New Jersey appellate court rules referendum asking voters to approve $450M for stem cell research should remain on ballot

A three-judge panel of a New Jersey appellate court on Friday unanimously ruled that a Nov. 6 referendum that would allow the state to borrow $450 million over 10 years to fund stem cell research in the state should not be removed from the ballot, the New York Times reports (Peters, New York Times, 10/27).

If approved by voters, the funds would be used to award grants to institutions -- including colleges, universities, and state and local government agencies -- that conduct research on both adult and human embryonic stem cells, and umbilical cord blood, according to state Rep. Neil Cohen (D).

The Legal Center for Defense of Life last month filed a lawsuit on behalf of New Jersey Right to Life and 15 New Jersey residents in Trenton, N.J., Superior Court, alleging that the ballot question is deceptive because it does not explain that the borrowed funds would pay for human cloning or that the debt could be repaid with property taxes. The suit sought to stop printing of the ballot and to bar the question from going to voters.

Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster ruled that the referendum must remain on the Nov. 6 ballot. He also rejected the groups' request to delay the printing of ballots for the election, allowing county clerks to begin printing the ballots late last month (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/25).

Ruling, Comments
The panel said that the language on the ballot adequately and fairly informs voters about the proposal (Livio, Newark Star-Ledger, 10/28). In the ruling, Judge Clarkson Fisher wrote that the panel agreed with Shuster's ruling "that plaintiffs were obligated to proceed with greater alacrity than exhibited" and that the plaintiffs' "fear of 'imminent' irreparable injury was without merit because their delay alone created the emergency." Fisher added that the language of the proposal is adequately descriptive and that it would confuse voters if it were rewritten to say the initiative would permit cloning.

He added, "Fairness to the viewpoints on both ends of this debate -- and every other reasonable point in between -- cannot possibly be encapsulated in a brief statement that would fit on a ballot" (New York Times, 10/27). The ruling added that "[f]urther debate" about the initiative and its "moral, fiscal and medical consequences [are] better left to the exchange of ideas and the political efforts of interested citizens."

Marie Tasy, executive director of NJRTL, said the plaintiffs "obviously disagree [with the ruling] and believe legislative sponsors did the voters a great disservice." Corzine said he is pleased with the ruling, adding that he thought the challenge was "misplaced or miscast."

Tasy said the group might appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court (Hester, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/27). According to the Times, if the group does not appeal the ruling before the election, the plaintiffs could challenge the results if voters approve the referendum.

According to a poll released Thursday by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, 57% of New Jersey voters support the initiative, while 36% are opposed, the Times reports (New York Times, 10/27).