New Jersey residents approved two statewide public questions in the Nov. 6 election.
The first question asked voters if they wanted to allow the state to issue bonds in the total principal amount of $750 million.
Proceeds from the bonds will be used to provide grants to New Jersey’s public and private colleges and universities to construct and equip higher education buildings and increase academic capacity.
Bond proceeds will be allocated as follows: $300 million for public research universities; $247.5 million for state colleges and other state universities; $150 million for county colleges; and $52.5 million for private institutions with an endowment of $1 billion or less.
Public and private colleges and universities which receive grants will be required to provide funds to support 25 percent of a project.
According to election results posted on the New Jersey Department of State – Division of Elections Internet website, Garden State voters approved that ballot question by an unofficial count of 1,387,872 to 821,869.
The ballot question was approved in 20 of New Jersey’s 21 counties. The only county in which the question was defeated was Warren County, by 210 votes.
In Monmouth County, voters approved the question 125,439 to 85,818.
In Middlesex County, voters approved the question 115,715 to 65,129.
In Ocean County, voters approved the question, 86,038 to 75,979.
The second question asked voters if they approved of a constitutional amendment allowing contributions to be taken from state Supreme Court justices’ and state Superior Court judges’ salaries for their employee benefits.
According to the public question, the amendment clarifies the state Legislature’s authority to pass laws requiring contributions to be taken from the salaries of Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges for their employee benefits. These benefits include their pension and health care coverage.
According to the interpretive statement provided with the ballot question, the amendment responds to a question raised in a 2011 lawsuit filed by a judge after the Legislature passed and the gov- ernor signed into law a bill that increased the contributions taken from current and future justices’ and judges’ salaries for their benefits, starting in October 2011.
The lawsuit, which was appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, argued against taking the higher contributions from currently appointed justices and judges, citing language in the state constitution which states that their salaries cannot be reduced during their appointed terms.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judge who filed the lawsuit.
The amendment clarifies that such contributions, set by law, may be taken from justices’ and judges’ salaries during their terms. It would also allow for the higher contributions set by state law to be deducted from current and future justices’ and judges’ salaries.
According to election results posted on the New Jersey Department of State – Division of Elections Internet website, Garden State voters approved that question by an unofficial count of 1,686,398 to 345,988. The ballot question was approved in all 21 of New Jersey’s counties.
In Monmouth County, voters approved the question 175,706 to 33,405.
In Middlesex County, voters approved the question 144,707 to 32,118.
In Ocean County, voters approved the question, 138,057 to 24,019.
In a statement about the second ballot question that was issued after the election results were in, state Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) said, “The case is closed and the people have clearly ruled that judges are not above the law. Voters have balanced the scales of justice so that all public employees are participating equally in the historic and bipartisan benefits reform that will save property taxpayers more than $120 billion.”
After judges filed suit claiming they were constitutionally exempt from paying more toward their benefits, Casagrande introduced legislation in 2011 to close the legal loophole, according to a press release.
“This is a matter of fairness to taxpayers and public employees who have been paying their fair share,” Casagrande said. “We no longer have an elite class getting exorbitant benefits that taxpayers cannot afford.”