The only way to save New Jersey is to take matters into your own hands
By Scott St. Clair | The Save Jersey Blog
Looking to address New Jersey’s political and fiscal situation requires an analysis of two things: the problem and the process. What exactly is wrong with the state’s politics that allows it to be in such a continuous hand-to-mouth situation, and how can it be fixed, if at all?
I see the problem as almost zero control or influence by the ordinary citizen and taxpayer compounded by a political ruling class in both parties that sees state government as a font of their many blessings. The process to end that requires breaking the backs of both parties and giving the people the ability to check the power of government through popular democracy, both in terms of having more public offices be elective and, most importantly, a vigorous use of the initiative and referendum.
Of course, much, if not all, of the changes would require amending the state’s 1947 constitution, but we have to start somewhere because right now we’re going nowhere.
The state belongs to the people, so the people should control the state, but they don’t.
There needs to be open access to the ballot. Currently, party bosses control access to the ballot such that candidates must dance to their tune in order to succeed. Too many party bosses are either lobbyists or the recipients of massive government largesse or worse. A better system would simply eliminate their power and control and allow the people to directly decide who they want to see on the general-election ballot.
End registration by party and having parties play any official role in the primary process (in other words, eliminate the concept of “the line”), have a completely wide-open primary where all candidates for all offices are on one ballot allowing the voter to pick and choose who she wishes irrespective of party, and employ a top-two finisher system where the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election, again irrespective of party.
Parties should be cheerleaders and fundraisers for their candidates and ideas and nothing more. If they’re to retain substantive influence or control over the electoral process, then they should be fully subject of the Open Public Records Act and Open Meetings Act. As it stands, the revolving door of influence and cash with back-room deals cut in smoke-filled rooms where there is no transparency or true democracy still is the order of the day despite the state’s Party Democracy Act, which, from what I’ve seen of it, is a joke.
Instead of parties controlling who becomes a candidate, the candidates themselves can generate their own following, base of supporters and build their own movement where they’re answerable to voters, not party bosses.
I’m from a state that does most of these things, and it works. In Washington’s Fourth Congressional District, two Republicans will face off this election cycle to replace retiring Rep. Doc Hastings, himself a Republican. One, Dan Newhouse, is a well-respected conservative and former head of the state’s department of agriculture, and the other, Clint Didier, is an alfalfa farmer and former NFL player who campaigns in the style of Steve Lonegan. The Democrat who ran in the primary barely cracked a double-digit vote total, so why should he advance when the people obviously prefer the two Republicans?
In New Jersey, it’s easy to imagine races in Essex or Hudson Counties where the top two finishers would be Democrats, so it cuts both ways. When the real action is within the party, why give a finalist spot to someone who isn’t competitive at all?
California also has a top-two-finishers system, and it’s working there, too.
As many statewide offices as possible should be made elective. The state Supreme Court and appellate courts; the attorney general; the state auditor; the state treasurer and the top education, election and insurance regulation officials should be elected directly by the people, with as many as possible on a non-partisan basis. Break up the power and control of one person who appoints them all, and remove partisan politics from activities that should be non-partisan in nature.
Do the same thing at the local level. Every prosecuting attorney, judge, assessor, election officer, auditor and the like should be accountable to the voters, not someone higher up in the political food chain. The more the people have a say in who is in government, the more interest they’ll display in government and the more they’ll vote.
But getting one, two or three people elected to office won’t do it. The people need to be able to make law themselves.
Give the people the right to check the legislature through the use of the initiative and referendum. Again, in Washington state, many major reform pieces of legislation came through direct democracy. Maybe the best open public records act in the country started out as an initiative in 1972 that was opposed by politicians and powerful influences.
Most telling, however, is that this is how the people can yank the Legislature’s fiscal leash and do it with a vengeance. Ask Tim Eyman, the much-maligned watch salesman from Mukilteo, Wash. who has made a career of doing it.
For years, Eyman ran initiatives that required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before it could raise taxes, which essentially stopped it in its tracks. He ran other taxpayer-friendly measures as well that have saved Washingtonians billions.
But his trademark has been the two-thirds vote. Because the state Constitution precludes the Legislature from tinkering with a successful initiative or referendum measure for two years, taxpayers had that as a reprieve. But literally the instant the time bar expired, lawmakers would be back at it, so Eyman went back at. Over the years, his measures became increasingly popular with the latest one in 2010 garnering 65 percent of the vote statewide, losing only in ultra-liberal Seattle precincts. Remember, Washington is a pretty blue state – it hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 1980.
An adjunct to the two-thirds requirement was an obligation on the part of the Legislature to submit any tax or fee hikes to the public for an advisory vote on them as well as a requirement that any new piece of legislation have a fiscal-impact statement. In other words, what’s this going to cost the taxpayers now and going forward? The power of transparency and disclosure in action again.
What the votes in favor of Eyman’s measures proved more than anything is that the people will vote in their own self-interest irrespective of party or ideology. When it comes to their pocketbooks, they will vote to keep their money more often than they’ll vote to let the Legislature spend it.
It doesn’t matter if they continue to elect the same spend-a-holic legislators. They may agree with them on social policy or whatever, but when it comes to dollars-and-cents, they’ll yank the leash.
Unfortunately, a couple years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that using the I&R process to that end was unconstitutional, which was another example of a judicial veto of the will of the people. But the battle is on to amend the constitution to include the two-thirds rule. So far, the Legislature, mindful of that threat hanging over its head, has minded its P’s and Q’s. The instant it gets out of line, however…
I&R were put into the Washington Constitution in 1914 to serve as a check against powerful railroad interests that effectively controlled the Legislature. Today, the process serves as a check against the Legislature and special interests dependent upon expansive government spending.
Yes, in the case of more elected officials and direct legislation by the people you will get some crazy results, but don’t we get a lot of crazy results out of Trenton? Buying the hogwash that somehow those in office know best for us so we shouldn’t be able to check them when they go too far, which is all the time, has gotten us what again?
If you want to end the profligacy of those who over tax you and misspend your money, then take matters into your hands and make taxing and spending decisions yourself.
The Party Democracy Act of 2009 has no enforcement provisions.
The way to reform trenton is the same way to reform every other government… Eliminate taxes and destroy its revenue source.
The “Top Two Finishers” method will never work – and here’s why. Your illusion of two parties is just that. Gilmore controls the R’s, and Norcross, the D’s…but Gilmore still has to kiss Norcross’ ring – as does Chris Christie.
Were the Gural tapes ever made public, (Christie had them, and didn’t use them – instead, cutting a deal), the people of NJ would rise up against the machine politicians.
Tired of a two-horse race, where the same stable owns both horses?
Many complain, but few act.
We’re doing something about that.
You can elect a partisan puppet, or a representative of the People.
I wear no such handcuffs.
Frederick John LaVergne, “Democratic-Republican” for Congress, NJ CD3, 2014.
Jeremy – to destroy corruption requires taking away the checkbook – I agree. You will love our bond reform measures.
FJL