Requires automatic recount in elections decided by less than 0.5 percent of votes cast; provides for recount in certain other elections upon timely application; requires deposit of funds pending results of recount.
Assembly Bill 5148 revises New Jersey’s election recount procedures. It creates an automatic recount for any election decided by a vote differential of 0.5 percent or less of votes cast, with the State paying the cost of that automatic recount. The bill also preserves a path for recounts in elections decided by more than 0.5 percent, allowing a candidate or at least 10 voters to seek a recount by timely application to the Superior Court, generally in the county where the affected districts are located, or in Mercer County if multiple counties are involved.
For those non-automatic recount requests, the bill requires the applicant to post a deposit with the court clerk while the recount is pending. The deposit must be reasonable and proportional to the number of districts involved. If the recount does not change the election outcome, the deposit is used to pay the recount costs; if the outcome changes, the deposit is returned. The bill also clarifies that a recount is considered outcome-changing if a different candidate would have won after the recount than under the original count.
The bill amends R.S.19:28-1 and R.S.19:28-2, changing both when recounts are mandatory and how recount costs are allocated. It lowers the threshold for an automatic recount to 0.5 percent or less of votes cast, shifts those costs to the State, and requires courts to grant timely recount applications in other eligible cases. It also adds a deposit requirement to secure payment of recount expenses when the original result is confirmed, affecting candidates, voters, county clerks, courts, and local election administrators.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall posture appears procedural and election-administration focused rather than ideological. The bill is framed as a fairness and accuracy measure, ensuring close elections are automatically reviewed and that recounts remain available in other cases. No recorded opposition or support is available in the provided materials, so sentiment cannot be assessed from debate history beyond the bill’s neutral, reform-oriented presentation.
The main points of contention likely concern the automatic recount threshold, who pays for recounts, and the new deposit requirement. Supporters would likely view the 0.5 percent automatic recount as a safeguard for election integrity and public confidence, while critics may argue it increases state and local costs or encourages recounts in very close races. The deposit requirement may also be controversial because it places an upfront financial burden on candidates or voters seeking a recount, though the bill limits that burden by requiring the amount to be reasonable and proportional and by returning it if the recount changes the outcome.