The 1981 New Jersey redistricting and the subsequent court overturning

[Mr.Phips]

The 1981 redistricting story in New Jersey is still one that I dont really understand, mostly because I dont have the 1984 Almanac of American politics that has pictures and stats from the maps drawn in 1981 and used for 1982 only.

What it looks like Dems did originally was to eliminate Millicent Fenwick's Republican seat in the middle of the state and turn Marge Roukema's seat(the 5th) into a squiggly vote sink to pick up pretty much every Republican precinct it could in the Northern half of the state.  They also hurt Harry Hollenbeck in the 9th by removing some suburbs and adding heavily Democratic areas near Jersey City.  This was enough to defeat him(at the hands of Bob Torrecelli). 

From the looks of the remap used in 1984, it somewhat unpacked Roukema's seat, which had the effect of making Joe Minish's seat(the 11th) pretty much impossible for hium to win by including almost all of Morris county and taking away much of Essex.  He lost by double digits in 1984 to Dean Gallo.

What exactly happened here.  Im assuming Republicans sued and a court sided with them and drew a new map?   Could Democrats use this precedent in a state like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, all states with henious gerrymanders like the 1981 New Jersey one?

[Brittain33]

Do you have a digital version of the 1982 map? Sounds interesting but I can't find it on the Internet.

[Mr.Phips]

Do you have a digital version of the 1982 map? Sounds interesting but I can't find it on the Internet.

I have the 1983 redrawn version.  I could scan that and then send it to you if you would like. 

[Brittain33]

Do you have a digital version of the 1982 map? Sounds interesting but I can't find it on the Internet.

I have the 1983 redrawn version.  I could scan that and then send it to you if you would like. 

Thanks, but I couldn't ask. I am curious about the Dem gerrymander.

[Mr.Phips]

Do you have a digital version of the 1982 map? Sounds interesting but I can't find it on the Internet.

I have the 1983 redrawn version.  I could scan that and then send it to you if you would like. 

Thanks, but I couldn't ask. I am curious about the Dem gerrymander.

The only place where Ive ever seen that 1982 version of the map was in a late 1982 Congressional districts of America book in my college library.  I wish I had made a copy of that page. 

[muon2]

This redistricting is one of the most important since it resulted in Karcher v Daggett (1983). The opinion lays out a good bit of the history of that map.  The 1982 map was part of the record, so if you have access to the full printed volume of cases from that period, it should be there. As an interesting side note in the case, footnote 4 references the "Affidavit of Samuel A. Alito, Executive Director of the Office of Legislative Services of the New Jersey Legislature". He was 31 at the beginning of 1982 when the map was approved.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The case, in one sentence: "(T)he population deviations among districts, although small, were not the result of a good faith effort to achieve population equality."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And in case anyone was curious, the offending population deviation was 0.7%.

[muon2]

And in case anyone was curious, the offending population deviation was 0.7%.

but without any justification for why there was that deviation, when moving a few towns (still intact) would have cut it to 0.4%.

[muon2]

The case, in one sentence: "(T)he population deviations among districts, although small, were not the result of a good faith effort to achieve population equality."

The real problem was that they had passed a map in 1981, but then the blacks in Newark objected that their percentages were too low. They had to wait for the 1981 legislature to be seated in Jan 1982 and then rushed out a new plan to satisfy Newark. That rush resulted in larger deviations elsewhere that might have been reduced had they spent more time on the map.

[jimrtex]

What exactly happened here.  Im assuming Republicans sued and a court sided with them and drew a new map?   Could Democrats use this precedent in a state like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, all states with henious gerrymanders like the 1981 New Jersey one?

The Supreme Court overturned the map in 'Karcher v Daggett'.

Before that decision, there was a presumption that you could get by with less than 1% deviation.

What the Supreme Court ruled was that the standard of equality was the minimum practicable, which means "capable to be done or put into practice successfully".

The decision reaffirmed a two-prong test.

(1) Plaintiffs must be able to demonstrate that they can produce a plan with greater equality.
(2) If they do so, then the State must justify its greater inequality.

The plaintiffs were able to demonstrate greater equality by swapping a few whole townships between districts.

The State of New Jersey gave as their justification that they were trying to protect the voting rights of Blacks in Newark and Camden; and that the undercount was greater than the deviation between districts.

New Jersey had redistricted in 2001, and then after complaints from Blacks had drawn a new map in 2002, which was the one that was being contested.  While it was true that the intent of that map was to protect the voting rights of Blacks, there was no evidence that the variation in population between districts had anything to do with it, other than the map had been drawn hastily in 2002.

And there was no evidence that the variation in district population had anything to do with a differential undercount.  Theoretically, if you knew the undercount associated with an area, you could get a "true population" and draw districts based on that.  But New Jersey had made no attempt to do that.  While the Census Bureau makes estimates, of the undercount they are very coarse (eg whites in the South - Delaware and Florida to Oklahoma to Texas are equally as likely to be missed).  They might be able to tell that if they counted 1000 people in an area that they likely missed 11, give or take 20 (they might have double counted as many as 9 people or missed 31 persons.

On remand, the district court selected one of the plans that was submitted.  The SCOTUS declined to stay the plan that was chosen (New Jersey wanted them to force the use of a plan that they felt more closely reflected the will of the legislature).

Since 'Karcher' (in 1983) it has been conventional wisdom that congressional districts had to have precise population equality (or within 1).  Since 1990, the Census Bureau has produced population counts to the block level, so it possible to to reach equality by simply picking out blocks, and can easily be done on a PC.

If you are a legislature, you run the risk of having more deviation, and a plaintiff topping it.  If you were using whole townships, you can't use the justification "we were using whole townships", since the court will say "you can use whole townships and get better equality".  So you need some additional justifications, such as more compactness, or voting rights, etc.   "We were trying to gut the Democrats" won't work.  While redistricting is inherently political, you can't use greater inequality to achieve it.

But if you go to precise equality, a plaintiff can't beat it.  Can you produce more equal districts than were used in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan, or North Carolina?

Last year, 'Tennant v Jefferson' permitted clarified 'Karcher v Daggett'.   Jefferson County, which is in the tip of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia sued because they didn't like being in the same congressional district as Charleston.   Since "we don't like being in the same district as Charleston" is not a reason for suing, they claimed that the districts were not compact, and were not as equal in population as possible - because West Virginia was one of the few states that continued to use whole counties.  But they were within 1%.

The district court, quoting Bob Dylan's, "the times they are a-changin", ruled that West Virginia could use computers to split apart counties, and even if they didn't they could get improved equality and compactness with a different combination of counties.   The district court was quickly stayed by the Supreme Court, which heard the case and issued its ruling overturning the district court.

West Virginia conceded the first prong of the the test.  But they used as their justification, that (1) the plan used whole counties; (2) that it only moved one county between districts, maintaining stability in representation; and (3) avoided pairing incumbents.   The Supreme Court decided that these were legitimate state goals, and that the legislature's plan better achieved them than any of the alternatives.

The Supreme Court's ruling that the goals of the West Virginia legislature were legitimate, does not mean that they necessarily agreed with them, but were deferring to the judgment of the legislature, as they should.

[Kevinstat]

Last year, 'Tennant v Jefferson' permitted clarified 'Karcher v Daggett'.   Jefferson County, which is in the tip of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia sued because they didn't like being in the same congressional district as Charleston.   Since "we don't like being in the same district as Charleston" is not a reason for suing, they claimed that the districts were not compact, and were not as equal in population as possible - because West Virginia was one of the few states that continued to use whole counties.  But they were within 1%.

The district court, quoting Bob Dylan's, "the times they are a-changin", ruled that West Virginia could use computers to split apart counties, and even if they didn't they could get improved equality and compactness with a different combination of counties.   The district court was quickly stayed by the Supreme Court, which heard the case and issued its ruling overturning the district court.

West Virginia conceded the first prong of the the test.  But they used as their justification, that (1) the plan used whole counties; (2) that it only moved one county between districts, maintaining stability in representation; and (3) avoided pairing incumbents.   The Supreme Court decided that these were legitimate state goals, and that the legislature's plan better achieved them than any of the alternatives.

The Supreme Court's ruling that the goals of the West Virginia legislature were legitimate, does not mean that they necessarily agreed with them, but were deferring to the judgment of the legislature, as they should.

Do you think things might have turned out differently in the West Virginia case had the federal district court not quoted Dylan (although in retrospect thery were right about the times a-changin', although not in the way they were thinking - the courts becoming less of a "weapon" in redistricting as you say rather than more), and hadn't tried to parse the West Virginia Constitution in their opinion (which they didn't have to do I don't think as there were closer plans that didn't split any counties, including some I recall reading (on the "US Congressional Redistricting: West Virginia" thread) were not that different from the existing map)?  The state could have appealed using your (2), but would the Supremes have been more predisposed to not micromanage a lower appeals court had their opinion not been so eyebrow-raising?

[jimrtex]

Last year, 'Tennant v Jefferson' permitted clarified 'Karcher v Daggett'.   Jefferson County, which is in the tip of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia sued because they didn't like being in the same congressional district as Charleston.   Since "we don't like being in the same district as Charleston" is not a reason for suing, they claimed that the districts were not compact, and were not as equal in population as possible - because West Virginia was one of the few states that continued to use whole counties.  But they were within 1%.

The district court, quoting Bob Dylan's, "the times they are a-changin", ruled that West Virginia could use computers to split apart counties, and even if they didn't they could get improved equality and compactness with a different combination of counties.   The district court was quickly stayed by the Supreme Court, which heard the case and issued its ruling overturning the district court.

West Virginia conceded the first prong of the the test.  But they used as their justification, that (1) the plan used whole counties; (2) that it only moved one county between districts, maintaining stability in representation; and (3) avoided pairing incumbents.   The Supreme Court decided that these were legitimate state goals, and that the legislature's plan better achieved them than any of the alternatives.

The Supreme Court's ruling that the goals of the West Virginia legislature were legitimate, does not mean that they necessarily agreed with them, but were deferring to the judgment of the legislature, as they should.

Do you think things might have turned out differently in the West Virginia case had the federal district court not quoted Dylan (although in retrospect thery were right about the times a-changin', although not in the way they were thinking - the courts becoming less of a "weapon" in redistricting as you say rather than more), and hadn't tried to parse the West Virginia Constitution in their opinion (which they didn't have to do I don't think as there were closer plans that didn't split any counties, including some I recall reading (on the "US Congressional Redistricting: West Virginia" thread) were not that different from the existing map)?  The state could have appealed using your (2), but would the Supremes have been more predisposed to not micromanage a lower appeals court had their opinion not been so eyebrow-raising?

I think the Supreme Court is trying to stop the federal courts from being continually involved in redistricting.  They jumped in very quickly in the two cases that made any headway in the federal courts (Texas and West Virginia), and in both cases strongly asserted deference to the legislature.

There may have realized that they went too far in 'Karcher v Daggett' and that requiring strict equality does not do anything to prevent gerrymandering, but rather encourages it.  They might have accepted any rationalization/justification that West Virginia had given.

The use of the West Virginia constitution is curious.  The West Virginia constitution requires that senate districts be comprised of whole counties.  But this provision has been ruled unconstitutional since it violates OMOV (because there are more senate districts than congressional districts, they are smaller).   There is no provision about congressional districts.  So they are saying that the congressional districts are like the senate districts would be if the senate districts were constitutional.

Each senate district elects two senators, and the constitution requires that the two senators from multi-county districts be from different counties.  With split counties, this has been interpreted to mean from different county-fragments within each county.  So a small county that was split might have two senators, while a larger county that has more than 1/2 the population of a senate district would be limited to a single senator.

Senate District 3 includes Wood County (Parkersburg) and all or part of 3 smaller counties.  About 5/6 of the district is in Wood (87,000 persons).  Frank Deem, 84, has served in the legislature off an on for 40 years, beginning in 1954!  He lives in Wood County, and was defeated in the 2010 primary after 16 years in the senate.   His nemesis is Donna Boley, 77, who has served in the senate since 1985, and lives in Pleasant County (7600 persons).  She supposedly arranged for Deems' opponent in 2010.  The two senators from a district run in alternate elections, so Deems attempted to make a come back in 2012 running against Boley, but he was blocked in a case decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court.

[freepcrusher]

the map can be found here
http://books.google.com/books?id=T3CHAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=congressional+district+atlas+98th&source=bl&ots=ejqByvO-iD&sig=pm4KSDZ9E6Bds3E1fjGCQN1vp7s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kYEPUbH4FO242QXVmIHgBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

[Brittain33]

Thank you!

That was a terrible map.

[Benj]

Thank you!

That was a terrible map.

What's funny is that the worst parts are not particularly partisan. There's no partisan reason for CDs 5 and 12 to loop around each other that way--they're both safely Republican. The spindles in Bergen County also don't seem like they make much partisan difference to a cleaner split, though perhaps that was the only D-favorable way to split Bergen County without splitting a town.

CDs 6 and 7 also seem unnecessarily contorted. Partisan balance has shifted a lot there since the 80s, so maybe that was necessary then to draw two D seats.

[Mr.Phips]

Thank you!

That was a terrible map.

What's funny is that the worst parts are not particularly partisan. There's no partisan reason for CDs 5 and 12 to loop around each other that way--they're both safely Republican. The spindles in Bergen County also don't seem like they make much partisan difference to a cleaner split, though perhaps that was the only D-favorable way to split Bergen County without splitting a town.

CDs 6 and 7 also seem unnecessarily contorted. Partisan balance has shifted a lot there since the 80s, so maybe that was necessary then to draw two D seats.

I know the 5th was contorted to try and keep Republican areas out of the ninth so that Democrats could pick that up.  The 12th was drawn to pick up Republican areas formerly in the seventh so that they could pick that up(they didnt).  Both the 5th and the 12th also took Republican parts of Morris county(most of the county) out of the 11th so Joe Minish could keep winning there.  Notice that when Morris county was placed entirely in the 11th in the remap, Minish promptly lost big in 1984. 

Everything in this map does have a pretty good political explaination. 

[freepcrusher]

[]
[]

[/quote]
Notice that when Morris county was placed entirely in the 11th in the remap, Minish promptly lost big in 1984. 
[/quote]

which is why it was retarded to get rid of Millie Fenwick's district in 81. Her district if I recall was a Morris county based seat. So what's the point if you extend a dem seat into Morris county, causing him to lose anyways?

[Mr.Phips]

[]
[]

Notice that when Morris county was placed entirely in the 11th in the remap, Minish promptly lost big in 1984. 
[/quote]

which is why it was retarded to get rid of Millie Fenwick's district in 81. Her district if I recall was a Morris county based seat. So what's the point if you extend a dem seat into Morris county, causing him to lose anyways?
[/quote]

The original plan put most of Morris in the 5th and 12th, which caused them both to be overpopulated beyond the allowable deviation and the 11th to be underpopulated.  Also remember that Republican Tom Kean had won the governorship in 1981 and wanted to extract a new seat for Republicans, forcing a somewhat fairer map from Democrats.