The Non-Partisan Litmus Test: The Rare 5-1 Vote to Reject a Nominee

The former Berkeley Heights Board of Education, heavily aligned with the local Republican machine at the time, came under scrutiny a few years ago when it denied the League of Women Voters the ability to host a public debate on school property, an activity that had been happening for several years prior without issue. The Board, supported by the District, stated that schools and Boards cannot support political activist groups and have a duty to uphold a non-partisan community. This occurred as independent, non-machine aligned candidates were beginning to gain seats.

Edward Durfee, a former member of the U.S. Marine Corps, the Oath Keepers, and the Northvale Republican chairman, was recently denied his nomination as a member of the Board of Education in Northvale, when the State Board of Education took the rare step of voting 5-1 to deny him a seat. 

The reason given for the denial was his affiliation with the Oath Keepers, who define themselves as a  non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders that pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take “to defend the Constitution against alll enemies, foreign and domestic”.

However, the Oath Keepers have been portrayed in media outlets as “far-right” and “anti-government extremist” and have been investigated by the FBI in connection to the Jan 6th insurrection.

October of 2025 Durfee came under intense heat when a political opponent, Mathew Horning, threw his name into the ring to run against Durfee.  Horning claimed Durfee was somehow unfit to serve because he was present during the January 6 insurrection (but not arrested or fined, but questioned by the FBI) and because Durfee was “very right wing and a supporter of the President” (NJ.COM).  Concerns about Durfee having an upper-hand in the election due to his affiliation with the Republican committee were also raised.

While school board elections and service terms should always remain non-partisan, a person cannot erase their past. It is somewhat understandable how someone’s current role within a political machine could inhibit their ability to serve and to remain completely non-partisan and neutral considering how both political parties have been known to operate locally.

The question, in cases like Berkeley Heights and Durfee’s, is how political affiliation and past associations should be weighed in the who and when of evaluating service eligibility and what standards are being applied.

In Durfee’s case, limited public information has been available about the nomination denial beyond his former association with the Oath Keepers.

When candidates are removed from consideration based largely on affiliation, it raises broader concerns about transparency, consistency and how democratic participation is being protected at the local level.