Christie v. Abbott

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

The latest Supreme Court ruling on educational funding presented some interesting options for Chris Christie. He could have defied the court order as overstepping its bounds, as many of his supporters hoped he would. In the end, he took a less controversial way out. Maybe.

From a public opinion point of view, the decision will go largely unnoticed. Part of the reason is that most New Jerseyans pay little attention to the court. Part of it is that, over the past 20 years, we have become used to the idea that certain (i.e. Abbott) school districts receive extra state aid.

My own research into public attitudes toward school funding in New Jersey indicates that the public thinks there is an element of fairness in giving extra resources to those that need it most. Furthermore, urban school districts are only slightly more likely to be perceived as wasteful and inefficient than suburban districts in the state. In other words, all districts are equally wasteful.

The overriding sense of fairness made it difficult, although not impossible, for Governor Christie to defy the court’s ruling. He could have focused on Justice Barry Albin’s concurring, sort of, position. The school funding formula authorized by the Supreme Court just two years ago recognizes that students in need are spread throughout the state and that providing full funding only to the 31 “Abbott” districts actually disadvantages a class of students who do not happen to live in those districts.

The governor could have also taken issue, as Justice Helen Hoens did, with the idea that the Special Master appointed by the court had obtained enough data to determine that less advantaged students “are becoming demonstrably less proficient” purely because of budget cuts. [A critique which, by the way, appeals to this observer’s research inclinations.]

Ultimately, Christie would have had to argue that the court was taking education funding away from suburban districts and undermining the promise of future property tax relief. All of that, however, would have been a heavy lift in the court of public opinion.

He would have had to do it without appearing to attack the court. Why? Most New Jerseyans have a basically positive view of the court. It’s unlike opinion of the legislature, where most of the public concurs with Christie’s “do-nothing” moniker.

The governor made the strategic decision to let the ruling stand. He will have to mollify angered members of his Republican base who hoped he would defy the ruling. But on the whole, it will fly under the radar for most New Jerseyans.

The question is what Christie does next. At his press conference, he made a very conscious effort not to demonize the court. At the same time, he threw the hard work of funding the extra aid on the legislature’s shoulders.

Clearly, the governor and his staff have thought through this scenario. My sense is that they are looking at an end game that involves a re-calibration of the “adequacy” level in the school funding formula which will be based on how well schools perform under the current budget cuts.

He is also tacitly challenging the legislature to send him a millionaire’s tax to fund the added expenditure. He will be able to veto that since revenues are running a surplus equal to the amount in question according to his own Treasury department. And indeed, another option is to accept the Office of Legislative Services’ even rosier revenue projections, which will then enable him to increase property tax relief.

Governor Christie may have played it meek and mild in his original reaction. But this fight is far from over.

Garden State Quality of Life is in Eye of Beholder

This post originally appeared as an op-ed column in the Asbury Park Press, Courier News, Courier-Post, Daily Record, and Home News Tribune.

We all have an opinion whether New Jersey’s quality of life is good or bad. But what exactly does quality of life mean? And how does our home state contribute to it?

New Jersey is not an easy place to pin down. It is a state of great variety in terms of wealth, culture and geography. We pack the 11th largest state population into the 5th smallest land area in the country. Among its own residents, the concept of “New Jersey” may encompass a reality that extends only 10 or 20 miles from one’s home. Beyond that limited radius could be an entirely different view of the Garden State.

Certainly, many observers have attempted to measure “quality of life” by looking at aggregate measures such as income and employment indices, home values, open space preservation, health statistics, and the like. Unfortunately, those indicators tend to mask the diverse experiences of New Jersey’s population. They cannot tell the whole story. That’s why Monmouth University’s Polling Institute undertook a project to find out what drives New Jersey’s quality of life by going right to the source that knows best – the state’s residents.

The Garden State Quality of Life Index survey asked more than 100 questions covering a dozen different aspects of life quality. As expected, we found that quality of life lies in the eye of the beholder. And New Jersey has millions of pairs of eyes with nearly as many perspectives on what contributes to a good life. Among inner city residents, suburban homeowners, Wall Street bankers, Jersey Shore denizens, and Pine Barrens farmers alike, there are significant numbers who love the Garden State, significant numbers who hate it, and significant numbers who are simply indifferent to the state they call home.

We also found, though, that there is such a thing as a Garden State Quality of Life. While life satisfaction has much to do with one’s personal circumstances, the state we live in does play a role in shaping those perceptions. Some may say that perceptions about quality of life are just a byproduct of current economic conditions. Our survey found that was not the case. Using tracking data going back three, and sometimes four, decades we were able to isolate contributing factors to New Jersey’s quality of life.

Obviously, the economy plays a role in how New Jerseyans perceive their home state. But it’s not the defining factor. The high point in the state’s overall rating came in the mid to late 1980s, peaking at an 84 percent positive mark in 1987. At the time, resident also gave positive marks about the economy, with about 6-in-10 saying the state was experiencing a good economic climate. By 1990, only one-third of New Jerseyans said the state was experiencing good economic times. The overall state rating dropped to 68 percent. However, the drop also correlated with growing negative attitudes about the state’s schools, crime, and environmental quality.

The economy had rebounded by 2001, with two-thirds saying the state was in good economic times, and the state rating also increased to 76 percent. We also saw a positive stabilization in school ratings and a lessening in concerns about the environment. Within two years, though, the picture had again changed. In 2003, only 1-in-4 New Jersey residents said the economy was good – a drop of 39 points – but the state rating had only slipped by four points to 72 percent due to other contributing factors remaining stable. By 2007, fewer than 1-in-10 said the economy was good and the state rating bottomed out at 63 percent, where it remained in our most recent poll.

At the same time the economy was sinking, school ratings remained positive, concerns about crime had abated, and environmental worries reached an all-time low. These are all factors that buoyed the overall state rating. But something else was pushing that perception down. Something other than the economy.

According to the survey, the culprit is a declining trust in government. The last time a majority of residents gave good marks to their state government was ten years ago, when 54 percent gave a positive rating and just 22 percent said they had no confidence in Trenton. Those ratings have eroded steadily every year of the past decade, ending at just a 24 percent positive rating for state government with nearly half, 44 percent, expressing no confidence.

We performed an additional analysis in an attempt to identify groups of New Jerseyans in terms of their shared outlook on quality of life. We were able to classify residents into nine different groups or clusters. We found only one cluster who, as a group, feel that New Jersey contributes positively to their own quality of life. They tend to be older residents in the state’s urban areas. We also found only one group who feel that the state is a negative factor in their quality of life. This group tends to be younger urban residents. The remaining seven groups include a mix of opinions on the role the state plays in their personal quality of life.

Among these groups, though, there is one that stands out for the level of disconnect between their own standard of living and the role the state plays in it. These are the state’s top income earners. This racially diverse group reports enjoying the state’s highest standard of living, but few make a connection between their own success and the quality of life provided by their home state.

These top earners’ ties to either their state or their hometown are not particularly strong. A majority of these residents say they would eventually like to leave New Jersey, and they have the means to do it. This is a group that the state can least afford to lose. But we risk losing them based on their perceptions about whether government is working for them.

Not to be lost in all this is the fact that perceptions about the state’s quality of life are still positive on the whole. An index which takes into account evaluations of the state, hometowns, education, crime, and the environment places the current quality of life at +21 on a scale from -100 to +100. Residents recognize that there is a lot that is right with the state at the same time they point to major areas in need of improvement.

The challenge for state policymakers, then, is two-fold: fix the negative aspects of perceptions about New Jersey’s quality of life and help residents understand the connection between their own standard of living and the quality of life that New Jersey provides for them.

The New Face of the Legislature

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Now that the primary candidate petitions have been filed, we can start to get a good sense of what the New Jersey legislature’s demographics will look like come January. And with few exceptions, the new face of the legislature will look a lot like the old one.

Minority representation was probably the hottest point of contention during the drawing of the new legislative map. Based on candidate filings, the number of minority legislators will definitely increase. Not by as much as the Latino Leadership Alliance and others wanted, but probably by enough to undermine any legal challenge to the map based on the Voting Rights Act.

Currently, New Jersey has one Latina state senator (district 29) and seven Latino members of the General Assembly (districts 5, 20, 29, 32, 35, and two in 33). After the November election, each chamber will see a gain – district 35 where a Latina will move up from the Assembly to the Senate and districts 4 and 36 in the Assembly. The net effect will amount to 10 Latinos in the new legislature compared to eight today.

African-Americans now account for four senators (districts 15, 28, 31, 34) and 11 assembly members (districts 5, 7, 15, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37). The new legislature will see the same number of senators and anywhere from 11 to 14 African-Americans in the lower house (based on potential for gains in districts 2, 7, and 35). This means the African-American community will at the very least maintain the same number of legislators and could perhaps add three more. My best estimate at the current time is a gain of one or two seats.

Asians currently hold one seat in each chamber (district 40 in the Senate and district 17 in the Assembly). That won’t change after the November election.

The interesting thing here is that the increase in racial and ethnic minorities in the New Jersey legislature has little to do with any supposed opportunities created by the map that came out of the redistricting process. In fact, if you analyze the proportion of Hispanics and blacks in each district, you will find very little change from the current map to the new one. In 35 out of 40 districts, the proportion of either Hispanic or black residents changed by no more than three percentage points. And even in the other five districts, there will be little change in representation.

District 34 saw the largest increase in minority population, going from 37% to 45% black, but it is already represented by two African-American legislators. District 27 saw the biggest drop, from 32% to 14% black, but it will still include an African-American in its legislative delegation, at least this year.

The real reason for the increase in minority numbers is not the map itself, but the Democratic Party’s need to mollify some unhappy constituent groups. For instance, the two Assembly pick-ups for Latinos come in districts that have not changed much demographically – the 36th (going from 35% to 37% Hispanic) and the 4th (going from 6% Hispanic to 7% Hispanic).

African-Americans will increase their legislation representation in the 35th, where Assemblywoman Nellie Pou will move up to the Senate to joining Teresa Ruiz as the only Latinas in that chamber. The new district will be represented by one Latina in the Senate and two African-Americans in the Assembly, which is worth noting in the context of the redistricting controversy. The district’s population is actually more Hispanic (48%) than Black (25%).

African-American representation may also increase in other districts without overly large black populations. These include the 7th – where the black population actually dropped by five points to 24% in the new map – and in the 2nd which is 20% black.

And for those concerned about the New Jersey legislature’s gender balance, I expect little or no change. There are currently 10 female Senators and 24 Assemblywomen. After the November election, there will be either 10 or 11 women in the Senate and between 22 and 24 women in the General Assembly. My best estimate at this time is that the total number of female legislators will stay stable at 34.

The Same Old Song

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

"The Democratic map, I believe, was a more conservative, less disruptive map," Alan Rosenthal said tellingly on Sunday in justifying his choice of a new legislative map for New Jersey.

"Less disruptive."

After all the basic federal parameters were met (equal population, contiguity of borders, and retention of current minority-majority districts), minimal disruption was always going to be the main discretionary factor that Dr. Rosenthal would use to guide his decision.

In the end, it led to a map that appears to be even less compact than the current one. A map that increases the number of county-splitting districts (when there are already too many in the current map). A map that effectively shifts one-third of New Jersey's municipalities into new districts. But in terms of political consequences, it’s pretty much same old, same old.

And that’s what Alan Rosenthal wanted. Minimal disruption means keeping incumbents from having to face each other. It’s what Rosenthal referred to as "continuity of representation" in his first public remarks as a commission member (and what I then called the "money card" among his list of priorities).

The 11th member is always going to be guided by his or her own area of expertise.

Princeton professor Donald Stokes – the independent member in 1981 and 1991 – developed his partisan fairness argument. Alan Rosenthal emphasized continuity and stability.

You don’t become the nation’s foremost expert on state legislatures without developing some pretty strong ideas about what makes for a good legislature. For Dr. Rosenthal, continuity of leadership is a desirable attribute. Continuity means you have an experienced group of legislators who really know how to operate the levers of powers. In this view, electoral competitiveness is anathema as it could lead to too much volatility.

Others hold different views of course, but Alan Rosenthal was appointed the 11th member of the legislative reapportionment commission. If you wanted to win, you had to meet his standards.

The Democrats understood this. Guided by the astute counsel of Bill Castner, they made sure to dot every “i” put before them – even when they thought Rosenthal was wrong. [The short-lived Buono/Vitale match-up was likely drawn just to illustrate that one of Rosenthal’s requested changes would lead to unintended consequences for incumbents.]

On the other hand, the Republicans stuck to their guns throughout. You can’t really fault them. As soon as Dr. Rosenthal announced the standards by which he would judge the final map, it was clear there was little, if anything, the Republicans could do to get a map that gave them even a fighting chance. You can understand their reluctance to submit a map that fully met Rosenthal’s standards.

That’s why I’m still left wondering how Alan Rosenthal’s name even made it on the list of potential tie-breakers Republicans submitted to the Chief Justice. If your party needs a major shake-up of the current legislative map, why would you ask for a tie-breaker with a 40 year long paper trail detailing how much he values continuity and stability?

Alan Rosenthal is unquestionably a fair man. He gave each side a fair hearing – but within the confines of his determined standards. When he developed those standards, he probably didn’t realize that they could only lead to one outcome.

Even at the end of the process, he said, “It’s a map, I believe, that gives the minority party a chance at winning control of the legislature.” That claim, though, is simply not supported by the statistical evidence. When you break down the numbers, this map practically guarantees the Democrats a legislative majority for the next 10 years.

To begin with, nearly every incumbent is safe. Focusing just on the Senate, at least 27 of the 40 districts are likely to elect or re-elect legislators by margins that are within 5 percentage points of what the victorious party is generally accustomed. A few districts will draw in a significant number of new towns that have voted for the opposite party, but these are still safe districts. Think in terms of a 15 to 30 point win rather than a 25 to 40 point win. These include districts 15, 16, 20, and 26.

[Click here for a breakdown of the initial partisan vote advantage in each district.]

Perhaps the biggest shift affects former governor and senate president Dick Codey (D-27). He goes from a district where he had a 40 point advantage to one where he starts out with about a 10 point natural partisan edge. Given his personal popularity, though, expect him to do better than that come November.

The map also fortifies Democrats in South Jersey. Districts 5 and 6 will become slightly less Democratic (but still safe) in order to bolster incumbents elsewhere. That allows for Republican leaning towns in Gloucester County – which have been giving the Democrats fits – to be dispersed across districts 3, 4, and 5.

A key objective was to strengthen Fred Madden (D-4). Not only will the 4th be more Democratic in general, but incumbent GOP Assemblyman Domenick DiCicco, who was preparing to take on Madden, saw his hometown moved into Senate President Steve Sweeney’s district.

In other parts of the state, Diane Allen (R-7) has been winning handily in what has been a Democratic district. She’ll be on even safer ground in the reconfigured 7th. That leaves Linda Greenstein in the 14th as the only Senate race that could realistically be competitive. The new towns in her district are fairly evenly divided between the parties. But so is her current district. And she just won that handily in a special election.

On the Assembly side, there is also little to no potential for change. While Democratic Senator Jim Whelan’s position in the 2nd has been strengthened, it’s still likely that the GOP will retain the two Assembly seats there. However, the Republicans will probably lose the seat they hold in the 4th.

There are only four districts where the Republicans may have a shot at picking up an Assembly seat. These are 7, 14, 27, and 38. The Democrats have the numerical advantage in these districts and will win most of these seats by 5 to 8 points. But they are close enough that a solid GOP candidate may claim one here or there.

So, my prediction for how this will play out in November is a 24-16 Democratic win in the Senate and a 46 to 34 edge in the Assembly. Practically the same configuration as it is now.

It’s all there in the map.

The “De Minimis” Map

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

The Legislative Apportionment Commission has decided on a Democratic map. The 11th member, Alan Rosenthal, made it all but official at his first public appearance with the commission last week.

OK, I’m being a tad flippant. Dr. Rosenthal only laid out his standards for judging which map he would settle on. The list of priorities he announced publicly was less detailed than the confidential memo he reportedly distributed to the other commission members. However, if he sticks to the general principles in his public remarks, I do not see any conceivable way that the new legislative map can have fewer than 22 safe Democratic districts.

Here’s why. Rosenthal’s standards allow for very little change to the current map. The first standard is his definition of equal population, which he sets out as no more than a 5% deviation. That means that all district populations should be between 214,300 and 225,300.

The 2001 map had an approximate 7.5% deviation. The competitive map I drew last week had a 7.7% maximum range. Setting the maximum range at 5% severely limits the possibility of drawing more competitive districts. To do this, you would need to peel off some border towns from Republican districts – thus making them smaller than the ideal – and add them to Democratic towns to make the district competitive – and thus larger than the ideal.

Rosenthal’s next three priorities are adhering to the New Jersey Constitution’s provision on municipal splits (although he said nothing about the identical provision regarding counties), contiguity, and compactness – which, barring using an actual mathematical formula, is simply in the eye of the beholder.

The fifth priority on Rosenthal’s list is maintaining communities of interest. This is an acknowledged, but rather amorphous, concept in redistricting. Communities of interest can be defined in myriad ways, including people who have gotten used to voting in the same district. Rosenthal did not detail what he means by this term.

This brings us to the money card in Rosenthal’s standards – continuity of representation. Rosenthal defines this as incumbents facing a familiar electorate. In other words, incumbents should be drawn into districts where the majority of voters are already represented by them. You could also call this the de minimis rule – any change should not be consequential to the current system as a whole. Anyone who has worked with Dr. Rosenthal or read his published works on state legislatures will not be surprised by how much he values this type of continuity.

Lower on Rosenthal’s priority list is competitiveness, which he defines rather weakly as “absolutely no reduction” in the number of currently competitive districts and “perhaps increase [them] a bit.” Considering that most political observers can’t identify more than one competitive district in the current map, this standard is meaningless as stated.

Those who value continuity see competitiveness as akin to volatility. It doesn’t have to be that way. The competitive map I proposed would likely lead to a stable Democratic majority. The only difference is that Democrats would have earn that majority in each election.

Rounding out Rosenthal’s standards are minority opportunity and partisan fairness. The fact that these two factors are at the bottom of the list indicates that Rosenthal has roundly rejected the Republicans’ two main arguments behind their redistricting map.

The minority opportunity argument would require revisiting the 2001 process, which dispersed minority groups across more districts. Recent court rulings on this issue indicate New Jersey is not required to create new minority majority districts, and so Rosenthal is probably on firm legal ground. In fact, I would presume that any 11th member would have been unlikely to support such a “corrective” measure.

The Republican’s other point of contention – partisan fairness – is also rather weak. They argue that the partisan composition of the legislature should reflect the statewide partisan voting pattern of any single election. This assumption is patently inconsistent with our form of government. It may make sense if we lived in a parliamentary system where legislative elections determined who the governor is. But we don’t. Furthermore, our districts are drawn based on equal population, not equal participation. As such, district by district turnout can vary by as much as 50,000 voters in any given election. It just so happens that Republicans tend to represent higher turnout districts and so garner more votes statewide.

Now, I actually attempted to draw a map using Rosenthal’s stated priorities. I did this with an eye toward maximizing Republican gains given the limitations of these standards.

I was able to create 39 districts that ranged from 214,293 to 225,452 residents – just a couple hundred outside the range of Rosenthal’s 5% equal population definition. The remaining district has just over 227,000 residents. The map also maintains the same basic distribution of African-American, Latino and Asian residents as in the current map.

The real key to the map is its emphasis on continuity of representation. As such, only 107 out of 566 municipalities shifted into different districts. That also meant that only 23 of 120 incumbents would have to challenge other incumbents for available slots. In line with maximizing Republican gains in this exercise, individual Democratic legislators would lose out. Six of them would end up facing six Republicans in safe GOP districts. Five Democrats would have no incumbent opponents, but would find themselves in decidedly less friendly districts. Another 11 Democrats would have to compete against each other for seven available seats in Democratic districts. So, a grand total of 10 to 15 Democratic incumbents would be on the hot seat. The remaining 105 incumbent legislators would be completely safe!

This also means that the best the GOP can probably do is to come up with a map that creates 22 safe Democratic districts and 18 safe Republican districts (with an argument that one or two of these districts could be competitive). Perhaps just as importantly, all 120 legislators elected in 2011 will have a de facto 10 year term (barring death or scandal, of course)! So the map that emerges from these stated standards is de minimus indeed.

From the start of the process, the Republicans tried to sell the line that they were prepared for redistricting. Not exactly – the two parties just organized themselves differently. The Democrats were better prepared to negotiate with whomever became the 11th member, while the Republicans spent their resources girding for a legal battle. The fact they even put Alan Rosenthal on their list of potential nominees, knowing his long held preference for continuity, is a pretty good indication they were looking past the mediation process to the courts. And since Rosenthal’s standards are well-grounded in legal precedent, they’ll likely lose there as well.

A Competitive Map

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

What makes a legislative map competitive? Definitions vary, but in my view it includes the following characteristics: either party has a chance of winning a majority and the number of districts that could conceivably change hands in each election is maximized. This is not to say that legislative control would, or even should, change hands every two years – just that the possibility exists. Such a map would keep both parties on their toes, increase media coverage of legislative elections, and hopefully lead to greater voter participation.

I define legislative competitiveness rather simply as the raw vote difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates for legislature. For the map I propose here, I utilized a two-cycle (2009 and 2007) average in order to include both Assembly and Senate races as well as turnout in gubernatorial and off-year elections.

This is a fairly straightforward metric. I purposely didn’t include results for governor or federal offices as the vote choice dynamic is different. Indeed, the 2009 election witnessed a decent amount of ticket splitting between Governor and Assembly. Since my objective is to heighten legislative competitiveness, it makes sense to rely on legislative results.

This approach is not without limitations. It does not take into account incumbency. Some current districts may appear to be more competitive because a particular incumbent is able to overcome voters’ partisan preferences (LD14 and LD7 come to mind).

Another limitation is that past voting patterns can mask depressed turnout among one party’s voters when the other party “owns” that district. One potential adjustment to this competitiveness metric would be to merge vote data with partisan registration in each town. However, I’m inclined to think that it would not change the decisions behind the map proposed here.

Basically, I defined district competitiveness in the following way: solidly safe partisan districts have a two-cycle victory margin of 10,000 votes or more; likely safe partisan districts average 2,500 to 10,000 vote margins; leaning partisan districts average between 1,000 and 2,500 vote victories; and competitive districts have average victory margins under 1,000 votes.

In the current 2001 map, 26 districts are solidly safe bets (11 Democrat and 15 Republican) and another 13 have very likely partisan outcomes (12 Democrat and 1 Republican). There are no leaning districts and only one competitive district, which is very nearly Leaning Democrat.

I used past legislative voting behavior (disaggregated to the municipal level) to assign hypothetical margins for the districts in the proposed “competitive” map. Based on this metric, the proposed map has only 17 solid districts (7 D and 10 R) and 10 likely districts (8 D and 2 R), with another 2 leaning Democratic.

That leaves 11 districts with the potential to be truly competitive. (On the map, they are numbered 1, 6, 8, 14, 21, 22, 27, 34, 37, 39, and 40).

[Click the following links for: (1) graphic version of the proposed map, (2) list of municipalities in each district, (3) description of district characteristics in the proposed map; and (4) description of district characteristics in the current map.]

For the record, the districts in this proposed map are contiguous and meet the federal equal population guidelines. The largest district has 228,224 (LD36) residents and the smallest has 211,281 (LD38). The difference between these two is 7.7% of the ideal district size of 219,797 – below the 10% federal limit and similar to the 2001 map when it was first drawn. As to compactness, that is in the eye of the beholder – or the judge who will ultimately review the lawsuit that arises from any map. But it certainly doesn’t look any more contorted than the current map, and in some areas may even be an improvement.

Now, on to the consequences of this map. In order to draw more competitive districts, smaller districts skew Republican while the larger ones tend to be Democratic or competitive. There is a pretty even partisan distribution among districts with 216,000 to 223,000 residents.

These skews are unavoidable when drawing a competitive map in a state where Democrats hold a 33% to 20% partisan voter registration advantage. (The remaining voters are unaffiliated.) That also means Republicans are at a disadvantage in terms of winning control of the legislature, even with a competitive map.

The GOP needs to win nine of the 13 competitive or leaning districts in order to claim a majority in either chamber. Democrats on the other hand, only need to hold on to their two leaning districts and take just four competitive districts to retain legislative control.

Given the state’s voting trends in all elections, it is probably the best Republicans can hope for and fair to both parties. It may also be the fairest map for the state’s more than two million unaffiliated voters, who would have a real stake in the outcomes of one-quarter to one-third of the state’s legislative races.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other notes on the map.

I did not use minority representation as a factor in drawing this map, but I am aware of the consequences.

The proposed map retains one Hispanic majority district. The number of districts with a 40% to 49% Hispanic population would increase from three to four, while the number between 30% and 39% Hispanic would decrease from three to two. A total of 13 districts would have a Hispanic population of 20% or greater, which is identical to the number in the current map.

Black representation would shift in a few areas in the proposed map. There would continue to be one African-American majority district (LD28), but with a larger majority than it currently has. This can be ameliorated by drawing the Newark dividing line between districts 28 and 29 a little more creatively than I did. LD20, centered on Elizabeth, would also see an increase in black population, while the redrawn districts 5, 7, 17, 22, 31, and 35 would have similar proportions of black residents as in the current map. The Trenton district (LD14 in the proposed map) would also maintain similar black representation. However, the need to pair Democratic towns with Republican towns to make more competitive districts would totally change the face of two districts – 27 and 34.

The number of districts with an Asian population over 20% would decrease by one, to four in the proposed map.

Strange bedfellows. There could be some intriguing match-ups brought about by this new map. From south to north:

Republican Assemblyman Domenick DeCicco has all but announced his candidacy for Senate. But rather than take on Fred Madden in the 4th, the proposed map has him facing off against Jeff Van Drew in a very competitive LD1. Madden ends up sharing LD4 with fellow Democrat Senate President Steve Sweeney. Madden has been rumored to be considering retirement, so this primary match-up may not be a deal-breaker.

The newly competitive LD6 pits incumbents Jim Beach (D) and Dawn Addiego (R) for the Senate seat and Budget Committee chairman Lou Greenwald (D) and Scott Rudder (R) for the Assembly. This means that competitive district LD8 has only two incumbents for the six available seats – Democrat Pamela Lampitt and Republican Patrick Delany.

District 13 may be a hard sell for Republicans, as it includes two high-profile Senate incumbents – Joe Kyrillos and Jen Beck. However, since districts 11, 12 and 13 are all GOP strongholds, a few municipality swaps can ensconce the two in separate districts without affecting the overall competitiveness of the map.

An even more competitive LD14, which includes Trenton and parts of Burlington County, would involve a showdown between Joe Malone on the Republican side and Wayne DeAngelo and Dan Benson for the Democrats. With no Senate incumbents here, the bigger question is who would try to move into the upper chamber. This also means that Shirley Turner and newly-minted Senator Linda Greenstein would have to draw straws in LD15.

LD40, which has been relocated to Middlesex County in the proposed map and should be quite competitive, has only two incumbents – state Democratic chairman John Wisniewski and county Republican chairman Sam Thompson.

Democrat leaning LD18 presents what may be marquee match-ups of this map. It pits Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono against Minority Leader Tom Kean. The undercard would include Peter Barnes (D), Linda Stender (D), and Jon Bramnick (R).

One also wonders whether the Union or Middlesex Democratic organizations would win out in the proposed LD19, which would be home to both Joe Vitale and Nick Scutari.

LD21, which is now a toss-up district, has only two incumbents – Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan (D) and Nancy Munoz (R). LD22 is also a competitive district and includes Democratic incumbents from three different districts, Senator Bob Smith and Assemblymen Patrick Diegnan and Jerry Green.

The proposed LD25 is teeming with Republican incumbents. Tony Bucco and Joe Pennacchio on the Senate side, and Minority Leader Alex DeCroce, Jay Webber, and Anthony Bucco (the younger) in the Assembly.

LD26 has only two incumbents – John Girgenti and Nellie Pou, who are transplants from the current 35th. The only problem for these two Democrats is they would find themselves in a heavily Republican district.

LD27 would become a competitive, even slightly Republican, district defended by former Governor and Senate President Dick Codey. The Assembly face-off could include John McKeon (D) and Michael Patrick Carroll (R), unless the latter’s judicial nomination is confirmed.

In the Newark districts, Ron Rice (LD28) and Teresa Ruiz (LD29) would still be in pole position for the two Senate seats. However, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Mila Jasey would find themselves in LD28 while Ralph Caputo and Albert Coutinho would land together in LD29. The big problem for Essex Democrats (as well as those concerned with the number of female African-American legislators) is that Cleopatra Tucker and Grace Spencer would also share these districts (either 28 or 29 depending on how the Newark dividing line is drawn).

LD34 would be a competitive district pitting Nia Gill (D) against Kevin O’Toole (R) for the Senate seat, and Tom Giblin (D) and Kevin Ryan (D) against Scott Rumana (R) for the Assembly.

LD37 would also be competitive. Loretta Weinberg (D) is the lone Senate incumbent, while Connie Wagner (D) would battle it out with Bob Schroeder (R) and David Russo (R) for the two Assembly seats.

The far northeast corner of the state (LD39), should also be competitive in the proposed map. Gerry Cardinale (R) is the lone Senate incumbent, while the Democratic trio of Gordon Johnson, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, and Joan Voss would have to be whittled down to two for a face-off against Charlotte Vandervalk and a Republican to be named later.

Finally, the major shifts in these northern districts leaves two Democratic districts with only one incumbent each – Assemblyman Gary Schaer in LD36 and Senator Paul Sarlo in LD38.

A "Constitutional" Map

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Now the work begins. With the appointment of Alan Rosenthal as the 11th member of the New Jersey Apportionment Commission, the work on drawing up a new legislative map commences in earnest.

A number of interested parties have already weighed in at public hearings, asking for a map that would bolster their group’s representation in the legislature. However, I have yet to see draft maps that cover two particular takes on the redistricting process – the constitutional guideline approach and the competitive election approach.

This column examines one possible “constitutional” map. (I’ll tackle a competitive map in a few days.) There are many ways to define a constitutional map. For my purposes, I looked at a few key provisions.

First and foremost are the federal guidelines for legislative districts: equal population (with no more than a 10% variance between the largest and smallest district), contiguous, and compact. The map must also conform to certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

The New Jersey Constitution also provides guidelines. Legislative districts must be “as nearly compact and equal in the number of their inhabitants as possible,” and “no county or municipality shall be divided among a number of Assembly districts larger than one plus the whole number obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants in the county or municipality by one-fortieth of the total number of inhabitants of the State.”

In other words, to determine the maximum number of districts that a town or county should have, divide the town or county’s population by 219,797 (one-fortieth of 8,791,894) and round up. For example, Bergen County’s population of 905,116 yields five allowable districts (i.e. 4.1 rounded up to 5).

The municipal/county split provision can be disregarded if it is necessary to meet other federal and state constitutional mandates (i.e. population equality, contiguity, compactness). However, the legislative map drawn up in 2001 appears to have violated this provision more than was statistically necessary. In addition to splitting Newark and Jersey into three districts, 15 of 21 counties have more district “splits” than the formula allows.

My objective in drawing this map was simply to see whether it is possible to draw a map that strictly adheres to the state constitution. Bottom line: it’s not possible. But you can come close. I was able to reduce the number of counties with over-splits to seven – and only one of those counties included more than one “extra” district (for a total of 8 county over-splits, compared to 24 in the current map).

[Click for the following: a list of municipalities in each district, the district characteristics, and the 2001 map characteristics.]

I purposely drew this map totally blind to a number of other important concerns that the commission may take into account, such as include minority group representation, current party control of districts, partisan voting patterns, and incumbent hometowns. That doesn’t mean I am unaware of the consequences that such a map would bring. I’ll discuss those below, but first the map itself.

This so-called constitutional map (larger version linked here) meets standards of contiguity and is relatively compact. [Note: The map is not the most compact possible, but “compactness” has been very broadly defined by the courts.] It also meets guidelines for population equality. The largest district, LD15, has 231,723 people, while the smallest, LD12, has 210,245. The difference between the two (21,478) is just under the 10% federal limit – 9.8%, to be exact.

Reducing the number of districts in Newark and Jersey City from three to two was easier in the former city than the latter. Because of the size and layout of the Hudson County municipalities, the existing majority-minority district shifted from 33 to 32. However, this change is somewhat semantic, since the West New York and Guttenberg moved from 33 to 32 as well.

The need to keep small (i.e. below 220,000 population) counties whole shifted some Cumberland County towns into LD3 and put more of Atlantic County in LD1. This necessitated some wholesale municipality shifts in LD4 through LD7. Similarly, Hunterdon and Warren counties needed to be placed into different districts to preserve their county boundaries.

Because of their shrinking population share, the Bergen/Essex/Passaic districts were basically redrawn, with one district disappearing entirely. That district, LD34, reappears in southern Somerset County. The middle of the state also saw a total makeover of LD14.

Now, on to the consequences. What would this new map do in terms of minority representation? Answer: probably not much. (See my prior column for a discussion of this issue.)

There would still be one Hispanic majority district. The number of districts with a 40% to 49% Hispanic population would increase from three to five, while the number with between 30% and 39% would decrease from three to one. A total of 12 districts – as compared to the current 13 – would have a Hispanic population of 20% or greater.

There would also continue to be one Black majority district, but the number of districts with a 30% to 49% Black population would decrease from five to one. However, a total of 13 districts – as compared to the current 12 – would have a Black population of 20% or greater.

Also, the number of districts with an Asian population over 20% would remain stable at five.

Next question: What would this new map do in terms of partisan control of the legislature? Answer: probably not much, but it would make for some interesting match-ups this June and November.

Based on voting patterns over the past few election cycles, 23 districts in the current map are in the Democratic domain and 16 are Republican. The remaining one, LD14, has been a split district for most of the past decade and has seen a number of close elections. Looking at the current map another way, 26 districts are “sure-fire” partisan – defined as an average victory margin of 10,000 votes or more for one party or the other. Another 13 are strongly partisan, with average victory margins of 3,000+ votes for a single party.

The new map doesn’t change that much: 23 districts are slam-dunks for one party and 12 are strong likelihoods. The remaining five districts lean toward one party by at least a 1,000 vote margin on average (four Democratic and one Republican). The bottom line gives us 23 Democrat trending districts and 17 Republican ones.

The real fireworks come in the incumbent face-offs that would be a byproduct of this map. Keep in mind that I was purposely blind to who lived where when I drew the map.

There are some Senate match-ups that will ensure this map is nixed by both parties. On the Democratic side, Senate President Steve Sweeney and Donald Norcross both land in LD5 and Nick Scutari and Ray Lesniak share LD20. On the Republican side, we have Joe Kyrillos and Jen Beck in LD13 and Tony Bucco and Joe Pennacchio in LD26.

Cross-party incumbent face-offs are led by Minority Leader Tom Kean and Bob Smith in LD22, where the Republican would have a slight advantage based on recent voting patterns. GOP stalwart Gerald Cardinale squares off with Bob Gordon in LD39, which leans to the Democratic side. The most interesting race would involve a primary between Nia Gill and former Governor/Senate President Dick Codey in LD27, with the winner likely defeating Kevin O’Toole in the general election.

On the Assembly side, Rible, Angelini, and O’Scanlon would fight it out for the two GOP spots in LD11 and Schroeder, Russo, and Vandervalk would do the same in LD40. Three Democrats, Johnson, Vaineri-Huttle, and Voss would draw straws in LD37.

A GOP leaning LD22 would pit Democrats Green and Stender against Republican Braminck, LD21 teams Majority Leader Cryan and Jasey in a likely win over Munoz, and LD4 includes Democrats Moriarty and Burzichelli along with Republican DeCicco, who will likely take on Fred madden in the Senate contest. LD30, which leans slightly Democratic but could be a toss-up, has three Democrats – Conaway, Benson, and DeAngelo and one Republican – Malone. Somerset County Assembly members Chivukula (D) and Coyle (R) are the sole legislative incumbents in the new LD34 and could face each other for the Senate seat in what is likely to be a Republican victory.

This map appears to meet all the basic federal and state Constitutional criteria for drawing legislative districts. However, I’m not necessarily advocating for its adoption. It may not be the best map for the state – in fact, it probably isn’t. But it does show what happens if you try to stick to certain rules over other considerations.

Next up – my take on a more competitive map.

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.