Hon. Dana L. Redd v. Vance Bowman

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a Faulkner Act initiative petition requiring Camden to maintain its own police department unlawfully restrained municipal legislative authority or was preempted by state fiscal and police statutes. The Court held that the initiative was neither an improper restraint on legislative power nor preempted, but concluded that the proposed ordinance was outdated, inaccurate, and misleading because Camden had already regionalized its police services. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions that the municipal clerk not certify the petition.

Holdings

1. The appeal was justiciable and was not moot because the validity of the proposed ordinance remained a live issue and the relief sought could still be granted or denied.
2. The Faulkner Act initiative did not constitute an unlawful restraint on the City's future exercise of legislative power.
3. The Faulkner Act initiative was not preempted by MRERA, SMAA, TAL, the Local Budget Law, or the Police Force Statute.
4. During Camden's economic recovery term, an initiated ordinance was subject to the Commissioner of Community Affairs' veto authority under MRERA, and voters considering an ordinance following a veto should be informed of the veto and its reasons.
5. The proposed ordinance could not be certified or submitted to Camden voters because it was outdated, inaccurate, and misleading after the police reorganization had been completed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal was moot after Camden disbanded its municipal police department and regionalized police services.
2. Whether the Faulkner Act initiative unlawfully restrained or divested the City's governing body of future legislative power.
3. Whether MRERA, SMAA, TAL, the Local Budget Law, or the Police Force Statute preempted the Faulkner Act initiative.
4. Whether MRERA's Commissioner of Community Affairs veto authority had to be incorporated into the initiative and referendum process.
5. Whether the outdated and misleading proposed ordinance could be certified or submitted to Camden voters.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded