In a judicial landscape often dominated by partisanship, New Jersey’s Supreme Court offers a distinct contrast. The state’s highest court operates under an unwritten tradition that mandates a partisan balance, a striking feature amidst the increasing political divides seen in courts across the United States. Despite Democrats holding a slim 4-3 majority in the court, the decisions typically reflect a consensus-driven approach. Over the past two years, the court has issued 88 rulings, with only 12 not achieving unanimity—a rare feat when compared to other states. More notably, only two of these non-unanimous decisions fell along political lines.
The unique procedural norms guiding New Jersey’s Supreme Court appointments trace back to a 1947 constitutional overhaul. Here, the governor holds the authority to nominate justices, with the condition that no party holds more than four of the seven available seats. This framework strives to maintain a bipartisan balance, actively pairing justices from opposing political allegiances to review cases together. This procedural pairing is intended to foster a sense of collaboration and deter adversarial courtroom dynamics. The collegial nature of these appointments and collaborations can be observed in the rarity of politically charged court sessions and decisions.
The process of appointing justices in New Jersey involves deeply embedded traditions that encourage bipartisan approval and stability. For example, former Governor Chris Christie’s attempt to shake the balance by declining renomination of justices was met with significant resistance from Senate Democrats, resulting in a period of halted confirmations and even split decisions due to an absent justice. However, the judiciary quickly rebounded under the governorship of Phil Murphy, who ensured a return to the normative practices, even renominating a Republican justice initially appointed by Christie. This approach emphasizes building consensus over partisanship, an ingenious strategy that could serve as a model amidst the current national climate of judicial volatility.
For more insights into New Jersey’s surprising bipartisan judicial system, you can read the full analysis here. The state of New Jersey demonstrates how deeply rooted unwritten conventions can serve as a safeguard against undue partisan influence within the judiciary. In this light, the New Jersey model highlights the potential for bipartisan cooperation to create steady and predictable judicial outcomes, an aspect that other states embroiled in political conflict might consider emulating.