Redistricting in New Jersey
 in New Jersey |
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of New Jersey's 12 United States Representatives and 120 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]
New Jersey was apportioned 12 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in New Jersey after the 2020 census.
The New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission enacted a new congressional map on December 22, 2021.[5] 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.[6] The commission voted 9-2 to approve the maps. Thomas Kean Jr. (R) and Cosmo A. Cirillo (D) were the two dissenting votes.[7] 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."[6] Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels.
- State process: An overview about the redistricting process in New Jersey
- District maps: Information about the current district maps in New Jersey
- Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in New Jersey's redistricting after recent censuses
- State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
- Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting
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.[8][9]
| “ | 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.[10] | ” |
| —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."[11][12][13]
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."[13]
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."[13]
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.
- 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.[13][14]
- 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.[13][14]
- 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.[13][14]
- 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.[13][14]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[15]
- 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.
- 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.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- 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.[1][16]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
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.[17]
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.[18][19]Recent court decisions
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 independent 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.
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.[20]
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.[21][22][23]
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.[24][25][26][27]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
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.[28][29][30]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
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.[31][32][33][34]Race and ethnicity
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
| “ | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[10] | ” |
| —Voting Rights Act of 1965[35] | ||
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, New Jersey was home to five congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]
State process
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
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:[36]
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.[36]
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.[36]
State law requires that state legislative districts meet the following criteria:[36]
- Districts must be contiguous.
- Districts "must be as nearly compact as possible."
- Municipalities "must be kept intact, except where otherwise required by law."
There are no such requirements in place for congressional districts.[36]
How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In New Jersey, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are excluded from all district populations. Federal inmates are counted using the same standard as state inmates.
District maps
Congressional districts
New Jersey comprises 12 congressional districts. The table below lists New Jersey's current U.S. Representatives.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. House New Jersey District 1 | Donald Norcross | Democratic | November 12, 2014 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 2 | Jeff Van Drew | Republican | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 3 | Andrew Kim | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 4 | Chris Smith | Republican | January 3, 1981 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 5 | Josh Gottheimer | Democratic | January 3, 2017 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 6 | Frank Pallone Jr. | Democratic | January 3, 1993 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 7 | Thomas Kean Jr. | Republican | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 8 | Robert Menendez Jr. | Democratic | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 9 | Bill Pascrell | Democratic | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 10 | Donald Payne Jr. | Democratic | January 3, 2013 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 11 | Mikie Sherrill | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House New Jersey District 12 | Bonnie Watson Coleman | Democratic | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2025 |
State legislative maps
- See also: New Jersey State Senate and New Jersey House of Representatives
New Jersey comprises 40 state legislative districts. Each district elects one state senator and two state representatives. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.
Redistricting by cycle
Redistricting after the 2020 census
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.[37]
Enacted congressional district maps
The New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission enacted a new congressional map on December 22, 2021.[5] 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.[5]
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."[38]
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."[39]
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."[5]
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.[40] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[41]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, New Jersey | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| 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
On February 18, 2022, the New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted to approve a new set of state legislative maps.[6] The commission voted 9-2 to approve the maps. Thomas Kean Jr. (R) and Cosmo A. Cirillo (D) were the two dissenting votes.[42] 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."[6] 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."[6]
Redistricting 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.[36][43]
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.[36]
State legislation and ballot measures
Redistricting legislation
The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the New Jersey state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.
Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.
2016 and 2017
On January 12, 2016, S587, a bill proposing that incarcerated individuals in the state be counted at their last known residential addresses for state legislative redistricting purposes, was introduced in the New Jersey State Senate. The United States Census Bureau counts incarcerated individuals as residents of the areas in which they are incarcerated. The bill passed the Senate on November 14, 2016, by a vote of 21-15 (with four members not voting). The bill cleared the New Jersey General Assembly on May 22, 2017, by a vote of 47-28 (with five members not voting). On July 13, 2017, Governor Chris Christie (R) issued an absolute veto against the bill, requiring the state legislature to pass the bill again by a two-thirds vote in each chamber in order for it to become law.[44][45]
On June 9, 2017, the Prison Policy Initiative issued a statement in support of the bill:[46]
| “ | The longstanding flaw in the Census undermines the legislature's constitutional duty to draw legislative districts on the basis of equal population. The unfortunate result of using prison populations to pad the legislative districts that contain prisons is to enhance the weight of votes cast in those districts while diluting every vote cast in districts without prisons.[10] | ” |
| —Prison Policy Initiative | ||
In a statement announcing his veto of S587, Christie said the following:[47]
| “ | Counting prisoners where they resided at one point in the past, instead of where they live and sleep presently, runs counter to how the federal Census Bureau and the majority of states allocate prisoners in the population. It also makes little sense insofar as prisoners are consuming services and resources at the prison and may have only fleeting, dated, or tenuous ties to their prior residence.[10] | ” |
| —Chris Christie | ||
2020 and 2021
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. If an individual's last known residential address was outside of New Jersey, they would be excluded from district population counts. The United States Census Bureau counts incarcerated individuals as residents of the areas in which they are incarcerated.[48] The bill passed the Senate on February 21, 2019, 24-10, and passed the Assembly on January 13, 2020, 54-22.[49]
In the 2020-2021 legislative session, A698 was proposed, which would expand S758's counting rules for incarcerated individuals to municipal, county, school board, and congressional redistricting purposes. It passed the Assembly on June 24, 2021, 50-25, and passed the Senate on June 30, 2021, 36-2. On Aug. 20, Murphy signed the bill into law.[50]
Redistricting ballot measures
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in New Jersey.
Political impacts of redistricting
Competitiveness
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[51]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[52]
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[53]
In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[54]
State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.
New Jersey was not included in this study.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting New Jersey. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- United States census, 2020
- Redistricting in New Jersey after the 2010 census
- Redistricting
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
External links
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 New Jersey Globe, "Democrats win congressional redistricting fight," December 22, 2021
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 New Jersey Monitor, "Democrats, GOP agree on new legislative map for N.J.," February 18, 2022
- ↑ Insider NJ, "Redistricting Commission Finalizes Legislative Map by 9-2 Vote," February 18, 2022
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 All About Redistricting, "New Jersey," accessed May 6, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ New Jersey Globe, "Statement Of Republican Members Of The Congressional Redistricting Commission," December 22, 2021
- ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "New Jersey Redistricting Commission - Wednesday, December 22, 2021 - 10:30:00 AM," December 22, 2021
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Insider NJ, "Redistricting Commission Finalizes Legislative Map by 9-2 Vote," February 18, 2022
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ New Jersey Legislature, "S587," accessed July 19, 2017
- ↑ State of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, "Governor Christie Takes Action On Pending Legislation," July 13, 2017
- ↑ Prison Policy Initiative, "Senate Bill 587: Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering in New Jersey," June 9, 2017
- ↑ State of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, "Senate Bill No. 587," July 13, 2017
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Reallocating Inmate Data for Redistricting," accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ LegiScan, "NJ S758 | 2018-2019 | Regular Session," accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ New Jersey Legislature, "A698," accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
| |||||||||||
 |
State of New Jersey Trenton (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | 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 |
