Matter of Congressional Districts by New Jersey Redistricting Commission

• Citation: 249 N.J. 561,268 A.3d 299
• Decision Date: 03 February 2022
• Docket Number: 086587,R-3 September Term 2021
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Establishment of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS BY the NEW JERSEY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, Douglas Steinhardt, in his official capacity as Delegation Chair and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Michele Albano, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Jeanne Ashmore, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Mark Duffy, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Mark LoGrippo, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, and Lynda Pagliughi, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Plaintiffs, v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission, John E. Wallace, Jr., in his official capacity as Chair and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Janice Fuller, in her official capacity as Delegation Chairwoman and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Iris Delgado, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Vin Gopal, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Stephanie Lagos, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Jeff Nash, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Dana Redd, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, and Tahesha Way, in her official capacity as New Jersey Secretary of State, Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

249 N.J. 561

268 A.3d 299

In the MATTER OF Establishment of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS BY the NEW JERSEY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION,

Douglas Steinhardt, in his official capacity as Delegation Chair and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Michele Albano, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Jeanne Ashmore, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Mark Duffy, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Mark LoGrippo, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, and Lynda Pagliughi, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Plaintiffs,

v.New Jersey Redistricting Commission, John E. Wallace, Jr., in his official capacity as Chair and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Janice Fuller, in her official capacity as Delegation Chairwoman and Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Iris Delgado, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Vin Gopal, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Stephanie Lagos, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Jeff Nash, in his official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, Dana Redd, in her official capacity as Member of the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, and Tahesha Way, in her official capacity as New Jersey Secretary of State, Defendants.

R-3 September Term 2021

086587

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

February 3, 2022

1. This matter involves a legal challenge to the congressional redistricting map selected by the New Jersey Congressional Redistricting Commission (Commission).

Selection of Commission members and redistricting process

2. The State's political leaders appoint the members of the Commission. Under the State Constitution, the following individuals each appoint two members: the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly; the minority leaders of the Senate and Assembly; and the chairs of the State committees of the political parties whose candidates received the largest or next largest number of votes in the most recent election for Governor. N.J. Const. art. II, § 2, ¶ 1 (b). As a result, the Commission is initially comprised of six individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and six who are affiliated with the Republican Party.

3. The Constitution also provides for an independent thirteenth member. Id. ¶ 1(c). Because the original twelve members were unable to agree on a proposed tiebreaker by a majority vote, each delegation submitted one name to the Court. From those names, the Court had to select the thirteenth member, in accordance with the Constitution. Ibid.

4. The Constitution sets forth two qualifications for the independent member: the individual must have been a New Jersey resident for the past five years and, during that period, "shall not ... have held public or party office in this State." Ibid. The Constitution also provides a standard for the selection of the independent member. It calls upon the Court to select, by a majority vote, the person "more qualified by education and occupational experience, by prior public service in government or otherwise, and by demonstrated ability to represent the best interest of the people of this State." Ibid. From the two names presented, the Court selected the Honorable John E. Wallace, Jr. (ret.), to serve as the independent member. Neither party objected to his selection. The independent member serves as Chair of the Commission. Id. ¶ 2.

5. The Commission must hold at least three public hearings. Id. ¶ 4. In this case, it held ten hearings, virtually and in-person, at which it heard testimony from the public. The Commission also received written submissions and draft maps from the public.

6. The process that follows is intensely political, not legal, which reflects the makeup of the Commission and the nature of its work. The Commission is essentially a political body, comprised mostly of partisan appointees, that fixes boundaries for election districts. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973) ("Politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment.").

7. Historically, after meeting in private with the respective partisan delegations to discuss their proposals, the independent member serves as the tiebreaker and selects one party's preferred map. The outcome commonly garners praise from one party and criticism from the other. This redistricting cycle was no different.

8. On December 22, 2021, a majority of the Commission's members that included the Chair voted in favor of the map the Democratic delegation presented. Plaintiffs, the Republican delegation to the Commission, filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2022 to challenge that map. Plaintiffs filed their complaint directly with this Court, pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution.

Plaintiffs’ challenge

9. Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate the Commission's decision and remand the matter to the Commission for further proceedings, with the Chair, Justice Wallace, recused. Defendants, the Democratic delegation to the Commission, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Among other arguments, defendants assert that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

10. Plaintiffs’ arguments rest to a large extent on the rationale offered by the Chair to explain his vote in support of the Democratic delegation's map. The Chair provided reasons for his vote at the Commission's final meeting on December 22, 2021. He also amplified his reasoning in writing, on January 11, 2022, in response to a request from the Court.

11. This Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is "unlawful." N.J. Const. art. II, § 2, ¶¶ 7, 9. If it is, the Commission must reassemble and adopt another redistricting plan. Id. ¶ 9.

Legal standard

12. In 1974, before the current constitutional process was adopted, the Court noted that reapportionment plans "must be accorded a presumption of legality with judicial intervention warranted only if some positive showing of invidious discrimination or other constitutional deficiency is made. The judiciary is not justified in striking down a plan, otherwise valid, because a ‘better’ one, in its opinion, could be drawn." Davenport v. Apportionment Comm'n, 65 N.J. 125, 135, 319 A.2d 718 (1974) (citing Gaffney ).

13. That stringent standard still applies. It is not the Court's task to decide whether one map is fairer or better than another.¹ We review redistricting plans only to determine if the map selected is "unlawful." N.J. Const. art. II, § 2, ¶ 9. So long as the final map is constitutional, the Court cannot grant any relief.

14. Plaintiffs claim the actions of the Chair were "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable," presented violations of "federal and state constitutional equal protection and due process protections," and posed a "common law conflict of interest." Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 101. The complaint also asserts there were "significant differences between the maps" and sets forth ways in which the Republican delegation's map better met the standards the Chair had applied. Id. ¶¶ 49-56. Plaintiffs’ complaint, however, does not assert that the map the Commission adopted -- which the Democratic delegation and the Chair voted for -- was itself "unlawful."

Threshold arguments

15. Defendants contend that plaintiffs -- the Republican members of the Commission who brought suit in their official capacity -- lack standing because they have no "personal stake" and have not alleged a "personal injury." Instead, defendants contend plaintiffs have only an institutional interest that does not afford them standing any more than it would the minority side of a legislative body that lost a vote on an ordinance or bill.

16. Our jurisprudence takes a more liberal approach to standing than federal law. See In re Camden County, 170 N.J. 439, 448, 790 A.2d 158 (2002) ; see also Jen Elec., Inc. v. County of Essex, 197 N.J. 627, 645, 964 A.2d 790 (2009). The State Constitution does not limit "our judicial power to actual cases and controversies." Camden County, 170 N.J. at 448, 790 A.2d 158 (quoting Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107-08, 275 A.2d 433 (1971) ). At the same time, courts do not render advisory opinions or "entertain ... plaintiffs who are ‘mere intermeddlers,’ or are merely interlopers or strangers to the dispute." Id. at 449, 790 A.2d 158 (omission in original) (quoting Crescent Park, 58 N.J. at 107, 275 A.2d 433 ).

17. To possess standing in state court, a party must have "a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation" and "real adverseness," and there must be "a substantial likelihood that the party will suffer harm in the event of an unfavorable decision." Camden County, 170 N.J. at 449, 790 A.2d 158 ; Jen Elec., Inc., 197 N.J. at 645, 964 A.2d 790. We also give weight to the public's interest in the resolution of a matter and favor a just ruling on the merits over "procedural frustrations."² Crescent Park, 58 N.J. at 107-08, 275 A.2d 433 ; see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2.1 on R. 4:26-1 (2022).

18. Plaintiffs have a strong stake in the outcome of the redistricting process and are plainly adverse to the map adopted. Their assertion of personal harm as members of the delegation is less strong, but the overriding public interest in this case is compelling. Resolving the map for congressional districts for the next decade is of the utmost importance. Doing so expeditiously, in time for candidates and election officials to plan for the upcoming primary and general elections, is also significant to the public. We therefore consider the merits.

19. D...