The opinion of the court was delivered by

NUGENT, J.A.D.

This appeal involves a governing body's pre-election challenge to an ordinance proposed in an initiative petition. The trial court declared a section of the ordinance unlawful but, notwithstanding a severance clause in the ordinance, declined to sever the unlawful section and order that the excised ordinance be placed on the ballot. We affirm. We conclude that the trial court had the authority to hear the pre-election challenge to the proposed ordinance. We further conclude that the court did not have the authority to revise the ordinance and order that the altered ordinance be placed on the ballot.

I.

Appellants, Nicolas Antonoff, Catherine V. Giancola, Richard F. Davidson, Raymond J. Cattonar, and Roger E. Downing, were the Committee of Petitioners responsible for an initiative petition to amend a Jackson Township ordinance. Respondents are the Mayor and Council of Jackson Township. Jackson Township is organized under the Optional Municipal Charter Law (the Faulkner Act), N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 to -210. The power of local self-government in municipalities organized under the Faulkner Act includes, with some exceptions, the right of voters to "propose any ordinance and ... adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative." N.J.S.A. 40:69A-184. "Any initiated ordinance may be submitted to the municipal council by a petition signed by" a required percentage of legal voters. Ibid.; see also N.J.S.A. 40:69A-185 (setting forth the procedures for the referendum process).

The petition must contain "the names and addresses of five voters, designated as the Committee of the Petitioners, who shall be regarded as responsible for the circulation and filing of the petition and for its possible withdrawal as hereinafter provided." N.J.S.A. 40:69A-186. As previously noted, appellants are the Committee of Petitioners responsible for filing the petition and proposed amended ordinance that are the subject of this appeal.

The events that led to the initiative in this case began in November 2011 when two of the appellants, Catherine V. Giancola and Raymond J. Cattonar, prepared a "Jackson Township Feasibility Study" on the topic of "Insourcing [the] Legal Department." Their study "relied on, among other things, extensive interviews of knowledgeable persons, and a thorough review of available literature on the matter."

The purpose of the study was to "ascertain whether it is more cost effective to retain an in-house legal staff versus outsourcing Jackson Townships [sic] legal needs," which was the practice at the time. The study recommended, as a cost-saving measure, employing in-house counsel and a paralegal instead of outsourcing legal work to a private firm. The study also proposed a shared-services agreement between the Township and the Jackson Board of Education (the Board), in which the Township's new in-house counsel would also handle legal matters for the Board, at no additional cost. The Township and the Board would still be able to retain outside counsel for specialized legal services that could not be handled by the new in-house attorney and paralegal.

From November 2011 through January 2012, appellants "oversaw the drafting of the petition and ordinance" that proposed to amend the Township's code provisions concerning its legal department and municipal attorney. The ordinance provides:

In addition to the ordinance, a proposed question and interpretive statement for the election ballot were drafted. They stated:

After appellants obtained the required number of signatures for the petition, they filed it, and the municipal clerk presented it to the members of the Township Council, who voted unanimously to decline to adopt it. The ordinance would have been placed on the ballot following the Council's action, but after some delays not relevant to this appeal, the Mayor and Council filed a complaint for declaratory judgment. In their complaint, they alleged that provisions of the ordinance were illegal, including the provision that provided for shared services with the Board of Education. Appellants answered, and the trial court disposed of the matter on cross-motions for summary judgment after the parties briefed and orally argued their positions.

Recognizing "countless examples of why the democratic process should be reserved to the people at all times under the Faulkner Act," the court nevertheless noted that paragraph 1(D)(9) of the proposed ordinance conflicted with the Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act (USSCA), N.J.S.A. 40A:65-1 to -35, which was enacted "to effectuate agreements between local units for any service or circumstance intended to reduce property taxes through the reduction of local expenses." N.J.S.A. 40A:65-2(c). The court explained that the USSCA required local units to enter an agreement to share services and concluded "that the provision of the ballot question which compels legal services to be provided to the Board of Education at [its] request if not approved by the Township Committee would ultimately fall."

Having so concluded, the court framed the dispositive issue as whether it could "excise out that portion of the [o]rdinance which violates the shared services agreement." As to that issue, the court concluded that "[t]o do so the [c]ourt would have to, in the [c]ourt's opinion, wholly change the intent of the initiative." The court explained that excising the shared services section of the proposed ordinance "would remove ... half of the relief sought."

The court believed that by excising paragraph 1(D)(9), the proposed ordinance would be "eviscerated." Explaining that courts should be reluctant to impose their will to make petitions better, in that "[t]he will of the people should be protected and these [p]etitions should be recognized as sacrosanct," the court concluded that severing the shared services provision of the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the will of the voters. Consequently, the court declared the petition and proposed ordinance null and void. Appellants appealed from the court's implementing order.

II.

Appellants present the following arguments for our consideration1:

"We review de novo the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment." Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 91, 67 A.3d 601 (2013). Moreover, the material facts in this case are undisputed and this appeal presents for our review issues of law only. "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995).

We address appellants' second argument first. Differentiating between "substantive" pre-election challenges to initiative ordinances on one hand, and "procedural" or "jurisdictional" challenges on the other, appellants argue that the courts of this State should not entertain a challenge to the substantive validity of such an ordinance. Relying upon James D. Gordon, III, & David B. Magleby, Pre-Election Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums, 64 Notre Dame L.Rev. 298 (1989), appellants submit that such pre-election substantive judicial review "involves issuing an advisory opinion, violates ripeness requirements, undermines the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and constitutes unwarranted judicial interference with a legislative process." Appellants maintain that "[r]esearch has not revealed any New Jersey case where a court, in derogation of the generally-applicable principles regarding ripeness, advisory opinions, and separation of powers, has interfered with a legislative proposal that, as here, is only alleged to be partially invalid, and invalid on substantive grounds, not jurisdictional."

Appellants also argue that the courts should not entertain pre-election declaratory judgment challenges to proposed ordinances because such challenges contravene the express language of the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Appellants' argument that the Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50 to -62, does not authorize a challenge to a pre-election initiative ordinance, has previously been rejected. In City of Newark v. Benjamin, 144 N.J.Super. 58, 65, 364 A.2d 563 (Ch.Div.), aff'd o.b., 144 N.J.Super. 389, 365 A.2d 945 (App.Div.1976), aff'd o.b., 75 N.J. 311, 381 A.2d 793 (1978), the defendants, in challenging a proposed ordinance, "argue[d] that an action for a declaratory judgment under N.J.S.A. 2A:16-53 is not the proper procedure because there exists no municipal ordinance to be construed." The court noted that there were several cases "in which declaratory judgments were sought before an ordinance had been enacted. In each of these cases the courts declared the rights of the parties and in each held the proposed ordinance invalid." Ibid. (citing McCrink v. Town of W. Orange, 85 N.J.Super. 86, 204 A.2d 10 (App.Div.1964); Smith v. Twp. of Livingston, 106 N.J.Super. 444, 256 A.2d 85 (Ch. Div.), aff'd o.b., 54 N.J. 525, 257 A.2d 698 (1969); Twp. of Sparta v. Spillane, 125 N.J.Super. 519, 312 A.2d 154 (App.Div. 1973), certif. den., 64 N.J. 493, 317 A.2d 706 (1974)).

The court explained that such decisions carry out the purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act, id. at 65-66, 364 A.2d 563, which is "to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations." N.J.S.A. 2A:16-51. The court reasoned that "[i]f an ordinance is invalid on its face, it would be a useless expenditure of effort and money to submit it to the electorate before its validity has been determined." Benjamin, supra, 144 N.J.Super. at 66-67, 364 A.2d 563. We agree with the reasoning in Benjamin. Accordingly, we reject appellants' argument that pre-election initiative ordinances cannot be challenged under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

We also decline to follow an analytical framework in which the result is determined by whether a challenge to a pre-election initiative ordinance is characterized as "substantive," as distinguished from "procedural" or "jurisdictional." Our courts have neither adopted such classifications nor used them to determine whether an issue is ripe for adjudication. See e.g., Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 101, 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (quoting Benjamin, supra, 144 N.J.Super. at 66, 364 A.2d 563) (explaining that "when the law giving rise to an election `is defective on its face,' there is `good reason' to review the law's validity before voting"); Clean Capital Cnty. Comm. v. Driver, 228 N.J.Super. 506, 510, 550 A.2d 494 (App. Div.) ("Ordinarily, [a] court's review of the validity of an initiative ordinance prior to its enactment is limited to whether it is defective on its face, or the petitioners have failed to follow the statutory requirements."), certif. granted in part and denied in part and modified by, 134 N.J. 468, 634 A.2d 518 (1988). Existing precedent provides our trial courts with an adequate framework for determining whether it is appropriate to decide pre-election challenges to initiative ordinances.

Our opinion should not be construed as either determining that the trial court correctly decided that paragraph 1(D)(9) of the initiative ordinance was invalid on its face or as rejecting as implausible the argument that paragraph 1(D)(9) could have been construed as implicitly requiring compliance with the USSCA. As respondents point out, those issues have not been raised in this appeal and thus we do not consider them.

We now turn to appellant's argument that the trial court erred by not severing paragraph 1(D)(9) from the initial ordinance and submitting the remainder of the ordinance to the voters. Appellants argue that "even if subparagraph (D)(9) of the ordinance were defective, the robust severability clause in the proposed ordinance required the remaining unchallenged portions of the ordinance to be presented to the voters." They reason that the severability clause "affirmatively states the intentions of the petition's drafters, its signers, and its voters, that they wanted the ordinance to proceed even if it was struck down in part." They nevertheless acknowledge that "there is no clear New Jersey precedent that applies severability provisions in the context of citizen initiatives."

Respondents contend the trial court properly recognized that it would be required to re-write a substantial portion of the initiative petition, including the question and interpretative statement. They point out that "no legal authority exists in New Jersey law for a court to re-write an initiative petition through the doctrine of severability." They further contend that precedents concerning severability clauses in statutes and ordinances enacted and adopted "simply do not apply" to initiative petitions. They maintain that "even if the severability doctrine does apply to the [i]nitiative [p]etition, the defective portions are so interwoven with the valid portions, the [p]roposed [o]rdinance can no longer stand."

Whether a court may sever an unlawful clause from an ordinance proposed in an initiative petition and order the excised ordinance placed on the ballot, rather than having the petitioners begin the initiative process anew, is a question our courts have not answered. The issue has received attention elsewhere. The jurisdictions that have addressed it appear to be divided along the lines of the parties to this action. For instance, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that the courts of that state have the authority to sever invalid portions of ordinances proposed by initiative. McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81 (Alaska 1988). The court reasoned

The contrary view, as explained in an early decision by a California appellate court, is that if a provision in an ordinance proposed by initiative is invalid, the entire initiative and ordinance must be invalidated. Bennett v. Drullard, 27 Cal.App. 180, 149 P. 368 (1915). The California appeals court explained:

Here, the parties cite to and argue the cases in other jurisdictions that support their respective positions. We choose to resolve the issue based on the Faulkner Act itself and existing precedent in this State.

Indisputably, in Faulkner Act municipalities there is a "strong public policy favoring the right of the voters to exercise their power of initiative." Clean Capital, supra, 228 N.J.Super. at 510, 550 A.2d 494 (examining an initiative ordinance under the Optional County Charter Law). That policy derives from the Faulkner Act's goal "to confer upon municipalities the greatest possible power of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this State." Mun. Council of Newark, supra, 183 N.J. at 363, 873 A.2d 544 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For that reason, "[s]tatutory provisions for initiative ... [should] be liberally construed to effect the salutary objective of popular participation in local government." Concerned Citizens of Wildwood Crest v. Pantalone, 185 N.J.Super. 37, 43, 447 A.2d 200 (App.Div.1982).

Those same considerations, however, mandate minimal judicial interference in the initiative process. As previously noted, pre-election judicial review of the validity of an initiative ordinance "is limited to whether it is defective on its face, or the petitioners have failed to follow the statutory requirements." Clean Capital, supra, 228 N.J.Super. at 510, 550 A.2d 494; cf. Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez, supra, 204 N.J. at 101, 7 A.3d 720 (noting there is good reason for pre-election judicial review when the law giving rise to an election is defective on its face).

The Faulkner Act itself supports that result. The Act provides that if, within twenty days of an initiative petition's submission to the municipal clerk, the municipal council "shall fail to pass an ordinance requested by an initiative petition in substantially the form requested ... the municipal clerk shall submit the ordinance to the voters unless" the Committee of Petitioners withdraws it. N.J.S.A. 40:69A-191 (emphasis added). We agree with respondents that this language requires that initiative petitions under the Faulkner Act reach the voters in substantially the same form as presented to the petitioners.

Moreover, in view of the strong policies underlying the Faulkner Act, courts should not be making what are often subjective decisions about the intent of voters who have signed initiative petitions. This case illustrates the point. Notwithstanding the severability clause, the parties have made equally plausible arguments about the significance to the petition's signatories of paragraph 1(D)(9) of the proposed ordinance.

The policies underlying the Faulkner Act would not be served by the court severing part of the ordinance based on its subjective evaluation of the significance of the school board and severability clauses, then rewriting the ordinance, ballot question, and interpretative statement. If a voter signs a petition in a certain form, he or she should expect to see the proposed ordinance in substantially that same form on the ballot. A court cannot discern with any certainty which provisions of an initiative ordinance induced each voter to sign it. It is not the role of the courts to interfere with the legislative powers granted to citizens of Faulkner Act municipalities.

Affirmed.