Judge orders Cherry Hill to release ballot box security video.

On June 16, 2025, a Camden County judge ordered Cherry Hill to identify the dates ballots were deposited at the municipal drop box and…

Judge orders Cherry Hill to release ballot box security video. Months later, no footage. Should voters be concerned?

On June 16, 2025, a Camden County judge ordered Cherry Hill to identify the dates ballots were deposited at the municipal drop box and produce the matching security clips. Four months later, no footage.

By Ben Shore | Shore Investigates

This story has been updated Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 2:09pm to include the following statement:

The Mayor does not comment on matters that are in pending litigation. It is the Township’s full intention to comply with Judge Schweitzer’s Order, and we are actively in the process of doing so. We are currently sorting through over 800 hours of footage to ensure that no building security concerns are implicated, as is permitted by the Order. -Daniel H. Long, Esquire, Attorney for Cherry Hill Township

The Complaint

Transparency Begins at the Ballot Box

It’s important to see transparency in our elections at the beginning, not after frustration hardens into suspicion. On June 16, 2025, Camden County Superior Court Judge Sherri L. Schweitzer, P.J.Ch., ordered Cherry Hill Township to identify the dates when ballots were deposited in the municipal-building drop box and to produce the security camera footage. Four months later, the Township had still produced nothing.

Who, What, When, Where

Plaintiff Mark D. Demo filed an Open Public Records Act case in Camden County seeking surveillance video of the ballot drop box at the Cherry Hill Municipal Building for the 2024 general election period. He says public access to the footage would let voters verify how the box was used. The complaint was filed March 13, 2025.

Cherry Hill Taxpayers Could Foot the Bill for Noncompliance

If the requester wins, New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act allows a court to order the Township to pay the requester’s reasonable attorney’s fees, which come from public funds. If the judge must enforce the prior order on a motion in aid of litigant’s rights, the court may award additional fees. In short, noncompliance can put Cherry Hill residents on the hook.

The Court Order

On June 16, 2025, after a hearing, Superior Court Judge Sherri Schweitzer signed an order directing production of the security camera footage under OPRA. According to correspondence filed with the court, Demo’s attorney followed up repeatedly, starting June 27. There was no response, nor video. By August 19, counsel told the court flatly: Cherry Hill had not complied.

The Next Move

In September, Demo filed a Motion in Aid of Litigant’s Rights, the legal remedy for when a party feels the court’s directive is ignored. The motion cites Rule 1:10–3 — the same rule that enforces child-support orders, injunctions, and civil judgments. The point is simple: when a judge speaks, a town has to listen.

Photograph of the motion in aid of litigant’s rights

Why Election Integrity Must Start Local

It’s important to see transparency in our elections — and not as a slogan, but as a practice that stands up when tested. The lesson is bigger than one township. In the years since January 6, 2021, we’ve seen what happens when people stop believing the process is transparent. Even here in Camden County, federal prosecutors charged neighbors who stormed the Capitol — Patrick Alonzo Stedman, who was convicted and sentenced to four years in federal prison, and Lawrence Earl Stackhouse III , who pled guilty and was sentenced to jail time, home confinement, probation and restitution.

Transparency is not risk; it’s prevention. Every unproduced clip erodes the public’s ability to verify that ballots were handled properly. The people who broke the law on Jan. 6 didn’t wake up that morning with evidence; they woke up with doubt. The antidote to doubt is documentation.

Mayor’s Response
I contacted Cherry Hill Mayor Dave Fleisher at DFleisher@chnj.gov for comment regarding the Township’s compliance with the June 16, 2025 court order and the pending enforcement motion. As of publication, no response has been received. The story will be updated if Mayor Fleisher or Township officials provide a statement.

Editor’s note: this story concerns pending civil litigation. The claims described are allegations from court filings and other public records. The defendants dispute the allegations, or have not yet had a full opportunity to respond in court. We will update if we receive substantive comment or new filings.

Send tips: shoreinvestigates@gmail.com

By Ben Shore on October 13, 2025.

Exported from Medium on November 11, 2025.