The New Jersey Supreme Court gave redistricting tiebreaker John Wallace until next Tuesday to fix his mess “amplify” his rationale for choosing the Democrat House map over the GOP alternative. This week, in an effort to prevent a summary disposition of the matter after Wallace submits his response, Republican attorneys filed an amended complaint along with a motion seeking – to put it bluntly – an actual hearing featuring oral argument.
The GOP also expanded on its substantive arguments and directly addressed the revelation of a Democrat donation received by the former justice’s wife from none other than Bonnie Watson Coleman.
–
“As set forth in the Amended Complaint, the Republican “Voter Empowerment Map” contains key differences from the adopted map, including but not limited to: increased minority representation in all election districts, less splits of counties and voting districts, maintaining the joint base within one district, twice as many competitive districts, and less partisan skew in favor of one party,” wrote Matt Moench, the GOP counsel and, in an unrelated capacity, the current mayor of Bridgewater. “The Voter Empowerment Map also displaces nearly one half million less people than the adopted map by maintaining more of the cores of existing districts, while creating a more compact map.”
“The Court must have the benefit of a full briefing on these issues so it may evaluate the arbitrary and unreasonable decision of Chair Wallace in selecting a map based upon which party “won” in 2011,” Moench added. “The Amended Complaint also contains a fourth count concerning a potential conflict of interest possessed by Chair Wallace that was recently publicized in the media. This Court is required to determine if a 2021 donation by Chair Wallace’s spouse to a current member of the New Jersey congressional delegation – whose political fortunes are uniquely affected by the NJRC’s redistricting determinations – presents a conflict of interest as a matter of law. This issue must also be fully briefed for a proper adjudication.”
You can check out the Republican motion here and the amended complaint over here if you want a little recreational Friday reading.
But how do the dueling maps (click here to view them) actually stack up against one another? Understandably, the focus of most media outlets covering the story has been on how “red” or “blue” each of New Jersey’s 12 congressional district appear relative to how they voted in 2020 and 2021. For the purposes of redistricting, there are other factors which Wallace was, at least in theory, expected to consider but clearly didn’t pay much attention to since he’s a partisan hack.
The GOP redistricting commissioners led by Doug Steinhardt released a Thursday memo articulating in succinct fashion why they believe their map is objectively the better choice.
For your edification:
–
Adopted Map vs. GOP Map Comparison Following Wallace Criteria
Equal Population
- All districts in both maps are at nearly equal population 773,585
–
Voting Rights Act / Equal Population / Minority Populations
- All districts in GOP map are at least 25% minority, while one district is in the adopted map is under 25% minority
- State’s minority VAP is 45.5%
–
Political Subdivisions / Communities of Interest
- GOP map reduces county splits from 16 to 13; Adopted Map splits 14 counties.
- GOP Map splits only 26 voting districts, while the adopted map splits 79.
- For the first time since 1985, the adopted map splits Joint Base McGuire between two congressional districts
–
Competitive Districts
- Significant public testimony stressed the need for competitive districts in New Jersey
- 4 districts in GOP map are between a PVI of + or – 2 for either party
- In the adopted map, one district is between a PVI or + or -2
–
No district may be formed solely to favor or disfavor any political party or the election of any person
- The adopted map demonstrates a partisan bias towards Democrats under every single measure available at Planscore.com –even the GOP proposal is bias towards Democrats, but much dramatically less so:
–
| Measure | Adopted Map | GOP Proposal |
| Efficiency Gap (Closer to 0 more balanced) | -12.3% Dem | -4.9% Dem |
| Skew (efficiency gap) | More skewed than 90% of historical plans | More skewed than 49% of historical plans |
| Declination (Closer to 0 more balanced) | .37 Dem | .09 Dem |
| Declination outcome calculations | 94% Dem favorable | 61% Dem favorable |
| Declination skew | 94% Dem favorable than historic plans | 73% Dem favorable than historic plans |
| Predicted Dem Districts | 77% of seats vs. 58% of statewide vote share | 71% of seats vs. 58% statewide vote share |
- Contrary to Wallace’s guidance, all but two districts are drawn to favor Democrats.
–
Cores of Existing Districts
- Overall, GOP map leaves 85% of the state’s population in current district
- Adopted map only keeps 80% of the state’s population in current district
- GOP map does not pair any incumbent
- Adopted map pairs Representatives Kim and Smith
–
Compactness
- Visually, GOP map is more compact than existing – in large part because of our changes in 5 and 11
- District 5 goes from spanning approximately 65 miles from easternmost point to westernmost point to approximately 31 miles from easternmost point to westernmost point
- Adopted map has numerous fingers and tendrils – with Districts 5 and 7 crossing the state from east to west, and odd appendages in 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
–
