Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79 (2010). This 4-2 decision holding that the federal Constitution invalidates that portion of a New Jersey recall statute that permits the recall of United States Senator makes fascinating reading. The discussion of the history of the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution on this issue are like a political science seminar. The two opinions (Chief Justice Rabner for the majority and Justice Rivera-Soto for the dissenters, himself and Justice Hoens) are also unusually passionate. Among other things, the dissent labels this “a sad and dark day in the history of this Court,” while the majority states that the dissent “attempts to bypass the historical record with broad swipes … [and] rousing rhetoric.”
Among the ironies of this case is the majority’s citation of the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in response to the argument of the dissent that the Court should not have ruled on recall until the required number of signatures on a recall petition were obtained and Senator Menendez lost a recall election. Citizens United is generally perceived to be beneficial to conservative political interests. Committee to Recall Menendez cited Citizens United to defeat the conservative political interests that sought to recall Senator Menendez, a perceived liberal.