A recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has resolved a conflict over who should fill seventy-one vacant seats on the Cherry Hill Democratic Committee after an unusual election outcome. The ruling clarifies that three individuals elected as Progressive Democrats are entitled to fill these vacancies, overturning a previous order that had blocked them from doing so and directed that unsuccessful candidates from another slate be appointed instead.
The complaint was filed by Camden County Democratic Committee, Inc. and its Chairman James Beach in Camden County following the June 10, 2025 election. The defendants in the case are Susan Druckenbrod, Rena Margulis, and David Stahl, who ran as part of the South Jersey Progressive Democrats slate.
According to court documents, the June 2025 election for the Cherry Hill Democratic Committee featured an atypical ballot design. Instead of voters selecting individual candidates for each of seventy-four available seats, they were instructed to choose between two slates: one consisting of three candidates representing the Progressive Democrats and another with seventy-four candidates aligned with the Camden County Democratic Committee (CCDC). The Progressive Democrats received 5,547 votes compared to 3,350 for the CCDC slate—62.3% of ballots cast—resulting in only three individuals being elected and leaving seventy-one seats unfilled.
Following their victory, Druckenbrod, Margulis, and Stahl attempted to fill these vacancies by soliciting interest from local residents under state law N.J.S.A. 19:5-2. Approximately eighty residents responded. However, two weeks after the election, plaintiffs filed a verified complaint and an order to show cause seeking to prevent these actions. They argued that since only three out of seventy-four seats were filled by election results, the remaining seats should be assigned from among CCDC’s unsuccessful candidates.
On July 11, 2025, a trial judge granted injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs. The judge enjoined defendants “from conducting an organizational meeting of the Cherry Hill…Committee, adopting bylaws for the Cherry Hill .. . Committee, or attempting to fill the [seventy-one] open seats on the Cherry Hill .. . Committee.” Instead, authority was given to CCDC members residing in Cherry Hill to appoint replacements from their own slate under N.J.S.A. 19:13-20(c).
Defendants appealed this decision. They contended that statutes N.J.S.A. 19:5-2 and -3—not N.J.S.A. 19:13-20—should govern how committee vacancies are filled after such elections and that no quorum requirement prevented them from acting as a committee despite being only three members.
Supporting their position were briefs submitted by both New Jersey’s Attorney General and amicus curiae Good Government Coalition of New Jersey. The Attorney General argued that “the law requires these vacancies to be filled by the three duly elected Committee members” and criticized disruption of post-election rules as undermining voter intent.
The appellate panel agreed with defendants’ arguments after reviewing relevant statutes and case law concerning political party committee vacancies in New Jersey. It found that N.J.S.A. 19:5-2 applies broadly when any vacancy arises—including those caused by failure to elect—and gives authority for filling such positions directly to existing committee members within each municipality regardless of their number.
The opinion states: “Consistent with settled case law, the existence of a quorum can be determined based on defendants, the three individuals who were elected by voters in Cherry Hill…A quorum of that duly elected committee is empowered to fill vacant seats.” The panel also noted there is no statutory requirement for a minimum number or quorum beyond those actually elected.
In contrast with trial court findings applying N.J.S.A. 19:13-20—which governs nominations for general elections—the appellate division emphasized there was no subsequent general election at issue here; thus those provisions did not apply.
Ultimately reversing the lower court’s injunctions and remanding for dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint, judges Mayer, Gummer and Paganelli concluded: “Defendants are not required to fill vacancies on the Cherry Hill Committee from unsuccessful candidates on CCDC’s slate.” The stay order previously entered was dissolved.
Attorneys involved included Yael Bromberg (Bromberg Law LLC) representing appellants; William M. Tambussi and Michael J. Miles (Brown & Connery LLP) representing respondents; Sookie Bae-Park and Christina Brandt-Young (Attorney General’s Office) as amicus curiae; Scott D. Salmon (Jardim Meisner Salmon Sprague & Susser PC) representing Good Government Coalition of New Jersey as amicus curiae; Case ID A-3621-24.
