The Middlesex County Board of Elections spent much of its meeting reviewing recovered and duplicate mail‑in ballots after two thefts and discussing how to process contested returns.

A county election official told commissioners the Metuchen clerk had mailed duplicate ballots to all affected voters and that the board had received duplicates from those voters. "The signature is an exact match," the official said while describing one case where the original mail‑in ballot was received and the signature matched the voter file.

The official also said Woodbridge and a small number of Edison ballots were stolen while being returned to the board. "Through a warrant served by Woodbridge PD in coordination with the United States Postal Service, those 18 original ballots were brought back to the clerk's office and then given to the board," the official said, adding that duplicate ballots were mailed to affected voters.

Commissioners debated accepting six recovered originals for which no duplicate had been returned. During roll call on that question, multiple commissioners answered "Yes." The board also handled inventory items flagged by staff: four ballots not enclosed, two ballots in a provisional bag, and 36 ballots marked with phrases or initials that staff asked commissioners to review.

Public commenter Charlie Cranfield of New Brunswick Today pressed commissioners on a separate, high‑profile matter: the earlier challenge that sought to reject 948 mail‑in ballots. "How do you justify your vote to reject the 948 mail in ballots?" Cranfield asked the Republican commissioners during public comments, saying it was "very alarming" to see nearly 1,000 ballots rejected on brief discussion and urging more investigation.

A board member acknowledged that one contested vote produced a split on the board. "There were 3 votes to reject and 3 votes to accept," a commissioner said on the record. Commissioners and staff said the underlying dispute involved domicile versus residency and that the court had resolved the issue; a public commenter said he was relieved the votes "will be counted."

Clerk and staff briefed the board on a new state "voter intent" determination guide that affects how adjudicators treat overvotes and write‑in marks. The clerk described scenarios in which a voter fills a write‑in oval and writes a candidate's name, explaining that the guide and statute change how those marks may be adjudicated.

The clerk offered to circulate a schedule for adjudication sessions over the next several days and asked commissioners to indicate availability; members also discussed the utility of the ERIC system to clarify registrations. Cranfield raised separate concerns about the closure of a polling place at Livingston Park Elementary in North Brunswick and how signage and staffing were handled when voting was moved to Lynnwood School.

A commissioner clarified on the record that the board "has not agreed to take any further action" regarding broader investigations into the 948 ballots beyond what the court and existing processes established. The board confirmed a next meeting on Friday and moved to adjourn.

Next steps: staff will circulate adjudication session dates to commissioners and will supply the ballots and documentation the board requested for review. The board did not set additional investigatory mandates beyond court actions on the contested ballots.