reasoning that the substantially greater population and size of the police forces in Newark and Jersey City, compared to New Jersey's other large cities, was sufficient to distinguish those two cities from all others under the second prong of the special legislation analysis
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that the substantially greater population and size of the police forces in Newark and Jersey City, compared to New Jersey's other large cities, was sufficient to distinguish those two cities from all others under the second prong of the special legislation analysis
- stating that under New Jersey rational-basis review, challenged classification must be upheld if court “can conceive of any reason to justify the classification”
- finding grandfather clause in state statute permitting certain city mayors to appoint their police chiefs severable
- “[I]t is well recognized that the courts do not act as a super-legislature. A statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be declared void unless it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution.” (internal citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’HERN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion with the exception of Part V. I disagree that the Court is required to hold A. 1981, c. 465 to be unconstitutional. I do not read the majority's judgment of the constitutionality of the classification to be based solely on population. The opinion recognizes that it is the combination of “diverse populations and volatile situations” reflected in a “history of tension of social problems” that goes into the legislative *235 judgment. Ante at p. 228. Not every municipality that grows in population may exhibit the same characteristics. It will be time enough to judge whether such a municipality must be included in the class when we have the case. There is, thus far, no such case before us. The Legislature should have the chance to reflect upon automatic membership in the class before we pass judgment.
O’HERN, J., concurring in the result.
For reversal — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 7.
Affirmed — None.