New Jersey Senate Bill SCR101

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/22
• Refer: 3/7/22

Caption

Proposes constitutional amendment reducing initial appointed terms of Supreme Court justices, abolishing their reappointment with tenure, and establishing retention elections to serve additional terms.

Impact

The proposed changes could significantly shift the balance of judicial power in New Jersey. By implementing a system of retention elections, voters would gain the authority to remove justices, potentially leading to a more conservative judiciary that aligns more closely with public sentiments and legal interpretations favored by the electorate. This could reduce instances of perceived judicial overreach, where courts are seen as making law rather than interpreting it. Proponents argue that this could result in a judiciary that is less insulated from the public's concerns regarding court decisions and policies.

Summary

SCR101 proposes a constitutional amendment that would reduce the initial terms of New Jersey Supreme Court justices from seven years to four years. Furthermore, it abolishes the current practice of reappointment with tenure. Under this proposed amendment, justices would be required to face public votes to retain their positions every four years, allowing voters to exercise direct accountability over judicial appointees. This change aims to increase transparency and accountability of the judiciary, especially given the Supreme Court's long-standing reputation for being perceived as an 'activist court'.

Contention

Critics of the bill are concerned that it could undermine judicial independence by subjecting justices to the whims of public opinion. They argue that judicial decisions should be based on law and constitutionality rather than what is popular at any given moment. Opponents also fear that this could lead to a politically motivated judiciary, where justices might make decisions to appease voters rather than following sound judicial principles. This cycle of accountability may lead to less favorable outcomes for upholding rights and policies defended through the courts, particularly in contentious areas like civil rights and social justice.