Reisdorf v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Mountainside

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Citation277 A.2d 554,114 N.J.Super. 562
PartiesEdward GARY REISDORF, Joseph J. Stypa, David A. Walsh and Joseph J. McMahon, Plaintiffs, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF the BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants.
Decision Date27 April 1971

Robert H. Jaffe, Union, for plaintiffs (Reisdorf & Jaffe, Union, attorneys).

Murray Staub, Mountainside, for defendants (Irwin, Post & Staub, Mountainside, attorneys).


This is an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment and defendants have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Counsel agree that there is no genuine issue of fact involved.

With reference to the specific questions raised under the statutes, there have not been many court decisions construing and interpreting these statutes on these particular questions. Thus it has been necessary to resort to court decisions involving similar situations, and to resort to the definition of words and phrases used in the statutes, as well as other factors in an attempt to interpret the same.

Plaintiffs contend that on February 16, 1971 defendant enacted an ordinance known as Ordinance No. 438--71; entitled 'An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 257--58 and to Provide for the Establishment of New Election Districts and the Location of said Election Districts within the Borough of Mountainside.'

Public notice that the ordinance was passed after second reading and notice of public hearing given by publication of the ordinance in the Mountainside Echo on February 18, 1971. The publication did not include a copy of the redistricting map and no prior publication of such map was made.

Plaintiffs further contend that prior to the redistricting, the number of registered voters in the five districts of Mountainside were as follows: 681 voters in the First, 1,166 in the Second, 582 in the Third, 964 in the Fourth, and 937 voters in the Fifth District. In the First and Third Districts there was one voting machine utilized during the election, and in the Second, Fourth and Fifth Districts two.

Plaintiffs state that it is also important to note that the number of registered voters and the number of ballots cast in each of the five districts has not increased in any significant manner in the last five years. They contend that defendants had no authority to enact the ordinance under N.J.S.A. 19:4--6 and 19:4--7. Plaintiffs state that N.J.S.A. 19:51--1 is applicable, that defendants violated its provisions, and there was not proper publication of the ordinance; that the map was not set out in the body of the ordinance but only referred to and was advertised in the same way.

Defendants contend that because of a substantial increase in population in Mountainside since 1958 when the election districts were established, and because that increase resulted in a serious differential between the number of voters in the districts, the borough council determined that it would be in the best interests of the voters to readjust and subdivide the election districts. At the time of such determination the borough was divided into five election districts, three of which were districts in which more than 600 votes had been cast in the last two general elections. Ordinance No. 438--71, which provided for the establishment of new election districts and their location, divided the borough into ten election districts, none of which contained more than 550 or less than 350 registered voters. In adoption of the ordinance the readjustment will not require that the Union County Board of Elections, which supplies the borough with voting machines, purchase any new machines, nor will there be any more than a nominal additional expense to such board (if there is any additional expense at all) for election workers.

Defendants contend that N.J.S.A. 19:51--1 is not applicable; that the ordinance represented a proper exercise of power under N.J.S.A. 19:4--6 and 19:4--7, and that the ordinance was properly published when it referred to the map on file in the office of the borough clerk.

Plaintiffs contend that the action of the mayor and borough council violates N.J.S.A. 19:51--1. This statute provides that election districts in which voting machines are to be used may be altered, divided or combined by the county board of elections so as to provide that each district in which one machine is to be used shall contain, as nearly as maybe, 750 registered voters; districts with two machines approximately 1,000, and districts with three machines approximately 1,500 registered voters. The statute provides that nothing contained therein shall prevent any election district from contraining a lesser number if necessary for the convenience of voters, but this must be determined by the county board of elections. It is therefore evident that this statute alone does not permit the readjustment of election district boundary lines by the local governing body when there are voting machines.

In considering this case it must be remembered that N.J.Const. (1947), Art. IV, sec. 7, par. 11, provides that any law concerning municipal corporations formed for local government shall be liberally construed in their favor, and the powers of such municipal corporations include not only those granted in express terms but also those of necessary or fair implication, or incident to the powers expressly conferred or essential thereto, and not inconsistent with or prohibited by the State Constitution or by law.

Courts are enjoined by our Constitution and Home Rule Act to interpret statutes liberally in favor of the existence of local power to deal with local needs. Whelan v. New Jersey Power and Light Co., 45 N.J. 237, 251, 212 A.2d 136 (1965).

N.J.S.A. 19:4--6, par. 1, provides that when, in any two consecutive elections in any election district, over 600 or less than 250 votes have been cast in counties other than counties of the first class, the governing body of the municipality may readjust the boundary lines of such election district or other election districts as may be necessary to effect the change, so that none of the election districts affected shall have more than 550 or less than 350 registered voters. For this purpose the governing body shall have power to consolidate any number of election districts and subdivide the same.

N.J.S.A. 19:4--6, par. 3, provides that in redistricting election districts using voting machines, a like procedure may be followed, provided that in counties other than counties of the first class the municipal governing body shall upon notice from the county board redistrict the election districts in which voting machines are to be used.

The record shows that in two consecutive elections (1969 and 1970) over 600 votes were cast in most of Mountainside's election districts. Since Union County is a county of the second class and voting machines are used, N.J.S.A. 19:4--6, par. 3, applies. Paragraph 3 says that 'a like procedure may be followed'. The only logical and legal conclusion is that his refers to the procedure set out in paragraph 1, which gives the governing body the right to readjust district lines so that no election district affected shall have more than 550 or less than 350 registered voters. 'A like procedure' means having the same qualities, or characteristics similar to or in the same manner, in following the mode of proceeding by which a legal right is enforced through the successful application of proper remedies. See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 487 (1960); Black's Law Dictionary, (3d ed.,) 1430.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that under N.J.S.A. 19:4--6 Mountainside had the authority to readjust the district boundary lines. As a result of the redistricting the following results were attained: District 1, 421 registered voters; District 2, 439; District 3, 453; District 4, 459; District 5, 426; District 6, 406; District 7, 418; District 8, 447; District 6, 442, and District 10, 427 registered voters. In no district are there more than 550 or less than 350 registered voters.

At oral argument the court raised the question of whether this procedure may be followed only upon notice from the county board of elections, which the statute provides for. The county board had not given the municipality notice to realign the districts. However, it is apparent that the county board acquiesced in the action of the mayor and the governing body of Mountainside and raised no objection. The record shows that the office of the clerk of the board of elections was duly notified by the governing body that the ordinance readjusting the election districts had been adopted; that a copy of the map of the newly established election districts was provided, and that on March 23, 1971 the clerk's office mailed to each registered voter in Mountainside a notice advising him of his new election district. There was substantial compliance with the statute.

N.J.S.A. 19:4--6 also states in every district change or readjustment, geographical compactness shall be maintained, and as nearly rectangular as possible. Plaintiffs contend that an examination of the map of the ten new election districts referred to in Ordinance No. 438--71 clearly shows that districts drawn violate the statutory requirement of geographical compactness and rectangular shape, and therefore the ordinance is Ultra vires and of no force and effect.

Defendants argue that the district lines were drawn with the intention of making the districts as nearly rectangular as possible, and to keep the number of registered voters in each district as equal in number as possible; and that it was necessary in a number of instances for the district lines to follow the pattern of the street lines.

An examination of the map reveals that District 3 is anything but rectangular in shape. There seems to be a narrow bottleneck toward the center. However, the district seems to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 26 Junio 1972
    ...of the Substance of the ordinance has occurred. Wollen v. Fort Lee, Supra at 420, 142 A.2d 881; cf. Reisdorf v. Mountainside, 114 N.J.Super. 562, 574, 575, 277 A.2d 554 (Law Div. CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTS--TAX INCREASES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS The Fort Lee homeowners group seeks to bott......
  • Little Falls Tp. v. Husni
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 30 Enero 1976
    ...body which is entitled to form its own judgment. Reingold v. Harper, 6 N.J. 182, 194, 78 A.2d 54 (1951); Reisdorf v. Mountainside, 114 N.J.Super. 562, 570, 277 A.2d 554 (Law Defendant's proofs fall far short of those which are necessary to overcome the ordinance's presumptive validity. He h......
  • City of Plainfield v. Courier-News, COURIER-NEWS
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 15 Noviembre 1976
    ...that citizens and interested parties may have an opportunity to become informed and to be heard. Reisdorf v. Borough of Mountainside, 114 N.J.Super. 562, 573, 277 A.2d 554 (Law Div.1971); Masnick v. Mayor & Council of Cedar Grove Township, 99 N.J.Super. 436, 439, 240 A.2d 192 (Law Div. 1968......
  • City of Plainfield v. Courier-News, COURIER-NEWS and T
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 5 Abril 1974
    ...opportunity to the parties in interest and citizens to be heard on the subject matter.' Reisdorf v. Mountainside Mayor and Council, 114 N.J.Super. 562, 573, 277 A.2d 554, 560 (Law Div.1971); Masnick v. Cedar Grove Mayor and Council, 99 N.J.Super. 436, 439, 240 A.2d 192 (Law Div.1968); Bruno......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT