This amendment to the State Constitution will require voter approval of new laws that allow the State to borrow money by issuing bonds through any State agency or independent authority backed by a pledge of an annual appropriation to pay the principa and interest on the bonds. New laws to allow the issuance of these State authority bonds for State government purposes will be subject to voter approval. State courts have ruled that the State constitutional requirement that the Legislature and Governor must seek voter approval for bonded debt does not apply to such borrowing. That requirement is followed only for proposed State bonds that contain a binding, non-repealable pledge to pay off the bonds directly with State taxes. Most State authority bonds can be issued without voter approval because the payment of the bonds is backed only by a promise of the Legislature and the Governor that they will enact appropriations in the future to meet the bond payments. The courts have said this is a legal means of avoiding submitting the issuance of debt for voter approval. Laws to permit such debt that are enacted after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution will have to authorize voter referenda for approval of such debts. Exceptions to voter approval for authority bonds will be permitted if the bonds are to be paid off from 1) a source of revenue dedicated by the State Constitution, which only the voters can establish, or 2) an independent non-State government source of payments for use of projects built or obtained with the borrowed money, such as highway tolls or user fees.
There are two ways to take this - and not being a lawyer, I'm not sure which will stand.
First, it will require any new laws that give autonomous agencies the power to issue bonds to be approved by the voters. It does not effect the power already given to some autonomous agencies. So it has a built-in loophole for some agencies.
The second way to read it is that all previous authority to issue bonds has expired, so there is no loophole. However, it still hobbles budgeting by requiring a public referendum on bonding. This is already in effect for the general funding of our state, but lawmakers have gotten around the intent by issuing bonds through independent agencies.
Even at this, it has exceptions. Namely, bonds can still be issued if they are backed with Constitutionally mandated funds. So, because tolls go to the transportation trust fund, we can issue all the bonds we want to on that. They could even decide to sell "Property Tax Relief Bonds" because the Property Tax Relief Fund has Constitutionally mandated funding. That's a hole so freaking big you can drive a convoy of Mack trucks through it.
The larger point, for me, is that the Constitution is not a budgetary document. The state is already constrained in how it can maneuver its budget because every cowardly legislator wants to amend the Constitution to provide cover for the job they should be doing anyway. And there is already voter approval for bonding - we have regular elections, don't we?
At best, this is useless. Better to repeal all of the budgetary constraints on the Constitution and hold our legislators responsible for the manner in which they are used. I urge everyone to vote "No".
The second question deals with the seating of multi-municipality judges. Namely: Shall the amendment to Article VI, Section VI, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, providing that judges of inferior courts with jurisdiction extending to more than
one municipality be appointed as provided in law rather than as provided in the Constitution which requires nomination by the Governor and appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate, be approved?
This should be a no-brainer "NO" vote.
Let me start by asking, "Why does the Constitution require a gubernatorial appointment, plus advice and consent of the Senate, to give someone a lifetime appointment as a judge?" The answer is: "To insulate a tenured position from the influence of local politics." Unless you can give me a better reason than "It might save a few bucks" to bypass Constitutional protections, this is a non-starter.
Think of it this way: Pretend you live in a town where the mayor has a well-liked, but rather stupid brother-in-law. What prevents the mayor from appointing him to a local judgeship? The Constitution. With the close and sometimes incestuous nature of Jersey politics, having to buy-off influence more than one mayor is not a sufficient safe-guard.
The League of Municipalities says this will encourage municipalities to combine law services. If cutting the cost of a court in half isn't enough of an incentive, then why would being able to stick your favorite supporter on the bench be a better one? Answer: Because it takes us back to the even more corrupt bad-old-days when local judgeships were traded for political leverage. See also: Dennis Oury, Joe Ferriero.
Chime in with your thoughts, if you like. I'm voting against both of these measures. |
