Record Columnist Picks-Up On Different Legal Landscape As New Jersey Enters Reapportionment Process

In a Sunday column entitled, Redistricting the 800 lb. invisible gorilla, Bergen Record columnist Frank Hannon picks-up on the new legal landscape New Jersey's mapmakers are going to face this coming year that turns precedents followed during the last reapportionment process on their head.

Redistricting could have even greater consequences on the state level. Several complicated court cases, specifically Bartlett v. Strickland, McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment and others, may produce a more favorable map for New Jersey Republicans. Both parties will be vying to get a "good map." A "good map" is one that gives a particular party a better or at least a fighting chance of securing a majority in one or both houses. In 2001, Republicans got a "bad map."

The Interest Is Only A "Special Interest" When It Is Not Our Interest

In a frightening display, politickernj.com reports that New Jersey Senate Democrats plan to attempt to regulate certain 501c4 organizations that disagree with their political views, compelling not only the disclosure of contributors, but also applying pay-to-play rules to them.

Setting aside issues of federal preemption for the moment, Senate Democrat spokesperson Derek Roseman actually said that the proposed legislation would "clearly define the groups that were exempted" by "delineat[ing] between legitimate groups with a legitimate policy orientation and shadow organizations that are merely acting as a front for a political party." Further, Assemblyman and State Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski (D-Sayreville) said the application of such restrictions "would likely be based on the length of time the group had been in existence."

Does this mean that recently formed politically active 501c4's, such as Garden State Equality, which held events at which former Governor Corzine appeared at as an honored guest while advocating its agenda, and vice-versa, should be subject to such restrictions being sought to be imposed against Reform New Jersey Now by this legislation? Who decides?

While on the subject, why is the Legislature still avoiding real pay-to-play reform, such as that long-proposed by Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, which would entirely ban both corporate and union contributions in New Jersey? In throwing out the restrictions imposed on labor unions under Governor Christie's Executive Order No. 7, the Appellate Division held that while the Executive Branch could not do so unilaterally, the Legislature could act to apply pay-to-play restrictions to labor organizations that hold the largest no-bid public contracts in the State of New Jersey.

Symons: Population estimates suggest major redistricting looms

Michael Symons of Gannett reports on the Census Bureau's final population estimates for every municipality before this year’s official counts are released in early 2011 indicating that "some serious retooling of the legislative map is in store in advance of next year’s Senate and Assembly races." According to Symons' analysis of the numbers. . . .

Six districts have estimated populations that are too large, if the estimates prove correct, with another three districts are are pretty close. The six that would have to shed towns include the 2nd and 9th districts along the Shore, the 12th and 30th districts in Central Jersey, the 3rd District in rural South Jersey and the 23rd District in rural northwest New Jersey.

Another seven districts have estimated populations that are too small and would need to expand. These include the 27th, 29th and 34th districts in Essex County, the 31st, 32nd and 33rd districts in Hudson County and the 15th District in Mercer County.

New Jersey Legislative Reapportionment and Congressional Redistricting Primer

New Jersey's legislative and congressional districts will soon be redrawn by two separate independent commissions made up of members selected by leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties in the State.

First, by November 15, 2010, members State's Legislative Reapportionment Commission must be appointed by the respective chairs of the Republican and Democratic State Committees. This Commission must create a map by February 1, 2011, or within one month after the census data becomes available. This is the map that will govern the next round of legislative contests that partisan candidates must file to run in by April 2011.

Republicans will likely be seeking a more competitive map from what was adopted in 2001 that has resulted in Democratic pluralities in both houses of the Legislature for the last decade despite aggregate statewide election results favoring Republican candidates in recent years. Democrats will likely be seeking to maintain the status quo, but could face constitutional hurdles due to the March 2009 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland. This is very similar to questions raised in relation to New Jersey's current legislative map in 2001 regarding whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the division of municipalities into more than two legislative districts contrary to the political boundary requirements of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution. See: McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Commission.

Second, with respect to Congressional redistricting, it is almost certain that when the results of the census are in, New Jersey will lose a congressional district for the first time in 30 years. We should know for sure by January 10, 2011 when Congressional seats are to be apportioned to the states. This should make for much more interesting mapmaking than the incumbency protection plan that was adopted in October 2001. Members of New Jersey's Congressional Redistricting Commission must be selected by respective legislative and state party leaders by June 15, 2011. The Commission must complete its work by January 17, 2012, which will govern where partisan candidates file to run for Congress by April 2012.

New Jersey Supreme Court Protects 100 Foot Zone At Polling Locations

The New Jersey Supreme Court today upheld and expanded upon the Attorney General's Exit Polling Directive, holding that: New Jersey’s election law statutes direct that voters will have a 100-foot free, unobstructed passage to polling places, without interference from any person, and this ban applies to all expressive activities within the 100-foot zone, including exit polling and handing out voting-rights cards. The election laws are constitutional because they are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions under the First Amendment intended to secure and enhance another vital constitutional right—the right to vote.

Law Partner's Contribution Lands Municipal Judge In Hot Water

The New Jersey Law Journal reports that a municipal court judge has been recommended for public admonishment by the New Jersey Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) because his law partner, allegedly unbeknowst to him, made political contributions from their law firm's business account. The article provides that:

At issue are four donations made between May 27, 2004 and May 18, 2005, via check drawn on the business account of Durkin & Boggia of Ridgefield Park, where Boggia and Martin Durkin are the sole partners. Two $500 checks and one for $600 were made out to the Edgewater Democratic Campaign Fund, while another $600 went to the Bergen County Democratic Organization. * * * *

The ACJC charges Boggia violated Canon 7A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which bars political contribution by judges, Rule 2:15-8(a)(5), which prohibits judges from "engaging in partisan politics" and Rule 2:15-8(a)(6), which prohibits judicial conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that beings the judicial office into disrepute.

* * * * While recognizing that Boggia, like most municipal judges, is part-time and also practices law, the ACJC said he is subject to the same absolute proscription from politics as a full-time judge. The committee disagreed that Durkin's First Amendment rights were implicated, saying Durkin was free to contribute, though not from the firm account, and whatever burdens that imposed on him were a "necessary consequence of a private law partnership with a part-time municipal court judge."

This case raises many interesting questions. Under most pay to play rules and ELEC regulations, partnership contributions are attributable to each partner, depending on the corporate form and ownership interests. Individual contributions by such partners could also implicate the firm if the individual partners have an equity stake. Seemingly here, the ACJC would allow a law partner of a judge to contribute from his own checking account, but not the firm's business account. Is there really any difference with respect to addressing the ACJC's concerns? After all, contributions reported from an individual partner's checking account will still be linked to the law firm's name via their requisite employer reporting information and Business Entity Annual Disclosure Statements if they do public work; therefore, creating the same perception of political engagement by the firm. While it would be uncommon, what if the judge was an employee or associate of the firm with no equity interest?

Better Late Then Never: State Treasurer Releases EO118 Redevelopment Entity List

As called for pursuant to Executive Order 118, the State Treasurer has finally provided guidance relating to applicable state redevelopment entities subject to pay to play restrictions. The following entities have been determined to meet definition of a "state redevelopment entity":

1) New Jersey Meadowlands Commission
2) New Jersey Redevelopment Authority
3) Capital City Redevelopment Corporation

The notice states that the list may be subject to future amendment. This notice, however, significantly limits the scope of E.O. 118 so as not to apply to redevelopment projects financed through certain agreements with the NJEDA, NJEIT, or other state entities.