In New Jersey Ass'n on Correction v. Lan, 80 N.J. 199, 403 A.2d 437 (1979), the Court upheld submission of a public question seeking approval of legislation allowing for the issuance of bonds to finance a variety of unrelated facilities: Should the "Institutional Construction Bond Act of 1978" which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $ 100,000,000.00 for construction and improvement of facilities serving the mentally retarded and mentally ill; for construction of correctional institutions including Trenton State Prison; and for the acquisition and construction of facilities, including facilities to serve blind and handicapped persons and a forensic laboratory for the State Medical Examiner; and to provide means to pay the principal and interest on these bonds, be approved ? Id. at 203, 403 A.2d 437. In Lan, the plaintiffs attacked the inclusion of "construction of institutions for the incarcerated, including . . . Trenton State Prison', with other purposes of institutional construction." Id. at 209-10, 403 A.2d 437. Importantly, plaintiffs argued that inclusion of prison construction in the bill prevented voters who favored the use of State funds for the rehabilitation of prisoners rather than for the construction of prisons from supporting the use of State funds for other public facilities, such as libraries and care facilities for the mentally retarded. Accordingly, they asserted that inclusion of these diverse types of facilities in one bill was improvident and violative of the Constitution. Id. at 210-11, 403 A.2d 437. The statute was challenged in an action filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the trial court upheld its constitutional validity. The Appellate Division reversed, 164 N.J. Super. 115, 395 A.2d 889, and the Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the trial court. The Court rejected this contention, recognizing instead the primacy of the Legislature's powers in crafting public questions from submission to the voters: These questions, however one may view their merits, are for the Legislature and the people to decide, subject only to constitutional bounds. For, as frequently noted by this Court, the prudence, wisdom, good sense or otherwise of the legislative action are not for the Court, if it is only within the Constitution. Id. at 211, 403 A.2d 437. The difficulty of choice, the Court explained, does not project a constitutional infirmity. If a public question has a single purpose, diverse components germane to that purpose may properly be included in a single question. Id. at 212, 403 A.2d 437.