Bill Text: NJ ACR38 | 2020-2021 | Regular Session | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Proposes constitutional amendment to eliminate judicial review of arbitration rulings in disputes between Judiciary and county concerning court facilities.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 4-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2020-01-14 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee [ACR38 Detail]

Download: New_Jersey-2020-ACR38-Introduced.html

---

ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 38

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

219th LEGISLATURE

 

PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2020 SESSION

 

 

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman  JOHN DIMAIO

District 23 (Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren)

Assemblyman  PARKER SPACE

District 24 (Morris, Sussex and Warren)

Assemblyman  ERIK PETERSON

District 23 (Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren)

 

Co-Sponsored by:

Assemblyman Wirths

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

     Proposes constitutional amendment to eliminate judicial review of arbitration rulings in disputes between Judiciary and county concerning court facilities.

 

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

     Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel.

  

A Concurrent Resolution proposing to add a new Section IX to Article VI of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

 

     Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (the Senate concurring):

 

     1.    The following proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey is hereby agreed to:

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

 

Amend Article VI by adding a new Section IX to read as follows:

     When a dispute arises between the Judiciary and a county regarding budgetary costs relating to court facilities and the matter is referred to arbitration, the decision of the arbitrators shall be final, binding, and not subject to review by the Supreme Court.

 

     2.    When this proposed amendment to the Constitution is finally agreed to pursuant to Article IX, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it shall be submitted to the people at the next general election occurring more than three months after the final agreement and shall be published at least once in at least one newspaper of each county designated by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the General Assembly and the Secretary of State, not less than three months prior to the general election.

 

     3.    This proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted to the people at that election in the following manner and form:

     There shall be printed on each official ballot to be used at the general election, the following:

     a.     In every municipality in which voting machines are not used, a legend which shall immediately precede the question as follows:

     If you favor the proposition printed below make a cross (X), plus (+), or check (a) in the square opposite the word "Yes." If you are opposed thereto make a cross (X), plus (+) or check (a) in the square opposite the word "No."

     b.    In every municipality the following question:

		CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION RULINGS IN DISPUTES BETWEEN JUDICIARY AND COUNTY CONCERNING COURT FACILITIES
	YES	Do you approve amending the Constitution to eliminate Supreme Court review of an arbitrators' ruling in disputes between the court and a county about the cost of court facilities?
		INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT
	NO	Current law provides that counties are responsible for the cost of court facilities.  In the event of a dispute between a county and the courts concerning court facilities, the dispute may be referred to arbitration.  Currently, the decision of the arbitrators is not binding and can be changed by the Supreme Court.  This amendment removes the ability of the Supreme Court to change the arbitrators' ruling. The arbitrators' decision would be final.       A "yes" vote would amend the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from changing an arbitration decision.      A "no" vote would leave the Constitution unchanged.  The Supreme Court would be able to change the arbitrators' decision.

 

 

STATEMENT

 

     This constitutional amendment would eliminate the authority of the New Jersey Supreme Court to review and change arbitrators' decisions in cases involving courthouse facility disputes between the Judiciary and county governing bodies.

     Under current law, the counties are responsible for the costs of construction and renovation of courthouse facilities.  In some instances, disputes arise between the counties and the Judiciary concerning factors such as the design or construction of specific facilities. The Rules of Court provide that a dispute between the county governing body and the Judiciary can be submitted to arbitration, at the request of either party.  According to the Rules of Court, the decision of the arbitrator is subject to review by the Supreme Court and can be vacated, modified or corrected if the court determines that "the decision fails to balance the needs and interest of the county and the Judiciary in a fair manner."  Effectively, this means that the Judiciary can overturn a decision in which the Judiciary is a party based upon the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court over "practice and procedure" in the State courts.  Adoption of this amendment would end the Supreme Court's ability to overturn the arbitrators' decision.