19:23-11. Such petitions shall be verified by the oath or affirmation by affidavit of the person who circulates each petition, including a candidate who signs or circulates, or both signs and circulates, such a petition, taken and subscribed before a person qualified under the laws of New Jersey to administer an oath, to the effect that the affiant personally circulated the petition; that the petition is signed by each of the signers thereof in his proper handwriting; that the signers are to the best knowledge and belief of the affiant legal voters of the State or political subdivision thereof, as the case may be, as stated in the petition, belong to the political party named in the petition; and that the petition is prepared and filed in absolute good faith for the sole purpose of indorsing the person or persons therein named, in order to secure his or their nomination or selection as stated in such petition. The person who circulates the petition shall be a registered voter in this State whose party affiliation is of the same political party named in the petition.
Notes of Decisions
Free Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Spano, 314 F. Supp. 3d 444 (E.D.N.Y 2018).
“at 101-02 , 2018 WL 1876021 , at *3-4 (applying strict scrutiny to New Jersey's circulation statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-11 , which reads in relevant part that nominating petitions "shall be verified by the oath or affirmation .”
Wilmoth v. Guadagno (D.N.J. 2021).
· cites it 20× “§ 1983 to challenge the validity of a New Jersey law ( N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-11 ) that requires persons circulating nominating petitions on behalf of presidential candidates in primary elections to be residents of New Jersey.”
Wilmoth v. Guadagno (D.N.J. 2021).
· cites it 20× “§ 1983 to challenge the validity of a New Jersey law ( N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-11 ) that requires persons circulating nominating petitions on behalf of presidential candidates in primary elections to be residents of New Jersey.”
Shawn Wilmoth v. Sec'y of the State of New (3d Cir. 2018).
· cites it 6× “4 Wilmoth and Pool specifically sought a declaration that N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:23-11 is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth 3 SMI and Benezet are also named parties to this dispute.”
Rikin Mehta v. Hirsh Singh (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
“1 After twelve of the signatures were rejected because the circulator of the petition was a registered Democrat, violating N.J.S.A. 19:23-11, Mehta filed more than 600 additional signatures.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.