Special Millburn Referendum Election

Don't Be Fooled.
This Is Not Reform — It's a Risky Overhaul.

Vote NO on June 16th. This proposal weakens accountability, reduces transparency, gives voters less say, and will cost taxpayers more.

Why Vote No How to Vote
7
Council members — more cost, more gridlock
4yr
Terms — less accountability
0
Party labels — voters lose clarity
1
Unelected manager — you don't vote for them

Voting NO Keeps Government Accountable to You

This referendum isn't reform — it's a fundamental restructuring of how Millburn is governed, with serious consequences for voters. Here's what a NO vote preserves:

Party labels that inform voters

Labels help voters understand candidates' values and priorities quickly. Non-partisan doesn't remove politics — it just hides them. Voters lose a critical tool for making informed choices.

Responsible government size

Adding two more council members means higher costs and slower decisions. More government is not better government. Five focused members is already workable — seven means more gridlock.

Frequent accountability through elections

Annual elections keep officials responsive. Under this plan, bad decisions last longer and voters must wait years to respond. Frequent elections are accountability, not "chaos."

Power in the hands of elected officials

The "professional manager" model shifts executive power to an appointed bureaucrat that you never vote for. That's less democracy — not more.

Protection from special interest referendums

The new referendum powers sound appealing but can be hijacked by well-funded groups pushing narrow agendas that don't reflect the broader community.

Clarity over confusion

"Unaffiliated voters are shut out" is misleading. Anyone can vote in the general election, where real leadership decisions are made. This change doesn't empower voters — it removes clarity.

Let's Set the Record Straight

Claim #1
"There's no Democratic or Republican way to fill a pothole."

That's a slogan, not reality. Local decisions are inherently political: taxes, development, public safety, zoning, school funding. Voters deserve transparency about where candidates stand and what values guide their decisions. Removing party labels doesn't remove politics — it obscures it.

Claim #2
"Non-partisan elections give unaffiliated voters equal say."

Any registered voter can already vote in the general election, where winners are chosen. The primary narrows the field — but the decisive vote is available to everyone. This change doesn't empower unaffiliated voters; it strips away the party labels that help all voters quickly identify candidates' values.

Claim #3
"Seven members means better, more representative government."

Seven members means more expensive government, slower decisions, and more opportunities for infighting. A council of five focused, accountable officials can govern effectively. Expanding it increases cost to taxpayers without evidence of improved outcomes.

Claim #4
"Four-year terms allow officials time to get things done."

Four-year terms mean voters wait longer to course-correct. Annual elections are a feature, not a bug — they keep officials responsive and prevent complacency. The ability to quickly remove underperforming officials is a safeguard that protects residents.

Claim #5
"A professional municipal manager improves efficiency."

This shift moves executive authority from elected officials — people you vote for — to an appointed manager you have no say over. That's a fundamental reduction in democratic accountability. Efficiency gains are speculative; the accountability loss is guaranteed.

Claim #6
"New referendum powers give residents a direct voice."

Well-funded special interests and organized minority groups can hijack referendum processes, pushing narrow agendas that don't represent the majority. These tools sound empowering but can be weaponized against the broader community's interests.

Your Neighbors See Through the Sales Pitch

Party labels aren't a problem to be solved — they're information voters rely on. Taking them away doesn't make elections purer; it makes them murkier, and insiders benefit most when voters have less information.
A Concerned Millburn Resident Long-time resident, Millburn
I've attended Township Committee meetings for years. Annual elections are what keeps officials sharp and attentive. Stretch those out to four years and watch how quickly responsiveness disappears.
A Millburn Taxpayer Long-time resident, Short Hills
The moment you put an unelected manager in charge of day-to-day operations, you've created a layer of government that nobody voted for and nobody can remove except the council. That's the opposite of accountability.
A Local Business Owner Long-time resident, Millburn
Adding two more council members sounds like more representation, but it's really more bureaucracy, more cost, and more gridlock. We're a township, not a city council. Five members is appropriate for our scale.
A Short Hills Resident Long-time resident, Short Hills

Millburn Residents Voting NO

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who value transparency and accountability are standing together.

Use arrows to see more

Your Questions, Answered Honestly

Protect Accountability. Vote NO on June 16th.

This is a once-in-a-generation vote. Don't let this risky overhaul pass by default. Make your voice heard.

Vote in Person

Polling places open Tuesday, June 16th from 6 AM – 8 PM. Know your polling place and district number to expedite check-in. There is no early in-person voting for this special election.

Vote by Mail

Vote-by-mail ballots will be mailed on or around May 2nd. Drop off completed ballots at the secure drop box at 22 E Willow St. You can register to vote by mail for this election only.

Spread the Word

  • Request a lawn sign
  • Talk to your neighbors
  • Share this page
  • Help drive turnout on June 16th

Questions?

Learn all you can. Then help protect Millburn's accountable, transparent local government.

info@NoMillburn.com