This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Proposed Changes Aim To Transform Jersey into Dixie

One of the most destructive legacies of the white supremacist South can still be seen and felt by the voters and citizens of the states below the Mason-Dixon line. Though these features are not immediately apparent, they manifest themselves in the very design of the governments of most of the former “rebel” states. Submerged deep within the constitutions and laws of states like Mississippi and Louisiana are provisions that make governing and change next to impossible. In these fundamental documents are features that more or less paralyze each branch of government from effecting needed changes in society or rising to meet new challenges. These provisions are partially responsible for the slow social, educational and industrial development of the South.

 

So why should you care? You live in New Jersey. It’s the year 2014. Sure, the Garden State has its problems, but legal racial segregation, laws barring interracial marriages and similar features of the Jim Crow South aren’t present here. We’re a state of fast movers, of high technology, of superhighways that span the state. We’ve got fiber optic Internet service that goes right into our homes. But just a glance at some proposed state constitutional amendments now under consideration by our legislators in Trenton attest to a true, backwards-looking mentality aimed at making governmental change nearly impossible.

Find out what's happening in Princetonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 

Now before these proposed amendments are discussed, we need to glance at the process of how changes are made to the state constitution. It’s a bit complicated, as it should be.

Find out what's happening in Princetonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 

First, unlike in other states, our constitution requires that all proposed amendments to the constitution originate in the Legislature. There is no popular initiative system that begins with the people, as in a state like California. If you want to change the document, there are several requirements. The first is that it must be officially proposed, and can only embrace a single subject. To officially propose an amendment the Legislature has two options. The first is straightforward enough. If a 3/5 supermajority in each house (Assembly and Senate) approves the proposal, it then gets put on the next statewide ballot for popular approval.

 

The other method is a bit more, well, sneaky. Just when you think that the state constitution makes it arduous to propose an amendment, it surprises you. If in the first instance the proposed amendment does not gain 3/5 approvals in each house, but does get majority approval, it is ‘tabled’ until the next legislative year. Then, the next year, if the Legislature approves the proposed amendment by simple majority in each house, the question goes to the voters, to the people. Strange…but it’s the law of the land nevertheless.

 

Again, it should be repeated, that the Legislature cannot, under any circumstances, change the state constitution by itself. No way. Not a chance. Only tiny Delaware’s legislature can do that. In the Garden State, proposed amendments must, in all instances, be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide election.

 

Now that we’ve got that out of the way (whew!), let’s take a look at two rather scary, proposed amendments that are working their way through the Legislature. I am not alleging that the sponsors of these proposals are racist in any way. But the ideas are regressive and we can see the legacy of such proposals today, especially in the states of the Deep South. Both proposed amendments, if ever enacted into the state constitution, would basically paralyze the entire state government in any effort to create change or react to a crisis.

 

The first is SCR24. Under this proposal, the Legislature would lose the ability to raise most taxes unless upon the approval of a ¾ majority in each House. Now there are times when supermajority requirements are necessary, as with proposing fundamental changes to a constitution, but raising and lowering taxes is a routine legislative matter. Legislatures need this power to react to change and calamity. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t like taxes. I pay a lot of money in taxes…more than I’d like. But handcuffing my elected officials in nearly all situations isn’t just the wrong way to design a government, it goes against my interests as a person who wants an effective government. Additionally, it places the financial elites of the state, be they institutions or individuals, in a position where, upon ‘convincing’ just a small minority of representatives, they can completely torpedo a piece of revenue legislation. I’m for minority rights, but not minority rule.  

 

The second adorable proposal is ACR71. Under this beauty of a plan, the entire state government’s budget would never be allowed to exceed 2 percent over that of the last year’s. In times of desperate economic downturn this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Constraining our legislators in acting to aid the people of New Jersey, or its businesses, or educational institutions, etc…is not only unwise but also regressive. There are already enough fitting restraints on elected officials in the form of terms of office and the constant prospect of facing reelection.

 

 

Adding up these amendments, if enacted, you get a government that, aside from law enforcement and providing some other basic functions, is powerless. And if you want to see the results of a powerless state government, venture down to Louisiana, Alabama or Northern Florida. There, black and white students alike attend substandard, dilapidated schools. Unemployment and disability benefits are bare-boned and callously limited in their duration. Local roads and bridges lay in disrepair and various states of deterioration. Routine workplace, food, hospital and safety inspections are rare due to lack of funding. Don’t take my word for it…take a road trip and see it for yourself. And the prospect of emergency aid in times of, say, natural or manmade disaster? In Louisiana, unless British Petroleum is paying for it, you’re on your own.

 

I don’t want a state government like that. We've been down this road before; it was called the late 1800’s. The idea that a government, any government, does not have a vested interest in easing economic disparities and protecting its own people from hapless poverty has been tested. It’s well documented in books like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, in the photos of Jacob Riis’ How the Other Half Lives, and in Dickens’ book Oliver Twist.

 

New Jersey is a complex entity with millions of people. It should not, nor ever become some experiment in Social Darwinism. Behind these seemingly ‘prudent’ proposals lies an agenda to transform our state into some northern version of Alabama. I don’t want to move to Alabama, even in 2014. I don’t want a failed state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?