Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Redistricting in New Jersey after the 2020 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Election Policy VNT Logo.png
Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker


Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in New Jersey.

The New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission enacted a new congressional map on December 22, 2021.[1] This map took effect for New Jersey's 2022 congressional elections. The commission voted 7-6 to approve the Democratic map proposal, with all six Democratic members and the tiebreaker, former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge John Wallace voting to approve. All six Republican members of the commission voted against the map.

On February 18, 2022, the New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted to approve a new set of state legislative maps.[2] The commission voted 9-2 to approve the maps. Thomas Kean Jr. (R) and Cosmo A. Cirillo (D) were the two dissenting votes.[3] The New Jersey Monitor's Nikita Biryukov wrote that the vote was "an unprecedented compromise for a commission that has historically relied on a court-appointed tiebreaker to end partisan gridlock."[2]

Click here for more information.

New Jersey's 12 United States representatives and 120 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

  1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
  2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
  3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
  4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
  6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in New Jersey is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission enacted a new congressional map on December 22, 2021.[1] This map took effect for New Jersey's 2022 congressional elections. The commission voted 7-6 to approve the Democratic map proposal, with all six Democratic members and the tiebreaker, former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge John Wallace voting to approve. All six Republican members of the commission voted against the map. The Republican map proposal, which was released after the vote, can be viewed here.[1]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

New Jersey Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New Jersey Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Following the commission's vote, the Republican commissioners released a statement, saying: "We cannot convey enough how disappointed we are in the final product of this process. This decade’s redistricting of New Jersey Congressional boundaries was hijacked by a liberal operative [redistricting advisor Professor Sam Wang of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project] hiding under the cloak of bipartisanship. The resultant map was rigged for Democrat success."[4]

In a comment during the commission's meeting, Chairman John Wallace said: "In summary, both delegations aptly applied our standards to their map. In the end, I decided to vote for the Democratic map simply because in the last redistricting map, it was drawn by the Republicans. Thus I conclude that fairness dictates that the Democrats have the opportunity to have their map used for the next redistricting cycle."[5]

In an overview, the New Jersey Globe wrote that the map "set[s] up a tough race for Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-Ringoes) in New Jersey’s 7th district but puts Democratic Reps. Andy Kim (D-Moorestown), Josh Gottheimer (D-Wyckoff) and Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair) in good shape to win re-election."[1]

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[6] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[7]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, New Jersey
District 2022 district Political predecessor district
Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party Joe Biden Democratic Party Donald Trump Republican Party
New Jersey's 1st 61.5% 37.1% 62.1% 36.6%
New Jersey's 2nd 46.9% 51.8% 47.9% 50.8%
New Jersey's 3rd 56.3% 42.3% 49.2% 49.4%
New Jersey's 4th 38.1% 60.6% 44.1% 54.6%
New Jersey's 5th 55.6% 43.2% 51.9% 46.7%
New Jersey's 6th 59.0% 39.7% 57.2% 41.5%
New Jersey's 7th 51.1% 47.3% 54.2% 44.3%
New Jersey's 8th 72.1% 26.8% 71.8% 27.2%
New Jersey's 9th 58.9% 40.0% 62.2% 36.8%
New Jersey's 10th 80.6% 18.6% 84.2% 15.0%
New Jersey's 11th 57.8% 40.9% 52.7% 46.0%
New Jersey's 12th 66.6% 32.1% 67.3% 31.4%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On February 18, 2022, the New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted to approve a new set of state legislative maps.[2] The commission voted 9-2 to approve the maps. Thomas Kean Jr. (R) and Cosmo A. Cirillo (D) were the two dissenting votes.[8] The New Jersey Monitor's Nikita Biryukov wrote that the vote was "an unprecedented compromise for a commission that has historically relied on a court-appointed tiebreaker to end partisan gridlock."[2] These maps took effect for New Jersey's 2023 legislative elections.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

New Jersey State Senate Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New Jersey State Senate Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

New Jersey State House Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

New Jersey State House Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.


Reactions

Regarding the enacted maps, Republican Chairman Al Barlas said "We all said we were looking to end in a day where everyone would be proud and we would do something potentially historic and give the residents of the state a map they could all be proud of and I think we did that today." Democratic Chairman Leroy Jones said that "consensus cannot be achieved without compromise from all parties. [...] Many of our commissioners and party leaders were left with very difficult choices, which includes some very longtime and very well-respected Democratic state senators who now find themselves in the same district."

Matt Duffy, special counsel for redistricting at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, said that he "wanted 20 majority people of color districts because we have a state that is half people of color. We didn’t get there. We got to 17. It does look like [we] have a number, maybe two or three other districts, that are really close, which would be great."[2]

Drafting process

In New Jersey, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by two distinct politician commissions. The congressional redistricting commission comprises the following 13 members:[9]

  1. The majority and minority leaders of each chamber of the New Jersey State Legislature appoint two commissioners a piece (for a total of eight members).
  2. The chairs of the state's two major political parties each appoint two members to the commission (for a total of four members). Commissioners appointed by the political parties cannot be members of Congress or congressional employees.
  3. The first 12 commissioners appoint the last member. This member cannot have held public office in the state within the previous five-year period. If the first 12 commissioners cannot agree on an appointment, they must submit two names to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court must then appoint the final commissioner.

If the congressional redistricting commission fails to reach an agreement about a redistricting plan, it must submit two plans to the state Supreme Court, which must in turn select from those two plans a final map.[9]

The state legislative redistricting commission comprises 10 members. The chairs of the state's two major political parties each appoint five members to the commission. In the event that this commission is unable to reach an agreement about a redistricting plan, the state Supreme Court may appoint a tie-breaking member.[9]

State law requires that state legislative districts meet the following criteria:[9]

  1. Districts must be contiguous.
  2. Districts "must be as nearly compact as possible."
  3. Municipalities "must be kept intact, except where otherwise required by law."

There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[9]

Timeline

On August 18, Secretary of State Tahesha Way (D) said New Jersey would certify redistricting data upon its receipt of tabulated data from the U.S. Census Bureau, delaying the beginning of the redistricting process in New Jersey until then. The U.S. Census Bureau released data in a legacy format on August 12, and released tabulated data on September 16.[10][11] Way said census data adjusted to count incarcerated individuals at their last residence rather than at their place of incarceration would be released on September 23.[12] The redistricting process officially began a month later on October 23. The deadline for approval of congressional redistricting maps was January 18, 2022. The deadline for approval of legislative redistricting maps was March 1, 2022. In January 2022, Philip J. Carchman said the commission would make legislative maps available to the public by February 8, 2022.[13]


On November 3, 2020, New Jersey voters approved Public Question 3, a constitutional amendment postponing state legislative redistricting until after the November 2, 2021, election if the census bureau failed to deliver redistricting data by February 15, 2021. The application of this postponement was triggered as a result of the census bureau's announcement that it did not expect to deliver redistricting data to the states until after July 31, 2021. Consequently, the existing legislative district maps were set to remain in force until 2023.[14]


Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

In New Jersey, two commissions are involved in the redistricting process: the New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission and the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission.

On January 26, former Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) was removed from the Legislative Reapportionment Commission by Delegation Chairman LeRoy J. Jones. Jones appointed Laura Matos to fill the position.[15]

As of January 2022, these commissions had the following members:[16][17][18][19][20]

New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name Partisan affiliation
Philip Carchman New Jersey Supreme Court appointed tiebreaker
Cosmo A. Cirillo Democratic Democratic Party
LeRoy J. Jones, Jr. (Delegation Chairman) Democratic Democratic Party
Laura Matos Democratic Democratic Party
Gary Taffet Democratic Democratic Party
Diane T. Testa Democratic Democratic Party
Al Barlas (Delegation Chairman) Republican Republican Party
Jon Bramnick Republican Republican Party
Linda DuBois Republican Republican Party
Thomas Kean Jr. Republican Republican Party
Michael Lavery Republican Republican Party



New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission membership, 2020 cycle
Name Partisan affiliation
John Wallace New Jersey Supreme Court appointed tiebreaker
Iris Delgado Democratic Democratic Party
Janice Campbell Fuller Democratic Democratic Party
Vin Gopal Democratic Democratic Party
Stephanie Lagos Democratic Democratic Party
Jeff Nash Democratic Democratic Party
Dana Redd Democratic Democratic Party
Doug Steinhardt Republican Republican Party
Lynda Pagliughi Republican Republican Party
Mark LoGrippo Republican Republican Party
Jeanne Dovgala Ashmore Republican Republican Party
Mark Duffy Republican Republican Party
Michele Albano Republican Republican Party


Proposed maps

Legislative

On February 7, 2022, the New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission released two draft maps for legislative redistricting. Click here to view the Turnpike map, and click here to view the Parkway map. Writing for NorthJersey.com, Katie Sobko wrote: "The proposed maps are labeled “Parkway” and “Turnpike” to avoid the appearance of partisanship. Still, a careful inspection of the maps provides some clues as to which party submitted which map. The Parkway appears to favor Republicans, while the Turnpike map appears to be submitted by Democrats."[21]

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.[22]

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. New Jersey was apportioned 12 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[23]

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for New Jersey
State 2010 census 2020 census 2010-2020
Population U.S. House seats Population U.S. House seats Raw change in population Percentage change in population Change in U.S. House seats
New Jersey 8,807,501 12 9,294,493 12 486,992 5.53% 0


Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021.[24][25][26][27] The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.[28][29]

Noteworthy events

Apportionment of incarcerated individuals

On August 9, Secretary of State Tahesha Way (D) said that she would release adjusted Census data within seven days of the Census data release on August 12 to all members of the redistricting commissions, and the public concurrently. Regarding potential inconsistencies between the Census data count of incarcerated individuals and the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) count, she said her office would be "guided by the duties set forth under the law concerning the reallocation of incarcerated individuals whether their previous address is known or unknown."[30]

On July 26, the New Jersey Globe reported that the Republican leaders of New Jersey's redistricting commissions submitted a request to Secretary of State Tahesha Way (D) for clarification regarding the apportionment of incarcerated individuals in the state.[31] On January 21, 2020, Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed S758 into law, which would require incarcerated individuals to be counted at their last known residential address for the purposes of legislative redistricting, rather than the location of their incarceration at the time of the census.[32] Additionally, A698, which was signed into law on Aug. 20, 2021, would expand that requirement to redistricting for municipal, county, school board, and congressional purposes.[33]

Under S758 and A698, the Secretary of State must submit a report about the altered apportionment based on numbers from the DOC.[32][33] Legislative Apportionment Commission Republican Chairman Al Barlas and Congressional Redistricting Commission GOP Chairman Doug Steinhardt said in their request to Way that the Census Bureau's use of differential privacy in the 2020 census would produce data inconsistent with DOC data, since "this statistical technique deliberately manipulates census data to assertedly protect the confidentiality of respondents by introducing ‘statistical noise; into both population totals and demographic characteristics." The request required Way to respond by August 2.[31]

New Jersey Supreme Court picked congressional redistricting commission tiebreaker (July 2021)

A majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court voted to select John Wallace, a retired New Jersey Supreme Court judge, to act as a tiebreaker on the congressional redistricting commission.[34] His selection came after the 12 members of the state Congressional Redistricting Commission (six Democrats and six Republicans) did not agree on a 13th member by the July 15, 2021, deadline, meaning the decision went to the seven-member New Jersey Supreme Court. The court had until August 10 to pick between retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice John Wallace and former Superior Court Judge Marina Corodemus. Wallace was Democratic commissioners' choice and Corodemus, Republican commissioners' choice.[35]

On July 20, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner requested the commission reconvene by July 30 and try to reach consensus on a 13th member.[36]

On July 25, Democratic commission chair Janice Fuller submitted a second name to Republican commission chair Doug Steinhardt for consideration: former state supreme court Chief Justice Deborah Poritz.[37][35]

According to the New Jersey Globe, this was the first time the state supreme court was called upon to select the Congressional Redistricting Commission's tiebreaker. The outlet also reported that the commission has never agreed on a map without needing the tiebreaker.[38]

Chief justice names tiebreaker for legislative redistricting commission (July 2021)

On October 7, New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner named Philip Carchman as the tiebreaker member of the legislative redistricting commission.[39] In July, Rabner wrote in a letter to Gov. Phil Murphy (D) and state legislative leaders, "As I did a decade ago, I am inviting both parties to submit proposed names for a tiebreaker" for the state Legislative Apportionment Commission. He wrote, "If there is a match, I would be favorably inclined to appoint the individual." Rabner requested the lists by August 10. He chose former Supreme Court Justice Stewart Pollack to review the lists and inform Rabner of any names that appear on both lists.[40]

The state constitution gives the chief justice authority to choose the commission's 11th member to break a tie in the event that the commission cannot reach agreement on state legislative district maps. The constitution does not require that the chief justice seek recommendations from the parties.[40]

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Steinhardt v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission

On Dec. 30, 2021, Republican members of the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit before the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging the state's enacted congressional map. In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that "Chair John Wallace’s reasoning and actions fail to satisfy any modicum or standard of judicial review that may be held applicable to the NJRC under New Jersey law, including being arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." The plaintiffs requested the court strike down the map and order the commission to redraw the map.[41]

On Feb. 3, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed the case. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote that "no count in the complaint, however, asserts that the final map itself is unlawful or that it is the result of invidious discrimination" and "this Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is ‘unlawful.'"[42]


Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[43][44]

“ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[45] ”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[46][47][48]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[48]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[48]

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[48][49]
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[48][49]
  3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[48][49]
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[48][49]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[50]

  1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
  2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.
See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[51][52]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[53]

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[54][55]

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."[56] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.[57] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.[58]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[59] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.[60]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[61]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[62]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[63][64][65]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[66][67][68][69]

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[70][71][72]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[73][74][75][76]

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status
State Primary redistricting authority Pre-2010 trifecta status Post-2010 trifecta status Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Colorado Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Democratic Divided Democratic
Indiana Legislature Divided Republican Republican
Iowa Legislature Democratic Divided Republican
Maine Legislature Democratic Republican Democratic
Michigan Legislature Divided Republican Divided
New Hampshire Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
North Carolina Legislature Democratic Divided Divided
Ohio Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Republican
Oregon Legislature Democratic Divided Democratic
Pennsylvania Congressional maps: legislature
State legislative maps: politician commission		 Divided Republican Divided
Wisconsin Legislature Democratic Republican Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in New Jersey after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, New Jersey lost one congressional seat. On December 23, 2011, the congressional redistricting commission approved its plan for new congressional district boundaries.[9][77]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

When the state legislative redistricting commission failed to adopt a final redistricting plan by the March 3, 2011, deadline, the New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a tie-breaking member to the commission. On April 3, 2011, the commission approved final state legislative district maps.[9]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 New Jersey Globe, "Democrats win congressional redistricting fight," December 22, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 New Jersey Monitor, "Democrats, GOP agree on new legislative map for N.J.," February 18, 2022
  3. ↑ Insider NJ, "Redistricting Commission Finalizes Legislative Map by 9-2 Vote," February 18, 2022
  4. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Statement Of Republican Members Of The Congressional Redistricting Commission," December 22, 2021
  5. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "New Jersey Redistricting Commission - Wednesday, December 22, 2021 - 10:30:00 AM," December 22, 2021
  6. ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
  7. ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
  8. ↑ Insider NJ, "Redistricting Commission Finalizes Legislative Map by 9-2 Vote," February 18, 2022
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 All About Redistricting, "New Jersey," accessed May 6, 2015
  10. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Announces Release Date for Easier-to-Use Formats for Redistricting Data," September 1, 2021
  11. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Redistricting in N.J. won’t begin until next month as state decides to wait for census data in a different format," August 18, 2021
  12. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Adjusted census data for redistricting will be ready on September 23," Sept. 16, 2021
  13. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Carchman Sets February 8 Deadline For Legislative Maps, Says He’ll Seek Public Input Before Vote," January 18, 2022
  14. ↑ New Jersey Department of State, "Official List of Public Question Results for 11/03/2020–General Election," December 7, 2020
  15. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Sweeney dumped from Democratic legislative redistricting commission," January 26, 2022
  16. ↑ New Jersey Democratic State Committee, "New Jersey Democratic State Committee Announces Apportionment Commission Appointments," November 17, 2020
  17. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Barlas to lead GOP legislative redistricting; names emerge for Democratic seats," April 2, 2020
  18. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Democrats name their six Congressional Redistricting Commission members," June 15, 2021
  19. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Republicans name their six Congressional Redistricting Commission members," May 28, 2021
  20. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Carchman named as legislative redistricting tiebreaker," October 7, 2021
  21. ↑ NorthJersey.com, "New Jersey Republicans, Democrats vie for dominance in legislative redistricting effort," February 8, 2022
  22. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Apportionment," accessed July 11, 2018
  23. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
  24. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Plan: Executive Summary," December 2015
  25. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Statement on Redistricting Data Timeline," February 12, 2021
  26. ↑ Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, "AG Yost Secures Victory for Ohioans in Settlement with Census Bureau Data Lawsuit," May 25, 2021
  27. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "U.S. Census Bureau Statement on Release of Legacy Format Summary Redistricting Data File," March 15, 2021
  28. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Decennial Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data," accessed August 12, 2021
  29. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Delivers 2020 Census Redistricting Data in Easier-to-Use Format," September 16, 2021
  30. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Way tells redistricting commissions that adjusted census numbers will take 7 days," August 9, 2021
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 New Jersey Globe, "GOP redistricting commissions set deadline for answers on prisoner allocations," July 26, 2021
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 LegiScan, "NJ S758 | 2018-2019 | Regular Session," accessed July 28, 2021
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 New Jersey Legislature, "A698," accessed July 28, 2021
  34. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Justices pick Wallace as congressional redistricting tiebreaker," August 6, 2021
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 New Jersey Globe, "N.J. Supreme Court will pick tiebreaker on congressional redistricting," July 15, 2021
  36. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Rabner wants to punt on tiebreaker, asks parties to find a consensus candidate," July 20, 2021
  37. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Democrats add Poritz to list of congressional redistricting tiebreakers," July 26, 2021
  38. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Who will the Supreme Court pick as the congressional redistricting tiebreaker? 15 questions — and answers — about what comes next," July 16, 2021
  39. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Carchman named as legislative redistricting tiebreaker," October 7, 2021
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 New Jersey Globe, "Rabner gives legislative redistricting commission one month to submit possible tiebreaker candidates," July 9, 2021
  41. ↑ NorthJersey.com, "Steinhardt c. New Jersey Redistricting Commission," accessed January 6, 2022
  42. ↑ New Jersey Globe, "N.J. Supreme Court dismisses GOP lawsuit on congressional redistricting," February 3, 2022
  43. ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
  44. ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
  45. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  46. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
  47. ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 48.5 48.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
  50. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  51. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  52. ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
  53. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
  54. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
  55. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
  56. ↑ United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, "South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Alexander," January 6, 2023
  57. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Alexander, et al. v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.," February 17, 2023
  58. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," accessed July 21, 2023
  59. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
  60. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 16, 2023
  61. ↑ SCOTUSblog.org, "Supreme Court upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act," June 8, 2023
  62. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
  63. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
  64. ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
  65. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
  66. ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
  67. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
  68. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
  69. ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
  70. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
  71. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
  72. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
  73. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
  74. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
  75. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
  76. ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
  77. ↑ Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
v • e
Redistricting after the 2020 census
State-by-state
Overviews
Flag of New Jersey
v • e
State of New Jersey
Trenton (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_New_Jersey_after_the_2020_census&oldid=10279940"