newjerseynewsroom.com

BY TOM HESTER SR.

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

A New Jersey state Appellate Court Thursday agreed to hear an appeal by four New Jersey public employee unions that challenges Gov. Chris Christie's executive order that they argue limits their ability to make political contributions.

But Judge Jack N. Sabatino did not stay Christie's order of Jan. 20 that is designed to expand state law regulating so-called pay-to-play contributions to include labor unions that are party to collective bargaining agreements with the state.

Sabatino directed lawyers for the unions to file their written arguments by Monday and attorneys for the Christie administration to file their's by March 5. Judges Edward H. Stern and Jonathan N. Harris will join Sabatino in hearing the appeal.

Since taking office on Jan. 19, Christie has issued 15 executive orders. One of them, ordering a 90-day halt to all affordable housing efforts by the state Council on Affordable Housing, is also being contested in Appellate Court by the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center. Judges will consider that appeal on March 16.

The unions that brought the latest appeal are the Communications Workers of America, the AFSCME, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees-Local 195, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The state Office of Legislative Services issued a legal opinion about the pay-to-play expansion order on Feb. 16 and found "(It) is our opinion that Executive Order No. 7 violates the separation of powers provision of the New Jersey Constitution... The pay-to-play laws do not confer on the governor the authority to exclude unions from representing public employees because of campaign contributions."

The unions' legal brief argues that the executive order violates separation of powers principles, the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of the state Constitution, the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, impermissibly expands the definition of "business entity" in the existing pay-to-play statute, incorrectly treats collective negotiations agreements as if they were contracts and agreements covered by the pay-to-play statute, imposes pay-to-play restrictions on local government entities, that far exceed the statutory framework, and improperly amends or repeals sections of the Employer Employee Relations Act.