New Jersey Appeals Court Agrees To Hear Suit Challenging Nov. 6 Referendum Asking Voters To Approve $450M For Stem Cell Research

Main Category: Stem Cell Research
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 18 Oct 2007 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

A three-judge panel of a New Jersey Appeals Court on Friday said it would hear an appeal in a case challenging a Nov. 6 referendum that asks voters to approve borrowing $450 million over 10 years to fund stem cell research in the state, the Newark Star-Ledger reports (Coscarelli, Newark Star-Ledger, 10/13).

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 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. Shuster ruled that the ballot proposal appears "fair, balanced and neutral" and rejected the argument that it is misleading to voters. 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, 9/25).

Appeal, Comments
According to the Star-Ledger, NJRTL is asking that the appellate panel order that votes on the referendum not be counted and that voting machines be adjusted to not accept votes on the referendum. The panel will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 22 in Newark, N.J., according to a letter from Judge Clarkson Fisher to the groups that filed the lawsuit.

NJRTL Executive Director Marie Tasy said, "This referendum is a stealth effort to force taxpayers to fund objectionable research that even private investors and drug companies are unwilling to invest in." Cohen said that the court's refusal to grant an immediate injunction to the referendum "shows the weakness" of the groups' positions, adding that it is "unlikely" the groups will "prevai[l] on the merits" of the case (Newark Star-Ledger, 10/13).

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