New Jersey Judge Rules $450M Stem Cell Bond Proposal Must Remain On Nov. 6 Ballot

Main Category: Stem Cell Research
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 27 Sep 2007 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

According to a ruling that Mercer County, N.J., Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster issued on Monday, a referendum that asks voters to approve borrowing $450 million over 10 years to fund stem cell research in the state must remain on the Nov. 6 ballot, the New York Times reports (Peters, New York Times, 9/25).

In July, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) signed a bill authorizing the referendum. The state Assembly in June voted 50-27 and the Senate 31-3 to approve the legislation. 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). Borrowing for stem cell research could increase the state's debt by as much as $37 million annually, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis.

The antiabortion group Legal Center for the Defense of Life earlier this 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 seeks to stop printing of the ballot and to bar the question from going to voters (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/20).

Ruling
Shuster ruled that the ballot proposal appears "fair, balanced and neutral" and rejected the argument that it is misleading to voters, the Newark Star-Ledger reports. He also rejected the groups' request to delay the printing of ballots for the election, allowing county clerks to begin printing the ballots Monday.

Absentee ballots are scheduled to be delivered to military personnel and others beginning on Friday, the Star-Ledger reports. "The public has an interest in voting on Election Day, ... [a]nd by enjoining the printing of ballots, the court would put at risk the ability of our military and others to vote" (McNichol, Newark Star-Ledger, 9/25).

Shuster also said, "The issue for the court is not political, philosophical, moral or religious," adding that his decision simply was based on whether the court should remove a referendum that had been approved by the Legislature. According to the Times, Shuster "left open the possibility" that antiabortion groups could appeal or challenge the results if the proposal is approved.

Bertram Goltz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said after the ruling that he had not decided whether to appeal the ruling (New York Times, 9/25). Marie Tasy, executive director of NJRTL, criticized the ruling, saying, "The franchise of voting has been tampered with" (Hester, AP/Houston Chronicle, 9/24). Tasy said, "This is a matter that affects the future of humanity," adding, "It's much too important a matter to be ignored." Cohen applauded the decision, saying, "As we predicted, this lawsuit was completely without merit." He added, "The people who are seeking to block progress with ideology should get out of the way" (Newark Star-Ledger, 9/25).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations