Poll Finds New Jersey Doesn't Care How Nation Views Us

[Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., Madison, NJ] -- 54% of New Jersey voters think the Garden State is a better place to live than other states. 20% say it's worse, and 17% say it's just the same. Jersey voters agree on something else: pollution. A sizable majority--62%--say our state is more polluted than others. Perhaps worse, 42% of people around the country agree, and just 17% around the country say New Jersey has the same amount of pollution or less than other states.

As you might expect from the so-called, "attitude capital of the world," New Jerseyans are unconcerned with their image. 57% say they are "not concerned at all" with what people in other states think about New Jersey, while another 15% say they just are "a little concerned.

And what do they think? When asked "what comes to mind when you think of New Jersey?" voters across the country mention, in descending order, "next to New York" and "the shore" as well as casinos and even farming, vegetables and cows far more often than pollution.

So what else is good about New Jersey? 57% say the Garden State has better public schools than other states. As for whether the state has more or fewer dishonest politicians, Jersey voters split: 42% say the state has more than its fair share but 41% think the state has the same as, or fewer than other states. Jersey cynicism--or inside knowledge--is not widely shared: outside the state just 16% say New Jersey has more dishonest politicians than other states.

Asked about street crime, 36% of Jersey voters say there's more of it in their state, but 49% say the state has the same or less than other states. Jerseyans also split on whether there is more organized crime in their state: 40% of New Jerseyans say there is, and 30% nationally agree. But 48% nationally say they don't know, and 38% in New Jersey say there's the same or less of it in their state.

One other thing Jersey voters agree on is taxes: 85% conclude they pay more in state and local taxes than most other states. The rest of the nation doesn't agree however: just 27% nationally say New Jersey pays more in taxes. The Garden State has the highest property taxes in the country, twice the national average and last year, the Legislature approved Governor Jon Corzine's proposal to increase the state sales tax from 6% to 7%.

Two PublicMind polls of 776 registered voters nationwide and 602 registered voters in New Jersey were conducted from May 29 through June 3 and have a margins of error of +/- 3.5 and +/-4 percentage points

Will We Let Judges Fix Elections?

Oct. 16, 2002

Al Gore and his allies in the media have popularized the notion that an election loser can use the courts to change the rules. Activist judges have been rewriting laws for many years, but now the trend is for activist state judges to try to rig an election.
This is a very bad idea. Not even banana republics let judges interfere with elections.

U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) has been facing corruption allegations for several years, and a man who paid him bribes is now in jail. Many thought that Clinton’s Department of Justice was going to indict Torricelli, but somehow that never happened.

The Senate Ethics Committee, controlled by Democrats, gave Torricelli a pass. The Democrats closed ranks around him, Senate leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) campaigned for him, and Torricelli easily won renomination in New Jersey’s primary this year.

Everything was going smoothly for Torricelli until he dropped dramatically in the polls following a sensational TV interview with his convicted benefactor, David Chang. The Democrats became desperate to save the seat in order to hang on to their one-vote majority in the Senate.

By the time Torricelli announced his intention to drop out, the election had already begun. Ballots had been printed, overseas military ballots had been mailed, some servicemen had already voted, and the legal deadline for substituting another candidate had passed.

New Jersey law clearly states that a name can be substituted on the ballot “in the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election.” But when Torricelli announced his intention to withdraw, it was only 36 days before the election, so the Democrats asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to rewrite the law.

The New Jersey Supreme Court accommodated the Democrats, changed the rules, and simply declared that the change was fair. The court held that it “should invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey.”

One has to wonder about the remarkable confidence the Democratic Party had that the New Jersey Supreme Court would maneuver around the clear deadline in the law. Was the fix in before they pressured Torricelli to pull out?

The problem with the court’s decision is that no change in the rules during or after an election can ever be fair unless the change is to accommodate an absolutely unforeseen circumstance (such as the World Trade Center collapse). There was nothing sudden about Torricelli’s unfitness to be a Senator because news of his criminal associations had been circulating for a long time.

The only way to hold a fair election is to have an agreed-on procedure in advance. Even seemingly fair changes in the rules can unfairly change the outcome of any close election.

In 2000, the Florida Supreme Court had to be stopped from a post- election rewriting of the procedures for counting ballots. It was wholly necessary and proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the presidential election.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 stands for the principle that the rules for a federal election must be determined in advance by the legislature, and that the state must stick to those rules. But once again, the Democrats have proved they can get state appellate judges to jimmy an election.

In response to complaints about butterfly ballots, some areas are experimenting with electronic voting machines, but those machines make it easy to substitute a name on the ballot only hours before an election. Should a party be allowed to do that if polls show a candidate is about to lose?

The purpose of the deadline in the law is not merely to allow time for ballots to be distributed. It is also to allow time for the candidates to debate the issues and the voters to become informed.

The New Jersey story gives us a bitter lesson in how Republicans are betrayed by RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). RINO Governor Christine Todd Whitman appointed six out of the seven New Jersey Supreme Court judges, several of whom were Democrats. Two of the judges (plus the spouses of two others) had made political donations to Torricelli.

Whitman selected judges who could be counted on to implement her liberal pro-abortion agenda, and now Republicans can see the fruits of her appointments: violation of election law and possibly the loss of the U.S. Senate. This is the same New Jersey Supreme Court that unanimously ordered the Boy Scouts to change its rules and employ gay scoutmasters (fortunately, reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court).

Elections should follow pre-election rules, whether one side later objects or not. If courts are allowed to manipulate elections by changing the rules in the middle of or after the election, then we can expect crooked elections all over the country.

Phyllis Schlafly column 10-16-02

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FDU Public Mind Poll Finds New Jersey Doesn't Care How Nation Views Us