Letter from Platkin to Beach: ‘Your behavior during the committee hearing plainly discriminated based on viewpoint in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions’

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin set the following letter to State Sen. James Beach this morning:

I am writing to address your conduct as committee chair during the December 1, 2025 hearing held by the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee on S4924. I attended the hearing to voice my concern that the bill, if enacted, would dramatically weaken government accountability, harm New Jersey’s public institutions, enable corruption, and undermine the separation of powers and the independence of law enforcement in our state. Many others, both public officials and everyday New Jerseyans who do not have the platform of public office attended to express similar concerns. Rather than embrace this impressive showing of democratic engagement on the Monday after a holiday weekend, you instead used your power as committee chair to suppress criticism of the bill, all while affording preferential treatment to the bill’s supporters. Your actions at the hearing not only embarrassed the legislative chamber and our State, focusing nationwide attention yet again on New Jersey’s unfortunate history of corruption, but also squarely conflicted with First Amendment free-speech principles that are long established under the Federal and State Constitutions, depriving the public of the open debate to which they were entitled on an important policy issue.

Your behavior during the committee hearing plainly discriminated based on viewpoint in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions. For one thing, you unevenly applied time limits to speakers based on the viewpoint they were expressing. Indeed, it was shocking to many in the room that you applied a strict three-minute time limit to testimony by those opposed to the bill even as some supporters of the bill were permitted to speak at length. You repeatedly chastised speakers with whom you disagreed for pointing out your rank hypocrisy, dismissing them as not sufficiently “special” to merit equal treatment. For another, you also intentionally discriminated based on viewpoint in selecting the order of speakers. You ordered speakers so that public officials opposed to the bill were forced to testify last, after waiting over five hours to have their voices heard. This occurred despite the fact those public officials were among the very first individuals in the legislative chamber that morning and were unquestionably among the first attendees to submit a formal request to be heard. Placing Senator Andy Kim at the end of a long line of witnesses, and keeping him there even after several constituents informed you that Senator Kim needed to return to Washington to cast votes on behalf of New Jerseyans, sent a disappointing but unmistakable message: that only certain views and certain people were welcome before the committee. To make matters worse, you also applied inconsistent rules on group testimony, and you selectively enforced germaneness requirements—even repeatedly violating such rules yourself by lobbing pre-written, unrelated, baseless, and frankly confusing ad hominem attacks at speakers with whom you disagreed.

The law forbids such conduct by public officials. The New Jersey Constitution, like the United States Constitution, provides that our “people have the right … to make known their opinions to their representatives.” N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 18. When the public is invited to speak in a government forum, officials may not discriminate based on viewpoint or apply rules unevenly to favor preferred perspectives over disfavored ones. See, e.g., Besler v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Windsor-Plainsboro Reg’l Sch. Dist., 201 N.J. 544, 570 (2010) (“Significantly, once a governmental entity … opens the floor for discussion of relevant matters of public interest and concern, it ‘may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.’”). Ultimately, the “government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard.” Police Dep’t of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995) (“It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.”). These principles are foundational to a healthy democracy. Free speech and open debate are the lifeblood of our democratic institutions, and they should be welcomed—never stifled. As the New Jersey Supreme Court has observed, “free speech is not for the fainthearted. [Public] officials must be thick-skinned enough to tolerate the uninhibited and robust debate on public issues that the First Amendment demands.” Besler, 201 N.J. at 575. Those who hold public office should remember that they bear a special responsibility to “act solely in the public interest,” to “turn square corners,” and to conduct themselves “with compunction and integrity.” F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 427 (1985). The people of New Jersey deserve no less from those who have chosen to serve.

The free speech guarantees in our Constitution rest on a simple premise: that open debate is essential to the proper functioning of our democracy because “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). It is extremely unfortunate when those in power stifle the marketplace of ideas in the hopes that doing so will prevent others from exposing the flaws in their arguments. Our Constitution requires more, and our constituents deserve better. Rather than silencing public discourse and violating the oath you took to uphold the Constitution, you must respect the rights enshrined in our Federal and State Constitutions. I remind you that—just like President Trump, with whom you apparently share a lack of regard for legal constraints on your authority—your powers are and must be limited by the fundamental rights guaranteed by our founding documents. And while you may be in the twilight of your legislative career, it is never too late to reaffirm your commitment to basic good governance and to the oaths you swore to back when first assuming public office.

The Office of the Attorney General reserves all rights. I ask that you include this letter in the hearing record.