1 user logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Testify!

by: Jeff Gardner

Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 11:44:40 AM EST

Jeff Gardner to panel: SORT THIS OUT!

Jeff is a candidate for the legislature. Depending on redistricting he may run in what is currently his home district, the 35th. - promoted by Rosi

Last night, New Jersey's Legislative Reapportionment Committee held a public hearing in Newark, one of just 5 opportunities scheduled for the public to weigh in on what could determine who controls state government for the next 10 years. More than a little interested in the process, I decided to attend.

The room was PACKED! For a while it was uncertain whether I would even get into the standing-room-only hearing room, let alone be allowed to testify. But, I did get in. And, I submitted my request to give testimony, like so many others had done. (Lesson learned: no advance reservation is needed - if you've got something to say, you should be able to say it.)

My testimony focused on the importance of expeditiously completing the final map to enable as many potential candidates as possible to mount vigorous competitive campaigns in the newly-drawn districts - a matter of utmost concern to so many of the evening's speakers who were concerned about their communities being underrepresented in Trenton. Including, of course, me.

To that end, I made 2 simple requests: First, that the Committee allow the 11th member to be appointed, without delay, to ensure the final map will be completed as expeditiously as possible, and with that too-powerful 11th member having had the benefit of actually hearing from the public on the process. And, second, that the Committee stop wasting time arguing about whether the map should be based on voter turnout instead of census population numbers. There's a reason this process happens only every ten years - it's because that's when the census happens. The map should be based on population. Period. Arguments to the contrary are a distraction that only serves to unnecessarily delay the process.

more below

Jeff Gardner :: Testify!

We'll see soon enough if the Committee takes my arguments, or those of the others who testifed last night, to heart. But, in the meantime, I would encourage anyone interested in who controls our state government for the next decade to attend a public hearing.

The next meeting is scheduled for this Sunday, February 13th at 1p at Hudson Community College in Jersey City. And, while I would be lying if I said I wouldn't prefer that you come to Cherry Hill for a House Party instead, if you're not coming to Cherry Hill, you ought to at least show up in Jersey City, and testify!

Tags: Hawthorne, Paterson, LD-35, testimony, jeff gardner, redistricting, Reapportionment, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Testify! | 6 comments

Nice going. (0.00 / 0)

By the way, I thought I remembered that there were to be 6 public hearings in this process. There have been four, with the 5th, as Jeff mentions, on Sunday. But the commission's website only lists those 5.

Anybody know if another public hearing is going up on the schedule?

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.

by: Rosi Efthim @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 19:23:44 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Basis (4.00 / 1)

There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for apportionment based on voter turnout. The Constitution is very clear that the apportionment is to be based on "enumeration". So one can debate whether prisoners, college students, etc., should be counted in their home district or temporary district, but apportionment based on voter turnout should be off the table.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

by: deciminyan @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 19:33:21 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why not both? (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, population should be the primary determining factor of the redistricting process, but partisan performance should be a secondary factor as part of an effort to ensure that there are as many competitive districts as possible

Demographics in NJ probably make the creation of 40 competitive districts impossible, but at the moment, there are probably less than 10 competitive districts. I think that if the commissioners had some kind of performance-based requirements, we could probably get at least 20 competitive districts in the state.

There should also be some restriction on districts crossing county lines so that no district can be stretched across more than two counties.

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 20:11:18 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What would it take... (0.00 / 0)

...to change the primary election date to the Tuesday after Labor Day?

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 20:14:44 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

'Competitive' is irrelevant (3.00 / 1)

If we simply followed the rules that created districts of roughly equal population, with roughly equal demographics, and with a shape that is contiguous and compact, the 'competitiveness' would work itself out.

I live in the current 23rd district. As much as I would love to see it, there is no fair scheme that's going to make this part of Western NJ anything other than what it is --- a pretty safe bet for Republicans. That's not saying that a good Democratic candidate can't win, just that the population here hews a certain way.

I've been playing with the Census data, and I hope to have some more concrete thoughts in a week or so, but it looks to me that there is a way to draw a map that is true to the law, true to progressive ideals of equal representation, and doesn't create crazy jerrimandered districts. I'll post soon!

Jeffrey Doshna

by: Jeff Doshna @ Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 12:19:59 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

demographics (3.00 / 1)

If we simply followed the rules that created districts of roughly equal population, with roughly equal demographics, and with a shape that is contiguous and compact, the 'competitiveness' would work itself out.

Because the demographics of our state are somewhat clustered, I think that it would be very hard to create districts that satisfy all of your criteria.

Gerrymandering in and of itself is not problematic. What is problematic is that gerrymandering is usually employed with a partisan agenda. However, if it were employed as part of an effort to create as many competitive districts as possible, I think that it would be good for our state. Obviously, creating competitive districts from the crimson red NW NJ (Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, and Warren) counties as well as the cobalt blue counties like Essex and Hudson is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

However, Bergen County is as purple a county as any in the state with 1 blue (37), 2 purple (36 and 38), and 1 red (39)district. As much as I want Loretta Weinberg to be able to serve her district and progressives statewide for as long as she wants to, as long as her district and Gerry Cardinale's district remain as uncompetitive as they are, we are going to have to suffer with Cardinale for as long as we are going to enjoy Weinberg. I am not proposing that we trade one for the other. I just think that their districts could be redrawn so that both are more competitive, which would hopefully result in Cardinale losing and Weinberg winning re-election.

Passaic County is tricky because of the way that the two parts of the county are so clustered demographically. Any district that has Paterson in it is going to be blue and any combination of the up county towns is going to be red. However, I think that a district containing Clifton, Passaic, and Wayne could be competitive.

I think that if these same principles were applied to Central and Southern NJ, we could have a legislative district map with as many as 20 competitive districts instead of the current map that has less than 10.

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 14:01:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]