Piscataway loses court battle over local ballot questions

TRENTON – Two judges on an Appellate Division panel ruled the Piscataway Township Council was wrong in attempting to put two public questions on the ballot last year when residents had already presented petitions with the same questions.

That opinion also reversed a lower court ruling and found residents in the case are entitled to have their attorney's fees paid.

"We affirm the portion of the court's order declaring the (council's) resolutions invalid and prohibiting the Council and county clerk from placing the nonbinding question on the November 2021 general election ballot. We reverse and vacate the portion of the order denying plaintiffs' application for attorney's fees," the ruling states, adding the matter is remanded back to the trial court for consideration of the residents’ motion to be awarded legal fees.

But one dissenting judge found no evidence to support the conclusion that the Township Council's nonbinding resolutions were identical to the residents’ initiative "or somehow 'misleading' to voters,” and as a result he would not award the residents' counsel fees under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

"Township officials are reviewing the split appellate decision and determining how it affects the ability of municipalities to place measures on the ballot for voters to consider," a Piscataway Township spokesman said.

Last year township voters had two public questions on the November ballot, one asking whether Piscataway should establish a Division of Emergency Medical Services and the other asking whether the township should broadcast township council, planning board and zoning board meetings online and on Piscataway Community Television.

Both questions were approved by voters.

According to the ruling last year, a group of residents called the EMS Committee of Petitions filed a petition with the municipal clerk asking voters to determine if a Division of Emergency Medical Services should be created to address the lack of unified emergency medical services system in the township.

Earlier:'Municipal abuse of power': Piscataway sued over local ballot language

In addition, members of the Tape Committee of Petitioners and the Piscataway Progressive Democratic Organization filed a petition with the clerk for a ballot question that would require Piscataway to record, broadcast or stream public portions of the council, planning and zoning board meetings on the township's public access channel.

Both petitions were certified by the township clerk and placed on the council's Aug. 10, 2021 agenda for first reading, but the council failed to take any action on the petitions.

The council instead approved their own resolutions for public questions to be placed on the November ballot, one creating a Division of Emergency Medical Services which would increase property taxes by $643,683.27 and the other to broadcast township council, planning and zoning board meetings which would increase property taxes by $575,100.63, the ruling states.

At that point four questions covering the two same topics were slated to appear on the ballot. A Superior Court judge however ruled the council resolutions and the residents’ petitions were basically the same and the council had no authority to pass the resolutions and the non-binding public questions. Only the residents’ questions appeared on the ballot.

"The questions in the township's resolutions were not objectively balanced questions posed to the voters. To the contrary, they only highlighted potential costs to taxpayers if the initiatives were passed. The questions did not include any positive effect of the petitions," the majority Appellate Division ruling states.

The ruling also states the township deprived the residents of their right to petition when it included unauthorized nonbinding questions on the same ballot as the petitions, preventing the residents from having their petitions fairly considered.

And because the township council's actions deprived the residents of their right to initiative, they are entitled to attorney fees and costs under the Civil Rights Act, the plaintiffs argued.

Email: srussell@gannettnj.com

Suzanne Russell is a breaking news reporter for MyCentralJersey.com covering crime, courts and other mayhem. To get unlimited access, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

This article originally appeared on MyCentralJersey.com: Piscataway NJ loses court battle over local ballot questions