In a surprise ruling that could throw this year's campaigns for Senate and
Assembly into turmoil, an appeals court yesterday invalidated the state's
legislative districts and ordered them redrawn to comply with the state
constitution.
Unless the ruling is overturned on appeal, the commission that drew the
districts in 2001 would have to meet again and fix them -- before April 7,
when legislative candidates must file to run in the June 3 primaries.
Republicans originally objected to the district boundaries on civil-rights grounds, arguing that they unfairly diluted minority votes in the Newark area. Those claims were turned aside by state and federal courts in 2001. But yesterday, a three-judge state appeals court ruled in the GOP's favor on a narrower issue, saying that carving Newark and Jersey City into three legislative districts each violated plain language in the state constitution.
Republicans yesterday celebrated what they consider a long-overdue vindication of their arguments against the map.
Calling the ruling "a victory for the rule of law and the voting public," Senate Co-President John Bennett (R-Monmouth) said: "It is imperative that these flawed districts are corrected so that New Jersey may move into this year's election with a new, constitutional map."
But Democratic lawyers promised to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, and sounded confident that they would prevail.
"If I were a Republican, I'd keep my dancing shoes in the closet," said Senate Co-President Richard Codey (D-Essex).
Following the 2000 Census, a bipartisan commission was appointed to redraw the districts to make them roughly equal in population. The Republicans and Democrats could not agree on a map, and an independent 11th member named to break the deadlock chose the Democrat-crafted plan.
Republicans sued to block the plan, but lost in both state and federal court, and the Legislature ran the 2001 election in the new districts. Helped by the new map, Democrats won back the Assembly for the first time in 10 years and pulled into a 20-20 tie in the Senate.
But for the past year-and-a-half, another lawsuit -- this one filed by Assemblymen Paul DiGaetano and Kevin O'Toole, both of Essex County, and several voters -- quietly moved through the state courts.
In this lawsuit, the Republicans pointed to a provision in the New Jersey Constitution dating from 1966 that prohibits map-drawers from splitting up the state's two biggest cities, Newark and Jersey City, into more than two districts. They are now split into three districts each.
Yesterday, Judges James Petrella, Jack Lintner and Lorraine Parker of the Appellate Division of Superior Court ruled that the GOP lawmakers were right.
Of the constitutional language at issue, the court wrote that "nothing could
be clearer or more basic."
The idea that heavily minority Newark and Jersey City should go into two districts runs counter to the concept that drove Democrats who drew the new map. In a process they called "unpacking," Democrats sought to spread black and Hispanic voters into a number of districts. They would still represent a large chunk of the voters in each district, but no one minority group would make up the majority of the electorate in those districts as in the past.
The Democrats argued that this strategy would help elect more black and Hispanic legislators. Republicans said it would dilute the minority vote.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the "unpacking," ruling unanimously in May 2001 that the map did not violate minority voters' rights.
But last April, another federal court in Georgia threw out a map drawn up by Democrats there that reduced the percentage of blacks in several districts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of that ruling from the Georgia Democrats.
While the language of New Jersey's constitution is clear, Democrats argued that federal laws invalidated it. Democratic lawyer Leon Sokol said it would be impossible to protect the minority vote as the federal Voting Rights Act requires if the state follows its own constitution.
Yesterday's state appeals court ruling "would effectively force you to pack those minorities into a smaller number of districts," Sokol said.
Codey said that would disenfranchise minorities: "Their votes would not matter as much," he said.
The 2001 election added four new minority members to the Legislature.
Newark and Jersey City have been divided into three or even four districts in almost every decade since the redistricting rules in the state constitution were approved in 1966. In some of those years, a Republican plan was chosen.
"If the Republicans are arguing this is wrong, why did they do it? How hypocritical is that?" Codey said.
While the ruling involves only two cities, the effect would be sweeping if it stands: "Once you change one district, you change all the districts and it become a domino effect," Sokol said.
Assembly into turmoil, an appeals court yesterday invalidated the state's
legislative districts and ordered them redrawn to comply with the state
constitution.
Unless the ruling is overturned on appeal, the commission that drew the
districts in 2001 would have to meet again and fix them -- before April 7,
when legislative candidates must file to run in the June 3 primaries.
Republicans originally objected to the district boundaries on civil-rights grounds, arguing that they unfairly diluted minority votes in the Newark area. Those claims were turned aside by state and federal courts in 2001. But yesterday, a three-judge state appeals court ruled in the GOP's favor on a narrower issue, saying that carving Newark and Jersey City into three legislative districts each violated plain language in the state constitution.
Republicans yesterday celebrated what they consider a long-overdue vindication of their arguments against the map.
Calling the ruling "a victory for the rule of law and the voting public," Senate Co-President John Bennett (R-Monmouth) said: "It is imperative that these flawed districts are corrected so that New Jersey may move into this year's election with a new, constitutional map."
But Democratic lawyers promised to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, and sounded confident that they would prevail.
"If I were a Republican, I'd keep my dancing shoes in the closet," said Senate Co-President Richard Codey (D-Essex).
Following the 2000 Census, a bipartisan commission was appointed to redraw the districts to make them roughly equal in population. The Republicans and Democrats could not agree on a map, and an independent 11th member named to break the deadlock chose the Democrat-crafted plan.
Republicans sued to block the plan, but lost in both state and federal court, and the Legislature ran the 2001 election in the new districts. Helped by the new map, Democrats won back the Assembly for the first time in 10 years and pulled into a 20-20 tie in the Senate.
But for the past year-and-a-half, another lawsuit -- this one filed by Assemblymen Paul DiGaetano and Kevin O'Toole, both of Essex County, and several voters -- quietly moved through the state courts.
In this lawsuit, the Republicans pointed to a provision in the New Jersey Constitution dating from 1966 that prohibits map-drawers from splitting up the state's two biggest cities, Newark and Jersey City, into more than two districts. They are now split into three districts each.
Yesterday, Judges James Petrella, Jack Lintner and Lorraine Parker of the Appellate Division of Superior Court ruled that the GOP lawmakers were right.
Of the constitutional language at issue, the court wrote that "nothing could
be clearer or more basic."
The idea that heavily minority Newark and Jersey City should go into two districts runs counter to the concept that drove Democrats who drew the new map. In a process they called "unpacking," Democrats sought to spread black and Hispanic voters into a number of districts. They would still represent a large chunk of the voters in each district, but no one minority group would make up the majority of the electorate in those districts as in the past.
The Democrats argued that this strategy would help elect more black and Hispanic legislators. Republicans said it would dilute the minority vote.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the "unpacking," ruling unanimously in May 2001 that the map did not violate minority voters' rights.
But last April, another federal court in Georgia threw out a map drawn up by Democrats there that reduced the percentage of blacks in several districts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of that ruling from the Georgia Democrats.
While the language of New Jersey's constitution is clear, Democrats argued that federal laws invalidated it. Democratic lawyer Leon Sokol said it would be impossible to protect the minority vote as the federal Voting Rights Act requires if the state follows its own constitution.
Yesterday's state appeals court ruling "would effectively force you to pack those minorities into a smaller number of districts," Sokol said.
Codey said that would disenfranchise minorities: "Their votes would not matter as much," he said.
The 2001 election added four new minority members to the Legislature.
Newark and Jersey City have been divided into three or even four districts in almost every decade since the redistricting rules in the state constitution were approved in 1966. In some of those years, a Republican plan was chosen.
"If the Republicans are arguing this is wrong, why did they do it? How hypocritical is that?" Codey said.
While the ruling involves only two cities, the effect would be sweeping if it stands: "Once you change one district, you change all the districts and it become a domino effect," Sokol said.