TRENTON-The practice of letting one person hold two elected offices at the same time should be banned in New Jersey, according to a new report that says dual office holding hampers democracy by creating conflicts, eroding accountability and promoting parochialism.

The report, One to a Customer: The Democratic Downsides of Dual Office Holding, is a joint project of New Jersey Policy Perspective and the New York-based public policy group Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action. Tom O'Neill, the report's author, is the former head of the Center for Analysis of Public Issues and a longtime participant in New Jersey public policy issues.

One to a Customer reveals that, in most states, dual office holding is illegal, unconstitutional or simply not done. The report cites 20 current New Jersey legislators as also holding a municipal or county elected office, and another 19 persons who hold both county and municipal offices. The report calls for an immediate ban, with no exceptions for anyone holding two offices at the time the ban is enacted, finding that the conflict created by the practice is more urgent than any inconvenience caused to elected officials by changing the rules.

"Anyone who holds two offices is stopping someone else from holding one," said NJPP President Jon Shure. "If we care about participatory democracy, that's unacceptable."

One to a Customer cites a number of reasons why dual office holding should be banned, stating that it:

• Insulates office holders from political accountability
• Disturbs the system of checks and balances
• Is a form of political double-dipping on pensions and other benefits
• Amplifies pork-barrel spending
• Reinforces localism, parochialism and fragmentation
• Creates "low-show" jobs that divide officials' time and attention
• Puts officials in built-in conflict situations

One to a Customer is careful to warn that the ban will not automatically lead to better policy decisions or end all conflicts of interest or obligation. But, it "will make legislators more accountable, increase competition and open up the political process to new aspirants. Most of all, it will make transparent the weighing of local interests with statewide or regional concerns."

"This report shows that dual office holding no longer has any place in our political system. The costs are too high," according to Demos president Miles Rapoport. "A ban would be a step toward an improved, more representative system of government for New Jersey."

New Jersey's 1947 constitutional convention considered, but did not adopt, sweeping limitations on dual office holding. At the time, state legislators were paid $500 a year, compared to $49,000 today. In the early 1960s, a state court ruling threatened to overturn dual office holding, but the Legislature countered by passing a law explicitly permitting the practice.

As a model, One to a Customer suggests language in the North Carolina state constitution which says in part:

It is salutary that the responsibilities of self-government be widely shared among the citizens...and that the potential abuse of authority inherent in the holding of multiple offices by one individual be avoided. Therefore...no person shall hold concurrently any two offices in this state that are filled by election of the people.

Several bills have been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature to ban or limit dual office holding. No hearings have been held on them.

The full text of One to a Customer can be viewed at www.njpp.org.

NJPP
137 W. HANOVER ST. TRENTON, NJ 08618
Demos
220 FIFTH AVE., 5th FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10001

TAX REFORM

WORK & WAGES

BUDGET & FISCAL POLICY

TRANSIT ISSUES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

VOTING & GOVT REFORM

© 2008 New Jersey Policy Perspective