The Latino Dilemma – The Numbers

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

[2/18 note: There is some debate whether Portuguese-American Albert Coutinho should be counted as a Latino legislator.]

My last column examined the legal underpinnings of redistricting in terms of suggestions offered by New Jersey’s Latino community. In this column, I break down the numbers behind some of those proposals.

Keep in mind that the key concern raised by testimony at recent public hearings is to increase Latino representation. It currently stands at 6% of the legislature versus 18% of the total population.

One proposed district is based on the premise that the Latino populations of Paterson and Passaic form a joint “community of interest.” The courts have said that keeping communities of interest intact is an important consideration. These communities are not only racial or ethnic. They can be defined as any group of people who have a common political interest (e.g. residents of rural areas or shore towns which have shared policy concerns).

Federal courts generally frown upon barefaced attempts to split or “crack” communities of interest during the redistricting process, although New Jersey’s commission was able to defend the amount of unpacking in 2001. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a strong legal precedent to force mapmakers to redraw districts specifically to increase the size of communities of interest. [The only caveat being that existing majority minority districts must be maintained.]

As for the case of putting Paterson and Passaic into the same district, the proposal fails at a more basic legal level. Before mapmakers can consider “communities of interest,” they must ensure that each district has a relatively equal population and a contiguous border. That means in order to join Paterson and Passaic, mapmakers must include either Clifton or Elmwood Park/Garfield to maintain contiguity. The former district would have 300,116 residents and the latter would have 265,870. Both options are too far above the 219,797 ideal population size to pass legal muster.

Another idea proposed at the hearings is to put Perth Amboy (78% Hispanic) and New Brunswick (50% Hispanic) in the same district. This one is doable only by joining them with East Brunswick, South River, Sayreville, and South Amboy. This district would have a total population of 220,850 – spot-on under the equal population standard – and would meet most standards for compactness. [Of note, it would also require that Carteret and/or Woodbridge be spun off to a district with Union County towns.]

However, the question remains whether this district would enhance Latino representation. In testimony to the Legislative Apportionment Commission, Perth Amboy’s Mayor Wilda Diaz lamented the fact that her district – the 19th – is represented by three white men. She noted that Hispanics make up 31% of the population in this district.

By comparison, the proposed district anchored by Perth Amboy and New Brunswick would be 36% Hispanic. In fact, that’s the highest percentage you can achieve in any of the possible district configurations that include Perth Amboy. So would an increase from 31% to 36% propel more Latinos into the legislature?

Let’s take a look at the current district populations and representation for both African-Americans and Latinos. Currently, 13 New Jersey legislative districts have populations over 20% Hispanic. Latinos hold seats in just 7 of those districts (or 8 if you include Albert Coutinho in the count). It’s a little better – .4. 5 of 7 – in districts with a Hispanic population of 30% or more. However, of the 21 total legislative seats in these districts, Latinos occupy just 6 (or 29%) 7 (or 33%).

By contrast, 12 New Jersey districts have black populations over 20%. African-American legislators hold seats in 10 of those districts (plus another seat in a district with a smaller black population). It’s 6 of 6 in districts with a 30% or greater black population, with African-Americans holding 10 of these 18 seats (or 56%).

Is there a higher threshold of population share for Latino representation in the state legislature than there is for African-American representation? There is currently one majority minority Latino district in the state – Hudson County’s 33rd, with a 54% Hispanic population. It is represented by a Latino and a Latina in the General Assembly, and a white male in the Senate – who also happens to be mayor of a city that is 85% Hispanic.

Therefore, the Hispanic voters in this district appear to have full opportunity to elect candidates of their preferences (noting that federal guidelines do not say that the preference necessarily has to be for someone of the same race or ethnicity). On the other hand, the neighboring 32nd district has a 49% Hispanic population, but is represented by one Latino in the legislature.

What will happen after the new lines are drawn? The wild card in this is the constitutional need to reduce the number of districts touching Jersey City from three to two. Under one scenario, parts of Jersey City would be pulled out of the 32rd, thus requiring a couple of towns, such as West New York and Guttenberg, to move from the 33rd to the 32nd to even out the population. This would make the 32nd a majority minority district, but may cut the 33rd to below 50% Hispanic.

Another scenario would swap North Bergen and Hoboken and pull in a couple of Bergen County towns, ending up with a 33rd district that is more than 7-in-10 Hispanic, while the 32nd would drop to 3-in-10 Hispanic. Which, if either, option would better enhance Latino representation? It’s not clear.

Even if there is a population tipping point, it’s just not possible to draw many – if any – more districts with significantly higher Latino populations. This is due to the geographic dispersion of the state’s ethnic populations. Groups may be concentrated in certain cities and towns, but it is physically impossible to link those towns on a map that can withstand legal scrutiny.

At the Jersey City hearing, Republican Commissioner Bill Palatucci pointedly asked Assemblywoman Annette Quijano how she first won the Democratic nomination for her seat – by receiving the party line or by primarying a sitting legislator. Not surprisingly, it was the former. This exchange illustrates the reality that ethnic representation has as much, if not more, to do with party organization power than it does with the size of ethnic voting blocs at the polls.

African-Americans have demonstrated success at securing party backing in districts where they comprise more than 1-in-5 residents. Latinos have not enjoyed the same level of success. It’s not clear that any potential map configuration can do much to change that.

The Latino Dilemma – The premise (i.e. part1)

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Recent hearings held by the New Jersey Legislative Apportionment Commission in Newark and Jersey City were dominated by concerns of the Latino community. However, the community did not speak with one voice – or at least that voice was somewhat muddled.

One thing the speakers did agree on is that Latinos are under-represented in the Legislature. While Latinos make up 18% of the state population, they only hold 7 8 seats in the legislature (i.e. 6% 7%). By comparison, African-Americans are 15% of the state population and hold 15 legislative seats (or 13%). As a side note, Asians now make up 9% of the state population and hold 2 legislative seats.

While some speakers at these hearings argued for the creation of districts that would increase the Latino proportion of a district’s population, others warned against putting too many Latinos in one district in a way that would dilute their voting power in other districts. Terms like packing, cracking, stacking, and bleaching were tossed about with abandon (Check out this link for a quick overview of these redistricting terms).

We’re still plowing through all the implications of the census data, but it doesn’t seem likely that there is much opportunity for increasing the Latino population in most districts. Moreover, the experience over the last 10 years suggests that the main issue with Latino under-representation may have less to do with district demographics than it has to do with party organization power structure.

One thing made clear by the testimony is that many, if not most, of those who testified are unfamiliar with some key legal – especially Constitutional – provisions. First of all, all districts must be contiguous. In other words, you can’t jump around from town to town to pull together a similar community of interest if those towns aren’t connected by other towns.

Federal law also stipulates that districts must have equal populations, or as nearly equal as practicable. Federal courts have provided guidance for state legislative districts that stipulate the difference between the largest and smallest district can be no more than 10% of the ideal district size. The ideal district size in New Jersey is now 219,797. It’s also important to remember that the equal population number is based on all residents – not just adults or registered voters (although there is some precedent for “moving” institutionalized populations to different districts). [Districts must also be “compact,” but the definition of that is more nebulous.]

New Jersey is also impacted by the federal Voting Rights Act, although not in the same way as many southern states. Recent judicial interpretations of this law as it applies to states like New Jersey requires that districts where a minority group is in the majority must retain that majority. Currently, only two districts seem to meet that criteria – district 28 with a 55% black population and district 33 with a 54% Latino population (although district 32 comes close at 49% Latino).

If one is to stretch the definition to combine both black and Latino populations, then 9 districts could currently be considered majority minority (or 16 if we add Asians to that count). However, federal law indicates that these groups should be treated as separate “communities of interest” to be taken into consideration when drawing up the new map.

Furthermore, while recent judicial decisions suggest that New Jersey cannot dilute the two current majority minority districts, it is not required to create more minority majority districts if – or simply because – the possibility exists to do so.

So the federal guidelines are: New Jersey’s districts must be contiguous; must be roughly within 12,000 or so total residents of the 219,797 ideal district size; and must maintain the two current majority minority districts.

There is one other wrinkle which the commission and those who wish to influence the commission must consider. That is the New Jersey state Constitutional provision to preserve municipal (and county!) boundaries. Basically, this means that Newark and Jersey City may each be divided into two districts because their populations are larger than 219,797. However, recent federal rulings indicate that the map-makers would be unlikely to get away with the current three-way split this time around. The state Constitution also directs that counties should be divided no more than necessary to achieve equal districts. That is, unless further divisions are necessary to comply with the federal directives on district size and contiguity.

These legal requirements may leave the commission with little leeway in deciding how the new district lines may be drawn. And this will have an impact on how much the Latino population can be moved from district to district.

I started by indicating that many of the proposals put forth at the recent hearings would not pass legal muster and that even those that do may not increase Latino representation in the legislature.

This column was the wind-up. In my next column, I’ll throw the pitch and break down some of the possible – and impossible – configurations and their implications for Latino representation in the legislature.

What We “Know” About Redistricting So Far

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

The New Jersey census data has arrived. Now the process of legislative redistricting can begin in earnest. If you have been following media reports about the process you may think that a number of decisions have already been made. Well, that’s what the 10 partisan commissioners would like you to think. Here’s my take on three items that the media has reported.

1. “The 11th member of the Commission will be Rutgers Professor Alan Rosenthal.” We don’t know that, although it has been reported as a foregone conclusion. The choice of this member is at the sole discretion of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner.

I have had the privilege of working with Professor Rosenthal and there are many reasons why he would be a good choice. He is undoubtedly the nation's foremost expert on state legislatures, and, importantly to this process, is fair-minded.

But there is also a reason why he would not be a good choice. Both political parties are desperate to have the Chief Justice pick him!

Here’s what we do know. Justice Rabner asked both parties to submit a list of potential candidates. The media has reported – repeatedly – that Rosenthal’s name appeared on both lists and therefore he is the likely 11th member. How did they get this supposedly confidential information? It did not come from the Chief Justice.

Both political parties decided to leak this information to the press. And then leak it again in case you missed it the first time. And then finally “admit” it in a public hearing. This has obviously been an attempt to make this choice a fait accompli.

Did any other names aside from Rosenthal’s appear on both lists? I doubt it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement on this choice before submitting their “independent” lists to Justice Rabner.

At the end of the day, what both sides are most afraid of is the unknown. Alan Rosenthal is a known commodity who has the utmost respect for the job legislators do – “heavy lifting,” as he calls it in one of his books on the subject.

The ultimate irony would be if the 11th member was someone who appeared on neither party’s list. We shall have to wait and see.

2. “According to constitutional guidelines, the populations of each district can be no more than 5% above or below the ideal district size.” Specifically, we have been told that if New Jersey’s ideal legislative district includes 220,000 people, the individual districts must be between 209,000 and 231,000 residents.

That’s not entirely accurate, according to the experts I consulted at the National Conference of State Legislatures. The state Constitution specifies a much broader 20% margin on either side. But this has been overridden by a federal standard allowing for no more than a maximum 10% “range” between the smallest and largest district. However, that federal standard is calculated differently than what the media has been reporting.

For example, if the ideal district size is 220,000, the smallest district on a redrawn map could conceivably be 205,000 and the largest could be just under 227,000. In this instance, the smallest district is actually 6.8% below the ideal size while the largest district is less than 3.2% over. In other words, this map would meet the federal standard because the difference between the largest and smallest district is less than 10% of the ideal district size.

So why is the media reporting that the commission must adhere to a more narrow plus or minus 5% definition? They are getting this information from partisan sources. It’s no secret that both parties have been running preliminary population estimates through their own mapping software to examine all the possible district configurations.

It seems likely that one side has determined that the narrower definition gives them a better chance of getting a map beneficial to their interests. It may just be a minimally better chance, but the stakes are extremely high and the two parties will fight for any advantage. This is possibly why the plus or minus 5% definition has been bandied about.

3. “Newark and Jersey City will be each be divided into two districts.” The state Constitution stipulates how to deal with municipalities whose population is larger than the ideal district size. In practice, this only applies to Newark and Jersey City – the only two municipalities whose population exceeds 220,000.

The constitution provides a formula for determining the maximum number of districts that a town can be split into. Basically, you divide the town population by the ideal district size and then round up to the next whole number. In 2001, both Newark and Jersey City were spread across three districts although the constitutional formula accorded them only two.

That map survived a legal challenge, but more recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court suggest it would not pass muster today. So, the media report in this instance is likely true. However, the media has ignored the fact that the Constitutional formula for splitting municipalities also applies to counties. And the 2001 map clearly violated that standard.

For example, Essex County should have been divided into no more than four legislative districts according to the state Constitution. However, its 22 municipalities are spread across seven districts! And they are not alone. Of New Jersey’s 21 counties, seven (Bergen, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset) include two more districts than they are constitutionally entitled and seven have one more (Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Union). Only six counties (Cape May, Hudson, Ocean, Salem, Sussex, Warren) meet the constitutional limitation on dividing county populations across legislative districts.

There are certainly reasons why the partisan commissioners would want to ignore this restriction. It’s a question of power. Most districts are safely drawn for one party and organizational support determines who gets the party’s nomination. Thus, a party organization would want to have a say in the candidate selection process on as many legislative seats as possible. Therefore, adhering to the Constitutional restrictions on dividing counties could limit the commission’s choices in drawing partisan gerrymandered districts and protecting incumbents.

There are also valid legal reasons why the commission could draw up a map that violates the Constitutional requirement on the division of county populations. Among the most significant is the equal size standard. If the commission cannot feasibly draw districts that meet the federal 10% maximum range guideline without violating the county split provision, then the population size standard wins out. We’ll see what the possibilities are as the public gets to pour through the Census data.

In any event, both parties have already acknowledged that the current three-way split of Newark and Jersey City is unacceptable. Given this public admission, expect an interesting legal battle if the commission draws a map that does not adhere to the same requirement regarding counties.

Has Chris Christie Touched the Third Rail?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Today, Governor Chris Christie inserted himself into the national political debate. It wasn’t on repeal of President Obama’s health care plan or immigration reform. It was on the issue of abortion.

At a public event marking the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision that legalized abortion, the governor said that “every life is precious and a gift from God” and that “we need to … encourage everyone to understand why this cause is so important.”

Make no mistake. This was not simply an expression of personal feelings. The governor spoke at a political rally in the state capital organized by New Jersey Right to Life. The rally was part of a series of events being held around the country to coincide with the March for Life in Washington, DC.

Chris Christie did not explicitly call for overturning Roe v. Wade in his remarks, but he clearly threw his political lot in with groups who do, promising – his word – that they have an “ally” in the New Jersey governor’s office.

Christie’s personal opinion on abortion has been well-established. Today was not the first time he told how hearing his child’s heartbeat in utero was a turning point for him on this issue.

It has not been clear, though whether this would play a role in his policy decisions. Last July, critics charged that Christie vetoed $7.5 million in family planning funding because of his views on abortion. The governor countered that his veto was based on fiscal concerns only – the money simply was not available in the recently passed, austere budget.

The argument was very effective. After all, the governor also vetoed two other bills (charity care funding and a homebuyers tax credit) on the same day for the same stated reason.

However, the governor’s appearance at today’s rally has provided ammunition for those who saw the family planning veto as being driven more by ideology than fiscal prudence. Further, they have started to claim that the other two vetoes were done purely for political cover.

There is no evidence that this is the case. But if his opponents can make their charges stick, it could hurt Christie in the court of public opinion.

It’s not so much that his views are out of step with a good number of his constituents. The bigger danger lies in the fact that he has taken on a nationally charged social issue in a place where most voters prefer their statewide officials to avoid such matters

Abortion is not considered a hot topic in New Jersey state politics. This is born out by the fact that most pollsters covering the Garden State – myself included – rarely ask about it. The most recent poll on the issue I could find was conducted seven years ago by the Eagleton Institute.

That poll found that supporters of unlimited access to abortion outnumbered opponents by nearly 2 to 1 (28% to 15% to be precise). However, the majority of New Jerseyans (53%) took a more moderate view that there are certain circumstances where abortion should be legal and circumstances where it should not.

We don’t know for sure what the results would be today, but those 2004 poll numbers illustrate a fairly common phenomenon in New Jersey public opinion. Hard-core liberals outnumber hard-core conservatives on social issues, but the vast majority of the public believes these issues should not lead to a charged debate in the context of state policy. [The New Jersey “live and let live” attitude is one of the reasons why the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 2007 wasn’t a campaign issue two years later, even though most New Jerseyans opposed the move.]

So, while the governor’s strong alliance with the pro-life movement puts him in the minority among New Jersey residents, his personal position is not itself a problem for most voters. It could become a problem, though, if it leads the public to view his policy decisions on other issues as being driven more by ideology than pragmatism.

In his remarks on the State House steps, the governor said that supporters of the pro-life movement need to speak in a way “that leaves no ambiguity in how we feel about this issue.” And true to form, Chris Christie did just that.

[Click here for Gallup national polling trends on abortion opinion.]

Public Merits Voice in Redistricting Plan

This post originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Star-Ledger.

UPDATE: Commission public hearings announced: 1/12-Rutgers Law School in Newark; 1/13-Hudson County Community College in Jersey City; 1/18-Rowan University in Glassboro; and 1/20-Ocean County Administration Building in Toms River. The hearings will begin at 6 p.m.

One of the most politically important events in the state will occur early this year. Most New Jerseyans are unlikely to hear much about it, though, as it will occur behind closed doors. That is, the meeting of the decennial Legislative Apportionment Commission.

Why is this important? The legislative districts of each state are supposed to afford equal representation to all residents. To accomplish this, the boundaries of these districts are redrawn every 10 years to account for population shifts determined by the U.S. Census. These legislative maps can have significant consequences.

Just look at the outcomes of the past two redistricting processes in New Jersey: In 1991, the Republicans took advantage of both anti-Democratic sentiment and a newly drawn map to take control of both chambers of the state Legislature. They did not give up that power until 2001, when a new map was largely responsible for swinging the Assembly — and, two years later, the Senate — back under Democratic rule. How the 2011 districts are drawn will have considerable policy implications for the coming decade.

The municipal level results of this year’s Census will be released in February or March. Most states will take about a year to digest those numbers and draw their new maps. New Jersey is different. Because we hold state elections in odd-numbered years and legislative candidates must file their intention to run well before the June primary, our commission has only about a month to design a “fair” map.

New Jersey is different in another regard, as well. Most states design their maps through the normal legislative bill-making process. The party that controls the Legislature has the advantage when drawing the map. New Jersey, though, uses a bipartisan commission. The Democratic and Republican state party chairs each appoint five members to the Legislative Apportionment Commission.

Technically, these 10 commissioners can come to an agreement on the map. In reality, they won’t. So the chief justice of the state Supreme Court appoints an 11th member. The New Jersey Constitution establishes no particular qualifications for this member. He or she can be Democrat, Republican or independent. The person doesn’t even need to be registered to vote, as was the case in 2001. The role of this 11th member can be as an arbitrator or mediator, moving the two parties’ maps closer to some middle ground. But in the end, the 11th member usually has to side with one party or the other.

There are a number of problems with this structure. While nearly 3 million New Jerseyans are registered as a Democrat or Republican, in reality, the commissioners are directed to look out for the interests of incumbent legislators, county and local committee members, and other party activists. These folks number in the tens of thousands. However, the new legislative map will have consequences for every one of the Garden State’s 8 million-plus residents. Who represents their interests in the process?

This wouldn’t be as much of an issue if the process was open to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, it is not.

That’s why the 11th member is so important. This constitutional obligation to represent everyone in our legislative districts should be coupled with giving the public some voice in the process.

This places a huge responsibility in Chief Justice Stuart Rabner’s hands. He can change the dynamic from past commissions by appointing an 11th member who is charged to serve not just as a tie-breaker, but as an advocate for the interests of the New Jersey public. While this will not result in a wholesale change in the partisan nature of the process, it will at least go some way toward giving all state residents a greater say in how they will be governed for the next 10 years.

Chris Christie's Year in Public Opinion

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

It seems fitting that Chris Christie’s first year as governor wraps up with a snowstorm. That’s how it started. Before he even made his first address to the legislature back in February, the newly minted governor had to deal with a snowstorm that walloped South Jersey. He caught some flack for waiting two days to declare a state of emergency. Perhaps that’s why he decided to spend this one in the Land of Enchantment.

In between the two blizzards, the past 12 months have produced numerous other political storms. That makes it the perfect time to look back at Garden State voters’ assessment of his job performance so far (as measured by polls from Monmouth University, Quinnipiac, and Fairleigh Dickinson - scroll down for the chart).

Chris Christie came to office on January 13 as a blank slate to most voters. Many expressed optimism that he would be able to do something about the state’s top concern – property taxes. Just two weeks into his term, 31% approved of the job he was doing versus just 15% who disapproved, with the majority having no opinion. In other words, few voters had very strong feelings about him one way or the other. That would quickly change.

On February 11 he addressed a joint session of the legislature and announced an immediate spending freeze with the words: “Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end." And in what would be the first in a long line of “poster” children for public excess, he made an example of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission director. His job approval jumped to 52% in early March, in a sign that the public liked the new sheriff’s style.

However, that early enthusiasm didn’t last when he announced his draconian budget for the following fiscal year. By the end of March, his approval rating dropped to 43% while the percentage of voters who disapproved of the governor increased to 32%.

There is no question that Christie got New Jersey’s attention – 9-in-10 residents reported following the budget process – an unusually high level of public interest for a state budget. But many didn’t like what they saw, particularly the $800 million cut in school aid. By mid-April, the governor’s job approval number stayed steady at 42%, but his disapproval number climbed to 44%.

Through all the budget turmoil, Governor Christie’s numbers hovered at an even positive-negative split into the early summer: This period included the high-turnout school board elections in April, where the governor took credit for the defeat of a majority of school budgets; his historic action not to re-appoint a sitting Supreme Court justice; final passage of the state budget; and the unveiling of his property tax “toolkit” plan.

Considering the size of the budget cuts, the fact that Christie was able to keep his job rating “above water” was a testament to his approach to the job at hand. Voters were frustrated and he demonstrated that he understood their frustration.

Still, many New Jerseyans were perplexed by the governor’s continued assault on the NJEA. Residents expressed negative opinion of teacher’s union, especially when it came to fighting the governor’s call for a wage freeze. However, they were confused as to whether Christie’s public admonishments were aimed at the union leadership – who they disliked – or individual teachers – who they held in high regard. Clearly, these battle lines were not as clear-cut as Christie would have hoped.

By June, most people came to terms with the final budget, saying they could live with it as a fiscal necessity. The burning question on their mind, though, was whether the governor would now be able to turn his attention to property tax relief. The answer came on July 14, when Governor Christie signed a 2% cap on future property tax increase, the result of a compromise with Democratic leaders in the legislature. The public reacted favorably. The governor’s job approval number hit 51% in mid-August, while his disapprovals decrease to 36%.

There would be a bump in the road at the end of the summer called “Race to the Top.” Most New Jerseyans said the “clerical error” which cost New Jersey $400 million in federal education funds lessened their confidence in Chris Christie’s administration. Consequently, his job rating took a hit, dropping to 44% approve and 40% disapprove. But the governor bounced back quickly, turning his – and our – attention to a set of reform agendas for the state, including a setting December 31 deadline for legislative passage of his property tax toolkit.

September and October also saw the governor on the national stage being touted as a darling of the GOP and potential presidential contender in 2012. He stumped for Republican candidates across the country, including one incident where he took on a heckler on behalf of a California candidate – adding yet another clip to his popular YouTube “rant” repertoire.

His job approval returned to 51% in October. But there would be rumblings of concern. These same polls revealed growing doubts that property tax relief would become a reality. The public were also unsure of the governor’s impact on the state, with 27% saying things had become better since Christie took office, 31% saying they had become worse, and 41% saying nothing much had changed.

By late November his job rating narrowed to 49% approve and 39% disapprove. And despite the passage of some of his toolkit proposals in December, Governor Christie ended the year with a 46% approve to 44% disapprove rating – basically where it stood throughout the budget process.

The year’s polling indicates that a sizable number of New Jerseyans have developed strong feelings about Chris Christie – they either love him or hate him. This level of intensity is somewhat unusual for a governor in his first year.

Importantly, the governor’s style, alternatively called tough or confrontational, has divided the public. While his style keeps him in the public spotlight, it will be substantive results that will get Chris Christie re-elected. The bottom line is if he has success dealing with property taxes, then his style will be viewed as having been tough but necessary. But if he doesn’t produce results, then his style will be seen as needlessly antagonistic.

Governor Christie goes into his second year facing a public restless about whether their property taxes will go up and a $10 billion budget deficit. Pretty much the same scenario as last year. By most measures, he tread those waters with aplomb in Year 1. Let’s see how he does in Year 2.

(Click on chart for full-size image.)Sources: Monmouth Univ: 2/02, 4/13, 7/15, 9/21; Fairleigh Dickinson Univ: 3/03, 3/31, 5/25, 8/04, 10/12, 11/23; Quinnipiac Univ: 6/17, 8/19, 11/09, 12/21

In the End, 12 Is Not Much Different Than 13

With the loss of a House seat, members of New Jersey's delegation will each represent 56,000 more people than they do now. Have our Congressional districts become too large?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

It’s now official. New Jersey will have only 12 Congressional seats starting with the 2012 election.

Actually, New Jersey didn’t lose its 13th seat by as large a margin as many had expected. Our total population according to the 2010 Census is 8.8 million – about 100,000 more than anticipated. In fact, if we could have turned up another 63,000 people, we would have held on to the 13th seat – although Montana, Missouri, and North Carolina were in line ahead of us and needed only 15,000 more residents to pick up that extra seat for their delegations.

Back here in the Garden State, a bipartisan commission must now draw 13 districts into 12 – each with equal populations. There will be much political ado. Which two sitting Congressmen will be pitted against one another? Will an incumbent decide to “retire” as happened in 1992?

That’s the insider intrigue storyline. The more important question – at least to those of us not employed in a Congressional office – is whether the loss of this one seat will have a negative impact on New Jersey.

When it comes to major policy issues, it’s unlikely to make much of a difference. New Jersey’s share of seats in the House of Representatives will go from 3.0% currently to 2.8% after the next election. The real power comes with seniority and committee assignments. Here, the state delegation rarely has more than one or two members in positions of influence. That won’t change whether we hold 12 or 13 seats.

There may be some impact on constituent services, though. Currently, the average size of a Congressional district in New Jersey is about 676,000 persons (not counting variations due to population shifts since 1992). In 2012, the average district size will be 732,000 persons. That means that each member will have to serve an extra 56,000 residents. And constituent service is a key ingredient in one’s re-election prospects.

The loss of a House seat also means that New Jersey will have the 12th largest Congressional district size in the country. By comparison, each of Rhode Island’s two members of Congress represent only 528,000 people. On the other hand, feel sorry for the people of Montana – a state with nearly one million people and only one House member to represent them all.

This raises the larger question of whether a House of 435 Representatives is large enough to represent the interests of the more than 300 million people who live in this country.

In 1790, the average House district contained 34,000 residents. Throughout the nineteenth century, the House was periodically enlarged to account for the addition of states to the union as well as overall population growth. By 1913, the size of the House was statutorily capped at 435 members.

The purpose of imposing a limit on the size of the House was to allow for better deliberation among its members. It’s not clear that the size of the House makes it any more or less a deliberative body. And observation of its proceedings over the past couple of decades certainly gives one pause.

The argument for a smaller House may have made sense when the average size of a district was around 200,000 people. But the country’s population continued to grow rather rapidly, topping 300,000 per Congressional district in 1940, 400,000 in 1960, 500,000 by 1980, 600,000 sometime in the 1990s, and to more than 700,000 per district today.

Law, regulation and precedent stress the principle that Congressional districts should be drawn – as much as possible – to represent populations of shared interest. It’s difficult to see how we can meet that mandate when our Congressional districts must encompass nearly three-quarters of a million people.

Our neighbor to the north, Canada, with a population about one-tenth our own, has 308 seats in its federal legislature, with the typical seat representing about 100,000 people. Great Britain’s House of Commons operates with 650 members – almost every one of them representing fewer than 75,000 constituents.

Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at that decision made nearly a century ago, and assess whether it really is in the best interests of our modern Republic to have such large Congressional districts. Let the debate begin.

Christie and Obama: Still a Study in Contrasts

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

The national attention on New Jersey’s governor has taken a new turn – now portraying him as the anti-Obama. In the past month, numerous commentators have found editorial fodder in contrasting Chris Christie’s governing style with the president’s, including this article in Newsweek.

Welcome to the club. Observers of the Garden State scene saw this coming a long time ago. Back in late January, Chris Christie had appeared on his first “Ask the Governor” program on NJ101.5 and Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I wrote at the time, “Middle class voters want to know that their elected leaders truly appreciate the problems they face. Christie demonstrated that, while Obama fell short.”

That contrast in style has clearly grown over the past year, as the national media’s “discovery” of Chris Christie demonstrates. President Obama’s compromises on health care and now tax cuts are condemned as failures by his own partisans. However, when Governor Christie backed down on his demand for a hard constitutional property tax cap, disapproval was muted.

Poll after poll tells us that New Jerseyans are pre-occupied with their property taxes in a way that they have never been before. Whether he likes it or not, the voters will judge Chris Christie by what happens to their property taxes.

He understands that. This is why his style continues to work in his favor. Getting property taxes under control is a long-haul project. The governor needs to convey the sense that he is as frustrated as we are about the process. His town hall meetings and designed-for-YouTube “rants” keep that message in the air.

Unlike the president, the governor is willing to draw a line in the sand. His property tax “toolkit” is expected to be taken up by the legislature next week during their last scheduled voting session of the year. Considering the fact that the governor and legislative leaders have not agreed on the terms, I wouldn’t be surprised if the legislature passes a package of bills on Monday only to have it vetoed, followed by the governor calling them into special session through the holidays.

All this makes great political theater and helps keeps some of the more doubting members of the public on his side. But there comes a time when you have to deliver results.

The Obama presidency has shown that you can succeed in passing difficult policies but look like a failure doing it. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. You cannot fail to enact key public demands and make it look like a success by scoring style points. Especially when we’re talking about New Jersey property taxes.

The Case for NJN

The clock is ticking for NJN.

New Jersey Network. The New Jersey Channel. JerseyVision (yes, it was once called that).

Forty years of broadcast television focused on one thing – the state of New Jersey.

It would be a shame to lose that. Yet it is difficult to justify NJN’s state operation as an essential government service. However, NJN – or the existence of some broadcast entity focused on the state – is essential to New Jersey’s identity.

While NJN’s audience is small, the impact of having a visual broadcast medium that keeps tabs on state issues five days a week (barring public holidays, of course) is measured in more than Nielsen ratings. Much has been made of the potential loss of NJN News coverage if the station goes dark on January 1.

Frankly, it’s unique to have a station, public or commercial, devoted to state news. Given the current condition of broadcast media, it’s amazing that NJN has lasted so long in its current form.

Frankly, NJN should have been planning to move away from state government a long time ago. While accusations of government sycophancy in its reporting are unjustified – the quality of journalism is among the highest – the fact that the NJN news team is on the public payroll has allowed those charges to persist.

That move must be made in a few short weeks, unless the governor relents and extends the transition period until a truly viable solution to re-vision NJN is developed.

I, for one, hope he does. And not just because I show up on the airwaves there from time to time. I’ve been a member of NJN since 1994, well before my punditry days. I support NJN not just for its news coverage, but for the focus it brings to all aspects of life in the Garden State.

For a state that lacks a cohesive identity, NJN has helped to bridge the gap between north and south. Growing up in Camden County – NJN went on the air when I was 8 years old – NJN conveyed a sense that my state was more than just a suburb of Philadelphia.

That sense is found in shows like State of the Arts, Images/Imagenes, and Another View. And specials like Our Vanishing Past, Greetings from Asbury Park, and 10 Crucial Days – highlighting the pivotal role New Jersey played in the American Revolution. These programs could only be produced by a public entity that puts the telling of New Jersey’s story at the root of its mission.

I’m no Pollyanna. Both the cultural and the news programming of NJN could use a bit of modernizing. But if NJN ceases to exist entirely, the state will be lesser for it. You can’t find this content anywhere else.

As a pollster, one of my missions has been to bring a focus on New Jersey as a state – what unites us, what divides us, and ultimately, what drives our quality of life. A sense of statewide identity has always been a major struggle for us. A repurposed NJN can contribute to building that identity.

Hopefully, this transition period will be used as an opportunity to build a revitalized NJN.

Media Lessons from 2010 Elections

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

What did we learn from this election?

Two things:
- Internal campaign polls that make their way into the public domain are highly suspect
- Independent - or unaffiliated - voters don’t vote in non-presidential years.

Actually, we already knew both those things. Unfortunately, this sometimes gets forgotten in the quest to report something “sexy.”

So, when next year’s legislative races roll around, here are two rules for New Jersey media to live by.

1. Don’t report internal polls. Or to be more accurate, don’t report numbers from “interested party” memos claiming to be the results of internal polls.

Why?

In this past cycle alone, we had one “poll” from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for the Adler campaign showing a so-called Tea Party candidate with 12% of the vote (he got less than 2%). And another instance where the governor announced that his pollster, National Research, had Anna Little in a dead heat with Frank Pallone (Pallone won by 11 points and the gap was never smaller than 7 points in the Monmouth University Poll).

Campaigns only release internal polls for one reason – to drive the media narrative. Reporting them is akin to giving in-kind campaign assistance.

Moreover, internal campaign polls “released” to the public consistently show a bias in favor of their candidate. Scot Reader analyzed 136 internal polls released publicly and found that 70% of those polls showed the pollsters’ client outperforming the actual results.

That appears to extend to partisan pollsters’ on-the-record public polling as well. For example, the firm headed by Mark Penn (the Clintons’ pollster) conducted polls for The Hill website in 20 House races during the last two weeks of the campaign. Of those, they overstated the Democratic candidate’s performance in 16 races – including 5 cases where they miscalled the eventual winner. They got the victory margin right in 3 races and overstated the Republican candidate’s performance in just one instance. The average partisan bias in those 20 polls was 6.4% Democrat.

For the record, Monmouth University issued 7 House race polls in the closing two weeks with no overall partisan bias - 0.1% Republican, to be exact (3 of our polls understated the Democrat’s performance and 4 understated the Republican’s edge).

Furthermore, internal campaign poll memos may claim to represent accurate poll results, but give absolutely none of the information necessary to judge whether the poll is valid. In a huge bit of irony, a number of campaign pollsters recently issued an open letter decrying the media for reporting independent polls that “contain inadequate information on how they were conducted.”

Putting aside the astounding hypocrisy, they have a point. The media should be equally critical of independent polls. A legitimate polling organization should be willing to reveal the full question wording, description of likely voters, and basic information on the demographic composition of the sample for every election poll it releases.

Of course, that may open a poll to criticism on whether its sample’s partisan composition is accurate. And that’s certainly a debatable point. But I find that such critics routinely overestimate how many independents should be in a sample of likely voters (especially if their preferred candidate is winning the independent vote). Which leads us to rule #2.

2. Stop reporting the large number of unaffiliated registered voters in New Jersey as if it means something.

All too often, media reports describing the electorate include a statement to the effect that the “largest number of voters, though, are not affiliated with either party.”

So what? These people don’t vote unless it’s a presidential year! It would be much more accurate to say that the vast majority - typically about 75% - of voters who will show up in any given off-year election are registered as either Democrats or Republicans. That’s why elections tend to be about turnout more than about winning over undecided voters. Only in very competitive races do truly unaffiliated voters make a difference.

It’s a poorly managed campaign that focuses on all unaffiliated registered voters. So the media shouldn’t either?

That’s just my two cents.

Who Do You Trust?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Our latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media Poll asked New Jerseyans how much they trust their leaders to reform state government. Governor Chris Christie has an advantage over other officials on this metric, but not by as much as some might think.

The governor garners “a lot” of trust from 32% of the public – including 52% of Republicans, 35% of independents, and 15% of Democrats. However, a similar number – 29% – say they have no trust at all in him, including 46% of Democrats, 23% of independents, and 13% of his fellow Republicans.

Both parties in the legislature fare even worse. Only 14% of all New Jerseyans have a lot of trust in the reform credentials of Democratic legislators and an identical 14% feel the same about legislative Republicans. And, legislators of both parties inspire a lot of confidence among just one-third of their fellow partisans – 35% for Democrats and 36% for Republicans. Conversely, legislators get a “no confidence” vote from about 1-in-3 New Jerseyans – 29% for the Democrats and 36% for the Republicans.

We also threw mayors and town councils into the mix, finding 20% of the public have a lot of trust in the reform efforts of their local officials versus 26% who have none.

Then we took this a step further and looked at how many people had pretty much no trust in any level of elected official. These cynics number 11% of the adult population. On the other side of spectrum are 4% who have a lot of trust in almost everybody.

The bottom line is that New Jerseyans are somewhat jaded when it comes to politicians’ claims that they will fix the system. And even Chris Christie, who probably has more credibility on this issue than any governor since Brendan Byrne, does not generate automatic support in this area.

The governor has spent the past few weeks laying out an ambitious reform agenda affecting ethics, pensions, and now income taxes. This is on top of the property tax “toolkit” measures he announced months ago.

There’s a note of caution in these poll results. The governor does not have carte blanche from the public on his approach to government. His budget cuts, while acknowledged as necessary by many, are spreading financial hardship. The error in the Race to the Top application, and the governor’s subsequent handling of the fallout, has dampened some of the goodwill he gained from the passage of a 2% property tax cap in July.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. The governor’s job approval rating made a notable uptick after he signed the cap. Garden State voters did not think that this was the be-all end-all of property tax reform, but just the first step in a very long journey to fix the state’s number one problem.

By any measure, fixing property taxes is the issue by which the public has said it will judge Governor Christie’s success. And New Jerseyans, for the most part, have indicated they will support him as long as it appears that he is working toward that objective.

The first half of President Obama’s term provides a good object lesson. Sure, he signed landmark health care legislation and kept the banks afloat, but he didn’t do what he was elected to do – turn the economy around and put people back to work. More importantly, he was perceived as taking his eye off that ball by concentrating on other issues. And now he can’t get anything done with Congress. These perceptions are the main reasons why his approval rating has moved steadily downward.

Here in New Jersey, Governor Christie has laid out a huge agenda of action items that need legislative approval. The public already thinks the governor and legislature are not able to work together. Putting more bills on the docket, when he hasn’t even gotten a hearing on the toolkit bills he proposed early in the summer, doesn’t appear likely to change that impression. And missteps by the administration on Race to the Top have emboldened the Democratic leadership to oppose him.

The governor has been using his visibility in the national media and local town hall meetings to get the public on his side. He hopes that public support will provide a bulwark against his legislative opponents – a strategy that was used effectively by Ronald Reagan. However, Chris Christie may be putting too many irons in the fire. He risks losing the public’s support – and attention – if they don’t see a light at the end of the property tax tunnel.

Bullying Leader or Leading Bully?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Much has been made of New Jersey Governor Christ Christie’s initial harangue over the state’s loss of Race to the Top funds.  The governor lambasted federal bureaucrats and the Obama administration for not accepting revised information, although subsequent evidence indicates that such information was never provided by the state.

The governor’s political opponents say this incident was just another manifestation of Christie’s bullying personality.  Those more sympathetic see the governor’s self-titled “rants” as the product of a refreshing leadership style.

There is little doubt that Chris Christie approaches his job with a much different style than his predecessors.  One question on the punditry’s mind is how the public perceives this style.  Is Christie seen as a leader or a bully?

The Quinnipiac University Poll attempted to address this question by asking voters straight out:  “Would you describe Governor Christie as being more of a bully or more of a leader?”  Their June poll found New Jersey voters split at 44% for leader and 43% for bully.  By August, opinion had shifted to 51% leader and 39% bully.

One striking thing about those numbers is how closely they match the governor’s overall job performance rating, which was 44% approve to 43% disapprove in the June poll and 51% approve to 36% disapprove in August.  In fact, the results are nearly identical.

The folks at Quinnipiac were kind enough to provide additional information on the job approval and leader/bully questions from the August poll.  Their results show that fully 86% of those who approved of Christie’s job performance called him a leader (just 5% chose bully) and 84% of those who disapproved of Christie saw him as a bully (only 10% chose leader).  That’s a very high correlation.

The morning the June poll was released, New Jersey 101.5 radio host Jim Gearhart discussed it on the air.  One caller identified himself as a participant in the Quinnipiac poll.  He thought that a little bullying on the governor’s part was actually a good thing for the state.  However, the caller chose “leader” in response to the poll question because he felt that the other answer would be interpreted as a negative opinion of the governor.

This participant’s choice in response is what some pollsters call an “expressed belief” – that is, answering a poll question to send a message rather than answering it literally.  Based on the strong correlation between the approve/disapprove question and leader/bully question, this one participant was probably not alone.

[Coincidentally, ABC News pollster Gary Langer just posted a blog on this concept with regard to public “belief” that Barack Obama is Muslim.]

Another concern that Jim Gearhart raised that morning is whether “leader” and “bully” are necessarily mutually exclusive concepts for voters.  We can’t tell from the Quinnipiac poll because the choice was presented as “either/or.”  However, the Eagleton-Rutgers Poll also released results this month which shed some light on the leader versus bully debate.

Eagleton-Rutgers presented poll participants with eight different terms and asked them to rate how well each describes Governor Christie (i.e. very, somewhat, or not at all well).  Among those terms were “Strong Leader” and “Bully.”

Their results found that 36% of New Jersey voters felt that strong leader describes Christie very well and another 34% somewhat well – a total of 70%.  On the other hand, 25% said bully describes the governor very well and 24% somewhat well – a total of 49%.

Obviously, there must be some overlap between the two.  Dave Redlawsk at Eagleton was kind enough to provide me more details on his poll.  Just 4% of New Jersey voters think that both strong leader and bully describe Christie very well.  Interestingly, this 4% result is identical to the percentage of participants in the Quinnipiac poll who both approved of Christie’s job performance and saw him as more of a bully than a leader.

If we expand our pool to those who feel that both characteristics (leader and bully) are at least somewhat apt descriptions of the governor, we get up to just around 30% of all participants in the Eagleton poll.

This suggests that the majority of New Jersey voters see “leader” and “bully” as mutually exclusive concepts when it comes to assessing their governor.  Whether this exclusion is tied intrinsically to one’s overall opinion of the governor or is truly a difference in the underlying concepts is a matter of debate.

The cautionary tale here is that the meaning of poll questions may be different for those of us who write the questions than it is for those who answer them.  Bottom line:  Be careful of taking the results of poll questions too literally.

Adventures in Campaign Message Polling, part 2

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

I recently wrote that a publicly released campaign poll memo was from a message testing survey, with the results presented out of context. I’ve had some experience with message testing polls, specifically working with non-profit organizations on crafting communication strategies.

My most recent experience with message testing polls, though, was as a respondent. A few weeks ago, I was called on my home phone to participate in a message testing poll conducted on behalf of a local campaign. With a plethora of campaign polls now underway, this recent experience provides a good lesson on what goes into a message testing survey – and why the media should be wary of reporting any results from an internal campaign poll. [It also provides a good lesson on the difficultly of avoiding at least a little bias creeping into partisan polls.]

The first question is how my name got chosen for this poll. Simply, I vote in every general election and so I am very likely to turn out for this off-year election. Furthermore, as an unaffiliated (i.e. independent) voter, I’m part of the “persuadable” electorate for whom campaign messages are specifically crafted.

After establishing that I didn’t work for a political or media organization, the poll interviewer’s first question was whether I thought my local area is headed in the right direction or on the wrong track. This was followed by a generic horse-race question, i.e. whether I was likely to vote Democratic or Republican for the local offices up for election this November. This is a standard question to establish a baseline, since most voters use party ID cues as their primary vote decision tool. It was also the first of three times I would be asked to state my vote intention during the course of the interview – a key characteristic of message testing polls.

The next set of questions asked me whether I have heard of the incumbent officeholders up for re-election and what my overall opinion of them was. Again, this is standard stuff – incumbent elections are typically referenda on the current officeholders. The next question then presented head-to-head matchups for each office, but this time naming the two candidates for each office. This was my second shot at expressing a vote choice, because any change from the generic party ballot question asked earlier could indicate underlying strengths or weaknesses of the named incumbents.

The next questions asked me to name my top local issue and assess my local government’s performance. The purpose of these items is to uncover any unknown issues before the poll measures the impact of potential messages already drafted by the campaign.

We then moved on to the meat of the matter. The interviewer read some fairly long positive descriptions, i.e. messages, about both candidates for each of the offices on the ballot. After which I was asked again about my vote choice – for the third time.

Two things are important to note here. First, an internal poll “memo” which releases the results of this third question without mentioning the context would be misrepresenting actual vote intention of the existing electorate – because the poll respondents had more information about the candidates than typical voters have – and that information was coming one side only.

Second, this is the point where I figured out who sponsored the poll (i.e. the challengers). As hard as this pollster tried to be balanced in wording the positive descriptions for both party’s candidates, the descriptions for one slate of candidates had just a little more “zing” in the wording. This subtle difference could have an unintended impact on the results of the third vote choice question.

To be fair, the word choice may not have been the pollster’s. I’ve worked with partners who insist that a particular word or phrase “needs” to be included in the question. Sometimes, you are successful in talking them out of it, and sometimes you just go along in order to move the project forward.

Question wording is at the core of the art of polling. It deserves as much scrutiny as the demographic composition of a sample and the poll’s margin of error. This is why reputable pollsters release the full wording of all the questions they ask. And it’s why the media should never report a poll where the pollster refuses to release the complete questionnaire.

Back to the survey interview. The final set of questions – before closing with basic demographic information – presented some negative information about the incumbents (confirming my suspicions about the sponsoring party). I was asked whether knowing this information would influence my vote. Again, this is standard stuff.

Interestingly, very few messages were tested in this poll. In a competitive high-profile race, each campaign will test a variety of pro and con statements to narrow down their communication strategy to the most effective messages. In this instance, only one or two messages about each incumbent were tested. This indicates a race where the decision may not be which messages to choose, but whether spending any resources will be worthwhile and, if so, how to identify the most pliable segments of the electorate.

By the way, this was a pretty good message testing poll given the election in question. The interviewer was of very high quality and the questionnaire was well-crafted, my observations about the positive candidate description imbalance notwithstanding.

There is also an interesting side note to this story. I confirmed the identity of the poll sponsor through an Internet search of the firm name and a review of Election Law Enforcement Commission expenditure reports. When I called representatives of both the pollster and party organization to corroborate, they were noticeably flustered. One said he’d call me back, but never did. The other answered my questions mainly with “um” or “er.”

Their reaction underscores the fact that campaigns tend to treat their internal polls as state secrets. Typically, they don’t want anyone outside the campaign organization to know what their poll results reveal. Indeed, they usually don’t want anyone to get wind of the fact they are polling at all. All of which makes any publicly released internal poll immediately suspect.

So, my advice to the media is if a campaign is suddenly eager to release poll results to a wider audience of “interested parties,” consider the motive. And then just file it away.

[Note: I wish campaign pollsters would be more forthcoming with their contact information at the end of the interview, since their conduct reflects on the whole profession. However, I decided not to identify the sponsor of this poll since their practices were sound and the primary purpose of this article is to foster a more critical eye toward the public release of internal campaign polls rather than “out” any particular campaign.]

Is Obama in Need of Some Tom Foolery?

Cross-posted at New Jersey Newsroom

One of the hardest things for a president to do is to stay in touch with the concerns of everyday folk. It’s just the nature of holding a public office, but there are certainly degrees of distance. It is easier for a state legislator to mingle among the masses than it is for a governor. And it is much easier for a member of Congress to grab a bite in a local deli than it is for the President of the United States. Every public official is treated with some deference, but the higher up the political food chain, the more likely it is that encounters with the public will lack some authenticity.

I viewed the live news coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, New Jersey last week with this in mind. I watched as he disembarked from Air Force One to greet Governor Christie and Mayor Booker – shaking the former’s hand for a prolonged 34 seconds! [I’ve looked at the footage a few times and I’m still not sure who refused to let go.]

I watched as his motorcade pulled up to the shop, blocked from view by a strategically placed delivery truck. I watched people gathered behind barricades yards away wondering whether the President had arrived. Not very riveting stuff.

A while later, a news pool camera came to life and Obama spoke for a few minutes to selected members of the press corp. He talked about the meeting he just had with a handful of local small business owners and called for passage of tax credit legislation to aid small businesses. Then he was whisked off to New York to tape an episode of The View and headline a fundraiser.

So, on his trip to New Jersey (population 8.7 million), President Obama apparently spoke with a grand total of eight state residents: the governor, the mayors of Newark and Edison, and five small business owners. And according to reports, the president, typing on his Blackberry, barely acknowledged the crowds lining Plainfield Avenue during his drive from Marine One’s landing site a few miles from the shop.

Some have questioned the purpose of this presidential visit. If he really wanted to push for passage of the tax credit bill in question – which stalled in the Senate the following day – wouldn’t a high profile event with public statements by small business owners been more effective? We don’t even know what those five business owners said to Obama during that private meeting in Edison.

But maybe we should consider for a moment that generating support for legislation may not have been the president’s primary motivation for this visit. In a recent interview, Obama biographer Jonathan Alter said that the president is not avoiding the isolation of the office “as well as he needs to.” This trip may have been an effort to break through that isolation.

But why come to New Jersey at all? Considering the logistical hassle and cost to taxpayers, wouldn’t it have been cheaper to bring those five business owners to the White House? Cheaper, yes. More effective, maybe not.

By all accounts, it is difficult to be entirely honest with the leader of the free world when you meet him. Nearly everyone who has a presidential encounter reports being awestruck in some way, even if they vehemently disagreed with the incumbent’s politics. It follows that the rank and file citizens President Obama meets in his occasional excursions outside the White House are not always completely candid with him. Inside the White House, that likelihood diminishes even further.

We don’t know how frank those New Jersey business owners were during their short time with the president. But I’ll bet that they were more forthcoming sitting among cartons of chips and cases of soda than they would have been in the Oval Office. And the more often a president comes in contact with the public, the more likely he is to run across people who will speak openly with him. Unfortunately, this happens less and less given the security demands of the modern day presidency. [As I type this, I am looking out my window at the grounds where Woodrow Wilson mingled with voters during his 1916 re-election campaign.]

This is why it is increasingly important that presidents (and other elected officials) make sure their circle of advisors includes at least one or two people who are free to speak their mind without fear of repercussion. As to Obama, Alter claims that there are “very few people” within the White House who “are willing to tell him hard truths.” So maybe the president is in need of a court jester, a.k.a. Tom Fool (after Thomas Skelton, one of the last persons to hold the official title of “licensed fool”).

Jesters were de rigueur for the nobility through the early Renaissance. Unlike the common conception of them as simply clowns, jesters were valued members of a monarch’s court. While their prime responsibility was to entertain, jesters were also respected as sounding boards on important issues of the day. Basically, the jester was given license to speak his mind and was frequently the only advisor the monarch could trust to give an honest evaluation of the situation.

Of course, the “licensed fool” has some modern-day analogies – Stephen Colbert comes to mind. But all of these contemporary jesters exist outside the inner sanctum of power. If I may take this idea in a more serious direction, it is important for any leader to have an honest sounding board. And even if a president is surrounded by strong nay-saying counselors, they are also removed from the everyday concerns of citizens by virtue of their position in the halls of power.

Certainly, public opinion polls have been used to fill the void – and the current president appears to use them more than his predecessors. But poll results are cold measures in many ways detached from the concerns of the real people that underlie the percentages.

The conundrum is how a president keeps tabs on the public mood in an authentic way. Maybe the president should consider establishing an official advisor or council of advisors, drawn from the heartland of this country, whose sole purpose is to tell it like it is.

Or perhaps it’s time to bring back the court jester. No world leader should be without one.

State Pension Reality Check

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ.

Numbers matter. Poll results, budget deficits, health statistics. Attach a number to any issue and it becomes reality. But sometimes a reality check is in order.

When this year’s budget was first unveiled, the administration touted the closure of a nearly $11 billion structural budget gap. There was some debate over that claim because it involved spending that had not been appropriated for years. The front office switched gears later in the budget process and focused on the their reduction of state expenditures by $3 billion from the prior year – a widely accepted fact that is certainly worth crowing about.

The grander claim of an $11 billion deficit solution continued to surface, though, driven perhaps by the national media’s interest in New Jersey’s Republican governor. I believe such a claim is basically “untrue,” because it implies that the structural issues contributing to this gap have been solved. They haven’t.

Indeed, a recent analysis by the non-partisan – and well-regarded – Office of Legislative Services estimates that next year’s budget deficit could top $10 billion. They arrive at that conclusion by looking at the same “on-the-books” programs and obligations that were used to estimate the current year’s $11 billion gap. So, it was more than a little interesting when Governor Christie said the OLS numbers were “completely fake.”

State treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff clarified the administration position. He said the OLS figures were “wildly inflated” because they assume “that New Jersey is going to return to its spending habits of 2008 and 2009. Those spending commitments were frankly unsustainable and out of control.”

The treasurer added that all parties “need to come to terms with the fact that fiscal ’11, the budget plan that we just adopted, represents a new baseline for New Jersey.” Fair enough.

The problem is that OLS includes those commitments in its fiscal analysis because the programs are still on the books, a fact that the treasurer implicitly conceded in a later interview.

The OLS numbers are a reality check. Those statutory obligations still exist, which the governor was asked about in his first national Sunday morning television appearance on ABC’s This Week.. Specifically, host Jake Tapper asked Governor Christie whether he wiped these programs off the books via “executive fiat.”

Regarding the pensions, the governor said that he was “going to go after current employees” this fall. Ah – a new reality.

It is no secret that the pension obligation will continue to grow, even after a required $500 million contribution is included in next year’s budget. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that the state will never be able to meet its retirement obligations for current employees. [Jason Method’s piece in the Asbury Park Press on this is a must read.]

The governor has signaled that he is going to tackle this head on before the next budget. The fight is not going to be easy, but win it and the OLS deficit estimates will almost certainly come down. Until then, the numbers are anything but “fake,” especially to the workers who expect to receive these benefits and to the generations of taxpayers who would have to foot that bill.

Adventures in Campaign Message Polling, part 1

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ.

The political blogosphere recently took note of a poll in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional district purporting to show first-term Democratic incumbent John Adler with a surprising 17 point lead over GOP challenger Jon Runyan. The poll was conducted for the Adler campaign by their own pollster, but even campaign pollsters have to produce reliable estimates if they want to stay in business. Regardless, this poll – or to be more accurate, the memo that described the poll results – raises some red flags.

First, only 3% of likely voters say they are undecided about their choice. Really? In June, when most voters probably cannot name either party’s nominee?. Second, the vote choice question was posed as a 3-way race, including Adler, Runyan and a third candidate running under the “NJ Tea Party” banner. This candidate – whose name recognition has to be near zero – received 12% of the vote in this match-up.

The poll memo reads more like a campaign fluff piece (e.g. “[Adler’s] record of independence and accountability has put him in an excellent position to win this race.”) than an insightful polling memo. Now, I’m not saying that the poll findings were fabricated. For one, the pollster, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, is a well-known Democratic firm that is unlikely to jeopardize their reputation by generating poll numbers out of whole cloth. In fact, I’m inclined to believe the results were probably valid. The problem is that they were reported out of context.

Unless the Adler campaign has money to burn on conducting polls solely for the purpose of leaking them to the public, these results were from a longer poll that also tested all sorts of messages and strategies for the Adler campaign. The purpose of an early summer poll is to try out a variety of messages in order to identify the most effective ones for use in the campaign.

What we don’t know about this poll is at what point in the interview this three-way vote choice question was presented to respondents. I have my doubts that this was the first time in the interview that survey respondents were asked to name their vote choice. There were likely some questions about candidate characteristics that preceded this question.

So why does the order of the questions matter? Because questions asked later in a poll allow respondents to use information they heard during the course of the interview to inform their answers. At this point, the poll results no longer reflect the mind-set of typical voters because the poll respondents now have information – i.e. messages – that most voters don’t.

This is why message testing polls rarely get released to the public. Indeed, most reputable pollsters prefer it that way. Unfortunately, their concerns are occasionally overridden by a campaign manager who sees some strategic advantage in releasing the poll results.

One reason a campaign may release an internal poll is to demonstrate to potential donors that they have a viable shot at winning. Considering the healthy state of Adler’s campaign coffers, that’s clearly not a concern. So what advantage did the Adler campaign see in selectively releasing poll results?

First, we need to consider why the campaign even bothered to include an unknown, unfunded third party candidate in one of their vote choice questions. Especially since there will be three independents candidates on the ballot for this race in November. [Side note: There were four, but the state Democrats’ executive director, Robert Asaro-Angelo, successfully challenged Robert “Weedman” Forchion’s petition. This, of course, raises questions about Angelo’s contention that he never heard of the Tea Party candidate listed on that very same ballot.] [UPDATE: Rob Angelo contacted me re this statement. He admitted that he misspoke, since he obviously reviewed the names of all independent candidate filings in June.]

So, why did the Adler campaign only test the Tea Party candidate? Because it makes sense in the current political environment. While we can make a pretty strong guess as to the “Libertarian” candidate’s likely vote total in November, the impact of running under the Tea Party banner is a big question mark.

According to the Adler poll results, a Tea Party candidate may indeed peel off votes from the Republican nominee. But this is by no means a certainty. Why? To start, no one knows who the Tea Party candidate is.

And that gets us to why these numbers were released. Remember, these poll results represent one potential outcome in a context where Adler’s pollster had complete control over information presented to voters. In other words, the message testing effects measured in campaign polls do not always play out so neatly in the real world.

More importantly, a message will certainly not work if no one knows about it. And that is the case with the Tea Party candidate. So, what’s a good way to get a candidate’s name out? Show him exceeding expectations in a poll.

The message testing poll becomes the message! The Greenberg firm issued a memo to “Interested Parties” and sure enough, the story hits the internet, including The Hill, Chris Cillizza’s “The Fix” column in the Washington Post, the National Journal’s Hotline, and PolitickerNJ.

Interestingly, the poll memo was not released to newspapers, at least not to those in Adler’s district. Did the campaign think these media outlets wouldn’t be “interested?” Doubtful. The reason why the poll was released only to internet sites geared to the chattering classes was a strategic one. The intent was to let Tea Party-inclined voters “know” they have a viable option in New Jersey’s 3rd district Congressional race and to suggest to potential GOP donors that Runyan is a shaky investment. The internet is the best way to get that buzz spread with a less critical eye, especially with the burgeoning Tea Party community.

The chosen “interested parties” did their job and disseminated the campaign’s message, any caveats in their reports notwithstanding. Of course, this may backfire in the long run. Tea Party activists have been denouncing the candidate, with stories now focused on whether the Tea Party candidate is a plant. This poll is seen by some as part of a larger Democratic plot.

However, the question remains whether this poll – or more accurately the selective results in the campaign’s memo – should have been reported in the first place. When a campaign simply claims that their candidate is ahead by 17 points, no journalist in his right mind would report it. However, when a campaign has their pollster slap together a memo that purports to show a “51 to 34 percent” lead, suddenly the information is valid.

A good rule of thumb, no poll should be reported – in any venue – unless the pollster is willing to provide the entire set of questions and responses. Otherwise, it’s little more than propaganda, or worse. It’s a little too late for this poll. The Adler campaign achieved its intent – getting out a campaign message under the guise of hard fact.

Homebuyer Credit or Taxpayer Gift?

So what’s the deal with the New Jersey homebuyer tax credit? This program would give homebuyers in the state a tax credit worth up to $15,000 spread over three years. The bill (A1678) passed the legislature with overwhelming bi-partisan support and landed on the governor’s desk on June 10. Yet, Chris Christie has yet to sign it.

On New Jersey 101.5’s “Ask the Governor” program this week, Christie said he likes the idea, but will only sign it if he can figure out where the money is coming from. Proponents of the bill say it will spur construction and create jobs, which will increase revenues in both the realty transfer fund and income taxes, which will offset the cost of the program. A look at the numbers behind the program casts serious doubt that this will be the case.

The program sets aside $100 million from the property tax relief fund as a tax credit for people who purchase a home after the program goes into effect. Of this amount, $75 million is set aside for the purchase of newly constructed homes and $25 million for existing home sales.

Wow! $100 million sounds like it will go far, doesn’t it? Not really. The program would give these purchasers a credit of $15,000 or 5% of the sales price, whichever is lower. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the typical home price is $250,000. That would give the average homebuyer a credit of $12,500.

The $100 million in the kitty would provide tax credits to just 8,000 homebuyers. Hmm, sounds less impressive now. It’s a shame the legislature didn’t know this before they passed the bill, you say. Actually, they did (or at least the Senate did). The Office of Legislative Services provided a fiscal impact statement in late May that laid out just such a scenario – in fact, theirs was even more conservative.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s see how this would actually work if the program was in place. Remember the pot is divided 75/25 between new and existing construction. Using my generous estimate, that equates to 6,000 purchasers of new homes and 2,000 purchasers of existing homes who would qualify for the credit.

There were about 12,000 building permits issued for new homes in New Jersey last year. Even if some went unsold, at least 10,000 new homes were purchased last year. There is some debate on the impact that the now-expired federal tax credit had on those sales numbers. Let’s make a hypothetical assumption that one-third of those sales were driven by the tax credit and two-thirds would have happened anyway because people needed to move. In other words, we could expect that about 6,500 newly built homes will be sold in New Jersey this year without any tax credit.

Now, proponents say that the availability of a state tax credit will spur more buyers into the marketplace and thus increase demand. Let’s accept that premise and estimate that demand doubles and 6,000 homes are sold within the first six months of the program.

Well, what happens after the credit program is shut down? Do those buyers stay in the market and keep housing demand high? If we look at the experience of the federal credit program, the answer appears to be “No.”

The numbers are even more astounding if we look at how the credit will apply to sales of existing homes. According to state figures, more than 110,000 existing houses were resold last year. That translates to about 300 a day. This means the $25 million pot for existing home sales tax credits will be snapped up within a week of the program going into effect. One week!

Considering how lengthy the sales and mortgage process is, a homebuyer’s likelihood of closing on their purchase within the seven day window this credit program is available will be more a matter of luck than planning. “Mr. and Mrs. Jones, here are the keys to your house, and congratulations - you just won $15,000!”

This analysis raises a number of doubts about the economic impact – or ripple effect – of the New Jersey homebuyer tax credit. First of all, if the purpose is to spur economic activity in the form of construction jobs, then why isn’t it limited to new home sales only?

But even if the entire pot was dedicated to new home sales, it doesn’t seem to be large enough to keep demand high for enough time to ride out the current slump in the housing market. If I were a builder, I don’t think I would be hiring more workers on the dubious potential of this program.

And finally, why is the program so generous at $15,000 a pop? The federal program gave an $8,000 credit for first-time homebuyers and a $5,000 credit for current owners. These amounts appeared to be adequate to keep the housing market from dipping lower than it did.

Of course, none of this says anything about whether a tax credit of any sort is particularly smart economics. Some analysts claim that the New Jersey housing market is still overvalued and that prices need to come down further before buyers will return. Basically, they argue that the tax credit program has interfered with the open market and delayed a necessary price correction. Perhaps that’s why the eight Assembly members who voted against the bill happen to be among the most ideologically conservative in the legislature.

In any event, it’s difficult to see economic benefit in taking $100 million dollars in taxpayer money and giving it to 8,000 homebuyers for doing what they would probably have done anyway. Given New Jersey’s current fiscal crisis, maybe the state would be better off using the money to build a few hundred houses itself and sell them for a profit.

Are Nate Silver’s Pollster Ratings “Done Right”

This originally appeared as a guest column on Pollster.com.

The motto of Nate Silver’s website, www.fiverthirtyeight.com, is “Politics Done Right.” I’m not sure that his latest round of pollster ratings lives up to that moniker.

As most poll followers know, Nate shot to fame during the 2008 election, taking the statistical skills he developed to predict baseball outcomes and applying them to election forecasting. His approach was pretty accurate in that presidential race (although it’s worth noting that other poll aggregators were similarly accurate – see here and here).

Nate recently released a new set of pollster ratings that has raised some concerns among the polling community.

First, there are some questions about the accuracy of the underlying data he uses. Nate claims to have culled his results from 10 different sources, but he seems to not to have cross-checked those sources or searched original sources for verification.

I asked for Monmouth University’s poll data and found errors in the 17 poll entries he attributes to us – including six polls that were actually conducted by another pollster before we partnered with the New Jersey Gannett newspapers, one omitted poll that should have been included, two incorrect election results, and one incorrect candidate margin. [Nate emailed me that he will correct these errors in his update later this summer.]

Mark Blumenthal also noted errors and omissions in the data used to arrive at Research2000’s rating. I found evidence that suggest these errors may be fairly widespread.

In the case of prolific pollsters, like Research2000, these errors may not have a major impact on the ratings. But just one or two database errors could significantly affect the vast majority of pollsters with relatively limited track records – such as the 157 pollsters out of 262 pollsters on his list who have fewer than 5 polls to their credit.

Some observers have called on Nate to demonstrate transparency in his own methods by releasing that database. Nate has refused to do this (with a dubious rationale that the information may be proprietary) - but he does now have a process in place for pollsters to verify their own data. [If you do, make sure to check the accuracy of the actual election results as well.]

I’d be interested to see how many other pollsters find errors in their data. But the issue that has really generated buzz in our field is Nate’s claim that pollsters who either were members of the National Council on Public Polls or had committed to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative by June 1, 2010 exhibit superior polling performance. For these pollsters, he awards a very sizable “transparency bonus” in his latest ratings.

One of the obvious problems with his use of the bonus is that the June 1 cut-off is arbitrary. Those pollsters who signed onto the initiative by June 1, 2010 were either involved in the planning or happened to attend the AAPOR national conference in May. A general call to support the initiative did not go out until June 7 – the day after Nate’s ratings were published.

Thus, the theoretical claim regarding a transparency bonus is at least partially dependent on there also being a relationship between pollster accuracy and AAPOR conference attendance. Others have remarked on the apparent arbitrariness of this “transparency bonus” cutoff date Nate claims that regardless of how a pollster made it onto the list, there is statistical evidence these pollsters are simply better at election forecasting. I don’t quite see it.

His methodology statement includes a regression analysis of pollster ratings that is presented as evidence for using the bonus.

The problem is that even in this equation, the transparency score just misses most researcher’s threshold for being significant (p<.05). More to the point, his model – using dummy variables to identify “transparent” pollsters, partisan pollsters, and internet pollsters – is incomplete. The adjusted R-square is .03. In other words, 3% of total variance in pollster raw scores (i.e. error) is predicted by the model.

Interestingly of the three variables – transparency, partisan, and internet – only partisan polling shows a significant relationship. He decided to calculate different benchmarks that award transparent polls and penalize internet polls (even though the latter was based on only 4 cases and not statistically significant). And oddly, he does not treat partisan pollsters any differently than other pollsters, even though this was the only variable with a significant relationship to rawscore.

I decided to look at this another way, using a simple means analysis. The average error among all pollsters is +.54 (positive error is bad, negative is good). Among “transparent” pollsters it is -.63 (se=.23) and among other pollsters it is +.68 (se=.28).

But let’s isolate the more prolific pollsters, say the 63 organizations with at least 10 polls to their names who are included in Nate’s first chart. Among these pollsters, the 19 “transparent” ones have an average score of -.32 (se=.23) and the other 44 pollsters average +.03 (se=.17). The difference is not so stark now.

Firms with fewer than 10 polls to their credit have an average error score of -1.38 (se=.73) if they are “transparent” (all 8 of them) and a mean of +.83 (se=.28) if they are not. That’s a much larger difference.

I also ran some ANOVA tests for the effect of the transparency variable on pollster raw scores for various levels of polling output (e.g. pollsters with more than 10 polls, pollsters with only 1 or 2 polls, etc.). The F values for this test range from only 1.2 to 3.6, and none were significant at p<.05. In other words, there is more error variance within the two separate groups of transparent versus non-transparent pollsters than there is between the two groups.

I can only surmise that the barely significant relationship between the arbitrary transparency designation and polling accuracy is pointing to other more significant factors, including pollster output.

Consider this - 70% of “transparent” pollsters on Nate’s list are have 10 or more polls to their credit, whereas only 19% of the “non-transparent” ones do. In other words, Nate’s “bonus” is actually a sizable penalty levied against more prolific pollsters in the latter group. “Non-transparent pollsters happen to be affiliated with a large number of organizations with only a handful of polls to their name – i.e. pollsters who are prone to greater error.

For comparison, re-ran Nate’s PIE (Pollster Introduced Error) calculation using a level playing field for all 262 pollsters on the list. I set the error mean at +.50 (which is approximately the mean error among all pollsters).

Comparing the relative pollster ranking between the two lists produced some intriguing results. The vast majority of pollster ranks (175) did not change by more than 10 spots on the table. Another 67 had rank changes between 11 to 40 spots on the two lists; 11 shifted by 41 to 100 spots, and 9 pollsters gained more than 100 spots in the rankings because of the transparency bonus. Of this latter group, only 2 of the 9 had more than 15 polls recorded in the database.

Nate says that the main purpose of his project is not to rate pollsters’ past performance but to determine probable accuracy going forward. But one wonders if he needs to go this particular route to get there. Other aggregators use less elaborate methods – including straightforward mean scores – and seem to be just as accurate.

His methodology statement is about 4,800 words (with 18 footnotes). It reminds me of a lot of the techies I have worked with over the years – the kind of person who will make three left turns to go right.

This time I think Nate may have taken one left turn to many. We’ll know in November.