|
The New York Times
new jersey -- opinions
The Downside of Lame
Duckery
EDITORIAL,
nytimes.com on the Web. October 28, 2007
In the old days, New Jersey
legislators conducted almost all of their major business well before Election
Day in November. The system had a big advantage for voters: they
could then decide whether to re-elect their legislators on the basis of how good
a job they did. After the election, the Legislature convened for a
lame-duck session, but most of its business was routine.
But in recent years, fewer and fewer legislators have dared to risk the
political heat that comes with deciding a controversial issue before the
election. The result: more and more important bills — the ones that
voters really care about — have been put off until the lame-duck session.
And this year, that trend has reached new heights. Aside from an increase
in the sales tax and other levies, which was passed last year, many of the major
issues have been deferred until after the election.
Nobody knows for sure exactly what the legislators will consider. But a
tentative agenda includes such hot potatoes as whether New Jersey should abolish
its death penalty, whether drug treatment should be substituted for the current
stiff, mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenders, and a controversial
bill for paid family leave.
The lame ducks may also get a chance to decide the fate of Gov. Jon Corzine’s
yet-to-be-unveiled “asset monetization” plan that could mortgage the New Jersey
Turnpike and other state assets to raise needed revenue. And they may get
a crack at another as-yet-unveiled Corzine initiative that would change the
formula for distributing state school aid.
Legislative leaders say there is a good reason to do things this way. They
point out that these hot-button proposals would never pass if they were brought
up in the months before the election, no matter how good their merits.
Legislators, they say, would be too afraid to take the political risk.
Mr. Corzine has made the problem worse by withholding details of major
proposals, like “asset monetization,” until after the election.
Officially, the administration says these proposals are still not final.
But the Corzine people also believe that if these proposals were to be unveiled
during the campaign, too many legislators would take irreversible stands against
them.
Sadly, much of this may be true. But there is a big problem in putting off
such important matters until after the election, and that is the lack of
accountability. Many of the legislators who are not running for
re-election — about one-fifth of the total of 120 — will hold office until the
new Legislature convenes in January, and will be present in Trenton when the
lame-duck Legislature convenes. So will most, if not all, of those members
who get defeated at the polls next month.
With their political careers stalled, if not ended, the defeated legislators and
those who did not seek re-election will have nothing to fear from the voters, no
matter what they decide to do on the controversial bills. Some of these
lame ducks no doubt will be looking to Governor Corzine to appoint them to state
jobs; others may be looking for high-paying positions in industry. What
better way could there be to get one of these jobs than to support the
governor’s favorite bills, or to back some legislation favored by a particular
business lobby? In those circumstances, what their constituents think
might have little or no bearing on how they vote.
In a political climate in which legislators are reluctant to risk taking firm
stands on controversial issues, the lame-duck route may appear to be the only
way to get important bills passed. And many — like abolition of the death
penalty, an end to mandatory sentences for young drug offenders and paid family
leave — deserve quick approval. But postponing action until after the
voters have gone home is not the way elected government should operate.
|
