re: #192 Dark_Falcon

The NJ Supreme Court has significant power on spending issues in the state. They imposed education funding priorities via the Abbott decisions, and several governors have tried to change this, to limited effect. The Abbott system was replaced after the court upheld Corzine’s funding scheme.

The Court then ruled that Christie had to cough up more money to cover education spending; money that Christie’s budget simply didn’t have.

The state constitution requires that the Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.

The Courts have repeatedly construed this to require more funding, even though NJ spends more per student than adjoining states - and most of the rest of the country, and yet performance is middling.

And the Courts have repeatedly insisted on more spending, without offering up a way to pay for it. That’s left to the governor and legislature to figure out - and with tax hikes a nonstarter for the most part, it means cutting from elsewhere.

The other big area is the affordable housing requirements under the Mount Laurel decision, and that has municipalities struggling to find ways to get affordable housing built (the way most get around this requirement is to authorize building senior/active adult communities, rather than actual affordable housing since they count towards total housing).