Tea Party challenges not only redistricting, but constitution itself; judge says no

by: the_promised_land

Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 12:40:35 PM EDT

The Honorable Linda Feinberg of the Mercer County Superior Court this morning dismissed the Bayshore Tea Party's strange challenge to the new legislative map adopted in April.

Democratic State Party chair John Wisniewski welcomed the ruling, stating in a press release that "We commend the court's decision to dismiss the Tea Party's litigation over the current map. Not a single count in the Tea Party's complaint was found to have merit and rightfully so." Wisniewski further cited the "unprecedented public input" in the process including 28 hours of public testimony in 7 public hearings.

But perhaps even more interesting than the decision is the content of the lawsuit in the first place. Apparently, the Tea Party is all in favor of strict interpretation of the Constitution - when it suits their needs. When the Constitution doesn't lead to the outcome that they want - attack the Constitution. More on that - beyond the jump...

the_promised_land :: Tea Party challenges not only redistricting, but constitution itself; judge says no

The Tea Party's major claims, among others, included that there should have been an unaffiliated voter on the commission and that Jersey City and Newark should have been split into 3 and not 2 districts each.

There might be good policy arguments for those ideas - but there's a little problem standing in the way for both of them. It's called.... the Constitution.

The New Jersey Constitution, in Article IV Section III, makes it very clear who is supposed to be on the commission - 5 representatives from each of the two most popular parties (measured by the last gubernatorial election - imagine if Chris Daggett had finished second!) and then, if those 10 can't agree, a tiebreaker appointed by the Chief Justice.

Doesn't say anything about unaffiliated voters.

Now, I know that the Tea Party favors a living Constitution, and wants activist judges to read new rights into the text. But - not seeing this one.

That other point about the 3 districts for Newark and Jersey City? Well, we used to have 3 districts for Newark and Jersey City each, to help increase representation of people of color. But then the US Supreme Court reinterpreted the federal Constitution, at the urging of conservative groups, reread the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so as to constrain its use and give states more power to adopt maps that paid less attention to communities of color.

Four justices dissented from that decision - Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. As usual, the Tea Party is siding with the left of the court's interpretation of the Constitution - against some who would push a states rights interpretation. You know that whole states rights thing? Yeah, the Tea Party really hates that.

I welcome the Tea Party's apparently newfound zeal for looking at the Constitution's applicability to present day problems, agreeing with vigorous dissents by justices such as Justice Ginsburg, and taking a cautious view on states rights when they intersect with civil rights.

But at the end of the day, the Tea Party's claims were just a bit too activist for any reasonable view of the law. They didn't hold water when measured against the text of the State Constitution and precedent foisted upon them by conservative groups challenging the Voting Rights Act. So it is not surprising to see Judge Feinberg's ruling.