Brad Moore, who launched an independent campaign for an open seat on the Lawrence Township Council, has withdrawn his candidacy.
Moore ended his bid within hours after the Lawrence Democratic Municipal Committee filed a formal objection on June 7 with Mercer County Clerk Paula Sollami Covello. The municipal committee is not the same as the Lawrence Township Democratic Club.
Moore’s decision to run for the governing body as an Independent was sparked by the Council’s handling of proposed inclusionary affordable housing developments at the historic William Gulick House on Route 206/Lawrenceville Road and on a 75-acre portion of the Educational Testing Service campus at 660 Rosedale Road. The properties would be rezoned to accommodate new development.
In an email to Sollami Covello on June 7, Moore wrote that he was officially withdrawing his petition for the 2026 Lawrence Township Council election and terminating his candidacy, according to documents obtained by The Lawrence Gazette.
Moore’s decision clears the way for incumbent Township Councilwoman Bonne Giglio, who is a Democrat, to win a one-year unexpired term on the Council in the Nov. 3 general election. She is running unopposed because the Republican Party did not field a candidate for the open seat.
Lawrence Democratic Municipal Committee Chairwoman Elissa Grodd Schragger filed the objection with the Mercer County Clerk’s Office, citing irregularities in Moore’s effort to obtain the minimum of 250 valid signatures on a petition to run for office.
Moore’s petition, which was submitted to the Mercer County Clerk’s Office on June 2, was signed by more than 300 people.
However, there is substantial evidence to show that over half of the petition signatures were obtained through bad faith, fraudulent and illegal acts, Grodd Schragger wrote in the objection. Despite oaths to the contrary, the signatures were not witnessed in person as required by state law, she wrote in the objection.
“As such, these petitions should be voided. Mr. Moore has not validly produced enough signatures that can be verified to support his candidacy for Lawrence councilperson. He must not be allowed on the ballot,” Grodd Schragger wrote.
State law requires that signatures on a nominating petition must be witnessed by the candidate or by someone who is circulating the petition on the candidate’s behalf. The petitioner – the person who is circulating the petition – must affirm under oath that he or she watched as the voter signed the petition.
“In the case of Candidate Moore’s petitions, there are several emails among his supporters – the LPH Coalition – which demonstrate in writing that they were acting in bad faith and intended to violate state and federal statutes. Further, we have been provided a sworn statement by one of the voters who signed a petition that proves the falsified statement and submitted same to the County Clerk’s Office,” Grodd Schragger wrote.
One of the emails stated that the recipient could sign a petition that supporter/petitioner Marianne Mele had left in her mailbox. A pen was provided for the signer’s convenience. She directed people to stop at her mailbox and invited them to sign the petition, without having witnessed the act to prove that the person signing the petition is the same voter who is listed on it, Grodd Schragger wrote.
Another email stated that the nominating petition could be downloaded from the LPH Coalition website. The petition could be signed and dropped off in supporter/petitioner Rick Miller’s mailbox. It seems to direct voters to sign the petition before placing it in the mailbox – again, without being witnessed, Grodd Schragger wrote.
Many of the petitions started at No. 84 and ended at No. 90, rather than starting at No. 1, she wrote. Those petitions must have been the ones downloaded from the LPH Coalition website. Often, there were only one or two signatures on the page, which tend to show that they were signed prior to being dropped off in a mailbox without having been properly witnessed.
In another example of “dishonesty,” Grodd Schragger wrote that one of the persons who signed Moore’s nominating petition subsequently testified in writing that Moore had not witnessed her signature.
Voter Kate Hoffmann stated in her June 7 certification that Moore did not witness her signature on the petition. A woman came to her home and witnessed her signature, as evidenced by two Ring camera screenshots of the woman who asked her to sign the petition, Grodd Schragger wrote.
Hoffmann stated in her certification that on June 1, she was asked by a woman “to sign the petition for someone for Town Council. She told me he needed the signatures and was concerned about the new possible affordable housing situation at ETS. She did not identify herself by name or Mr. Moore. She watched me the sign the petition.”
“I have not met Brad Moore. Brad Moore did not witness my signature on the petition. Nevertheless, Brad Moore has affirmed under oath that he witnessed my signature. That is false,” Hoffmann stated.
Also, specific signatures should be voided because the signer is either not a Lawrence Township resident or is not registered to vote at the address listed on the petition. Some of the signatures may possibly be forged, Grodd Schragger wrote.
A list of non-residents, persons who are not registered voters, duplicate signatures, signers and their addressed that do not match voter records and potentially forged signatures was included in the objection filed by Grodd Schragger for the Lawrence Democratic Municipal Committee.
“For all of the reasons set forth above, Candidate Moore’s Petition is rife with invalidity. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, especially when both the candidate and at least one of his supporters are attorneys. Brad Moore’s campaign made a mockery of the integrity of the electoral process,” Grodd Schragger wrote.
“The Mercer County Clerk should, as a matter of law and fact, reject these signatures and bar Brad Moore from the ballot,” she wrote.
In a separate statement, Grodd Schragger wrote that the Lawrence Democratic Municipal Committee believes that the more voices that are heard within the community, the stronger the township becomes.
The committee also believes in the rule of law and “now more than ever, we have a responsibility to each to each other to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. That is why we filed an objection to Mr. Moore’s petition.”
“We believe, based on the evidence available, that the petition should have been invalidated to protect the integrity of our elections,” Grodd Schragger wrote.
