Judge Affirms Santhana as Winner of 2019 Holmdel Election

The 2019 election for the Holmdel Township Committee will probably go in the annals of history as one of the most memorable if not the longest ones. A year after one of the most contentious election, a Superior Court judge affirmed the election results that certified Prakash Santhana as the winner of the election after a recount and a lawsuit challenging the results after that recount.

After much delay due to the changing of the judge and COVID-19 pandemic, the trial took place at the end of September with closing arguments filed on October 2nd. By the time of the trial began, only five ballots were being challenged by the petitioner Chiung-Yin Cheng Liu. Two other ballots that were rejected and not counted were asked by Liu to be included. The judge invalidated one of the five challenged ballots and denied the request to include the two ballots previously rejected. The change in one vote was not sufficient to change the election outcome in which Santhana was certified as a winner.

Three of the five “challenged” ballots were the son or daughter of current Holmdel elected officials. Way before the trial started and, within hours after a court document was filed, the names of the challenged votes were made public along with cries of voter fraud by the running mate of Liu.

Now, with the hearing over and all the evidence presented, the judged ruled that these were valid votes.

Specifically: (1) Alana DiMaso, the daughter of Assemblywoman and former Holmdel Mayor Serena DiMaso, is domiciled in Holmdel and was away only for her education and training at the time of the election and is found by the judge to be eligible and properly voted in the election. This was also confirmed by an investigator of the Superintendent of Elections that Ms. DiMaso was a valid voter of Holmdel; (2) Rocco A. Pascucci, the son of current Holmdel Committeeman Rocco Pascucci, is domiciled in Holmdel and was away only for his medical residency and, in fact, has returned to Holmdel and obtained his New Jersey medical license, is found by the judge to be a valid voter; and (3) Judith Pascucci, the daughter of Committeeman Pascucci, was actually living in Holmdel with her parents at the time of the election and was found by the judge as domiciled in and a resident of Holmdel and properly voted in the election. This, too, was confirmed by the investigator for the Superintendent of Elections.

I have previously written that elected officials recognized and understood that, as public figures, they were subject to public criticisms and comments. However, the “norm” was that family members were off limits. That changed with the lawsuit filed by Liu. It is unfortunate that legitimate votes were questioned for political reasons.

In addition to the challenged votes, Liu sought to include two votes that were previously rejected and were not counted. One of the votes was by Dolores Luccarelli, mother of the recently elected Committeeman DJ Luccarelli. Dolores Luccarelli’s ballot was rejected since her signature could not be verified.

Before the trial, Frank Luccarelli, DJ’s brother, previously provided a certification to the court that he assisted his mother in the completion of the ballot and witnessed the mother’s signature to the ballot. However, at the trial, Frank testified that he signed his mother’s name to the ballot, which is against election law. The judge ruled that the ballot was properly rejected and shall remain rejected and not counted in the election results.

The Treasurer for DJ Luccarelli’s campaign committee is the wife of Liu’s running mate. It’s not clear what the thinking or legal strategy was by Liu or her attorney in calling Frank Luccarelli to testify at the hearing. Liu’s attorney had other witnesses in the trial but decided not to call them to testify at the last minute. The attorney could have done the same with Frank Luccarelli and not seek to include the ballot for Dolores Luccarelli. However, by doing so, it puts into the public record that Frank Luccarelli signed for his mother. Despite the outcries of voter fraud for the votes challenged by Liu, it appears that the voter fraud proven in court may have been committed for a ballot that Liu wanted to include, against the best interest of the Luccarelli family, a well-respected name in Holmdel. See also https://betterholmdel.wixsite.com/home/post/the-64-000-questions

Stay tuned. Liu has 45 days to file an appeal.