New Jersey 222nd Legislature Status: Introduced 3 D cosponsors

A 4543 — Permits Paterson and Newark police who were promoted following February 2019 police sergeant exam to have those promotions deemed regular appointments.

Last action — APP

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed General Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the General Assembly. Introduced March 10, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Advancing 38% · moderate confidence
  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 6 sponsors

    5 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (3 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

In plain language

The bill allows certain police promotions in Paterson and Newark to be recognized as regular appointments.

This bill permits police officers in Paterson and Newark who were promoted after the February 2019 sergeant exam to have those promotions confirmed as regular positions. It aims to clarify the status of these promotions.

Summary

February 2019 police sergent exam-concerns Paterson & Newark police

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

26 added · 74 removed

Plain-language change summary

The bill has been amended to provide that police officers in Paterson and Newark who were promoted following the February 2019 police sergeant exam will have their promotions considered regular appointments. This change formalizes the status of those promotions, which may affect how they are treated in terms of their employment and rank within the police departments.

→
Previous
Latest
2026, c.019 (A4543) T&E   P.L.
2026, c.019 (A4543) CHAPTER 19   An Act concerning the February 2019 civil service police sergeant exam.
2026, CHAPTER 19, approved June 30, 2026 Assembly, No.
4543     An Act concerning the February 2019 civil service police sergeant exam.
       1.    The Legislature finds and declares that:
       1.  The Legislature finds and declares that:
     a.     On February 23, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission administered a promotional police sergeant exam.
     a.  On February 23, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission administered a promotional police sergeant exam.
     b.    Following the exam, the commission's Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration analyzed the examination's raw data results and recommended that, in accordance with a consent decree reached with the United States Department of Justice, as well as existing law, the last exam questions should not be scored because they disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic candidates, revealing a disparity in racial minority and non-racial minority candidates' performance.
     b.  Following the exam, the commission's Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration analyzed the examination's raw data results and recommended that, in accordance with a consent decree reached with the United States Department of Justice, as well as existing law, the last exam questions should not be scored because they disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic candidates, revealing a disparity in racial minority and non-racial minority candidates' performance.  The commission agreed and released the scoring results, excluding the last 10 questions from scoring.
 The commission agreed and released the scoring results, excluding the last 10 questions from scoring.
     c.  Following the commission’s decision, a challenge of that decision was raised by several petitioners arguing that the commission's action was arbitrary and capricious and adversely impacted the examinees that followed the instructions, managed their time properly, and completed the exam in the allotted time, and, therefore, the test results should be nullified.
     c.     Following the commission’s decision, a challenge of that decision was raised by several petitioners arguing that the commission's action was arbitrary and capricious, adversely impacted the examinees that followed the instructions, managed their time properly, and completed the exam in the allotted time and, therefore the test results should be nullified.
     d.  On August 22, 2025, an Appellate Division decision was issued requiring that the 2019 test results be invalidated and a new exam be administered.
     d.    On August 22, 2025, an Appellate Division decision was issued requiring that the 2019 test results be invalidated, and a new exam be administered.
     e.  Following the Appellate Division decision, the commission issued an order on November 10, 2025, which determined that the court’s decision will only apply to police officers in Paterson and Newark who took the 2019 exam and therefore ordered that only those officers from those cities who were promoted following that exam be required to retake the exam.
     e.     Following the Appellate Division decision, the commission issued an order on November 10, 2025, which determined that the court’s decision will only apply to police officers in Paterson and Newark who took the 2019 exam and therefore ordered that only those officers from those cities who were promoted following that exam be required to retake the exam.
     f.  The commission’s order further stated that appointments from the police sergeant eligible lists in Newark and Paterson resulting from the examination, as well as any other appointments from subsequent police promotional lists of employees who were originally promoted from these police sergeant lists, were deemed conditional, pending the results of a new examination.
     f.     The commission’s order further stated that appointments from the police sergeant eligible lists in Newark and Paterson resulting from the examination, as well as any other appointments from subsequent police promotional lists of employees who were originally promoted from these police sergeant lists were deemed conditional, pending the results of a new examination.
     g.  As a result of these decisions, over 100 police officers in Newark and Paterson may face demotions.
     g.    As a result of these decisions, over 100 police officers in Newark and Paterson may face demotions.
     h.  The potential demotion of so many police officers would negatively impact morale, disrupt the chain of command, compromise internal operations, and therefore pose a risk to the public safety of two of the State’s largest cities.
     h.    The potential demotion of so many police officers would negatively impact morale, disrupt the chain of command, compromise internal operations, and therefore pose a risk to the public safety of two of the State’s largest cities.
     i.  This potential risk to public safety poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to the citizens of this State.
     i.     This potential risk to public safety poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to the citizens of this State.
       2.  Notwithstanding any law, rule, regulation, or administrative decision or action to the contrary, any promotions determined to be conditional as a result of the final administrative action of the Civil Service Commission issued on November 10, 2025, In the Matter of Gabriele Spallacci, et al., CSC Docket No.
       2.    Notwithstanding any law, rule, regulation, or administrative decision or action to the contrary, any promotions determined to be conditional as a result of the final administrative action of the Civil Service Commission issued on November 10, 2025, In the Matter of Gabriele Spallacci, et al., CSC Docket No.
       3.    This act shall take effect immediately.
       3.  This act shall take effect immediately.
    STATEMENT        This bill permits Paterson and Newark police officers who were promoted following the February 23, 2019, police sergeants exam to have those promotions deemed as regular appointments.
       Approved June 30, 2026.
     On February 23, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission administered a promotional police sergeant exam.  Following the exam, the commission's Division of Test Development, Analytics and Administration analyzed the examination's raw data results and recommended that, in accordance with a consent decree reached with the United States Department of Justice, as well as existing law, the last 10 exam questions should not be scored because they disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic candidates, revealing a disparity in racial minority and non-racial minority candidates' performance.  The commission agreed and released the scoring results, which excluded the last 10 questions from scoring.
     Following the commission’s decision, a challenge of that decision was raised by several petitioners arguing that the commission's action was arbitrary and capricious, adversely impacted the examinees that followed the instructions, managed their time properly, and completed the exam in the allotted time and, therefore the test results should be nullified.
     On August 22, 2025, an Appellate Division decision was issued requiring that the 2019 test results be invalidated, and a new exam be administered.  Following the Appellate Division decision, the commission issued an order on November 10, 2025, which determined that the court’s decision applied only to police officers in Paterson and Newark who took the 2019 exam and therefore ordered that only those officers from those cities who were promoted following that exam be required to retake the exam.  The commission’s order further stated that appointments from the police sergeant eligible lists resulting from the examination in Newark and Paterson, as well as any other appointments from subsequent police promotional lists of employees who were originally promoted from these police sergeant lists were deemed conditional.  As a result of these decisions, over 100 police officers in Newark and Paterson may face demotions.
 The potential demotion of so many police officers would negatively impact morale, disrupt the chain of command, compromise internal operations, and therefore pose a risk to the public safety of two of the State’s largest cities.  This potential risk to public safety poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to the citizens of this State.
     This bill requires that any promotions determined to be conditional as a result of the final administrative action of the Civil Service Commission issued on November 10, 2025, In the Matter of Gabriele Spallacci, et al., CSC Docket No.
2026-1023, will be deemed to be regular appointments as of the date the original appointments were initially made.
 Such regular appointments will be considered to be permanent appointments following the individual’s successful completion of any applicable working test period requirements.  The personnel records of such appointees must be adjusted by the commission as may be necessary to reflect the original appointment dates.
                                            Permits Paterson and Newark police who were promoted following February 2019 police sergeant exam to have those promotions deemed regular appointments.
View plain text versions (3)

Action History

  1. APP

  2. PS PBH

  3. SUB FOR

  4. REP 2RS

  5. R/S REF SLP

  6. PA

  7. REP 2RA

  8. INT 1RA REF APS

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

5 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 114 not signed on

Sponsors (5)

Co-sponsors (1)

Not signed on (114)

114 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 114 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Floor vote

Passed 36 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 13002
Democrat 23002
Total 36004
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Beach, James Democrat Yea
Burgess, Renee C. Democrat Yea
Burzichelli, John J. Democrat Yea
Cruz-Perez, Nilsa I. Democrat Not Voting
Cryan, Joseph P. Democrat Yea
Diegnan Jr., Patrick J. Democrat Yea
Gopal, Vin Democrat Yea
Greenstein, Linda R. Democrat Yea
Johnson, Gordon M. Democrat Yea
Lagana, Joseph A. Democrat Yea
McKeon, John F. Democrat Yea
McKnight, Angela V. Democrat Yea
Moriarty, Paul D. Democrat Yea
Mukherji, Raj Democrat Yea
Ruiz, M. Teresa Democrat Yea
Sarlo, Paul A. Democrat Yea
Scutari, Nicholas P. Democrat Yea
Singleton, Troy Democrat Yea
Smith, Bob Democrat Yea
Stack, Brian P. Democrat Yea
Timberlake, Britnee N. Democrat Yea
Turner, Shirley K. Democrat Yea
Vitale, Joseph F. Democrat Yea
Wimberly, Benjie E. Democrat Yea
Zwicker, Andrew Democrat Not Voting
Amato Jr., Carmen F. Republican Yea
Bramnick, Jon M. Republican Yea
Bucco, Anthony M. Republican Yea
Corrado, Kristin M. Republican Yea
Henry, Owen Republican Not Voting
Holzapfel, James W. Republican Yea
O'Scanlon Jr., Declan J. Republican Not Voting
Pennacchio, Joseph Republican Yea
Polistina, Vincent J. Republican Yea
Schepisi, Holly T. Republican Yea
Singer, Robert W. Republican Yea
Space, Parker Republican Yea
Steinhardt, Douglas J. Republican Yea
Testa Jr., Michael L. Republican Yea
Tiver, Latham Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Floor vote

Passed 72 Yea · 0 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democrat 51005
Republican 19003
Unaffiliated 2000
Total 72008
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Azzariti Jr., John V. — Yea
Donlon, Margie — Yea
Abdelaziz, Al Democrat Yea
Angelozzi, Anthony Democrat Yea
Bagolie, Rosaura Democrat Not Voting
Bailey Jr., David Democrat Yea
Bhalla, Ravi S. Democrat Yea
Brennan, Katie Democrat Yea
Calabrese, Clinton Democrat Yea
Carter, Linda S. Democrat Yea
Collazos-Gill, Alixon Democrat Yea
Coughlin, Craig J. Democrat Yea
Danielsen, Joe Democrat Yea
DeAngelo, Wayne P. Democrat Yea
Drulis, Mitchelle Democrat Yea
Egan, Kevin P. Democrat Yea
Freiman, Roy Democrat Yea
Greenwald, Louis D. Democrat Yea
Haider, Shama A. Democrat Yea
Hutchison, Dan Democrat Yea
Kane, Melinda Democrat Not Voting
Karabinchak, Robert J. Democrat Yea
Katz, Andrea Democrat Yea
Kearney, Vincent M. Democrat Not Voting
Kennedy, James J. Democrat Yea
Lopez, Yvonne Democrat Yea
Macurdy, Andrew Democrat Yea
McCoy, Tennille R. Democrat Yea
Miller, Cody D. Democrat Yea
Moen Jr., William F. Democrat Yea
Morales, Carmen Theresa Democrat Not Voting
Murphy, Carol A. Democrat Yea
Onyema, Chigozie U. Democrat Yea
Park, Ellen J. Democrat Not Voting
Peterpaul Esq., Luanne M. Democrat Yea
Pintor Marin, Eliana Democrat Yea
Quijano, Annette Democrat Yea
Reynolds-Jackson, Verlina Democrat Yea
Rodriguez, Ed Democrat Yea
Rodriguez, Gabriel Democrat Yea
Rowan, Maureen Democrat Yea
Sampson IV, William B. Democrat Yea
Schaer, Gary S. Democrat Yea
Schnall, Alexander Democrat Yea
Simmons, Heather Democrat Yea
Singh, Balvir Democrat Yea
Spearman, William W. Democrat Yea
Speight, Shanique Democrat Yea
Stanley, Sterley S. Democrat Yea
Stewart, Kenyatta Democrat Yea
Swain, Lisa Democrat Yea
Sweeney, Marisa Democrat Yea
Tucker, Cleopatra G. Democrat Yea
Tully, Chris Democrat Yea
Venezia, Michael Democrat Yea
Verrelli, Anthony S. Democrat Yea
Wainstein, Larry Democrat Yea
Walker, Jerry Democrat Yea
Auth, Robert Republican Yea
Barlas, Al Republican Yea
Bergen, Brian Republican Yea
Clifton, Robert D. Republican Yea
DePhillips, Christopher P. Republican Not Voting
DiMaio, John Republican Yea
Dunn, Aura K. Republican Yea
Fantasia, Dawn Republican Yea
Flynn, Victoria A. Republican Yea
Guardian, Donald A. Republican Yea
Inganamort, Michael Republican Yea
Kanitra, Paul Republican Yea
Kean, Sean T. Republican Yea
McClellan, Antwan L. Republican Yea
McGuckin, Gregory P. Republican Yea
Myhre, Gregory E. Republican Yea
Peterson, Erik Republican Yea
Rumpf, Brian E. Republican Not Voting
Sauickie, Alex Republican Yea
Scharfenberger, Gerry Republican Yea
Simonsen, Erik K. Republican Not Voting
Webber, Jay Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does A 4543 do?
February 2019 police sergent exam-concerns Paterson & Newark police
Who sponsors A 4543?
A 4543 is sponsored by Wimberly, Benjie E., Greenstein, Linda R., Ruiz, M. Teresa, Speight, Shanique (Democrat), Stewart, Kenyatta (Democrat), and Abdelaziz, Al (Democrat).
What is the current status of A 4543?
This bill has been introduced in the General Assembly. Introduced March 10, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track A 4543?
Track A 4543 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on A 4543

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of A 4543

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →