WASHINGTON, D.C. – The New Jersey Republican Party and the Republican National Committee have filed a lawsuit challenging a state law they argue allows certain people who have never lived in New Jersey to register and vote in the state’s elections.
Announced Thursday by the NJGOP, the lawsuit names New Jersey election officials and seeks to invalidate a provision that Republicans say permits voting eligibility to be based on a relative’s prior New Jersey residency rather than the voter’s own residence.
Joining the RNC and NJGOP as a plaintiff is Republican congressional candidate Michael McGuire (R, NJ-03).
According to the complaint, the challenged law allows some individuals who have never lived in New Jersey—and, in certain cases, have never lived in the United States—to cast ballots in New Jersey elections if they have a qualifying family connection to a former state resident. Republicans argue that the policy violates the New Jersey Constitution, which requires voters to be state residents.
“Democrats are allowing certain people who have never lived in New Jersey to vote in the state’s elections,” said RNC Chairman Joe Gruters in a statement announcing the litigation. “The RNC is taking them to court to stop this unconstitutional scheme, protect lawful voters, and secure New Jersey elections.”
The lawsuit asks the court to strike down what Republicans describe as the state’s “never-resident voter” law, contending that election officials lack the authority to expand voter eligibility beyond the constitutional residency requirement.
Republicans emphasized that the legal challenge does not seek to affect military personnel or overseas citizens who previously lived in New Jersey. Those voters remain eligible to vote under existing state and federal law.
The case marks the latest election-related lawsuit brought by the RNC as part of its broader legal strategy surrounding voter eligibility and election administration. Party officials pointed to previous litigation in North Carolina, where Republicans secured a ruling involving non-resident voting, as well as pending legal challenges to similar policies in Nebraska, Colorado, and Nevada.
The defendants have not yet publicly responded to the allegations. The case will determine whether New Jersey’s law governing overseas voters with familial ties to the state is consistent with the state constitution’s residency requirements.
