All of Hudson’s legislators either voted against or abstained from voting on an amendment to the state constitution that would require parents to be informed before their underage daughters can obtain an abortion.
The amendment is an effort to get around a 1999 state Supreme Court decision that ruled that a similar law passed by the state legislature was unconstitutional.
The amendment, sponsored by Assembly Speaker Jack Collins, passed by a 44-14 vote with as many as 22 legislators who did not vote or abstained.
Democrats opposed the amendment, saying that it could have ramifications in other areas, and might allow parental notification for teens who are seeking treatment for drug addiction or sexually transmitted diseases. The Democrats also feared that enacting such a law could force teenage girls to seek illegal abortions where privacy would be assured, but at a possible medical risk.
Assemblymen Albio Sires (D-33rd Dist.), Rudy Garcia (D-33 rd Dist.) and Joseph Charles (D-31st Dist.) voted against the amendment. Assemblymembers Anthony Impreveduto (D-32nd Dist.) and Joan Quigley (D-32nd Dist.) abstained.
A spokesperson for Sires said the amendment is too broad.
“This isn’t just about parental notification for abortion,” said Michael Harper, Sires’ chief of staff, last week. “This bill covers any medical procedure. That means any teen being treated for drug use would have to get parental notification. Any teen seeking treatment for sexually transmitted disease.”
Hudson County Democrats also noted that the amendment would exempt itself from judicial review. Normally, an amendment to the state constitution would be brought before the state Supreme Court to determine if it contradicts any existing parts of the state constitution.
Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D-20th Dist.), who is a constitutional lawyer, said serious questions exist as to the potential for a conflict and that this amendment needs to be reviewed before it is approved.
Harper said passage without this review could lead to later conflicts when the high court has to address the constitutionality of a law and finds two sections with opposing opinions.
Rudy Garcia explained his vote last week: “The problem with this amendment is that it interferes with the normal judicial process. By allowing this, 41 members of the legislative body can make any type of law without the usual judicial review.”
Garcia said state government has a series of checks and balances. The legislature passes laws, and these are checked by the courts to determine if they meet standards set by the constitution. In this case, the court ruled that the law passed in 1999 violated constitutional rights. Garcia said he felt uncomfortable with bypassing the courts in this way, setting up a precedent that would amend the constitution each time the court ruled against a law.
“I’m pro choice,” Garcia said. “I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I believe the decision to have an abortion is between a woman, her family and her maker. But other members of the assembly who believe in parental notification voted against this amendment because they did not want to violate the judicial process.”
Although the amendment goes before the state senate next, it will have to return to the assembly next year before it can go to the voters on next November’s ballot.
Used car bill advances
Legislation that would outlaw the removal of emission-control equipment from used cars passed the state assembly on Nov. 20.
“With increasing frequency, unwary motorists are buying cars that have been stripped of air-pollution control devices by a previous owner or an unscrupulous dealer,” said Impreveduto, who co-sponsored the bill with Assemblyman Cohen.
“The onus needs to be put on used-car dealers to make sure a car is fully equipped with its pollution control devices before a sale is made,” said Cohen “Not only is it illegal for emissions systems to be removed, but it is unfair for the new owner to be unable to drive the vehicle after it fails the new enhanced inspection.”
Impreveduto said the measure (A-1281) would protect consumers by requiring used-car dealers to disclose – prior to sale – any missing or defective emission control equipment in the used motor vehicle. Any violations of the measure would fall under the consumer fraud law, which requires used-car dealers to disclose, prior to the sale, any missing or defective emission control equipment in a used motor vehicle. Penalties for first offense would be a $7,500 fine. Any subsequent office would be a $15,000 fine.
The measure was initially introduced in 1996 after a constituent unwittingly bought a used car that had its emission control equipment removed to improve performance and acceleration. After the car failed inspection, the driver learned the pollution control devices had been removed from the vehicle. It cost him roughly $2,000 to repair the car so it could pass inspection.
“This car was bought from a used car dealer who did not want to make amends when the problem was discovered,” said Cohen. “The old adage of ‘buyer beware’ leaves the driving public open to exploitation.” “New Jersey motorists struggle to pass the Parsons’ emissions system to clean our state’s air,” said Impreveduto. “Sellers who remove emission control equipment completely undermine that effort, and if an unscrupulous dealer thinks they can make a quick buck, it may wind up in smoke.”
Quigley measure for increasing juror fees advances
The Senate Appropriations Committee this week approved legislation that would increase to $40 the amount of daily compensation New Jersey residents could receive if they serve as a juror for more than three days.
The measure (A-601) would increase juror compensation from the current $5 per day rate for an entire trial to a new two-tier payment schedule: $5 per day for the first three days of a trial and $35 more for each additional day of jury duty. Since the change constitutes a state mandate, the state would be responsible for the costs of increased juror pay. Local assignment judges would keep an account of all juror fees and provide a statement documenting the number of days served and the amount the state is to pay.
“The jury system is an integral part of our judiciary,” said Quigley, the bill’s sponsor. “Jurors embody America’s long-standing tradition of truth and justice for all. They deserve a better reward for the work they perform. We want to encourage people to serve as jurors, remove the barriers to service, and ensure we don’t create a hardship. Civic duty shouldn’t be a financial burden.”
The bill would mark the first time in 50 years that the rate of juror compensation has been changed.