New Jersey Public Question 2, Revenue from Environmental Damage Lawsuits Dedicated to Environmental Projects Amendment (2017)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Jersey Public Question 2
Flag of New Jersey.png
Election date
November 7, 2017
Topic
State and local government budgets, spending and finance and Environment
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
State legislature
2017 measures
Seal of New Jersey.png
November 7, 2017
New Jersey Public Question 2
New Jersey Public Question 1

New Jersey Public Question 2, the Revenue from Environmental Damage Lawsuits Dedicated to Environmental Projects Amendment, was on the ballot in New Jersey as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 7, 2017. It was approved.[1]

A "yes" vote supported allocating state revenue from legal settlements related to natural resource damages in cases of environmental contamination toward restoring and protecting natural resources and paying the costs of pursuing the settlements.
A "no" vote opposed this amendment to allocate state revenue from legal settlements related to natural resource damages in cases of environmental contamination toward environmental projects and paying the costs of pursuing the settlements.

Election results

Public Question 2
ResultVotesProzentualer Anteil
Approveda Yes 1,093,448 69.02%
No490,76330.97%
Election results from New Jersey Department of State

Übersicht

Design of the amendment

Question 2 created a lockbox for state revenue from legal settlements and awards related to natural resource damages in cases of environmental contamination. Revenue in the lockbox was earmarked to be used to restore or replace damaged or lost natural resources, protect natural resources, and pay the legal costs of pursuing settlements and rewards. Question 2 was designed to require the state to prioritize the use of revenue in the fund for restoring the immediate area related to the settlement or case. If no project is deemed reasonable in the immediate area, then the initiative was designed to allocate revenue to be spent in the same water region. Up to 10 percent of the revenue in the fund was authorized to be spent on state agencies related to the amendment, such as the Department of Environmental Protection.[1][2]

Revenue from contamination settlements

The amendment was proposed in response to disagreements between Gov. Chris Christie (R) and the Democratic-controlled New Jersey Legislature on how to spend revenue from large pollution settlements involving pollution in the Passaic River and Exxon Mobil. Gov. Christie's budgets planned to spend about $103 million of the $580 million received from the multiple cases on environmental restoration.[3][4][5] While the case involving Exxon Mobil is being appealed, the cases involving the Passaic River brought in $355 million, of which $288 million was used to balance the state budget.[6]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The question on the ballot was as follows:[1]

" Do you approve amending the Constitution to dedicate all moneys collected by the State relating to natural resource damages in cases of contamination of the environment? The moneys would have to be used to repair, restore, replace, or preserve the State’s natural resources. The moneys may also be used to pay legal or other costs incurred by the State in pursuing its claims.[7] ”

Interpretive statement

The interpretive statement was as follows:[1]

" This amendment would dedicate moneys collected by the State relating to natural resource damages through settlements or awards for legal claims based on environmental contamination. These moneys would be dedicated to repair, replace, or restore damaged natural resources, or to preserve the State’s natural resources. The moneys would be spent in an area as close as possible to the geographical area in which the damage occurred. The moneys could also be used to pay for the State’s legal or other costs in pursuing the claims. Currently, these moneys may be used for any State purpose.[7] ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VIII, New Jersey Constitution

The measure added a Paragraph 9 to Section 2 of Article VIII of the New Jersey Constitution. The following text was added:[1] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

9. There shall be credited annually to a special account in the General Fund an amount equivalent to the revenue annually derived from all settlements and judicial and administrative awards relating to natural resource damages collected by the State in connection with claims based on environmental contamination.

The amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, for paying for costs incurred by the State to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resources of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, or for paying the legal or other costs incurred by the State to pursue settlements and judicial and administrative awards relating to natural resource damages. The first priority for the use of any moneys by the State to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resources of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, pursuant to this paragraph shall be in the immediate area in which the damage to the natural resources occurred in connection with the claim for which the moneys were recovered. If no reasonable project is available to satisfy the first priority for the use of the moneys, or there are moneys available after satisfying the first priority for their use, the second priority for the use of any moneys by the State to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resources of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, pursuant to this paragraph shall be in the same water region in which the damage to the natural resources occurred in connection with the claim for which the moneys were recovered. If no reasonable project is available to satisfy the first or second priority for the use of the moneys, or there are moneys available after satisfying the first or second priority for their use, the moneys may be used by the State to repair, restore, or replace damaged or lost natural resources of the State, or permanently protect the natural resources of the State, pursuant to this paragraph without geographic constraints. Up to 10 percent of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this paragraph may be expended for administrative costs of the State or its departments, agencies, or authorities for the purposes authorized in this paragraph.[7]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2017
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The New Jersey State Legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12.5, and the FRE is 43. The word count for the ballot title is 63, and the estimated reading time is 15 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 45. The word count for the ballot summary is 95, and the estimated reading time is 25 seconds.


Support

Supporters

Officials

The following officials sponsored the amendment in the New Jersey Legislature:[8]

Organizations

Arguments

Sen. Bob Smith (D-17), a sponsor of the amendment in the state legislature, argued:[10]

" When we had the Passaic River settlement and the proposed Exxon settlement, not only were the settlement dollars ridiculously small, but you then had the current administration taking the vast majority of the money, on the order of 80 percent, and using it to plug holes in the budget. That's outrageous.[7] ”

Rep. John McKeon (D-27), a member of the assembly's Environment and Solid Waste Committee, said:[11]

" This money was not meant to plug holes in the budget. These funds were the result of environmental contamination settlements and should only be used to repair the damage caused by the contamination and for measures that can help protect our environment.[7] ”

Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, contended:[10]

" If we don't protect these funds and put them in a lock box, we're going to run the risk of having communities that have been affected continue to not be able to be used. So recreational fishermen, kayakers, aren't going to able to enjoy the waters, which is what make New Jersey so great. We want to restore that.[7] ”

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, stated:[12]

" For too long, we’ve been balancing the budget on the backs of the environment.[7] ”

Opposition

As of September 10, 2024, no opposition had organized to oppose the amendment. In the New Jersey Legislature, eight Republican senators and 18 Republican assembly members voted against referring the measure to the ballot.[8]

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support: $0.00
Opposition: $0.00
See also: Campaign finance requirements for New Jersey ballot measures

No ballot question committees registered to support or oppose the amendment.[13]

Media editorials

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

  • Asbury Park Press said: "This question, which requires an amendment to the state constitution, was inspired by Gov. Chris Christie’s diversion of monetary awards won in environmental contamination lawsuits to the state’s general fund to help close budget gaps. It is a practice that should be stopped. The awards were made specifically to allow cleanup of contaminated sites."[14]
  • The Star-Ledger said, "The amendment will create a lockbox for NRD money -- beyond the reach of the governor and the Legislature - and with an incoming president that is hostile to environmental preservation, it cannot come at a better time for New Jersey. As of today, it's the easiest decision voters will have next Election Day."[15]

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not find media editorials opposing the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to [email protected].

Background

Settlements

Legislators proposed the constitutional amendment in response to Gov. Chris Christie's (R) appropriation bills, which the legislature approved, directing revenue from legal settlements related to environmental contamination to meet the demands of the state budget, rather than to environmental reclamation. Although multiple New Jersey governors did likewise, the issue increased in prominence during the 2010s, as Gov. Christie and the Democratic-controlled New Jersey Legislature disagreed on how to spend revenue from large pollution settlements. Gov. Christie's administration used about $53 million of $355 million received from cases regarding pollution in the Passaic River to restore waterfronts. Around $50 million of the $225 million received in a settlement with Exxon Mobil is slated to go toward environmental projects.[3][4][5] Some Democratic legislators and environmental groups claimed more settlement revenue should have been spent on restoring damaged environments.

The governor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 was also designed to allocate pollution settlement funds toward balancing the state budget.[16] The state Legislature passed a budget on July 4, 2017, that would have deposited the first $50 million and 50 percent of remaining funds from pollution settlements and other natural resource damages recovered by the state in the Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund. Gov. Christie used his power to line veto to strike the 50 percent of remaining funds requirement from the bill.[17][18]

Passaic River

The Passaic River in Newark.

The Passaic River is located in northern New Jersey, flowing through the state's largest urban area, and exiting into the Newark Bay. Due to a history of industrial manufacturing in the river's watershed, the river has been contaminated with dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (TCCDs), heavy metals, and pesticides. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated the pollution impacts the river's ecosystem, including fish and crabs and the humans who consume them.[19] According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), short-term exposure to dioxins can harm the human skin, liver, reproductive organs, and immune system, as well as increase the risk of cancer.[20]

Between 2013 and 2014, New Jersey received $355.4 million from three legal settlements with companies deemed liable for polluting the Passaic River. The largest settlement was with Occidental Chemical Corp. (OCC), which paid the state $190 million.[21] Occidental Chemical is the legal successor of Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, which created a byproduct of Agent Orange that ended up in the river during the 1950s and 1960s.[22] Other companies that settled lawsuits with the state included Maxus Energy Corporation, Tierra Solutions, oil and gas corporation Repsol, and Argentina-based firm YPF.[23]

The state's settlement with Occidental Chemical required that $50 million be allocated to restoring the river, and the remaining was "to be used as the Governor and Legislature deem appropriate," according to the attorney general's office. U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-9) argued the remaining revenue should be spent on restoration, stating, "Instead of balancing the budget at the expense of environmental restoration, Governor Christie must utilize these funds to restore this vital natural resource that has suffered decades of neglect."[24] Gov. Christie allocated $288 million of the $355 million the state received from the settlements to balance the state's budget in his 2015 budget legislation. He vetoed a bill that would have required the state to allocate more revenue to restoration of the Passaic River. He stated that his allocation "strikes an appropriate balance between the environmental and fiscal needs."[6]

Exxon Mobil

Logo of oil and gas corporation Exxon Mobil

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) filed litigation against Exxon Mobil, claiming the corporation's facilities contaminated 1,500 acres of wetlands and tidal marshes in Bayonne and Linden. Marshes were described as "covered with a tar of petroleum products or filled with other hazardous constituents and debris" in a court opinion. Exxon Mobil deemed the ecosystems under question as fully functioning.[25] The case was fought for more than a decade, with Gov. Christie's office commenting, "The scope of the environmental damage resulting from the discharges is as obvious as it is staggering and unprecedented in New Jersey."[26] DEP estimated damages to the environment to cost around $8.9 billion.[27]

In 2015, Gov. Christie's administration settled the legal dispute with Exxon Mobil for $225 million, which was 2.5 percent of the $8.9 billion the state was originally asking for. He described the settlement as a good deal.[28] Judge Michael J. Hogan of the New Jersey Superior Court approved the settlement, stating, "although far smaller than the estimated $8.9 billion in damages, Exxon’s payment represents a reasonable compromise given the substantial litigation risks."[29]

Critics of the deal, including Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D-3) and Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-20), argued that Gov. Christie sought the settlement because the state's budget bill for 2015 allowed settlement revenue exceeding $50 million to be diverted to non-environmental programs and uses. Sen. Lesniak contended, "Christie was trying to get this settlement in before [June 30] because [the state legislature] won’t repeat it in the new budget."[30] The settlement was appealed in courts by Sen. Lesniak and environmental groups.[31][32] On February 11, 2018, a three-judge panel of the intermediate court rejected the appeal.[33]

Lockbox measures on the ballot

Budget Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
Budget policy is a major issue in New Jersey. To learn more, see "New Jersey state budget."
See also: State and local government budgets, spending and finance on the ballot

This amendment appearing on the ballot for the election on November 7, 2017, is a type of lockbox measure.[11][15][34] A lockbox measure is designed to require that funds raised for or by a certain purpose must be spent in that general area as well. The overall concept of a lockbox is to prevent fees and other revenue that are generated through one use from ending up in the state's general operations budget, instead ensuring that those funds are spent in a way related to how they were generated.

The last time that New Jersey voters addressed a lockbox measure was in 2016, when they approved Public Question 2. The measure established a constitutional requirement that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund, which allocates revenue to the Department of Transportation and NJ Transit.

Funding for the environment on the ballot

See also: Environment on the ballot

Citizens of New Jersey have voted on ballot measures related to the government funding of environmental projects eight times, with the first one in 1995 and the most recent in 2014. All eight ballot measures were approved.

Voting on the Environment
Environment.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot


Four of the legislative referrals were bond measures or addressed the issuing of bonds. In 1995, voters approved Question 4, which provided $340 million in bonds to purchase and improve land for recreation and conservation purposes. Question 1 was approved in 2003, increasing the cap on open space, farmland, and historic preservation bonds from $1 billion to $1.15 billion. A $200 million bond in 2007 and a $400 million bond in 2009 were approved to provide funding for open space.

Four of the measures were designed to allocate tax revenue to environmental projects. Voters approved Question 1 in 1998, which dedicated $98 million of state sales tax revenue to recreation and conservation in each fiscal year through 2009. In 1996, Question 2 was approved, allocating 4 percent of the state corporation business tax to remedying hazardous discharges, upgrading underground storage tanks, water monitoring, watershed planning, and preventing nonpoint source water pollution. An amendment approved in 2005 added air pollution control equipment to the list of constitutional purposes for which the 4 percent allocation of the corporation business tax could be used. In 2014, Question 2 replaced the 4 percent allocation of the corporation business tax set in 1996 with a 6 percent allocation of the tax to open space, farmland, and historic preservation.

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred 27 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 24 and rejected three of the referred amendments. Almost 60 percent of the amendments (16 of 27) were referred to the ballot during even-numbered election years. The remaining 40 percent of the amendments (11 of 27) appeared on the ballot during odd-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the ballot during an odd-numbered election year was around one. No amendments appeared on the ballot in 2015. However, two amendments were referred to the ballot in 2013. The approval rate at the ballot box was 88.9 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 11.1 percent.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Years Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Annual average Annual median Annual minimum Annual maximum
Even years 16 14 87.50% 2 12.50% 1.45 2.00 0 3
Odd years 11 10 90.91% 1 9.09% 1.10 1.50 0 2
All years 27 24 88.89% 3 11.11% 1.29 2.00 0 3

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the New Jersey Constitution

Proposed constitutional amendments have two ways of achieving ballot access in New Jersey. The New Jersey Legislature could either qualify it with supermajority approval of 60 percent in one legislative session or with simple majorities in two successive sessions. Amendments needed to be referred by August 7, 2017, to appear on the general election ballot in 2017.[35]

The amendment was introduced into the New Jersey Legislature as Senate Concurrent Resolution 39 (SCR39) on January 12, 2016. Both the New Jersey Senate and New Jersey Assembly passed the amendment with over 60 percent approval on December 19, 2016. In the upper chamber of the legislature, 23 Democrats and five Republicans of the 36 voting senators agreed to refer the measure to the ballot. In the lower chamber, the amendment was passed with 49 Democratic and seven Republican assembly members voting in favor of referral and 18 Republicans voting against referral. The measure was filed with the secretary of state on December 19, 2016.[8][36]

Vote in the New Jersey Senate
December 19, 2016
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 24  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total2884
Total percent70.00%20.00%10.00%
Democrat2301
Republican583
Vote in the New Jersey Assembly
December 19, 2016
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 48  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total56186
Total percent70.00%22.50%7.50%
Democrat4903
Republican7183


State profile

Demographic data for New Jersey
 New JerseyU.S.
Total population:8,935,421316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):7,3543,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:68.3%73.6%
Black/African American:13.5%12.6%
Asian:9%5.1%
Native American:0.2%0.8%
Pacific Islander:0%0.2%
Two or more:2.5%3%
Hispanic/Latino:19%17.1%
Bildung
High school graduation rate:88.6%86.7%
College graduation rate:36.8%29.8%
Income
Median household income:$72,093$53,889
Persons below poverty level:12.7%11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in New Jersey.
**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in New Jersey

New Jersey voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, two are located in New Jersey, accounting for 0.97 percent of the total pivot counties.[37]

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. New Jersey had one Retained Pivot County and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 0.55 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More New Jersey coverage on Ballotpedia

Related measures

See also: State and local government budgets, spending and finance on the ballot
Government finance measures on the ballot in 2016
StateMeasures
LouisianaLouisiana Amendment 3: Dedicate New Taxes on Fuel to Transportation Construction Fund Measure Approveda

See also

External links

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms New Jersey 2017 Environmental Settlements Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

New Jersey Public Question 2, Revenue from Environmental Damage Lawsuits Dedicated to Environmental Projects Amendment (2017) - Google News

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 New Jersey Legislature, "Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 39," accessed December 20, 2016
  2. ↑ New Jersey Legislature, "Legislative Fiscal Estimate," December 22, 2016
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Daily Record, "Challenges to Christie environmental policies up for vote," December 8, 2016
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 NJ Spotlight, "Constitutional Amendment Coming on Natural-Resources Damages," December 20, 2016
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 The Philadelphia Inquirer, "N.J. Legislature defies Christie on guns, environment," December 23, 2016
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 NorthJersey.com, "Christie vetoes bill that would have returned money to Passaic River cleanup," May 11, 2015
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 New Jersey Legislature, "SCR39 Overview," accessed November 21, 2016
  9. ↑ Insider NJ, "Sierra Club Endorsements for 2017 Elections," October 30, 2017
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 NewsWorks, "N.J. voters to decide on disbursing environmental damage funds," December 20, 2016
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 NJ.com, "N.J. voters will decide if the state can raid environmental lawsuit funds," December 24, 2016
  12. ↑ Newsworks, "New Jersey tired of seeing environmental funds diverted may take action," December 28, 2016
  13. ↑ New Jersey Election Law Enforcement, "Committees," accessed January 6, 2017
  14. ↑ Asbury Park Press, "Editorial: Yes to state public questions," October 20, 2017
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 NJ.com, "Sorry, governor - it's not your money to steal anymore | Editorial," December 23, 2016
  16. ↑ NJ.com, "Gov. Christie wants to divert environmental settlements once again," March 23, 2017
  17. ↑ New Jersey Legislature, "Gov. Christie Line Veto of A5000," July 4, 2017
  18. ↑ Bloomberg BNA, "Christie Veto Pushes N.J. Site Cleanup Money Fight to Voters," July 6, 2017
  19. ↑ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Lower Passaic River and Greater Newark Bay," accessed December 21, 2016
  20. ↑ NJ.com, "EPA: Polluters will pay for $1.4B Passaic River cleanup," March 4, 2016
  21. ↑ New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, "Court Approves Final Settlement in Passaic River Litigation; Occidental Chemical to Pay $190 Million to Resolve Liability," December 17, 2014
  22. ↑ NorthJersey.com, "$190M settlement in pollution suit would end decade-long legal fight over Passaic River," September 15, 2014
  23. ↑ NJ.com, "Companies agree to pay $130 million settlement in Passaic River pollution case," June 11, 2013
  24. ↑ NJ.com, "Environmental groups say $190M Passaic River settlement should go toward river clean up," September 15, 2014
  25. ↑ New York Times, "Exxon Settles $9 Billion Pollution Case in New Jersey for Far Less," February 27, 2015
  26. ↑ NorthJersey.com, "A new look at Exxon settlement: NJ unveils details, possible further claims," April 6, 2015
  27. ↑ NJ.com, "State announces settlement in controversial Exxon Mobil pollution case," March 5, 2015
  28. ↑ USA Today, "Chris Christie's deal with Exxon Mobil: first look," April 7, 2015
  29. ↑ New York Times, "New Jersey’s $225 Million Settlement With Exxon Mobil Is Approved," August 25, 2015
  30. ↑ Time, "How $8.9 Billion Became $250 Million in the Exxon Lawsuit," March 9, 2015
  31. ↑ Law360, "NJ Enviros Revive Court Fight Against $225M Exxon Mobil Deal," February 9, 2016
  32. ↑ Law360, "NJ Senator Says Exxon Mobil Deal Lacked Analysis, Outreach," December 8, 2016
  33. ↑ NorthJersey.Com, "Judges uphold controversial $225 million Exxon pollution settlement," February 12, 2018
  34. ↑ NJTV News, "Proposed Constitutional Amendment Would Protect Environmental Settlement Money," December 23, 2016
  35. ↑ New Jersey Department of State, "2017 General Election Timeline," accessed December 6, 2016
  36. ↑ New Jersey 101.5, "Voters to decide whether to block NJ from balancing budget with polluters’ money," December 20, 2016
  37. ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
v • e
2017 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Flag of New Jersey
v • e
State of New Jersey
Trenton (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Regierung

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=New_Jersey_Public_Question_2,_Revenue_from_Environmental_Damage_Lawsuits_Dedicated_to_Environmental_Projects_Amendment_(2017)&oldid=9116239"