Re: Legal action to challenge the
constitutionality of the single ballot question which asks voters
to amend the NJ Constitution by voting yes or no on
dedication of the revenue from two separate taxes to the
Transportation Trust Fund. (SCR1)
The Board of Directors voted to confirm the June 20 decision of
the Executive Board to seek pro bono legal counsel to go to court
to protect the constitutional right of New Jersey citizens to vote
"for or against each amendment separately and distinctly,"
Article IX, 5., New Jersey Constitution.
The law firm of Lowenstein Sandler approved the League’s
request for pro bono representation, and Douglas S. Eakeley is
representing LWVNJ. A complaint and brief were prepared and filed
with the Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer County, on Monday,
July 24. Plaintiffs are Judith Cambria and the League of Women
Voters of New Jersey. Defendants are Secretary of State Soaries
and Attorney General Farmer.
The Attorney General’s office filed their brief on Monday,
July 31, and the League’s reply was filed on Wednesday,
August 2.
Because the constitution sets a 90 day requirement for
advertising public questions on the ballot, the judge would rule
on the merits of the League’s complaint on Friday, August 4.
This allows either side to appeal to the Appellate and Supreme
Courts before that time.
Judge Feinberg dismissed the League’s complaint. She also
refused to grant a stay that would block the state from certifying
the amendment and placing it on the ballot. Her decision was
written before oral arguments were made. The judge’s
ruling grants to the New Jersey Legislature extremely broad powers
in amending the New Jersey Constitution.
Feinberg ruled that the constitution imposed
no limit on the number of changes (amendments) that may be
included in one constitutional amendment, nor did it impose a
single subject requirement that would limit the number of subjects
that could be addressed in a single proposed amendment. She also
ruled that the judicial branch has no power of review of any
amendment approved by the legislature.
Article IX 5. of the NJ Constitution says: "If more than one
amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such and form
and manner that the people may vote for or against each amendment
separately and distinctly."
The League has been granted an
expedited appeal and September 25 is set for the court hearing.
The Attorney General has expressed a commitment to removing the
ballot question from the ballot if it is declared
unconstitutional.
The legislature approved Senate Constitutional Resolution 1
that provides the wording for a ballot question to be voted on at
the November election. This single question asks the voters to
amend the NJ Constitution and requires voters to vote yes or no on
dedicating the revenue from two taxes to the Transportation Trust
Fund: $200,000 million from the Petroleum Products Gross Receipts
Tax and $200,000 million from the Sales and Use Tax.
The League contends that each tax dedication is a separate and
distinct amendment to the Constitution, and that combining the two
amendments into a single question in unconstitutional under
Article IX (Amendments) 1. and 5. 1. says: "Any specific
amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in
the Senate or General Assembly." 5. says: "If more than one
amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner and
form that the people may vote for or against each amendment
separately and distinctly."
The ruling of Judge Feinberg giving such expansive rights to
the legislature in the amendment of the New Jersey Constitution
does not agree with the generally accepted understanding of the
purpose of constitutions. Constitutions are designed to protect
the people from the power of government. They set out specific
rights of the citizens, and they also limit the powers of the
government by specifying how the government is set up and what it
may do. This ruling turns these principles on their head by
granting unlimited power to the legislature. The only check on
that power is a yes or no vote by the people, on a single ballot
question that may contain multiple amendments and multiple
subjects.
Speaking at the League's press conference on July 27 announcing
its suit, Mary Ann Moxon told a homey story that expressed the
dilemma of voters who wish to vote yes on dedicating one tax and
no on the other. It was quoted in the Star-Ledger news
report.
"If this question goes on the ballot, voters will find
themselves in the same position as a 5-year-old whose mother
asks 'if you want ice cream or Brussels sprouts for dinner' and
expects a yes or no answer."
The only goal of LWVNJ is to protect the right of NJ citizens
to vote on amendments separately: to assure that voters have the
opportunity to vote for or against dedication of Petroleum
Products revenue and for or against dedication of Sales
revenue.
The League is not using the court suit as a means of keeping
the issue off the ballot in November despite our opposition to the
legislation that re-authorizes the Transportation Trust Fund.
(See companion SBR report - Fiscal
Policy) Nor is the League's position opposing dedication of
revenue in the New Jersey Constitution an issue here.
The League requested, before final passage of the
constitutional resolution, that the legislature uphold the
constitutional right of citizens to vote separately on each
amendment by placing two questions on the ballot. Our request was
ignored. The League warned that if the legislature failed to amend
SCR1 and provide two questions, court action might result in a
delay that would result in no public question being placed on the
ballot.
Legal
Action to Stop the Placement on the November Ballot of a Single
Public Question Containing Two Constitutional
Amendments (7/27/00
News Conference)
