(Law Div.), affd o.b., 170 N.J.Super. 393, 406 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1979), which adequately explained to voters the nature of the Faulkner Act challenge at issue, the ordinance before the Court would be impossibly confusing and misleading if placed on the ballot. Notwithstan 5). The voters who signed the Committee’s petition in 2012 committed their support to the ordinance precisely as it was drafted — nothing more. See Ordinance to Amend the Jackson Twp. Admin. Code, supra, 437 N.J.Super. at 216-17, 97 A.3d 719. Nor can the ordinance be salvaged by an interpretative statement, which is intended to explain the question to voters, not to revise it after the fact. See N.J.S.A. 19:3-6; see also Ordinance to Amend the Jackson Twp. Admin. Code, supra, 437 N.J.Super. at 213, 216-17, 97 A.3d 719 (<HOLDING>). We note that the Committee of Petitioners
holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law holding annexation ordinance void holding that court may not sever clause from initial ordinance and submit remainder of ordinance to voters holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance