Next week, New Jersey voters will weigh in on four ballot questions that could advance stem-cell research, save open space, reword the state constitution, and keep more sales-tax revenue in the general fund.
On the first question, voters will be asked whether the state should dedicate 1 percent of the sales tax to the Property Tax Relief Fund. Tempting as this might be to approve, vote
NO
.
Lawmakers need as much leeway as possible every year when charting the right fiscal course for New Jersey. A constitutional mandate to use a part of the sales tax for property-tax relief would tie their hands unnecessarily. Keep this revenue in the general fund, and hold state and local elected officials accountable at the polls for genuine property-tax relief.
Question No. 2 asks if the state should issue $450 million in bonds for grants to fund stem-cell research. Vote
YES
to keep New Jersey a research-friendly pioneer among states.
Last fall, Gov. Corzine signed a bill authorizing $270 million for facilities for stem-cell research. Now it's the voters' turn to approve funding the potentially lifesaving work that will go on inside.
Another bond issue question on the ballot seeks $200 million to buy and develop land for recreation and conservation, to preserve farmland, and to fund historic preservation. In a state as densely populated as New Jersey, with open space becoming an ever scarcer commodity, voters should have no trouble saying
YES
.
Finally, voters are asked to rewrite the New Jersey Constitution, changing its language about denying the right to vote to an "idiot and insane person." The new wording would deny the vote to a "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting." Vote
YES
, but feel free to bemoan the lack of elegance in the phrasing, and wonder why there isn't a similar competency clause related to the act of governing.
Philadelphia voters should reject three proposed City Charter amendments on Tuesday's ballot - that is, unless they define good government as maintaining full employment for City Council members, both in and out of office.
The first of the three charter amendments would provide incumbent Council members, who already have near-lifetime jobs, with yet more job security.
It would require candidates for district Council seats to be residents of the district for a year before an election, as opposed to the present charter mandate that they move in once elected.
There's no need for this change, other than to narrow the field of potential Council challengers. It's also insulting to suggest that voters cannot size up whether a candidate knows the issues well enough to represent their district on Council.
The other two charter changes would create $100,000 positions in City Hall for two new advocates - one for public school families, the second for the disabled. Maybe an out-of-office Council member might like one of those jobs. But city government addresses these issues in myriad other ways under policies appropriately set by the mayor.
Citizens can lend their voice to new ideas in City Hall - while opposing another patronage grab - by voting
NO
on Philadelphia Ballot Questions 1, 2 and 3.
Editorial |
See ballot questions in full at