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
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed General Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
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 chanceBased 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
-
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 removedPlain-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.
2026, c.019 (A4543) T&ECHAPTER 19 P.L.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. 1. The Legislature finds and declares that:
a. a. On February 23, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission administered a promotional police sergeant exam.
b. 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.performance. The commission agreed and released the scoring results, excluding the last 10 questions from scoring.
The commissionc. agreedFollowing the commission’s decision, a challenge of that decision was raised by several petitioners arguing that the commission's action was arbitrary and releasedcapricious and adversely impacted the scoringexaminees results,that excludingfollowed the lastinstructions, 10managed questionstheir fromtime scoring.properly, and completed the exam in the allotted time, and, therefore, the test results should be nullified.
c. d. FollowingOn theAugust commission’s22, decision,2025, aan challengeAppellate ofDivision that decision was raisedissued byrequiring several petitioners arguing that the commission's2019 actiontest wasresults arbitrarybe andinvalidated capricious, adversely impacted the examinees that followed the instructions, managed their time properly, and completeda thenew exam in the allotted time and, therefore the test results should be nullified.administered.
d. e. OnFollowing Augustthe 22,Appellate 2025,Division decision, the commission issued an Appellateorder Divisionon decisionNovember was10, issued2025, requiringwhich determined that the 2019court’s testdecision resultswill beonly invalidated,apply to police officers in Paterson and aNewark newwho took the 2019 exam and therefore ordered that only those officers from those cities who were promoted following that exam be administered.required to retake the exam.
e. f. FollowingThe thecommission’s Appellateorder Divisionfurther decision,stated thethat commissionappointments issuedfrom anthe orderpolice onsergeant Novembereligible 10,lists 2025,in whichNewark determinedand thatPaterson theresulting court’sfrom decisionthe willexamination, onlyas applywell toas policeany officersother inappointments Patersonfrom andsubsequent Newarkpolice whopromotional tooklists theof 2019employees examwho andwere thereforeoriginally orderedpromoted that only those officers from thosethese citiespolice whosergeant lists, were promoteddeemed followingconditional, thatpending examthe beresults requiredof toa retakenew theexamination. exam.
f. g. TheAs commission’sa orderresult furtherof statedthese thatdecisions, appointmentsover from100 the police sergeantofficers eligible lists in Newark and Paterson resultingmay fromface thedemotions. 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. h. AsThe apotential resultdemotion of theseso decisions,many over 100 police officers inwould Newarknegatively impact morale, disrupt the chain of command, compromise internal operations, and Patersontherefore maypose facea demotions.risk to the public safety of two of the State’s largest cities.
h. i. TheThis potential demotionrisk ofto sopublic manysafety policeposes officersan wouldunnecessary negatively impact morale, disrupt the chain of command, compromise internal operations, and thereforeunacceptable pose a risk to the publiccitizens safety of twothis ofState. the State’s largest cities.
i. 2. ThisNotwithstanding potentialany risklaw, torule, publicregulation, safetyor posesadministrative andecision unnecessaryor andaction unacceptableto riskthe contrary, any promotions determined to be conditional as a result of the citizensfinal administrative action of thisthe State.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. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT ThisApproved billJune permits30, Paterson2026. and Newark police officers who were promoted following the February 23, 2019, police sergeants exam to have those promotions deemed as regular appointments.
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.
Action History
-
APP
-
PS PBH
-
SUB FOR
-
REP 2RS
-
R/S REF SLP
-
PA
-
REP 2RA
-
INT 1RA REF APS
Sponsors
- Benjie E. Wimberly · Primary
- Linda R. Greenstein · Primary
- M. Teresa Ruiz · Primary
- Shanique Speight · Cosponsor
- Kenyatta Stewart · Primary
- Al Abdelaziz · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →5 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 114 not signed on
Sponsors (5)
- Wimberly, Benjie E.
- Greenstein, Linda R.
- Ruiz, M. Teresa
- Stewart, Kenyatta Democrat
- Abdelaziz, Al Democrat
Co-sponsors (1)
- Speight, Shanique Democrat
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 13 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Democrat | 23 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 36 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 0% | 0% | 10% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 80% | 0% | 0% | 20% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Greenstein, Linda R. | Democrat | Yea |
| McKnight, Angela V. | Democrat | Yea |
| Moriarty, Paul D. | Democrat | Yea |
| Henry, Owen | Republican | Not Voting |
| Tiver, Latham | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 51 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Republican | 19 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 72 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 0% | 0% | 10% |
How each member voted (80)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Angelozzi, Anthony | Democrat | Yea |
| Danielsen, Joe | Democrat | Yea |
| Murphy, Carol A. | Democrat | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Ed | Democrat | Yea |
| Singh, Balvir | Democrat | Yea |
| Kanitra, Paul | Republican | Yea |
| McClellan, Antwan L. | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
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 →