New Jersey GOP operative, pardoned by Trump, accused of scheming to purge Democratic voters ahead of midterms

Local Republicans in New Jersey — including one who was pardoned by President Donald Trump after a tax evasion conviction — allegedly targeted Democratic and unaffiliated voters for eligibility challenges while leaving Republicans in the same situation untouched. 

At the urging of a top local Republican, the Ocean County Board of Elections recently launched an eligibility review that could put those voters at risk just weeks before the November election.

And at the center of the controversy is George Gilmore, who holds two influential positions in Ocean County. He chairs both the county Board of Elections and the Ocean County GOP. 

Gilmore was convicted on federal tax and bank-related charges in 2019, and sentenced to more than a year in prison. He later received a full pardon from Trump.

In June, the county GOP unanimously reelected him as their chair.

Now, the ACLU of New Jersey is threatening to sue Ocean County unless election officials halt the ‘scheme,’ which the organization calls an “unlawful mass voter challenge.” 

The dispute began in Bay Head, a small Jersey Shore borough, where Dennis Shaning — president of the borough council and of the Bay Head GOP — reviewed property tax records and compiled a list of registered voters whose tax bills were mailed to addresses outside the town.

But Shaning’s list did not include everyone who met that description.

Shaning allegedly omitted all registered Republicans while including Democratic and unaffiliated voters. In August, he sent the list to the Ocean County Clerk and Board of Elections, saying there was “sufficient reason” to believe the listed voters “should not be voting in Bay Head” and urging officials to remove them if they were found ineligible. 

County election officials then turned that submission into an official review of those voters’ eligibility.

Last month, the Ocean County Board of Elections mailed the targeted voters a “Domicile Questionnaire,” asking them to provide information and documents about where they live. The board warned that their “right to vote may be challenged for the November 3, 2026 General Election and future elections” and scheduled an Oct. 13 meeting to consider their eligibility.

In practical terms, the investigation could put those voters’ registrations at risk. If county officials ultimately determine a voter is not legally domiciled in Bay Head, that voter could face a challenge to their registration and potentially be removed from the borough’s voter rolls before the November election.

Gilmore, the election board chair and county GOP head, has defended the inquiry. He told the New Jersey Monitor that the four-member election board — two Republicans and two Democrats — unanimously agreed to investigate the voters Shaning identified. Gilmore said he had not reviewed the list and did not know Republicans had been excluded before the questionnaires were sent.

“I never reviewed the list. I did not see it,” Gilmore said. “I was told it came in, that there was questions raised, and we authorized the questionnaire to be sent out.”

Gilmore said the board has used residency questionnaires for decades and responds to challenges submitted to it rather than independently searching for voters. He also said voters who establish their Bay Head residency will be allowed to vote.

Gilmore and the Ocean County Board of Elections did not respond to requests for comment.

The ACLU is demanding that the county halt the review before the voters face further consequences. It wants election officials to confirm by Friday that they will take no adverse action based on tax mailing addresses, cancel the Oct. 13 review and send corrective notices assuring the targeted voters that their registrations remain active. 

“If you do not, the ACLU-NJ is prepared to seek relief in court,” the ACLU attorneys wrote.

The ACLU says the process should never have begun with a list that allegedly treated voters differently based on party affiliation.

“The Board has targeted voters based on their constitutionally protected political association and chilled their participation on the eve of an election with total disregard for the laws that prohibit precisely this kind of interference,” ACLU-NJ Supervising Attorney Liza Weisberg said. “We will always protect New Jerseyans’ access to the ballot — we are urging Ocean County officials to do the same.”

The group also argues that the review violates the National Voter Registration Act, which requires voter list-maintenance programs to be uniform and nondiscriminatory and prohibits systematic removals within 90 days of a federal election.

Department of Justice guidance says that restriction can also apply to voter removal programs triggered by third-party challenges based on large-scale data matching. 

“This 90-day deadline applies to State list maintenance verification activities such as general mailings and door-to-door canvasses,” the DOJ guidance reads. “This deadline also applies to list maintenance programs based on third-party challenges derived from any large, computerized data-matching process.”

The ACLU says Ocean County’s effort violates those protections because it began inside that 90-day window and allegedly subjected Democratic and unaffiliated voters to scrutiny that similarly situated Republicans escaped. 

The dispute comes just months after New Jersey enacted the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act, which prohibits intimidation and deceptive practices that interfere with voting and allows lawsuits to enforce those protections. Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) signed the law in July.