Constitutional Convention for Property Tax Reform

     In my last posting, I wrote of the ongoing property tax crisis in New Jersey that places our state #1 out of 50 on a list that certainly ought not to be a source of pride and bragging. I went on to discuss some of the potential solutions that have, and continue to be debated in Trenton and throughout the Garden State. I also made it clear that this problem can really only be solved by action of New Jersey State government, but because heretofore our state representation has not displayed the political will to take the property tax crisis head on, we have continued to be mired in the ever upward escalation of our property tax burden.

     Yes, the winds of political change are indeed blowing in New Jersey, and I believe that as a result of this November’s election we will have a new Governor and a new Republican majority in the Assembly. Nonetheless, if history is any indication, it still may be difficult to find consensus among the governor and state legislature to dramatically change the system that relies so heavily on property taxes to pay for public education, municipal and county services. That is why, should the 2010 state government not find the will to once and for all reform (much different than relief) the property tax system, then I will continue to advocate for a Citizen’s Constitutional Convention for Property Tax Reform.

     The Constitutional Convention option to address the property tax crisis is something that has been debated in the halls of Trenton before so it is not a novel concept. Essentially, the responsibility of reforming government would be all but taken out of the hands of the politicians in Trenton and placed with citizens elected to a special convention. To my knowledge, here is how the process would work.

1.  The New Jersey Senate and Assembly must pass, and the governor must sign legislation that would place a referendum question on the ballot that asks New Jersey voters if a Constitutional Convention should be convened.
2.  If the voters of New Jersey approve such a referendum, then citizens from each state legislative district would be elected to serve at the convention. Other delegates could also be appointed depending upon how the original legislation and subsequent referendum were worded.
3.  The convention would be convened and the delegates would debate and vote to approve changes to our state constitution.
4.  These recommendations would then be place on a subsequent referendum for the citizens of New Jersey to approve or not approve, as the case may be.

 

Sounds pretty simple, right? Well, not really.

• First, the initial major obstacle is getting the legislature and the governor to place that original referendum question on the ballot. We came close a few years back when the Assembly approved that legislation, but Senate President Dick Codey (D-Essex County) would not allow his colleagues in the senate to even vote on the measure!

• Second, there are those that feel that since we have a representative government, that it should be the purview of our elected officials to ultimately address and substantively solve the property tax problem…..This is pretty much how Senator Codey feels (he told me so seven or eight years ago). Hello??……… Well?? …….Is there anybody out there?? (Crickets chirping)…..tick, tick, tick, tick……We’re waiting!……Calling Senator Codey, Calling Senator Codey! ……..You get the picture: Not likely to happen.

• Third, there is much debate as to what should be allowed to be discussed and voted upon by the Constitutional Convention. There are those that want to limit the scope of the convention to a discussion on how we raise revenue and that how we spend as a government should be off limits. As you might imagine, it is the special interests groups that fear that if a discussion is held on how to limit spending from a constitutional perspective, then their piece of the government spending pie might be curtailed or even eliminated. There are those that feel that spending is the problem and if we are going to constitutionally alter the way we are raising revenue (taxation), then we should also be compelled to address the spending side of the equation.

 

     The “simple” solution here would be to have two conventions within one. First, the delegates would debate the revenue side of the equation and make recommendations on how we can best shift away from the unfair and despised regressive property tax. Then, the delegates would focus on government spending and put forth constitutional remedies to curtail same. Ultimately two separate questions would emerge from the convention to be placed on a state-wide referendum. The voters of the state could adopt both, one, or neither.

 

• Fourth, many feel that the delegates to a constitutional convention would fall victim to the pressures of lobbyists from special interest groups and the process would be tainted. Can’t say that I agree here. It is our state legislators, always with their eye on the next re-election campaign that are more likely to be swayed by lobbyists and their promise of campaign contributions. Citizens elected to a constitutional convention, serve their time, make their recommendations, and then go home, never to run for the position again.

 

     Keep in mind that ultimately, it is the citizens of New Jersey that have the final say-so on what might result in changes to our state constitution by casting their votes on a referendum. It is hard to take a public position that we shouldn’t trust the citizens of New Jersey to make such a decision, yet there are those who privately do so.

All in all, it is a very interesting and timely topic. Making it more compelling, it is one that has its supporters and detractors hailing from both sides of the political spectrum. As our property tax crisis continues to grow without any real prospect for reform on the table, look for the Constitutional Convention option to come to the fore once again.

What are your thoughts? I’d like to hear them.

MM