Hon. Dana L. Redd v. Vance Bowman(073567)
121 A.3d 341
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Camden, a Faulkner Act (Mayor–Council) municipality, underwent long-term State fiscal oversight under MRERA, SMAA/TAL, and the Local Budget Law; police costs were a major budget item.
- In 2011–2013 Camden, the County, and the Department of Community Affairs arranged regionalization: Camden disbanded its municipal police department and the Camden County Police Metro Division began providing services on May 1, 2013.
- In April 2012 a citizens’ Committee of Petitioners submitted a Faulkner Act initiative ordinance to require Camden to create and maintain its own police department and bar participation in a countywide police force; they collected the requisite signatures.
- City Mayor Dana Redd and Council President Francisco Moran sued to enjoin certification and submission of the initiative, arguing it unlawfully restrained municipal legislative power and was preempted by MRERA and state fiscal and police statutes.
- Trial court enjoined certification (holding it unlawfully divested legislative power); Appellate Division reversed on divestment but remanded on preemption. The Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness | Redd: appeal moot because police were already regionalized and relief would be impractical | Committee: not moot; Court can still adjudicate validity of initiative and future challenges | Not moot — justiciable; Court resolves the merits because decision can have practical effect |
| Whether initiative unlawfully divests future legislative power | Redd: initiative would improperly bind future councils and restrain legislative authority | Committee: Faulkner Act expressly allows limited divestment (3‑year protection for initiatives) | No unlawful divestment — Legislature authorized limited temporal restraint on repeal/amendment of initiatives |
| Whether MRERA / SMAA / TAL / LBL / Police Force Statute preempt the Faulkner Act initiative | Redd: state fiscal statutes and MRERA occupy the field of municipal finance and police organization, precluding voter initiative | Committee: Faulkner Act initiative power remains available; statutes do not clearly exclude initiatives | Not preempted — statutory scheme does not clearly demonstrate intent to bar Faulkner Act initiative; MRERA reaffirms Faulkner status rather than displacing it |
| Interaction with MRERA veto and ballot submission of an outdated ordinance | Redd: Commissioner’s MRERA authority should control; initiative cannot override | Committee: voters can act; ordinance is in valid general/prospective terms | MRERA gives Commissioner veto authority during recovery term; where Commissioner vetoes an initiated ordinance, voters must be informed by an interpretive statement of the veto and its fiscal/law‑enforcement consequences. Separately, the specific 2012 ordinance is outdated/misleading and cannot be submitted as drafted; Committee must start anew with a current ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. of W. New York, 71 N.J. 451 (N.J. 1976) (sets five-factor preemption test for state law vs municipal ordinances)
- In re Petition for Referendum on Trenton Ordinance 09-02, 201 N.J. 349 (N.J. 2010) (Faulkner Act referendum power preserved absent clear legislative intent to the contrary)
- In re Referendum Petition to Repeal Ordinance 04-75, 192 N.J. 446 (N.J. 2007) (refusal to carve a broad administrative/legislative distinction to limit Faulkner Act plebiscite powers)
- Rumson Estates, Inc. v. Mayor of Fair Haven, 177 N.J. 338 (N.J. 2003) (courts may invalidate municipal ordinances as preempted by superior law)
- Summer v. Township of Teaneck, 53 N.J. 548 (N.J. 1969) (guidepost that mere legislation on a subject does not establish intent to preempt municipal action)