2.40
$2.00
$2.30
$2.42

AVG SAMPLE
BALLOT
COST3
$0.33
$1.02
$0.38
$0.42
$0.51
$0.53

BUDGETED
GENERAL &
PRIMARY4
$267,494
$14,858
$31,371
$26,778
$102,567
$443,068

This column summarizes the total number of voters converted to vote-by-mail ballot voters who will
continue to receive such ballots in all future general and primary elections pursuant to P.L. 2018, c.72
and P.L. 2019, c.265 less the voters who chose to opt-out of voting-by-mail.
This column represents the costs to prepare a single vote-by-mail ballot, which includes ballot
printing and postage but does not include labor. The costs to prepare a single vote-by-mail ballot is
more expensive to produce than the costs to prepare a single-sample ballot as a vote-by-mail ballot is
printed on special bonded paper that permits scanning and bar coding.
This column represents the costs to prepare a single-sample ballot, which includes ballot printing and
postage but does not include labor.
This column summarizes the total dollar amount each county must spend on issuing vote-by-mail
ballots each year in all future primary and general elections (Column 2 – Column 3) * (Column 1) as
mandated by P.L. 2018, c.72. and P.L. 2019, c.265. (Column 2 – Column 3) * (Column 1) * (2) for 1
general election and 1 primary election each year. These figures do not include the additional costs
for issuing vote-by-mail ballots each year in all future school, municipal, fire district, and special
elections as required under the law. Additionally, these figures do not include any additional costs
incurred by the county board of elections of each county.
For purposes of projecting future costs, NJAC uses the sum of $2.14, which is the difference between
preparing a single vote-by-mail ballot and a single sample ballot, the latter of which the new law no
longer requires the county clerks of each county to prepare for vote-by-mail voters. (Column 2 –
Column 3).

16

 17