The Assembly Judiciary Committee will take up a proposed referendum mandating billions of dollars into the public worker pension system.
TRENTON -- State lawmakers are initiating a final push Monday to get a constitutional amendment mandating contributions to New Jersey's public pension system on the ballot in November.
The state Legislature approved the ballot question last year and must pass it again this year with a simple majority in order to qualify for the fall election. The controversial question would ask voters whether they want to constitutionally protect those pension payments.
The measure goes before the state Assembly Judiciary Committee Monday morning.
Absent an amendment, the size of the payment -- or whether the state makes one at all -- is at the governor and lawmakers' discretion. That's part of the reason the state's portion of the pension system is only about 48.6 percent funded.
Two of the largest pension funds for state workers and teachers could go broke in 2024 and 2027, respectively.
Push to slash hedge fund investments fails
Public labor leaders and Democratic lawmakers began seeking the amendment (ACR109) after the state Supreme Court ruled last year that a 2011 law that was supposed to lock the state into a seven-year payment schedule couldn't be enforced.
Unions filed that lawsuit after Gov. Chris Christie veered off that payment schedule within three years.
The justices said the law does not create a "legally binding, enforceable obligation" for the state to make payments into the system and the state cannot be bound to such large future payments without voter approval.
"This constitutional amendment is in essence a do-over, an opportunity to go back to the 2011 reform law and say we are now going to uphold our end of the bargain," Eric Richard, legislative affairs coordinator for the New Jersey AFL-CIO, has said.
The proposed constitutional amendment would go before the voters in November when the presidential race tops the ballot and turnout is at its highest.
Opponents, including Republican lawmakers and business lobbyists, warn the amendment would create a "super priority" likely to force severe spending cuts or tax hikes if the state economy doesn't drum up enough cash to cover the payments.
Michele Siekerka, president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, has warned that a unique prescription for pensions will come at the expense of other programs or taxpayers.
"It ties the hands of future governors and legislators," she's said. "It removes your ability to balance all the priorities against available revenues. It allows this one express purpose to become a super priority. And to the detriment of what? Other essential services and safety net programs that you already have a difficult time balancing for all of the residents of the state of New Jersey."
Led by state Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), proponents say that what is a hefty bill now will grow unmanageable later if payments are put off.
The Democrats who control both houses don't need Republican support to put the question on the ballot. Christie also has no say in referendums.
"If we don't do this, by 2026 or 2027, when the pensions go broke, it's nine or ten billion dollars. And that's coming out of the budget. Directly out of the budget," Sweeney has said. "That's armageddon."
The amendment also would force the state to make the contribution into the retirement fund in installments throughout the year. Waiting until year's end costs the state millions of dollars in investment earnings, Sweeney said, and has left it vulnerable to last-minute cuts.
Christie twice vetoed such bills, calling it "an improper and unwarranted intrusion upon the longstanding executive prerogative to determine the appropriate timing of payments in order to properly match the timing of large annual expenditures with the timing of the actual receipt of state revenues."
Samantha Marcus may be reached at smarcus@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @samanthamarcus. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.