MANVILLE: Don’t forget two state questions on the ballot

    In addition to electing leaders, state voters must decide two important questions Nov. 6.
    One would empower the state to bond for $750 million for academic and research facilities at community and state colleges, public and private.
   The money would go to institutions that can match the amounts for labs and classrooms, not football fields or dormitories.
    New Jersey, like the nation, languishes in tough economic times, with an ever-stifling debt. Still, all progress cannot grind to a halt; we must continue to improve the state’s infrastructure and attractiveness to industries of the future in the spirit of Congressman Rush Holt’s “Einstein’s Alley.” Having high-level research and educational institutions complements that idea.
    In the short term, too, the money will fuel an immediate economic boost for construction and related industries.
    Years ago, this type of measure might have been authorized by a state agency without public approval. This one comes to you for a vote. We recommend a “yes.”
    The second ballot question would allow the state Legislature to pass laws limiting salaries of Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges during their terms of office. That’s contrary to the state constitution, drafted in 1947, which said compensation can’t be reduced for sitting judges.
    There’s a lot of history, inside politics and pent-up anger over past court decisions involved in this debate. .
    Putting the question on the ballot was passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature last July just days after the Supreme Court, sitting with five justices instead of the full seven, sided with Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale’s claim that increased contributions to his health and benefits plan would reduce his compensation effectively by $14,000.
    Political outrage against the notion of state employees being paid better, and with more generous benefits, than private-sector workers ran high in those summer days. Since the court’s decision only pertained to judges, common workers felt aggrieved, too. They still had to pay more for benefits.
    The circumstances suggest the response was a petulant pique as to “who is boss here,” rather than a reasoned, well-thought out way to the economic challenge of keeping the pension system viable.
    We must protect the independence of the judiciary and not open it to any possibility of retribution or influence.
    Safeguarding the public’s belief that they can always get a fair shake in the courts isn’t worth the small economic gain that a yes vote on this question would raise. Better we should slow down and rethink the proposal and its unintended consequences.
    We recommend a “no” vote on the question.
    A final thought: The public questions might be easy to miss. They will be at the bottom of the ballot, below the grid of candidates and offices. Look for them.