New Jersey Constitution, a Young 70, Needs Preserving
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
November 17, 2017 at 05:30 PM
5 minute read
This year marks the 70th anniversary of our state constitution. Although some say 70 is the new 50, our state constitution has proved to be relatively stable and to have withstood the test of time. State constitutions are low-visibility, and often amended or even replaced. Ours has been a work in progress since the often-criticized 1776 constitution, through the 1844 major revision, the 28 changes adopted in 1875, and the well-known 1947 Constitutional Convention's modern, streamlined constitution. The 1966 Constitutional Convention revised the electoral provisions to comply with the United States Supreme Court's “one person, one vote” decisions.
Our state constitution, although significantly shorter than many others, is significantly different from the federal Constitution. Its major function, in addition to rights protections, is to limit state governmental power, whereas the federal Constitution primarily enumerates federal governmental power. Even though our state constitution is relatively difficult to amend, and is not amended at the rate of many other state constitutions, it is significantly more malleable than the federal Constitution. It is therefore possible to respond to lessons learned or evolving needs. Some amendments are not particularly consequential, while others make significant adjustments in the structure of our state government, or the catalog of rights that protect us.
The 1947 constitution was adopted after very substantial efforts during the 1940s, and even a draft constitution that failed at the polls in 1944. The constitution was adopted in a period of bipartisan, post-war optimism, by a convention of 81 delegates, eight of whom were women and one of whom was African-American. The new constitution contained a women's rights provision and an anti-segregation clause, together with a constitutional right to collective bargaining. It also established arguably the nation's strongest governor and one of the top judicial branches in the United States. The New Jersey judiciary played a central role in the rise of “The New Judicial Federalism,” the now-familiar phenomenon of state courts interpreting their state constitutions to provide more protection than under the federal Constitution. In areas like school finance, capital punishment (before repeal), abortion, exclusionary zoning, and free speech on private property, people in New Jersey have had more rights than are available under the national constitution.
New Jersey has largely avoided the rush we observe in many other states to utilize the state constitution as a “tool of lawmaking,” entrenching in the state constitution matters that could be left to ordinary lawmaking. While matters such as minimum wage were deemed important enough by the Legislature (bypassing a gubernatorial veto) and the voters to be constitutionalized, our constitution is still relatively free of “policy matters.”
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
New Jersey State FlagThis year marks the 70th anniversary of our state constitution. Although some say 70 is the new 50, our state constitution has proved to be relatively stable and to have withstood the test of time. State constitutions are low-visibility, and often amended or even replaced. Ours has been a work in progress since the often-criticized 1776 constitution, through the 1844 major revision, the 28 changes adopted in 1875, and the well-known 1947 Constitutional Convention's modern, streamlined constitution. The 1966 Constitutional Convention revised the electoral provisions to comply with the United States Supreme Court's “one person, one vote” decisions.
Our state constitution, although significantly shorter than many others, is significantly different from the federal Constitution. Its major function, in addition to rights protections, is to limit state governmental power, whereas the federal Constitution primarily enumerates federal governmental power. Even though our state constitution is relatively difficult to amend, and is not amended at the rate of many other state constitutions, it is significantly more malleable than the federal Constitution. It is therefore possible to respond to lessons learned or evolving needs. Some amendments are not particularly consequential, while others make significant adjustments in the structure of our state government, or the catalog of rights that protect us.
The 1947 constitution was adopted after very substantial efforts during the 1940s, and even a draft constitution that failed at the polls in 1944. The constitution was adopted in a period of bipartisan, post-war optimism, by a convention of 81 delegates, eight of whom were women and one of whom was African-American. The new constitution contained a women's rights provision and an anti-segregation clause, together with a constitutional right to collective bargaining. It also established arguably the nation's strongest governor and one of the top judicial branches in the United States. The New Jersey judiciary played a central role in the rise of “The New Judicial Federalism,” the now-familiar phenomenon of state courts interpreting their state constitutions to provide more protection than under the federal Constitution. In areas like school finance, capital punishment (before repeal), abortion, exclusionary zoning, and free speech on private property, people in New Jersey have had more rights than are available under the national constitution.
New Jersey has largely avoided the rush we observe in many other states to utilize the state constitution as a “tool of lawmaking,” entrenching in the state constitution matters that could be left to ordinary lawmaking. While matters such as minimum wage were deemed important enough by the Legislature (bypassing a gubernatorial veto) and the voters to be constitutionalized, our constitution is still relatively free of “policy matters.”
Our state constitutional development since 1947 is a matter about which we are justifiably proud. We should work toward preserving it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 2What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 3Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 4Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
- 5Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250