After a formal objection was filed questioning Dana Kalczuk’s residency, Sussex County Clerk Jeffrey Parrott reviewed the evidence along with documents Kalczuk submitted in her defense.
The Clerk ultimately allowed her name to remain on the ballot. Kalczuk presented paperwork that she claimed demonstrated her residency in Hardyston, and the Clerk’s office accepted it.
⚖️ The Core Issue
While the Clerk accepted the submission, the original objection’s concerns about the timeline remain part of the public record.
- The sale of her Hardyston home took place in September 2024.
- At nearly the same time, a Franklin residence was established and tied to her through multiple public posts.
- The election takes place in November 2025, with state law requiring one continuous year of residency in the district.
The statute is straightforward. The dates are the problem.
🗂️ Dana’s “Proof”
Included in the Clerk’s file are the documents Kalczuk submitted as proof of residency. They are surprisingly thin:
- A few affidavits from her mother vouching for her.
- A letter from the school.
That’s it. No utility bills, no lease or deed records, no clear paper trail of continuous residence.
Proving residency should not be this difficult. But for Dana, it is.
📊 Residency Timeline
Here’s the basic sequence that raises the questions:
- Sept 8, 2024 → Franklin rental property removed from the market.
- Sept 10, 2024 → Sale of Kalczuk’s Hardyston home recorded.
- Nov 5, 2025 → General election date.
State law requires 365 days of continuous residency. The dates leave a lot of doubt.
🕵️ Transparency vs. Narrative
Kalczuk has framed the Clerk’s acceptance as proof the matter is closed. But voters should remember: officials often make administrative decisions quickly, without conducting the kind of deep investigation that residents expect.
This is why transparency matters. Instead of relying on shifting social media narratives - where posts vanish once they become inconvenient - you can read the full correspondence yourself.
📂 Read the Records
For complete clarity, here is the official response from the Clerk - including the affidavits and letter Kalczuk submitted as her “proof”:
Setting the Stage
What happened next is telling. Instead of addressing the residency doubts head-on, Kalczuk escalated - accusing a school employee of trying to undermine her candidacy.
That will be the focus of the next article in this series.
Why It Matters
Residency requirements exist for a reason: to ensure candidates are genuinely tied to the communities they want to represent.
The Clerk may have left Kalczuk on the ballot, but the timeline still raises doubts. And when her “proof” boils down to a few affidavits and a letter, those doubts only grow.
Transparency means putting the documents in the public’s hands. That’s why we share them here. Read them, and decide for yourself whether the candidate has been honest with Hardyston.