This post is about something I just thought of today. Normally, one of the rallying cries for governor's races in 2008-2010 is "congressional redistricting after the 2010 census is at stake." By influencing the drawing of congressional bundaries, governors can bias their state's delegation to their political party. You haven't heard much of that here in New Jersey because knowledgeable people know that our state constitution carefully hands equal representation to the two major parties, who last time at least, then protect incumbents:
(b) There shall first be appointed 12 members as follows:
(1) two members to be appointed by the President of the Senate;
(2) two members to be appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly;
(3) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
(4) two members to be appointed by the minority leader of the General Assembly; and
(5) four members, two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for the office of Governor received the largest number of votes at the most recent gubernatorial election and two to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of the political party whose candidate for the office of Governor received the next largest number of votes in that election.
(There's also an independent member.) But you can see this throws a whole new angle into this year's race, if legally speaking Chris Daggett has a political party. Then, if Chris Daggett wins, he'll control two slots, and the people he might appoint could favor one party, or protect incumbents, or just insist on more competitive districts. Meanwhile, depending on who finishes third, either Democrats or Republicans will have two fewer seats. So, the order of finish actually matters this time. If Daggett finishes second, his party's chairman would appoint two members, and again the third place finisher's party would be short two seats.
On the other hand, I could imagine that he officially/legally does not have a party in which case I guess his party's chairman doesn't get the choice. I am not a lawyer and I don't know what happens, but it sounds like a political crisis to me that would make an interesting NJ Supreme Court case -- decided of course by judges appointed by the two major parties.
We're expected to lose a seat so redistricting will be very important next time, but with two independents it might be really lead to changes. However, there is not a single poll that shows him even coming in second, so the smart bet is it will never come to pass.
Update: Reading Article IV, Section III, with the interpretation I use above, would suggest one party would be shut out of drawing Senate and Assembly districts:
1. After the next and every subsequent decennial census of the United States, the Senate districts and Assembly districts shall be established, and the senators and members of the General Assembly shall be apportioned among them, by an Apportionment Commission consisting of ten members, five to be appointed by the chairman of the State committee of each of the two political parties whose candidates for Governor receive the largest number of votes at the most recent gubernatorial election. Each State chairman, in making such appointments, shall give due consideration to the representation of the various geographical areas of the State. Appointments to the Commission shall be made on or before November 15 of the year in which such census is taken and shall be certified by the Secretary of State on or before December 1 of that year. The Commission, by a majority of the whole number of its members, shall certify the establishment of Senate and Assembly districts and the apportionment of senators and members of the General Assembly to the Secretary of State within one month of the receipt by the Governor of the official decennial census of the United States for New Jersey, or on or before February 1 of the year following the year in which the census is taken, whichever date is later.
This might give Daggett leverage to demand significant reforms out of the legislature, even with a second-place finish, and would then imply a vote for Daggett is more than a protest vote. |
