Koziol v. Burkhardt

• Decision Date: 03 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. A--141,A--141
• Citation: 241 A.2d 451,51 N.J. 412
• Parties: Henry KOZIOL, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Robert J. BURKHARDT, as Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent, Frank Tedesco, et al., Intervening Defendants-Appellants, and Joseph Regan, as Superintendent of the Board of Elections, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, and Alexander Allan, as Clerk of the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 412

51 N.J. 412

241 A.2d 451

Henry KOZIOL, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Robert J. BURKHARDT, as Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent Frank Tedesco, et al., Intervening Defendants-Appellants and Joseph Regan, as Superintendent of the Board of Elections County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, and Alexander Allan, as Clerk of the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, et al., Defendants.

No. A--141.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued April 2, 1968.

Decided April 3, 1968.

Abram A. Lebson, Englewood, for appellants (Lebson & Prigoff, Englewood, and Lester & Kahn, Fort Lee, attorneys).

Benjamin Boley, Washington, D.C., and David Friedland, Jersey City, for respondents, Koziol and others. (Friedland, Schneider & Friedland, Jersey City, and Ronald J. Picinich, Hackensack, attorneys).

Hugo Pflatz, Jr., Summit, for the General Assembly (Bourne, Schmidt, Burke & Noll, Summit, attorneys).

Stephen Skillman, Deputy Atty. Gen., filed a brief on behalf of Robert J. Burkhardt, Secretary of State of State of N.J. (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).

Frank J. Cuccio, County Counsel, and Lawrence Wolfberg, First Asst. County Counsel, for Alexander Allan, County Clerk of Bergen County.

PER CURIAM.

By Chapter 11, Laws of 1968, the Legislature amended the Congressional Districting Act (1966), N.J.S.A. 19:46--2 and 3, to provide a new line separating the Seventh and Ninth Districts, which districts comprise the whole of Bergen County. In approximate terms the 1966 statute created the mentioned districts by dividing Bergen County by a line running generally east and west, whereas the 1968 statute here involved divides the county by a line running generally north and south. The trial court concluded the 1968 statute survived all major attacks upon it but held the statute invalid because of the disparity between the populations of the two districts and an element of non-contiguity. We certified the matter directly because of the statutory timetable relating to the forthcoming election and ordered immediate argument.

We agree with the trial court that the Legislature had the power to deal with the subject of redistricting not withstanding its comprehensive statute of 1966. There is no constitutional or congressional provision which expressly or impliedly limits the State Legislature to a single act of districting after each decennial census. There is no restriction on the federal scene comparable to Article 4, sec. 3, par. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution which states that the apportionment for the State Legislature shall remain unaltered until the next decennial census. We agree too with the trial court's holding that the amendatory act is not a special law within Article IV, Section VII, paragraph 8 of the State Constitution.

Plaintiffs say the line drawn by the 1966 statute for the two districts is Res judicata by reason of our judgment in Jones v. Falcey, 48 N.J. 25, 222 A.2d 101 (1966). The case merely sustained the legislative action as to the Seventh and Ninth Districts with respect to the charges there leveled against them. The decision of course did not say that the adoption of a plan of districting exhausted the legislative power to deal with the subject.

The principal complaint seems to be that the Legislature was motivated by partisan political considerations in drawing the new line between the two districts. The attack is of the same nature as the one leveled at the 1966 statute and rejected in Jones v. Falcey, 48 N.J. 25, 31, 32--34, 222 A.2d 101 (1966). As there appears the east-west line replaced a north-south line which dated back at least to 1931 (see N.J.S.A. 19:46--1). We said in Jones v. Falcey, supra:

'The trial court described such issues as nonjusticiable. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say such issues are beyond judicial condemnation, not because the controversy is beyond the jurisdictional authority of the Court, but rather because the Constitution does not prescribe a single approach or motivation for the drawing of district lines, and hence the Constitution is not offended merely because a partisan advantage is in view. Indeed, it would be difficult to separate partisan interests from other interests, since partisan interests may well be but a summation of such other interests. In addition, it would seem impossible for a court to pass upon the validity of political interests without itself making a political judgment or appearing to do so. For these reasons the view generally taken in this new area of judicial activity is that, if the mathematics are acceptable, it rests with the voters, rather than the Court, to review the soundness of the partisan decisions which may inhere in the lines the Legislature drew. Actual experience of course may generate exceptions to that approach.' (48 N.J. at p. 32, 222 A.2d at p. 105)

To date there have been no developments in...