Statement comes after Superior Court judge ruled pension, benefit reforms don't apply to N.J. judges Watch video
Gov. Chris Christie speaks at the Statehouse earlier this month in this file photo. Today, Christie called for limits on New Jersey judges' pay after a ruling that exempted judges from state pension and benefits changes.TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie is calling for a constitutional amendment that would rewrite how judges are paid and allow him to require members of the court pay for increased health benefits.
On Monday, a Superior Court judge said changes to Christie’s pensions and benefit reforms are “unconstitutional” for members of the judiciary. Christie blasted that judge, saying she was ruling in favor of her own pocketbook.
"Salary means salary — not pension, not health benefits, and not other emoluments of office," Christie said today.
“We are not going to leave this decision in the hands of a self-interested judiciary, but if necessary will put it in the hands of the people who ultimately pay these bills.”
The proposed amendment would change language that now says judicial salaries can not be changed while they are in office. Christie said that change, which would be on the 2012 ballot if lawmakers agree, "should send a clear signal from the administration and the state legislature that we stand foursquare behind the pension and health benefit reforms we passed this last June."
Monday’s ruling marks a blow for Christie, who has talked locally and nationally about the state’s estimated $112 billion unfunded liability for pensions and health coverage for public workers. In June, Christie worked with key Democrats to successfully push legislation to increase the amounts workers pay to fill that gap.
One judge, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale, filed suit against the law, alleging that those increased contributions violated the state constitution’s provision that judges’ compensation could not be reduced during their tenure.
A Superior Court judge in Mercer County agreed that requiring judges to pay more out of their paychecks amounted to a “diminution of salary.”
The ruling, even by a lower court, threatens Christie’s across-the-board plan. And if it stands, it throws off the amounts the state can save through its reforms.
Christie’s reform increased contributions by all public workers to the state’s five different public pension funds. Judges specifically will contribute 12 percent of their salary to their Judicial Retirement Fund.
According to Treasury figures, many retired judges make more than $10,000 per month in pension alone.
Meanwhile, starting this summer, high-earning judges are also set to contribute more for their healthcare plans, as all public workers in July follow a sliding scale of increased premium contributions that are tied to salary. Highest-earners, making over $95,000 a year, will pay 17.5 percent of their premiums starting July 1, and that will rise to 35 percent of premiums by 2014.
If the courts slow those judiciary employees from paying those contributions, Christie will have to walk back some of the estimated savings from his landmark policies. His administration last week confirmed the state would save just $10 million through its health changes, largely because very few public employees are expected to choose any of the new, cheaper state-bought healthcare plans this year.
Christie meanwhile has aggressively touted a projected $267 million that towns and state employers could save through pension reform next year.
By Juliet Fletcher/Statehouse Bureau Staff