Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells

7 A.3d 720, 204 N.J. 79 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator v. Wells

New Jersey Supreme Court
7 A.3d 720, 204 N.J. 79 (2010)

JC

Facts

This matter arose under New Jersey’s Uniform Recall Election Law, which had passed a public ballot in 1993. That law gave voters the power to have a recall election for any elected official or congressional representative in New Jersey. In 2009, the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of U.S. Senator (the committee) (plaintiff) sent a notice of intention to recall Senator Menendez to New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells (defendant). Wells rejected the notice, arguing that the election of a US senator was a matter of federal jurisdiction and authority. The committee then filed suit, seeking a review of Wells’s decision. Although acknowledging the lack of any case law directly on point, the appellate court noted that it would instead consider the Constitution, relevant historical materials regarding its construction, and the principles of democracy. Article 1, § 3, Clause 1 expressly provides that a senator’s term is six years, and the only express limitation on that term is the Senate’s ability to expel a member. The committee argued that the absence of mention of recall in the Constitution must not be construed as a bar against its use. In reviewing the historical record, the court noted the continual historical discussion of the need for Congress to act independently of the influences of the individual states, and although three states had initially proposed Constitutional amendments that would have allowed for the recall of senators, none of those amendments survived the Constitutional Convention. This matter was heard at the trial court level, and a ruling was entered for the committee that Wells could not ignore the notice and that the matter must proceed. Wells appealed that decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rabner, C.J.)

Dissent (Rivera-Soto and Hoens, J.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership