Dana Kalczuk has been a Hardyston resident for nearly 20 years. She is a proud mom of three, all of whom have attended Hardyston schools. According to her campaign materials, Dana is running for the Board of Education because she believes that all children should receive a quality education. She pledges to fight bullying, increase transparency, and involve parents more in the education process.
Those are compelling promises. But recent developments have raised serious questions about her eligibility, transparency, and the credibility of the team backing her.
Formal Objection
On July 29, 2025, a formal objection was filed with the Sussex County Clerk challenging Dana Kalczuk’s eligibility to appear on the Hardyston Board of Education ballot. The concern: whether she currently meets the legal residency requirements as outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-1.
The County Clerk responded in writing, confirming the objection and noting that Dana provided:
- A School Affidavit of Residence dated 9/9/2024
- A letter from Superintendent Dr. Michael Ryder referencing a prior residency hearing
While these documents were submitted for review, the Clerk’s office has indicated they are being provided as part of the formal objection response - but as of now, the public has not been shown their content or outcome, leaving lingering doubts.
Voter Registration - And the Franklin Question
Alongside the legal filings, another issue has emerged: At one point, Dana Kalczuk’s voter registration was changed to Franklin - outside the Hardyston district she is now seeking to represent - before being updated back to Hardyston earlier this year.
The Sussex County Clerk offered a possible explanation: this may happen when someone updates their driver’s license, which can automatically sync with voter records.
But here is the problem:
If Dana never moved out of Hardyston - and was simply updating her license within the same town - why would her license have reflected a Franklin address?
To be clear, we do not know for certain whether Dana updated her license, or what address was used. But if the Franklin voter registration was just a clerical error, why hasn’t she explained it publicly?
This isn’t just a bureaucratic hiccup - it’s a core eligibility issue. Candidates who seek to represent Hardyston must live in Hardyston. Full stop.
What Does This Say About the Kids First Vetting Process?
Dana Kalczuk is running as part of the Kids First team - a group that claims to stand for accountability, parental rights, and restoring integrity to the board.
So let us ask the obvious:
- Did Kids First even vet their candidate before endorsing her?
- Were they aware of the past residency hearing and the voter registration issue?
- If so, why didn’t they disclose it to voters?
Whether this is negligence or deliberate concealment, it raises doubts about their ability to recruit serious, eligible, and transparent candidates. Dana’s situation is not just about her - it reflects the judgment of those who put her on the ballot.
If this is how Kids First handles vetting, what else are they willing to overlook?
Voters Deserve Answers
Dana Kalczuk talks about transparency. But so far, she has offered none.
The public deserves to know:
- Where is she currently registered to vote?
- Why did her voter record change to Franklin?
- What was the outcome of her prior residency hearing?
- And why wasn’t any of this disclosed upfront?
Until those questions are answered, doubt will remain - not just about Dana Kalczuk, but about the team and values she represents.
We will continue monitoring the status of the formal objection and update the community as new information becomes available.
Related Posts
Data
Obtained from public records at https://cefile.sussex.nj.us/publicsearch/
