Legislative Election Outlook

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

The entire New Jersey Legislature is up for election this November; all 40 seats in the Senate and 80 seats in the General Assembly.  This means that control of the legislature is up for grabs.  Voters will decide whether to endorse the current configuration of state government – with split party control between the legislature and the governor – or call for a new direction by handing control of both branches of government to the Republican party.

You may think that.  And bless your heart if you do.  But you would be wrong.

Yes, Democrats and Republicans are competing for nearly every seat in the legislature except two.  [As of this writing, a federal court has ordered Democrat Carl Lewis’ name off the 8^th district Senate ballot and there is only one Republican running for the two available Assembly seats in the 20^th district.]   Another 26 independent candidates have thrown their hats into the ring, as well.  But at the end of the day, no more than 130 out of 264 candidates on the ballot have a realistic shot at being sworn in as one of New Jersey’s 120 legislators.

The recently instituted legislative map drawn up during the redistricting process this spring made sure of that.  The new map turned out to be a boon for incumbents, but it offers little choice for voters.

That means only three districts are generally considered to be competitive this year.  These include the 2^nd district 2 in Atlantic County, which has a Democrat in the Senate and two Republicans in the Assembly, and two Democratic-held districts – the 14^th in Mercer and Middlesex and the 38^th in Bergen.

Because of this overall lack of competitiveness, the 2011 mid-term election is not going to be a referendum on Governor Christie in the traditional sense.  Certainly, the governor’s policies form the backdrop for the election and he will be a potent presence, particularly when it comes to raising campaign contributions.  But there will be no coordinated, statewide effort to base campaign strategy on a single message around the governor.

Campaigns in the few competitive districts will be fought on local issues.  The governor will be a presence to the extent he impacts those local issues.  So in the 2^nd, state control of the Atlantic City Tourism District will predominate.  In the 14^th, home to a large number of state workers, the focus will be on pension and benefit reforms.

There have been some murmurs that a greater number of districts are at play this year simply because many voters are new to their districts.  For example, shifts in voter registration caused by redistricting have given some hope for additional seats.  These include GOP-held districts 8, 11, and 16, where Democrats outnumber Republicans on the registration rolls by 4,500, 10,100, and 5,300 voters, respectively.  However, past voting history makes any Democratic pick-ups here unlikely.

Districts where Democrats have no more than a 10,000 voter registration edge are considered to be pretty safe bets for the GOP.  Senator Jim Whelan in District 2 is considered more threatened this year in part because his district went from an 11,000 to a 9,200 Democratic registration advantage with the new map.

Republicans, on the other hand, win practically every district where their party has more registered voters than the Democrats.  District 1 is the only exception.  Despite being outnumbered on the voter rolls in the state’s southernmost district, the relatively conservative incumbent Senator Jeff Van Drew has proven coattails and will likely lead his two Democratic Assembly mates to victory again this year.

Democrats really need to have at least a 20,000 voter registration advantage before they can start counting their Election Day chickens.  District 7 is one exception, where Republican State Senator Diane Allen has been able to turn her individual popularity into easy wins in a heavily Democratic district, but without coattails for her Assembly running mates.

This threshold is one of the reasons why District 38 is now considered competitive for Republicans.  The Democratic registration advantage here dropped from nearly 22,000 voters to just over 12,000 under the new map.  On the other hand, this is also the reason why District 14 may not be as competitive as Republicans had hoped – registered Democrats continue to outnumber Republicans by 21,000 voters here.

So we are left with an election where turnout will be decidedly low.  The Democrats’ 8 seat majority in the Senate and 14 seat majority in the Assembly will not change by more than a couple of seats in each chamber, if at all.

The direction New Jersey government was heading before the election is likely to be the same direction it continues along afterward.  For good or for ill.

New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Considerations

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Another redistricting process is upon us.  Earlier this year, a state commission approved a new map for New Jersey’s legislature that emphasized incumbent protection.  This map ensures that no more than one or two seats in either chamber will change parties this November and all but guarantees that Democrats will control the legislature throughout the decade.

Now the state’s Congressional districts are on the table.  The Congressional redistricting commission – comprised of six Democrats, six Republicans and an independent chair chosen by the other 12 members – holds the first of at least three public hearings today.

The stakes for New Jersey are different for this current process.  The legislative commission controlled the fate of every seat, and thus the overall partisan makeup – and competitiveness – of the legislature.  The Congressional commission has responsibility for only 12 seats in the entire House of Representatives.

Those who followed my commentary on the legislative process know that I advocated for a greater number of competitive districts in that map – enough to make the majority party earn their leadership positions in each election cycle, but not too many as to invite volatility.  A certain degree of competitiveness in a legislative map is good for the state as a whole.  It makes the legislature more accountable to its citizens.

If you were expecting me to argue the same for the Congressional redistricting process, though, you would be wrong.  The influence of any state’s delegation is based largely on their influence with the upper echelons of Congressional leadership.  Absolute seniority in itself is not important, but some degree of longevity is necessary for members of our delegation to establish those important relationships.

Since few other states use competitiveness to guide their redistricting process, New Jersey would be put at a disadvantage if it did.  Even if it made a concerted effort, our commission could probably only create 3 to 5 truly competitive districts – out of 435 nationwide.  While that might boost voter turnout in those districts, it would do little to increase the influence of New Jersey as a whole. Influence that we sorely need, considering how little we get back in federal spending for every tax dollar we send to Washington.

To be clear, I am no advocate of incumbent protection for its own sake.  Incumbents must earn, and re-earn, the trust of a compact, cohesive, contiguous and identifiable community of interest.  It is on this score that our current Congressional map fails miserably.   I urge the commission to direct its efforts to redressing this problem.

New Jersey’s Congressional map is one of the most gerrymandered in the country according to independent analysis.  This will come as no surprise to anyone who followed the 2001 redistricting process, when both Democrats and Republicans colluded to protect every member of New Jersey’s delegation.

That is unlikely to happen this year simply because all incumbents can’t be protected.  Due to our state’s slow population growth relative to the rest of the country, our number of House members will be cut from 13 to 12 in this process.  While this may be bad news for the odd man out, it offers the perfect opportunity to re-assess whether New Jersey’s Congressional districts are providing adequate representation for the state’s varied communities.

The New Jersey Constitution offers no guidance on the Congressional mapmaking process.  After meeting federal requirements – such as population equality, contiguity and adherence to relevant sections of the Voting Rights Act – the commission, and the chair in particular, is free to establish whatever standards it chooses.

I urge the commission to focus on and develop working definitions for two standards: compactness and communities of interest.  Using these standards as guiding principles will help remedy some of the ills of the current map.

Compactness goes to the heart of what is wrong with the current map.  It is also one of the easiest to remedy since it is quantifiable.  There are, of course, numerous ways to calculate district compactness, but all of them rely on some ratio of the district’s perimeter to its total land area.  Basically, these calculations look at either dispersion – how long and narrow a district is – or indentation – how many times the district boundaries zig and zag.

Each measure has pros and cons, but taken together they give us a general sense of how ideally compact a district is.  An independent analysis by Azavea, a GIS software company based in Philadelphia, utilized four of the better-known measurement tools to assess the compactness of U.S. Congressional districts.

Their analysis found that New Jersey’s congressional map as a whole is the 4^th or 5^th least compact in the country according to 3 of these 4 measures.  It ranked 14^th worst on the remaining measure. The worst offender in the state is the current 6^th district which snakes its way from Belmar on the coast, working its way inland to end at Plainfield.  It ranks among the 10 least compact districts in the country on 3 of 4 compactness measures.  New Jersey’s 13^th and 12^th districts are not much better.

The reason why compactness is so important is that a lack of it can serve to divide and dilute the representation of communities of interest.  What is a community of interest?  It is not self-evident.  The commission needs to develop a working definition that is practical and can be justified to the public when the final map is revealed.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 24 states have some reference to community of interest in their redistricting laws or guidelines, including six constitutional provisions and eight by statute.  Only about half of these, though, make any attempt to describe what characteristics should be considered in a community of interest.

California’s new redistricting process, approved by voters last year, offers one of the more extensive descriptions of community of interest.  In addition to preserving city and county boundaries to the extent possible, the California commission is directed to minimize the division of any:

“contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests… Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process.” 

By the way, California’s law explicitly excludes partisan voting patterns and incumbency as community of interest considerations.

These guidelines are too broad to be practical, but the New Jersey Commission can develop its own priorities.  For example, “commonality of communications,” as the Alabama guidelines put it, should be an important consideration.

While it’s unclear how many people will be reading newspapers by the end of this decade, current newspaper circulation areas offer one possible guideline for defining communities of interest.  Keeping districts squarely within either the Philadelphia or New York media markets is another consideration.  Districts that straddle both, such as the current 3^rd, dramatically drive up the cost of political campaigns.

Zip codes are another important guide for what defines common communications in a community of interest.   For example, Somerset County’s Franklin Township lies in both the 6^th and 12^th districts. On the face of it, such a split would not be egregious, since the northeastern part of the town is closer to New Brunswick, while the remainder is geared south and west into Somerset County.  The problem is that the current dividing line follows no rhyme or reason vis-à-vis those communities.

I know this all too well because I live there.  For most of the past decade, I lived in Congressman Frank Pallone’s 6^th district, which wraps into part of northeastern Franklin.  During that time, I received plenty of franked mail from Congressman Rush Holt in the 12^th but none from my own representative, since the mail is sorted by zip code.  Preventing that type of division should be a no-brainer.

Last year, I moved less than a mile up the road.  I am still represented by the same state legislators and the same mayor, and even the same municipal ward councilman.  But I suddenly find myself in a different Congressional district!  Eli Manning could stand in my front yard and toss a bomb to my neighbor that would land in an entirely different Congressional district.

In fact, New Jersey’s 12^th district is most egregious in this regard.  It cuts into at least eight different municipalities, sometimes multiple times.  The commission should place a limit on how many partial towns can be drawn into any single district.

There are many other considerations that can be used to define and prioritize communities of interest.  The commission should use these hearings to obtain adequate public input on those priorities and develop a set of working definitions – to be shared with the public – that will guide the preservation of communities of interest during this process.

In any event, this commission should not fall back on Potter Stewart-like explanations of compactness and communities of interest, as every other commission has in the past.  “I know it when I see it” is neither an acceptable rationale nor a useful guideline.

Guidelines for compactness and communities of interest should be just that: guidelines.  These metrics do not have to hamstring the commission, but they should be sufficiently quantifiable in order to keep the new districts within acceptable – and publicly justifiable – parameters.

Any explicit guidelines are better than none at all.

Informed Opinion on Education Reform Poll?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Last month, Monmouth University and NJ Press Media released a poll on education reforms proposed by the Christie administration.  It has produced a whirlwind of blogosphere commentary from a few folks who took exception to the poll’s results.

The poll found broad, general support for the governor’s proposals, but with a few caveats.  When we asked questions pertaining to public awareness, we found a widespread lack of knowledge about these policies (especially with regard to charter schools).  We also found some concerns about implementation:  performance-based pay is a good idea, but using the current standardized tests as the metric on which to base that may be unfair.  And finally, we found that one of the arguments used by reform proponents – that it would close the achievement gap – does not necessarily hold water with the general public.

I initially chose to let the poll stand for itself.  Polling results frequently draw criticism when the results undermine a particular strategic perspective.  For example, Governor Christie was not happy with a poll we conducted early in his term that showed New Jerseyans expressing skepticism about his ability to bring about change (which was less about Christie and more about their jaded view of Trenton).  And individual election polls have been criticized at times by candidate’s campaigns – sometimes from both parties in the same cycle.  It’s understood.  Negative polling results can impact campaign contributions and undermine the storyline you are trying to put forward.

In most cases, the critics will question the poll’s methodology, say they see it differently, and move on.  That’s fair.  It’s all part of being the messenger about where the public stands on important issues of the day, a role I take very seriously. 

That’s usually the end to it.  Rarely does a critic try to misrepresent the poll or how it was conducted.  In fact, that has only happened to me twice.  This education poll is one of those times.  Unfortunately, I feel I must now respond directly to those criticisms.

To start, most of the criticism has come from people without expertise in the field of survey research.  Some has, which I will treat more seriously.  But it’s important to note that all of these critics, including some who are academic researchers, have taken very public normative positions on education policy.  Normative is one of those great social science words.  It simply means they already have a clear opinion about how things ought to be.  When normative values get applied in a research setting, they lead to bias.

The Monmouth University Polling Institute, on the other hand, has a record of measuring public opinion “as it stands” without bias.  For example, one of the charges levied against this poll centered on the question about tenure.  The criticism is that we used a colloquial definition of tenure rather than a legal one.

Well, that’s the point!  If you are trying to measure extant public opinion you need to use colloquial language.  This is especially important when it is not clear how well the public already understands the issue.  In these situations, most pollsters will look to see how other pollsters have handled it.

Our own search turned up a few poll questions on tenure, including one from the well-respected national Phi Delta Kappa survey conducted each year by the Gallup organization.  Their question defined tenure for public school teachers as “after a two- or three-year period, they receive what amounts to a lifetime contract.”  A Time magazine poll also used the word “lifetime” to describe tenure.

Based on my experience, I felt that the word lifetime could be a bit loaded in this context.  Our team spent a great deal of effort searching for something that reflected a more common definition of tenure, such as this entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: “Of an official position, usu. one in a university or school: carrying a guarantee of permanent employment until retirement.”

I decided to word our poll question as: “After working in a New Jersey public school for three years, a teacher is either given tenure or let go.  A teacher who gets tenure after this trial period is basically given a permanent job unless they engage in serious misconduct.”

I think the improved fairness of my question was borne out by the results.  In our question, 42% approved of tenure compared to 26% to 28% in the polls that defined tenure as a “lifetime” appointment.

Critics also took issue with way we described how a teacher can lose tenure since the question didn’t use statutory language regarding dismissal, i.e. for “inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming a teaching staff member or other just cause.”  Again, the poll’s intent is not to measure the public’s opinion on the theoretical concept of tenure, but what they think of it in practice.  And considering the data available on tenure dismissal in the state (see: PolitifactNJ), only a handful of teachers have ever been dismissed for “inefficiency” – far fewer then are probably dismissed for this reason in any other profession (a good empirical question in itself).

As such, I stand by the question wording as an accurate measurement of public opinion on current tenure practices, to the extent the public is aware of them.  Even still, I am confident that using the legal language to describe dismissal conditions would have had little to no effect on the end result.

Our poll included a follow-up question, asking people if they would support a change to “limited tenure” which requires periodic evaluation and potential loss of tenure.  Even though this is technically not “tenure” by the dictionary definition, it is a common term used in public discussions of this proposal.

There is widespread support – 77% in fact – for changes to the tenure system that would make it easier to dismiss underperforming teachers.  Here are some interesting facts about that statistic.  These changes to tenure are supported by a whopping 71% of teacher households and 73% of those who actually approve of the current tenure system.

In our press release I wrote, “It appears that New Jerseyans want some type of job protection for teachers, but broadly support modification to the current system.”  I don’t know how you argue with that considering that teachers themselves support these changes.

Critics of this poll have focused on minor wording issues without considering the larger context within which this opinion is formed.  During an extended economic downturn with persistently high unemployment, 4-in-10 New Jerseyans feel that teachers should benefit from an extraordinary level of job protection – and I use extraordinary in the sense that this is something that no other profession enjoys.  And fully 3-in-4 New Jerseyans feel that teachers should have at least better job protection than most other workers.  That should be somewhat surprising, and heartening to these critics, given the current economic climate.

There are many ways to ask about tenure, and I strove to provide a definition that was fairer than other polls I have seen.  I am open to discussing other ways to approach this issue.  And if this was the nature and tone of all the critiques, I would have welcomed the debate.

Unfortunately, the poll was also subject to a number of other attacks that were ill-informed and downright malicious.  Since those attacks have gone unabated, I feel it is important to respond on behalf of the reputation Monmouth University’s Polling Institute has earned in New Jersey.

In some cases, critics oddly misinterpret questions that actually support their normative view.  For example, standardized tests would be a major component in determining tenure and merit pay under current proposals.  One critic saw our poll results as saying “people think standardized tests are reasonably accurate at measuring student abilities.”  The results show quite the opposite, which actually bolsters the argument against merit pay!  Just 38% give a positive response of excellent or good to the accuracy of the tests, compared to 59% who give a negative response of only fair or poor.  [By the way, the “only fair” or “just fair” construction is textbook polling procedure to delineate between two positive responses and two negative responses in a balanced response set].

Furthermore, the critic takes issue with the same question as it relates to how these tests reflect teacher competence.  He writes: “Implied within that question is that student achievement and good teaching are a 1 to 1 ratio.”  Well, I’m not sure what he was reading, but the question we posed pretty clearly asks if people think there is a direct correlation between student test scores and teacher ability – and a clear majority (62%) do not!  So, I’m left scratching my head at the charge.

Critics have also charged that the headline of our press release was misleading.  It stated that the public “supports” proposed education reforms.  The data show that the public does support these ideas.  And anyone who has followed opinion in New Jersey knows that the public has become increasingly supportive of all measures that promote greater accountability and choice.  It would certainly have been misleading if we wrote that the public “demands” or “calls for” these reforms.  Instead, we accurately reflected that the public expresses “support” for these proposals as they are generally understood by the public.  No more, no less.

The real problem is when critics lower themselves to base accusations that we conducted a “push poll,” which shows a clear misunderstanding of that term.  Or try to plant rumors with the media that nefarious forces were behind the poll questions.  That’s where the criticism steps over the line.

As I mentioned before, this is one of only two times that displeasure with a poll I conducted reached a level where critics actively tried to misrepresent the poll.  The other time in question, the criticism came from members of the Tea Party.  This was in response to a poll that showed their candidate not doing as well as they believed she was.  That poll turned out to be right on the mark, by the way.

The criticism aimed at this poll is more disappointing because these advocates are doing so on behalf of our teachers.  I know they don’t represent all teachers, including the NJEA members who teach my own child.  However, because their actions reflect on the teaching profession, one hopes that they would engage in a more productive dialogue regarding public opinion on these reforms, and indeed on the reform proposals themselves.

As the poll results indicate, public opinion on education policy is not always well informed and at times is misinformed.  But it is the public’s present opinion on this issue; the opinion that policymakers listen to.

So here’s my advice to critics who disagree with the poll results.  Spend more time working to change public opinion rather than disparage the poll that measures it.

 

Does NJ Support or Oppose Gay Marriage? It Depends.

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

A new PPP poll shows that a clear majority of New Jersey voters oppose gay marriage.

“Hang on a minute,” you say.  “All the media reports I saw on that poll say that New Jersey supports gay marriage.  Are you off your rocker, Murray?”

No, I’m not.  I just read the entire press release sent out by the pollster.  I found information in the very first paragraph that could lead a reasonable person – or at least an astute reporter – to conclude that this poll shows that most New Jerseyans do not support the recognition of gay marriage.

Here’s why.  The poll asked two questions.  The first question asked simply if “same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?”  And being a basically fair-minded lot, more New Jersey poll participants sided with making it legal by a not overly wide 47% to 42% margin.

However, the pollster followed that with a different question – one more reflective of the reality that exists in New Jersey right now.  If the choice was between gay marriage, civil unions and no recognition at all, the public evenly splits between gay marriage (41%) and civil unions (40%).

If you add the group who choose civil unions to the 17% of those polled who oppose any kind of legal standing for same sex couples, you arrive at a sizable 57% who oppose gay marriage when civil unions are an option, as they are in New Jersey.

To its credit, the polling firm, Public Policy Polling, not only asked both questions butreported the results for both in the first paragraph of their press release.  However, they presented this information under a headline claiming there is unequivocal public support for gay marriage in New Jersey.  And they semantically underplayed the apparent contradiction in the two questions’ results. 

Hmmm, I wonder if this Democratic polling firm may have an agenda?  Fair enough.  They did clearly show all the results of their poll, after all. 

The real problem is that the media blithely went along with the storyline fed to them by the polling firm – even when contradictory evidence was put right in front of their eyes. See here, here (with a blatantly inaccurate headline claiming “even Republicans support same-sex marriage”), here (which bizarrely interprets 41% as a “majority” – no wonder we’re falling behind the rest of the world in math), and here.  [Note that the text of at least one of these online articles – although not the headline – has been modified after I contacted reporters about this.]

Usually when a poll has contradictory information or the pollster has an agenda, a critical observer really has to do some work to uncover the red flags.  That means reading deeply into the background information that a pollster is willing to provide, as one New Jersey columnist did recently (see the last two paragraphs).  Many times you don’t even get this information to review (in which case, don’t report the poll at all!)

For this poll on gay marriage, though, the conflicting information was presented with a flashing neon sign.  Yet, no reporter bothered to say, “How would I report these results if all I had was the question results without the pollster’s interpretation?”  If they had, I bet the headlines would have been less clear-cut about where the public stands on this issue.

And that would have reflected the reality that public opinion on gay marriage is not clear-cut.  As I wrote over a year ago, nearly a decade of polling on this subject in New Jersey and elsewhere shows that opinion on this issue is malleable.  The current poll underscores this fact.

When Democrats in the poll were asked the up or down marriage question, 64% supported it.  And when they were presented with the civil union option, a full 59% stood by their original position.  Republicans were similarly steadfast – only 23% supported same sex marriage in the limited option question and a similar 20% said the same when civil unions were added to the equation (although it’s worth noting that most Republicans do in fact support civil unions).

Independents, on the other hand, were swayed by the context of the question.  On the straight up or down marriage question they divided 46% for to 35% against.  But when civil unions were given as an option, support for same sex marriage declined by a sizable 13 points to just 33%.

Bottom line:  This poll provides clear evidence of the 'softness" in public opinion on gay marriage in New Jersey.  About 4-in-10 are solidly for it and 4-in-10 are solidly against it, but the remainder are liable to change their opinion.  And with this changeable group rests the majority.  Therefore, as the public debate on this issue resumes, public opinion will continue to shift.

There.  that wasn't so hard, was it?

Disclosure Shoe on Other Foot Now

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

A new 501(c)(4) – i.e. a “shadow PAC” – is on the block in New Jersey and the criticism has been fast and furious.  I’m referring to One New Jersey, started by a group of Democratic strategists as a counterpoint to similar Republican-sponsored efforts.

The main charge leveled against this group is hypocrisy.  During the past year, Democrats assailed two GOP non-profit groups – Reform Jersey Now which promoted Governor Christie’s agenda and The Center for a Better New Jersey which assisted the Republicans’ legislative redistricting efforts – for not revealing their donor lists.  [Note:  Reform Jersey Now did release its list shortly before it disbanded.]

Taking a page from the opposition, One New Jersey’s founders say they will not release their donor list either.  That sound you now hear from the Democratic side of the aisle is the chirping of crickets.

To their credit, some Democrats, such as Senator Linda Greenstein, are sticking to their guns and calling for this group to be transparent as well.  However, there has been a deafening silence from most of her Democratic colleagues.  As columnist Charlie Stile puts it, “fear of losing” rather than the taint of hypocrisy is “what has them pacing the floor at night.”

I do agree that transparency should be a hallmark of government.  Direct and immediate disclosure can do a lot more to temper the negative effects of money in politics than most laws designed to set limits and restrict funding.  However, I’ll leave the moralizing on the disclosure issue to others.  My reason for writing this column lies more with this group’s public roll out.

In short, I’m a bit surprised by the clumsiness with which this effort was unveiled.

According to its website, the purpose of One New Jersey is to “shine a light on those elected officials who act against the best interests of New Jersey’s residents.”  Seems like a good idea at first glance, but it’s clear they have only one party’s elected officials in their sights.

More importantly, it’s not clear how substantive their critiques will be.  The only “light” shed so far is a press release drawing attention to some bad polling numbers for the governor.  Thanks for blowing the lid off that one!

But the real clunker was how they handled the disclosure issue itself.  First, the group’s founders said that One New Jersey will abide by the law, which does not require transparency – the same argument Democrats took the Republican groups to task for.

They also claimed that One New Jersey needs to keep its donors anonymous for fear of reprisal from the Christie administration.  There may be some truth to that – Trenton politics is getting pretty personal – but I highly doubt that any of the donors to this group are not already known to the world as critics of the governor.

And most incredulously, One New Jersey claims that it doesn’t need to reveal its donors because their motives are pure, unlike the self-serving interests of the donors to those Republican groups.   All I can reply to that is, “Says you!”

Do they really think anyone will buy that?  In fact, it’s exactly that kind of self-righteous smokescreen that gets New Jersey’s media commentators’ blood pumping.  You’re just asking for negative media coverage – and public cynicism – when you try to claim that justification.

The astonishing part of all this is that One New Jersey was started by the principals of well-known Democratic campaign strategy firms, namely White Horse Strategies and the powerhouse Message & Media.  These are supposedly the folks who launched the careers of Bob Menendez , Jim McGreevey and Jon Corzine.  And this is the best opening message they could come up with?  [Of course, two of those three clients eventually crashed and burned, so…]

Wouldn’t it have been better to roll out this group with something like the following statement?

"Our Democratic friends in the legislature have proposed disclosure legislation for these groups, but there is no chance that Republicans will support it or the governor will sign it.  Since the other side continues to use these groups to push their agenda, we’ve decided our only response now is to fight fire with fire.  Ultimately, we hope this effort will prod the GOP to change its mind on disclosure.”

Of course it won’t, but such a statement would have given One New Jersey better political cover. Instead they fell back on the trite – “we’re abiding by the law” – and the perennially unbelievable – “our purpose is noble”.

It’s worth noting that in December of last year, Joshua Henne, one of the masterminds behind One New Jersey, tweeted his endorsement of a Star-Ledger editorial that “Reform Jersey Now must go.”

Then, as now, the rationale for withholding these groups' donor lists rings hollow.  It only serves to reinforce the final sentiment of that editorial:  "The last thing New Jersey needs is another reason to mistrust its political leaders."

Sweeney or Christie: Who’s More at Risk?

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Here’s the story line so far.*

After successfully corralling enough Democratic legislators to pass pension and benefit reforms, Senate President Steve Sweeney allows the liberal wing of his party to control the budget process in order to score political points off Governor Chris Christie.  The governor won’t be outplayed and exacts revenge by making bigger cuts than he initially proposed without giving Sweeney a heads-up.  Sweeney knows he has to make amends with the liberal wing of his party and launches a staged tirade against the governor.

I buy most of this storyline up until the final scene.  There is no other way to put it.  Steve Sweeney was pissed.

I’m not saying that he is unaware of his precarious political position within his own party.  Just that the expletive-laden rant was genuine.

He was mad about two things.  First, as he states, he feels that the cuts were punitive and landed too harshly on the poor.  Regardless of how you view Christie’s line item veto choices, I take Sweeney at his word that the cuts upset him.

Secondly, he’s mad not only at the governor, but at himself for misjudging the governor’s willingness to play along with the political script that the Democrats had crafted for the budget process.

The verdict on this drama is that Sweeney ended up the big loser in this political game.  I disagree.

Certainly, there is a chance that disgruntled Democrats could oust him as Senate President.  But I think he will remain in his post as long he goes to his fellow legislators with a mea culpa:  he was played by Christie, he was mistaken for assuming Christie would be more judicious in his cuts, etc. etc.

Whether Sweeney stays or not, though, the bigger risk is run by Chris Christie.  His political capital, both in the state and nationally, is built on his reputation for shaking up the system and getting big things done with bi-partisan support.

The risk for Christie lies in two areas.  First, he has given his political opponents a new epithet to use against him: "mean-spirited".  The “bully” attack never really worked.  Few voters who don’t already disapprove of the governor’s policies think of him as a bully.  Among the remainder, bully may actually be a good thing considering what low opinion they have of the Trenton status quo.  However, mean-spirited is another matter entirely.

You can be a bully and still make decisions in the best interests of the state.  Being mean-spirited, on the other hand, means you make decisions based on personal political calculations in spite of what may be good for the state.  Whether or not you agree with Christie’s cuts, this line of attack can have some traction among female independent voters who have been wavering in their support for the governor.  [See here and here for a discussion of these voters.]

The other risk for Christie is where this leaves his erstwhile political allies in the legislative majority.  Steve Sweeney has been the single most important factor in the governor’s legislative success.  He has been the one thing standing between Christie and governmental deadlock.

While the other South Jersey Democrats and their Hudson and Essex coalition partners have supported the governor’s reforms, it is Steve Sweeney who has actually been a vocal advocate of these reforms for years.

If Sweeney is ousted from the leadership, Christie can bank on a complete shutdown of his legislative agenda.  But even if Sweeney stays on, Christie’s future success, particularly with education reform, is no sure bet.

The conciliatory tone of the governor’s office response to Sweeney’s diatribe is not part of a pre-orchestrated political gavotte, as some would have us believe.  It is the realization that Chris Christie needs Steve Sweeney more than Sweeney needs Christie.

While Steve Sweeney firmly believes in the education reforms that sit on his legislative docket, he now has little political or personal incentive to move them forward.  If he doesn’t, the big political loser in this dust-up may ultimately be Chris Christie.

*  The Record’s Charlie Stile lays out the scenario in more detail.

Farewell, Old Friend

In just a few hours, NJN as we know it will go dark. I, for one, will miss it. It played an integral role in developing my awareness of what it means to be a New Jerseyan - and a New Jersey pollster.

My first political memories seem to revolve around television. On a hot summer day in 1974, my little brother and I sat in front of the TV in our grandparents’ Camden row home. I was only 9 years old, but my grandfather said, “You’ll want to remember this. It’s history.” On the screen was President Nixon, announcing his resignation from office.

I became more aware of politics as time passed. I read the local papers, the Philadelphia Bulletin where my father worked on the production side and the Courier-Post. I tracked the 1976 presidential race, followed the headline-making exploits of Philadelphia’s indomitable mayor Frank Rizzo, and was vaguely aware that my local Congressman, Jim Florio, wasn’t particularly enamored with Camden’s mayor Angelo Errichetti, who was later convicted in the Abscam sting.

But, at the age of 12, I still didn’t know much about the governor of New Jersey. In fact, I’m not sure I could have even named Brendan Byrne at the time.

That changed in the spring of 1977. Florio, along with nine other Democrats, decided to challenge the incumbent. I was interested to see how my congressman would do. So on primary night, I turned to the one source that continually reported the vote results – NJN. And I haven’t stopped watching since.

NJN introduced this South Jersey boy to New Jersey. And it wasn’t just the news. I was fascinated by documentaries on New Jersey’s history, natural resources, and culture that you couldn’t find anywhere else. This could be something as monumental as “Ten Crucial Days” – documenting how New Jersey played perhaps the most pivotal role of any state in our country’s eventual independence. Or it could be highlighting the Garden State’s natural wealth, from the Highlands to the Pinelands to their recent show on the Raritan River. Or it could be something as simple as Homeless Tails – the short segment that provided a forum for animal shelters from across the entire state to find homes for their strays.

Those who follow the Monmouth University Poll, know that we focus on understanding the state’s quality of life as much as we track political approval and election races. Perhaps moreso. As a pollster who focuses on New Jersey, I see in stark numbers how our state is divided into camps drawn to the two major cities across our borders. As a state, we need to do everything within our power to overcome our natural tendency to balkanize.

Obviously, NJN alone could never provide the cohesive state identity that New Jersey sorely lacks. But its influence went far beyond the absolute number of viewers for any given broadcast. What was shown on NJN had a multiplier effect in other media.

I found it interesting that no South Jersey Democrat voted in favor of the transfer, while their erstwhile coalition partners from Essex and Hudson counties did. I think those of us who hail from the southern part of the state are more sensitive to this issue of state identity. For many in the north, anything that happens south of Union County is of little relevance.

NJN made sure it covered every part of the state in equal measure – and that policy makers in every part of the state had equal access to its airwaves. If you were asked to do a remote interview for the news broadcast, you had your pick of studios in Trenton, Newark or Pomona. In other words, less than an hour’s drive from any point in the state. [As of right now, it looks like NJTV and its contributing producer will have studios in Fairfield, Paterson, and New York City(!) – the closest of which is a 2 hour drive from Camden and a 3 hour drive from Cape May.]

As I mentioned, my first memory of NJN was watching primary night coverage. I’m proud to say that, 34 years later, I was able to contribute to that coverage on their final election night broadcast. During the years I have appeared on NJN, I’ve come to know a top-notch team of professionals, both in front of and behind the camera, who were committed to telling the story of New Jersey.

I hope its successor, NJTV, fully appreciates the legacy it inherits.

Christie Slipping Among Independents

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

A new player entered New Jersey’s crowded polling market and confirmed the recent decline in Governor Christie’s approval ratings.  The big story of this poll is his possible slippage among independents voters.

The latest poll was conducted for Bloomberg news by Selzer  & Co, a well-respected Iowa polling firm with a pretty solid track record polling their home state’s hard to pin down presidential caucus.

The poll found Christie has an “upside down” job approval rating among all adults – 44% approve to 51% disapprove.  This is in line with the Quinnipiac Poll’s 44% to 47% results earlier this month and the Monmouth University/NJ Press Media Poll’s 47% to 49% result last month.

One of the first things I look for with new polls that differ from other findings is the partisan composition of the sample.  Unfortunately, not every pollster releases this – although any reputable pollster should have no problem including this important information with their poll results.   Fortunately, Selzer did include this data (for both their weighted and unweighted samples no less – kudos to them!). 

Their weighted sample of partisan identifiers (i.e. “In politics as of today, do you consider yourself a D/R/I?”) splits 30% Democrat, 24% Republican and 44% independent.  That 6 point Democratic advantage is a much narrower gap than most other polls show.  My tracking of the party identification question over the past year finds it hovering somewhere between a 12 and 14 point Democratic advantage – similar to the partisan split on the registered voter rolls.  If anything, this latest poll should be more advantageous to the Republican governor.

So why the big dip in Christie’s approvals when compared to Monmouth and Quinnipiac? 

The biggest difference in the three polls is an apparent erosion of support among politically independent residents.  [Note: there is some danger in comparing sub-samples across different polls due to different question wording and weighting techniques, but the results bear watching.]

In Monmouth’s May poll, Christie garnered positive reviews among this important voting bloc by a decent 53% to 41% margin.  In Quinnipiac’s poll a few weeks later, this edge was a much narrower 47% to 44%.  The Selzer poll now shows independents evenly divided on the governor’s job performance – 47% approve to 47% disapprove.

There are some caveats for those concerned only with how this will effect Christie's re-election chances.  These polls sampled all adults or registered voters.  The Selzer poll does include a breakdown for those saying they are very likely to vote in this year's legistaive election.  But since this "likely voter" group includes 62% of all adults – as opposed to a more realistic 20-25% – it doesn't deserve much attention.  At any rate, it's too soon to predict who is likely to vote in 2013 when Christie is up for re-election.

It’s also important to keep in mind that all these polls were conducted before the governor’s pension and benefit victory and a poll next week could produce very different results.  [Although just released, the Selzer poll was actually conducted last week.]

But the bottom line is that Christie’s job approval has been wavering – in spite of Piers Morgan’s claims* to the contrary during his obsequious CNN interview – and independents hold the key.

[*By the way, check out the Star-Ledger’s terrific new PolitifactNJ fact checking site.]

Primary Day Outlook

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

Today is primary day in New Jersey.  Here’s a rundown of the contested seats, including my picks for most intriguing match-up and likeliest upset, plus a non-legislative race worth watching.

Turnout should be about 7% – somewhere between 350,000 and 370,000 voters.  While that may seem low, consider that there is little reason for most voters to show up.  Of the 240 legislative nominations available, only 31 challengers are running against the party organizations’ picks.  This includes just 9 Senate seats and 15 Assembly districts (excluding the Democratic challenger in the 7^th who has withdrawn, but whose name will appear on the ballot).

Here’s my run-down.

Most Watched Primary – District 20 (D)
Democrats for Change, an organization affiliated with the Elizabeth School Board has fielded a full slate of challengers in the Democratic primary, Jerome Dunn for Senate and Tony Monteiro and Carlos Cedeno for Assembly.  Some say Governor Christie is tacitly backing this challenge.  While he may be just a teensy bit ambivalent about Senator Ray Lesniak, he’d be extremely happy to see Assembly Majority Leader and former state Democratic chairman Joe Cryan go down.  The NJEA has targeted Lesniak over his support of school vouchers, but are not going after the Assembly incumbents (Cryan and Annette Quijano). 

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in this race is the impact of redistricting.  While this district remains solidly Democratic in the new map, the addition of Hillside has increased the black population of this district from 27% to 31% 43% (the Hispanic population went from 43% to 41% 38%).  There are no African-Americans on the incumbent slate, while the Senate challenger is.  The Hillside mayor has endorsed the challengers.  While this race is competitive and well-funded on both sides, I see the incumbents staving off the challenge.

Most Intriguing Matchup – District 33 (D)
Hudson County and political intrigue are synonymous.  Senator Brian Stack has long been a thorn in the side of the Hudson County Democratic Organization.  His alliance with Governor Christie is considered to be one of the main reasons that the Republicans failed to get their legislative map during redistricting (i.e. they insisted on sending Bayonne into a district with Newark in order to protect Stack, even though tie-breaker Alan Rosenthal made it clear that he wouldn’t agree to any district split by a large body of water).

One Assembly seat opened up with redistricting.  Stack and the HCDO agreed to a compromise candidate, Jersey City Police Detective Sean Connors.  This selection was a bit of payback.  Connors had challenged Senator Nick Sacco in the 32^nd district in 2007, expecting Stack would support him in a challenge for the Freeholder board the following year.  Instead, Stack decided to make peace with the HCDO and Connors was left out in the cold.

Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, another pro-Christie/anti-HCDO Democrat, now feels that she is getting the cold shoulder from the HCDO (and the intrigue is upped by a reported IT security breach at City Hall).  She is supporting her Council colleague, Ravi Bhalla, in a one-man challenge to Connors.  (The other candidate is incumbent Ruben Ramos, another Hobokenite.)

Stack’s comments about this challenge have been lukewarm – he wished Zimmer could support the ticket, but understands her decision – suggesting that he may be okay with either Connors or Bhalla as his running mate in November.  My pick is that Connors wins.

Likeliest Upset – District 27 (R)
One of the more fascinating storylines of this year’s redistricting process was what would happen to former Senate President and Governor Dick Codey.  Early speculation was that both Democrats and Republicans would look to put him in a less friendly district.  In the end, his district picked up a few GOP-leaning towns in Morris County, but remains a comfortable win for him in November.

This explains why Republican Party leaders could not recruit a real heavy hitter to take on Codey.  They settled on Essex Fells Councilman William Sullivan.  However, he has a challenge from Tea Party candidate Bill Eames, who has raised a bit of money.  While the addition of the Morris towns to this district will not hurt Codey much, they do pose a problem for the Republican organization candidate in a primary (Morris does not confer party lines on the ballot).  Moreover, Eames has been endorsed by the North Jersey Tea Party group, who also endorsed the popular Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll in the neighboring 25^th district.  I’m going out on a limb and picking Eames in the upset here.

Bad Blood Award – District 25 (R)
Senator Tony Bucco faces a challenge from Morris Freeholder Director – and Wharton mayor – and public school teacher – William Chegwidden.  Their feud is partly based on Bucco’s decision to back his own son for an open Assembly seat in 2009 over other candidates waiting in the wings.  Chegwidden has taken the slight to an all out challenge.  He will lose (as will John Siercho, who is running independent of Chegwidden for an Assembly seat against incumbents Carroll and the younger Bucco).

Bizzare Resume Award – District 1 (R)
A full slate of challengers is being led by Thomas Greto for Senate, joined by Peter Boyce and Paul Halley for Assembly.  Greto ran for state legislature once before.  But it was in Pennsylvania in 1994.  And his campaign was cut short by his arrest and a jail term for deceptive business practices.  According to reports, Greto also declared bankruptcy in 2008.  He is running on a platform to “get businesses going and growing.” 

Aside from the, er, interesting resume of the senate candidate, this race is the first real test of party discipline for Cape May County GOP Chair Michael Donohue.  [The district includes a large portion of Cumberland County as well as a few Atlantic towns, but is considered mainly a Cape May district.]  Donahue himself ran for Assembly a few times and was unhappy with the party support in those races, so he ran a slate of Freeholder challengers in last year’s primary.  His candidates won and he subsequently took over the reins of the county party. 

Donahue has fielded a decent slate of candidates – former municipal judge David DeWeese for Senate, Cumberland County Freeholder Sam Fiocchi and Stone Harbor Mayor Suzanne Walters for Assembly – although they have yet to raise any significant money.  He is looking for a big win in this primary to cement his leadership.  But since this tends to be one of those politically interesting pockets of New Jersey, it’s not clear how big a win it will be

Other contested races:

District 2 (D) – Perennial candidate Gary Stein (governor, Congress) will lose to party-endorsed Alisa Cooper and Damon Tyner.

District 5 (R) – On the Senate side former Camden city administrator Keith Walker has the line against George Gallenthin, whose business property was recently the subject of an eminent domain attempt.  On the Assembly side, William Levins and Ari Ford have the line against perennial off-the-liner Donna Ward.  The party-endorsed candidates should win easily, but no one really cares since this is Norcross territory come November.

District 7 (R) – Senator Diane Allen faces a familiar challenger from the right, Carole Lokan-Moore.  Allen beat Moore 83% to 17% in the 2003 primary.  Take the over at 60 points this time around.

District 14 (R) – Robbinsville Mayor Dave fried and former Cranbury Mayor Wayne Wittman will see off a challenge from jewelry store owner Bruce MacDonald.

District 16 (R) – There are no challenges here.  But since incumbent Denise Coyle pulled out of the race without setting up a Committee for Vacancies, the party finds itself short a candidate in this GOP stronghold.  They are asking Republican voters to write in Somerset Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli (not an easy thing to do, since I just had to look up the spelling of his last name myself).

District 27 (D) – Former Millburn Councilwoman Ellen Steinberg is running off the line for Assembly.  Millburn used to be in the GOP-lock 21^st district, where Steinberg ran on the line for Senate in 2001 and successfully off the line for Assembly in 2003.  She will not be able to repeat history against incumbents John McKeon and Mila Jasey.

District 28 (D) – Incumbents Cleopatra Tucker and Ralph Caputo (who moved hometowns after redistricting in order to stay in the Assembly) should easily see off a challenge by Michael Frazzano.

District 31 (D) – Senator Sandra Bolden Cunningham will see off restaurateur Bruce Alston

District 32 (D) – Nick Sacco easily defeats 9/11 conspiracist and perennial candidate Jeff Boss for Senate, while mortgage broker Francisco Torres fails in his Assembly challenge.

District 35 (D) – Redistricting opened up two Assembly seats in this Democratic-lock district.  The party nods went to Paterson Councilman Benjie Wimberly and Shavonda Sumter, who ran Jeff Jones successful bid to unseat two-term mayor Joey Torres last year.  Torres brother, Samuel, is hoping to exact some revenge in an off the line challenge.  He won’t.

Districts 34/35/38/40 (R) – I’ve lumped these districts together.  GOP Strong, a Passaic based dissident organization, is running Assembly slates in these four districts along with a Senate candidate in the 38^th.  This feud goes back to 2006, when now-Assemblyman Scott Rumana (R-40) wrested control of the scandal-plagued Passaic County GOP from allies of former chair Peter Murphy.  The grudge continues to this day.  The 38^th race also features a perennial candidate Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz (who, fortunately, is not a write-in).  In all four districts, the party line candidates will win.

Non-Legislative Race to Watch – Gloucester County Freeholder (R)
The Republicans have made some noise recently in Gloucester County, considered to be under the political control of the Camden County/Norcross Democratic machine.  The biggest surprise was Governor Christie’s win here in 2009.  This was followed by a gain of two Freeholder seats in 2010, after what had been a decade of total Democratic control.  However, the county GOP has had some problems with discipline.  Their picks for the 3^rd legislative district in 2009 lost to two Tea Party candidates in the primary.  The party basically disowned one, Lee Lucas, due to extreme views.  The other, Bob Villare, is the organization endorsed candidate this time around.

In this year’s freeholder race, there is a very competitive primary which is a proxy battle for party leadership.  Incumbent Assemblyman Domenick DiCicco has sided with the dissident faction against county chair Bill Fey’s slate.   DiCicco scored a surprise victory in 2009 on Christie’s coattails, but faces an uphill battle to retain his seat due to redistricting.  Could he be positioning himself for a post-legislative position?  And is the Gloucester GOP in resurgence or was 2009/2010 just a blip?  This one bears watching.

Chris Christie’s Female Troubles

Cross-posted at PolitickerNJ

New Jersey political observers are aware that Governor Christie’s job rating has taken a tumble in the past month. All three pollsters who regularly track his “job approval” found similar declines in public opinion.

Both Monmouth/NJ Press Media and Quinnipiac reported net 11 point drops since February and FDU/Public Mind showed an 8 point drop in the governor’s net job rating since early April and a 17 point drop since January. [Note: “net” rating is calculated as the percent who approve minus the percent who disapprove.]

One common theme in these poll results is that the governor is experiencing a gender gap. Specifically, a majority of men tend to approve of the job he is doing while a majority of women disapprove. This finding is true in all three polls. This is considered especially newsworthy because the issue of funding for family planning services (which the governor vetoed last year) is again on the state’s policy agenda. Observers wonder whether that issue has, or will, hurt the governor given the divergence in public opinion by gender.

I tend to be cautious when reading anything more than partisanship into most gender gap results. We live in a highly charged partisan world. Except for rare occasions, Democratic-leaning voters love Democratic officeholders and hate Republican ones, while GOP voters feel just the opposite.

Women are more likely to think of themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans on political issues. In most polls that I’ve reviewed, both state and national, about 60 to 65 percent of self-identifying Democrats are women while just under half of Republicans and independents are women.

Given this skew, the gender gap in a politician’s rating is often masking general partisan preferences. There will always be some sort of gender gap as a baseline for any partisan politician. Indeed, recent polls are not the first time New Jersey's governor has experienced a gender gap in his own ratings. The issue for Chris Christie is whether this gender gap is moving and in what direction.

Examining the last five Monmouth University/NJ Press Media Polls, going back to April 2010, we found the governor started off his administration with a fairly wide gender gap. He had a net +16 job rating from men but a -22 rating from women. This poll was taken shortly after he unveiled his initial budget.

This gap started to narrow throughout the ensuing year. Christie’s net rating among men remained fairly stable at first before dipping earlier this year, going from +16 in July 2010 and +18 in September 2010 to +10 in February 2011. On the other hand, his standing among women steadily improved to -14 in July, -3 in September, and +1 in February.

All that changed with our May poll. While the governor’s net rating among men decreased just slightly to +8, it dropped considerably among women to -12. That indicates a growth in the governor’s gender gap not only among Democratic women, but among independent women as well – a key swing bloc in New Jersey’s electorate.

So how does the family planning issue figure into all this? It’s difficult to say definitively, but the current state of public opinion suggests that other issues are on the minds of Garden State women than social issues per se.

First of all, Christie’s gender gap was already closing and continued to close after he vetoed the family planning funds last year and participated in a Right to Life rally on the State House steps earlier this year. So, it’s unlikely that his current drop in public opinion among women has much to do with those specific issues.

Furthermore, hot button social issues tend to be important in gubernatorial elections only for challengers or when there is an open seat. Incumbents get judged by the job they do on state-specific issues. As such, I think the most likely cause of Christie’s widening gender gap are pocketbook issues related to education and social services.

Back in February 2011, in the first weeks of the governor’s term, we asked New Jerseyans how upset they would be with Christie if a number of things happened or did not happen on his watch. For items such as “property taxes remain high” and “the amount of political corruption has not changed,” there was no gender gap. Nearly identical numbers of men and women said they would be very upset if Christie did not address these issues.

For two items, though, we did find clear gender gaps. More women (61%) than men (45%) said they would be very upset with the governor if “programs that help the poor are cut.” And we found an even bigger gender gap on education. Significantly more women (71%) than men (51%) said they would be very upset with the governor if “funding for schools is cut.”

Interestingly, that’s exactly what Governor Christie did in his initial budget. And the predicted public reaction to those large cuts in education and social services was reflected in the large gender gap in his job approval right after that budget was announced. However, women started to warm to the governor as he settled into office. That is, until his second budget was unveiled earlier this year.

While the new budget does not exact more cuts on schools, it does not restore the funding slashed last year. And to make matters worse, the pain of the cuts has not been offset by promised property tax relief.

So, while a veto of family planning funds may have some leverage for Democrats among women voters, it’s not necessarily because it is a “female issue.” It is simply part of an overall perception among Garden State women that education and programs for the needy have been cut too much with little to show in the way of benefits to the state as a whole.

It’s a perception that Governor Christie will have to work to change as he looks toward reelection in 2013.

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.