Jackman v. Bodine

• Citation: 53 N.J. 585,252 A.2d 209
• Parties: Christopher JACKMAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John M. BODINE et al., Defendants-Respondents. The ELIZABETH DAILY JOURNAL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert J. BURKHARDT et al., Defendants-Respondents. In the Matter of the APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION PLAN FOR 1969.
• Decision Date: 22 April 1969
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 585

53 N.J. 585

252 A.2d 209

Christopher JACKMAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John M. BODINE et al., Defendants-Respondents.

The ELIZABETH DAILY JOURNAL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert J. BURKHARDT et al., Defendants-Respondents.

In the Matter of the APPORTIONMENT COMMISSION PLAN FOR 1969.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued April 21, 1969.

Decided April 22, 1969.

William Miller, Princeton, for Apportionment Commission (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., Allen D. Porter, Princeton, on the brief).

Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., filed a statement in lieu of brief on behalf of defendant Burkhardt (Elias Abelson, Trenton, and Stephen G. Weiss, Edison, of counsel).

Martin Klughaupt, Passaic, for plaintiff Hirkala.

Louis Schwartz, Paterson, for intervenors Mecca and Curcio.

Lawrence I. Lerner, Newark, for appellants Scrimmager and Sharper.

Harris David, Newark, for appellant Harris.

John M. Boyle, Elizabeth, for intervenors Ehrhart, DeLazaro, Orkin and McGowan (Sauer & Boyle, Elizabeth, attorneys, Richard A. Daubner, Union, on the brief).

Myron Gottlieb, Bordentown, for appellants Tutek and Soltesz.

James P. Dugan, Bayonne, for appellant Lavin.

Gerald Goldman, Clifton, for intervenor Dudiak.

Sherwin Lester, Fort Lee, in support of Bergen County Plan.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the apportionment of the State for the purpose of election of assemblymen. In Jackman v. Bodine, 49 N.J. 406, 231 A.2d 193 (1967), we sustained the apportionment plan there involved for the purpose of the 1967 election, subject to certain modifications, and said (p. 419, 231 A.2d p. 201):

'* * * As to the Assembly election scheduled for the year 1969, ample time exists for a full exploration of the challenged deviations and the reasons therefor. To that end the 11-man Apportionment Commission shall continue in office and make a seasonable recertification of Assembly districts for the 1969 election.'

See also Jackman v. Bodine, 50 N.J. 127, 232 A.2d 419 (1967).

The Apportionment Commission did not certify its new work product until April 7, 1969. We thereupon directed the filing of all objections by April 14, 1969 to the end that such challenges as might be made could be heard and resolved in time to permit the primary election scheduled for June 1969.

The objections filed included the claim that recent decisions in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (April 7, 1969) and Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542, 89 S.Ct. 1234, 22 L.Ed.2d 535 (April 7, 1969), undercut the doctrine upon which our earlier decisions rested. Specifically, it is asserted that the cases just cited will permit no deviation from population equality by reason of adherence to county or municipality lines. Those cases involved congressional districting rather than apportionment of a State legislative body. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) the Court held that there may be departures, within unspecified limits, from mathematical equality to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions because (1) adherence to such political lines would deter gerrymandering ¹ and (2) local governmental entities are frequently charged with various responsibilities incident to the operation of State government, 377 U.S. at 580, 84 S.Ct. at 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d at 538. ² Kirkpatrick and Wells cast some possible doubt upon the utility of that approach with respect to item 1, i.e. gerrymandering, but nowhere suggested that the second basis is no longer viable. We therefore cannot conclude that the Supreme Court has made the meaningful departure from Reynolds v. Sims which the objectors advance.

We do, however, have considerable doubt as to whether the basic plan of apportionment in our State Constitution is compatible with Federal Constitutional requirements as to either the Senate or Assembly. Specifically, we doubt that further apportionments can be made without exceeding permissible tolerances from mathematical equality. It may, therefore, be necessary to depart from the State Constitution's insistence that county and municipal lines be respected. It is perfectly clear that if reapportionment for the State legislative purposes had to be redone without reference to such lines, the practical problems would preclude the scheduled primary election and perhaps, also, a general election this year. We have in mind not only the time period which said reapportionment would entail but also the impact of such reapportionment upon the detailed election machinery. The scheduled election to the Assembly will be the last before the new census and there will be no election to the Senate prior to that event. Mindful of the need to continue orderly government, we are constrained to conclude that the broad constitutional issue to which we have just referred should not be entertained at this time. We will however schedule the subject for full argument this fall, to the end that the matter may be settled, if possible, well in advance of the 1971 election.

It remains, therefore, to consider the objections to the...