Quote:

He was a Representative from the 13th Congressional District before appointment to the Senate.

Senate elections are state-wide. Districts play no part in a senate race.

Look at the map and see the shape of our own district. It was redrawn to ensure our current machine-drone of a senator was elected to Congress several years ago.

This silly. Legislative district lines are always drawn to protect incumbents, not to mention in two years they have to be redrawn anyway after the census. But of course, why do something once when you can do it twice at double the cost to the taxpayer.

State's controversial voting district maps may be challenged

by Josh Margolin and Ted Sherman
The Star-Ledger
Sunday March 15, 2009

On the eve of New Jersey's legislative elections, the long-contested map setting the boundaries for the state's voting districts may be challenged as unconstitutional in the wake of a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision last week.

The legality of the legislative map came into question after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act. The high court ruled that race need not be considered when drawing election districts if African-Americans or other minorities do not make up a voting majority in a particular area.

The New Jersey GOP -- which has been the minority party after the district lines were redrawn nearly a decade ago -- says it is now weighing court action for an order to redraw the legislative districts.

That could well play havoc with this year's legislative race. The entire Assembly is up for election this year, and a protracted court fight could force a delay of the election, or even an emergency remapping that carries the potential of swinging districts from one party to the other.

"The map gave the Democrats an illegitimate majority," declared state Sen. Kevin O'Toole (R-Essex), who first challenged the district lines in 2001. "'As they stand now, the district boundaries are unconstitutional," he said.

While the Republicans have yet to act, state Attorney General Anne Milgram said she is expecting a challenge.

"There's no question that it's a significant pronouncement by the court," she said, although she does not believe the ruling will directly affect New Jersey.

The decision focused on the creation of a "crossover district" in North Carolina that had been redrawn by combining voters from two counties to increase the chances of electing an African-American to the state's General Assembly.

New Jersey had joined with 13 other states in a brief opposing a lower court ruling that rejected the new district -- ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court -- saying it would require state legislatures to adopt an approach to redistricting that ignored political realities, perpetuating "racial balkanization." Instead, the states argued, districts should be drawn to include a broad range of voters -- including minority voters.

The ruling reignites an 8-year-old battle between Democrats and Republicans over redistricting, and officials from both parties, as well as the attorney general, are reviewing the high court decision for its possible impact on New Jersey.

Milgram called the Supreme Court ruling a dramatic shift in national election law, but disagreed with the court's logic.

GOP officials say the court upheld arguments they first made in 2001 when they fought a statewide redistricting map drawn up by the Democrats. The Republicans then claimed the Democratic map violated the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act by "diluting" the black vote. They lost in the state Supreme Court.

New Jersey has 40 legislative districts, each of which elects one member of the Senate and two members of the General Assembly. Every 10 years, the boundaries of those districts are redrawn to make them equal in population after the Census -- an always-contentious effort that turns into a political war, as each party seeks to gain the advantage going into the following November elections.

Moving just a few thousand voters from one district to another can swing the political majority, making it a Democratic or Republican district. Changing district lines can suddenly leave an incumbent living in a new district. In some states, there have been efforts to concentrate minority voters into a few districts in order to gain control of others.

The present legislative district map was adopted in 2001 by an 11-member redistricting commission over the objections of the Republicans, who claimed it violated the state's constitution because it divided Newark and Jersey City into more than two legislative districts each.

The plan had been championed by Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex), who had pushed the concept of "unpacking" minority voters by drawing boundaries that combined minority-heavy cities with surrounding suburban areas. His own district stretches from the urban neighborhoods of Newark to the wealthy suburban enclave of Essex Fells in West Essex.

Favored by the panel's five Democratic members and opposed by its five Republicans, it came down to the commission's tie-breaking member, Princeton University professor Larry Bartels, to make the decision.

When the battle landed in the New Jersey Supreme Court, the justices found for the Democrats.

The decision had far-reaching consequences. After the new districts were set, the Democrats won back control of the Assembly and Senate and have not yielded that advantage. It also reinforced the perception that New Jersey is a solidly Democratic state despite the nearly equal party registrations.

For example, Democrat Nia Gill won election to the Senate over incumbent Republican Norman Robertson in the redrawn 34th District, which includes Essex and Passaic. In Middlesex County's 18th District, Democrat Barbara Buono won, replacing retired Republican senator Jack Sinagra.

"I think the map shortchanged the people of New Jersey and blew out the concept of the two-party system in New Jersey," said O'Toole, who is already a Republican representative on the next redistricting panel. He lost his own Senate seat after the redistricting, before he was elected again in 2007.

Mark Sheridan, general counsel to the Legislature's Republicans, said the Supreme Court decision makes Codey's district unconstitutional the way it was drawn, which he said means the whole state map is unconstitutional.

He would not say what the party will do next, but O'Toole and others said they are considering going to court to either declare the district lines invalid, or ask for a judgment dictating that the current scheme cannot be used as a basis for the next redistricting -- after the 2010 Census.

"We're actively pursuing this thing," said O'Toole.

Redrawing the legislative districts in such a short period of time before the state's primary in three months would likely prove an almost insurmountable challenge, some experts say.

Democrats, meanwhile, said the map has already stood up in court.

"It's not going to change the map that we have in any way, shape or form," Codey said. "In the long run, we've proven that minorities can get elected in districts where they're not the majorities."

Attorney Donald Scarinci, who served as Democratic counsel to the last redistricting commission, thought there was little chance of a successful court action by the GOP.

"That's more wishful thinking than legal thinking," he said. "They didn't like the result eight years ago, so they took us to every court they could. To suggest that they take that map again to the court is something they've already done."

Scarinci said the current state map created diversified districts that resulted in opportunities for minority candidates more than a decade before Barack Obama was elected president.

"We've created more minority legislators than existed before," he said.

He said in another year, the Republicans will have the opportunity to make the argument again on redistricting.

"If they think this case helps them, I'll be curious to hear their arguments," he said.