newjerseynewsroom.com

BY TOM HESTER SR.

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

The legal battle over whether New Jersey state judges and justices should have to pay more for their pension and health benefits will be heard by the state Supreme Court and not a state Appellate Court, according to an order signed by Justice Virginia A. Long.

In the order, filed Thursday, the Supreme Court granted Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale’s request that it decide whether judges and justices must pay more toward their pension and health benefits is unconstitutional.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Trenton ruled that it is unconstitutional to make the judges pay the increases. Gov. Chris Christie called the ruling self-serving, the judges elitist and said he will seek a constitutional amendment to make them pay more for the benefits if his administration loses in court.

The court battle does not affect state and local public employees, including teachers, police and firefighters, who are now paying the increased costs.

In a suit filed in July, shortly after the benefit hikes went into effect, DePascale, who sits in Jersey City, argues the state Constitution specifically forbids judges’ and justices’ salaries from being reduced.

Long stated that written arguments must be submitted by Jan. 27.

In late June, Christie, with the support of Democratic legislative leaders, approved a measure that raised public employee pension contributions from 3 percent to 12 percent of their annual salaries and requires them to pay 35 percent of their health care premiums.

DePascale, who earns $165,000 annually, argued his health benefits contribution would more than double to $5,230.86 and his biweekly pension deductions would go from $126.44 to $697.59 under the new benefit standards

Court rules allow appeals to bypass the Appellate Division when there are no major facts in dispute. In this case, there is a dispute over what constitutes a salary and whether increased pension and health benefits contributions, without a pay raise, is a reduction in salary.

Assistant Attorney General Robert Lougy and Deputy Attorney General Jean Reilly are representing the state and Justin P. Walder is representing DePascale.

In a related action, Sen. Diane Allen (R- Burlington) on Thursday submitted a Senate resolution that, if passed, would allow voters to decide whether to amend the state Constitution to apply pension and benefits increases to members of the judiciary.

"As I've said from the beginning, if the court's interpretation of the state Constitution prohibits the reforms we passed to save the pension system from applying to judges, then the Constitution needs to be changed," Allen said. "It is not too much to ask that the Judiciary pays its fair share toward retirement benefits and healthcare costs just like every other public worker, especially since judges by far have the most lavish benefits of any other public employee."

Allen's resolution clarifies that pensions and benefits fall outside what the court sees as the Constitution's prohibition on making legislative changes to salaries for the judiciary.

"The cost of providing retirement benefits to public employees rises year in and year out," Allen said. "Asking that Judges adapt to these financial trends is not political interference with a co-equal branch of government, it is a reality that public and private sector workers alike must adapt to every single day. The Judiciary must be independent and fair, but not a special, protected class of public employee."