A bill that would end mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent crimes was conditionally vetoed by the governor at the same time the attorney general issued a directive that would end them for many of the same crimes. S-3456 (Cunningham)/A-5385 (Chiaravalloti) was sent back to the Legislature last week for consideration of amendments. The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) supported the bill’s passage to end the “highest disparity in the nation between incarceration of people of color and white people,” the Association wrote in a letter to Governor Phil Murphy.
The bill seemed to be moving to the governor’s desk, following the recommendations of the Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission that called for the elimination of certain mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. An amendment that would eliminate minimums for official misconduct crimes slowed the bill, drawing much debate about the inclusion of these crimes. The NJSBA urged the bill’s swift passage with or without the amendment in favor of “giving judges discretion and a greater range of alternatives to impose sentences that fit the crime and consider the circumstances of each defendant at the time of sentencing.”
In a move that effectively eliminates these minimums without the bill’s passage, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal issued a directive that instructs prosecutors to waive minimums for non-violent drug crimes. The directive also imposes retroactivity to modify the sentences of individuals currently incarcerated under mandatory minimum terms.
Murphy applauded Grewal’s decision while explaining his hesitance in signing the bill as written.
“During our year-and-a-half-long push to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug and property crimes, the legislation was amended in a way that would have eliminated mandatory prison sentences for a number of public corruption offenses, including official misconduct,” Murphy said. “After much deliberation, I have determined that I cannot sign this bill, which goes far beyond the recommendations of the Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission. The legislation also falls short because it does not offer relief for currently incarcerated individuals serving mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes.”
A new bill identical to this bill has been introduced including the official misconduct language. S-3658 (Cunningham) is in second reading in the Senate. “I want the governor to fully understand that by removing mandatory minimums on nonviolent offenses we can return the discretionary power to our judges and allow them to issue sentences that are in the best interest of justice,” said Senator Nicholas Scutari, a prime co-sponsor on the bill.
Governor urges amendments to Real Property Assessment Demonstration Program bill
The governor conditionally vetoed S-2724 (Gopal)/A-4473 (Houghtaling) last week, urging amendments to the bill that would revise several processes related to the assessment of real property in counties that operate under the Real Property Demonstration Program. Monmouth County is the only county that operates under this pilot program. The NJSBA opposed the bill in its current form as unconstitutional.
“This legislation removes the constitutional protections that afford property owners equal treatment in assessments free from discrimination,” the NJSBA said in a letter to sponsors. “As a result, the bill acts as a mechanism that would appear to curb a property owner’s right to appeal an assessment.”
Among other things, the bill required that municipalities make a “good faith attempt to physically inspect” the interior of properties located in counties participating in the Demonstration Program and the Reform Act, currently only applicable in Gloucester County, and to add any county that has adopted the alternative assessment calendar to the list of those subject to the requirements of law. Taxpayers who refuse an assessor’s requirement to internally inspect the property would not be entitled to appeal an assessment.
The NJSBA objected to this imposition because it creates a bar to tax appeals. It pointed out that many tax appeals are approved without the need for interior inspections, and that current law already permits a judge to determine, in appropriate cases, that a refusal to an interior inspection can provide the basis for either a dismissal and/or a bar of evidence not in discovery at the time of the hearing.
The bill further specifies that the current “Chapter 123 ratio,” which was created to thwart discrimination in property tax assessments, would not apply to taxpayer appeals in a demonstration program. The NJSBA objected to this as unconstitutional.
The governor was “concerned that the bill may inappropriately single out participating counties in a manner that could create unconstitutional disparities among taxpayers based on where they live.” By creating an automatic dismissal of an appeal only in a county that participates in a demonstration program, “the bill denies these taxpayers a right to relief that is available to other taxpayers.”
The governor offered amendments to apply these reforms to all counties or to municipalities implementing annual reassessments or compliance plans. The bill goes back to the Legislature for a vote on the amendments.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.