Harrison Candidates Fight to Get On November Ballot

Two Harrison candidates have filed separate but related lawsuits against the Hudson County Clerk’s Office, claiming they were kept off the November General Election ballot after relying on incorrect signature information allegedly provided by the same office that later rejected their petitions.

The lawsuits were filed by Dominick Ritorto, who is seeking to run for Mayor of Harrison, and Michael Verile, who is seeking to run for the 1st Ward Council seat. Both complaints name the Hudson County Clerk’s Office as the defendant. E. Junior Maldonado is the Hudson County Clerk.

The complaints were stamped received by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hudson County on June 18, 2026. However, the cases were not entered into the statewide court docket until June 25, 2026, one week later. That delay is significant because election cases are time-sensitive, especially when candidates are trying to get onto the ballot before ballots are printed and election deadlines move forward.

At the center of both cases is an email thread titled”Re: General Election.” The email was sent by Amber Vargas, head of the Hudson County Clerk’s Office Division of Elections. Hudson County Clerk E. Junior Maldonado was copied on the thread.

In the email, Vargas provided signature numbers for independent candidates seeking office in the November General Election. The email listed the following numbers: County Level — 250; Harrison Mayor — 50; Harrison 1st Ward — 10; Harrison 2nd Ward — 25; Harrison 3rd Ward — 10; and Harrison 4th Ward — 10.

Those numbers are at the center of the dispute.

Despite Email: Rejection For Signatures

After the candidates submitted their petitions, Vargas sent rejection letters stating that they lacked sufficient valid signatures. In Ritorto’s case, the Clerk’s Office stated that 190 signatures were required to run for Mayor of Harrison. In Verile’s case, the Clerk’s Office stated that 31 signatures were required to run for the 1st Ward Council seat.

The candidates allege that they relied on the lower numbers provided by the Hudson County Clerk’s Office and that they would have collected more signatures if they had been given the correct information.

Ritorto’s complaint states that he was misled into believing he had enough signatures for the mayoral race. Verile’s complaint similarly claims that the Hudson County Clerk’s Office provided the wrong number of required signatures for the 1st Ward Council seat. Both candidates allege false information and voter suppression.

Lack of Signatures In Light of Misinformation

The legal issue is not simply whether the candidates had the correct number of signatures under New Jersey election law. The larger question is whether candidates should be penalized when the government office responsible for election filings provides incorrect information and later rejects the candidates’ petitions based on the correct, higher number. The same person who provided the number of signatures required for the General Election was the same person who rejected the petitions to run for office.

A Right To Rely On Election Official's Information

That is what makes these lawsuits important to voters beyond the campaigns of Ritorto and Verile. Election laws are designed to ensure that candidates show a basic level of voter support before appearing on the ballot. But those laws also depend on clear, accurate, and timely guidance from election officials. When candidates, voters, or members of the public ask the Clerk’s Office for petition requirements, they should be able to rely on the answer.

Email Thread Confirms Misinformation by Clerk

The email thread appears to support the candidates’ argument that the information was being requested for the General Election, not the Primary Election. The subject line says “Re: General Election.” The original request asked for petitions for independent candidates for Hudson County Commissioner District 9, Harrison Mayor, and each of the four Harrison wards “for the General Election in November.” The follow-up email then specifically asked the head of the Hudson County Clerk's Office Division of Elections, Amber Vargas, to “clarify the minimum number of votes required” for County Commissioner, Mayor of Harrison, and the four ward council seats.

Although the thread also includes an earlier reference to “Early Voting in the Primary,” the petition question was separate. The request shifted from early voting dates to independent candidate petitions for the November General Election. Vargas then responded with a list of “required signature numbers,” including a specific number for the Harrison Mayor and each ward. That context is why the candidates are expected to argue that a reasonable person would understand the response as applying to the General Election, not to a Primary Election.

Hudson County Clerk E. Junior Maldonado On Email Thread

Another important fact is that Hudson County Clerk E. Junior Maldonado was copied on the email. According to the complaints, he did not correct the information before the candidates relied on it. That will likely be part of the court’s review in determining whether the Hudson County Clerk’s Office had notice of the incorrect information and failed to correct it to the detriment of two candidates seeking to be placed on the ballot in November’s General Election.

Hudson County Clerk's Rejection Letter

The Clerk’s Office rejection letters cite N.J.S.A. 19:13-5, the statute governing signature requirements for direct nomination petitions in the General Election. Under that statute, the required number is generally based on a percentage of the votes cast for the General Assembly in the relevant political division, subject to limits in the law. Based on the Clerk’s later calculation, the mayoral petition required 190 signatures, and the 1st Ward petition required 31 signatures. Versus 50 for the Mayor’s office and 10 for the 1st Ward Council seat stated in Hudson County Clerk Amber Vargas’ email entitled General Election. The Primary Election requires significantly fewer signatures than the General Election, which, on its face, discriminates against independent candidates running for elected office.

Request To Give Time To Collect Additional Signatures

The candidates are asking the court for relief that would allow them to appear on the November General Election ballot or give them additional time to collect signatures. The current election law in New Jersey, however, prohibits the addition of signatures to a Petition after its submission to the Clerk’s office, but Justice should not be thwarted by a rule that assumes the candidates were given the correct information on what the minimum signatures required to be placed on the ballot were. The provision of the law barring the addition of signatures is intended to prevent a candidate from submitting a Petition with signatures from nonregistered voters in a particular district or ward and then supplementing the number of signatures after the deadline for submitting signatures.   The provision did not envision a situation now before the court, in which the Hudson County Clerk's office provides incorrect information and then rejects a candidate's petition that relied on that information.

The Court Can Do Justice By Interpreting The Election Law's Intent Not To Disenfranchise Voters

If the court finds, as alleged by these two candidate hopefuls, that the Hudson County Clerk’s office provided inaccurate information on how many signatures were required, then an exception should be made to allow the collection of additional signatures so Justice prevails. Or simply find that the candidates obtained more signatures than the signatures stated by the election officials for the offices they sought, and place them on the ballot, since they detrimentally relied on misinformation provided by the election official. New Jersey Election Law seeks not to disenfranchise voters.  The Hudson County Clerk's office, by providing misinformation, has disenfranchised the residents of Harrison who signed these candidates' petitions, as well as others who would vote for them in the November General Election if they had been given the correct number of required signatures.

The court will likely have to balance several competing concerns. One is the importance of enforcing election law requirements uniformly. Another is the public interest in ballot access and voter choice. A third is whether candidates should suffer the consequences of relying on official information from the very office responsible for receiving and reviewing their petitions.

For Harrison voters, the lawsuits raise a basic question of transparency: if a candidate asks the County Clerk’s Office how many signatures are required to run and the Clerk’s Office gives the wrong number, what should happen next? New Jersey Election law emphasizes not disenfranchising voters, and in today's climate of attempts at voter suppression throughout the country, this case brings that disenfranchising very close to home.

The answer will now be up to the Superior Court in Jersey City, which the Assignment Judge in Hudson County assigned to this case.

We encourage you to share your thoughts on the Community Discussion Board after reading this article.

For those not yet registered, participation is free and open to anyone who wants to stay engaged with Harrison’s local events, businesses, and community conversations.  It's a Free Membership. Sign up