Rutgers Study Finds that New Jersey Might Retain 13 Seats in House of Representatives After Census of 2010

Congressional, legislative redistricting probable due to population shifts

Ernest C. Reock Jr., emeritus professor and former director of the Center for Government Services at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, reaches this conclusion in his latest study, “Redistricting in New Jersey After the Census of 2010.” The research updates his 1998 report on redistricting following the 2000 census.

While Reock believes New Jersey will not lose a House member to another state as it did following the Census of 1990, the next decennial population tally has the potential for changing New Jersey’s 13 congressional districts, 40 state legislative districts, freeholder districts in three counties, municipal wards in more than 60 municipalities, membership on 70 regional boards of education and election districts throughout the state.

Reock’s study also traces the steps New Jersey has taken during the past 40 years to expedite the process of redistricting and reduce the likelihood of partisan political gerrymandering, redrawing voting districts to the advantage of one political party over another.

While the state has a fairly good chance of retaining its 13 seats in the House, the congressional districts in urban areas are growing more slowly, and they will have to be expanded,” Reock said. “Congressional districts in central and south Jersey are too large, and their borders will have to be contracted to equalize population.”

The state’s 40 legislative districts will be similarly affected, according to the researcher. He added that there exists the possibility that north Jersey will lose a district to another region.

Reock explained that representation in the House of Representatives is a two-part process. First, its 435 seats are distributed among the states in proportion to their population. Under the federal formula, one seat is awarded to each state and the remaining seats are then distributed through the calculation of a priority list based on the populations of the states. After the number of seats assigned to each has been established, every state must create single-member congressional districts.

Since New Jersey appears to be growing less rapidly than the rest of the country, the loss of a congressional seat is still possible, according to Reock. For his study, he created a test apportionment using Bureau of the Census population projections for 2010, and compiled an equal proportions priority list that found New Jersey retaining its 13th seat at seat 429 among the total of 435. A similar projection made in 1998 for the 2000 census placed New Jersey’s 13th seat at 419. “Minor changes in growth patterns before 2010 could push the state’s claim to a 13th seat beyond the 435 seat cut-off,” he observed.

Other factors that might cause the loss of a congressional seat include the possibility of undercount adjustments to the Census of 2010 and the impact of persons relocated due to Hurricane Katrina.

Differing rates of population growth will assuredly precipitate legislative redistricting after 2010, Reock said. He noted that legislative districts in the urban areas in northeast New Jersey (the 27th, 29th and 34th in Essex, Union and Passaic counties; the 31st, 32nd and 33rd in Hudson County; as well as the 15th in Mercer County) are both small and slow-growing, so their geographic areas will need to be expanded. In contrast, the fastest growing legislative districts are found in such outlying areas as the 30th in Burlington, Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean counties; the 9th in Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean counties; the 23rd in northwest New Jersey; and the 2nd in Atlantic, which will require downsizing to balance populations.

Reock added that changes in freeholder districts and municipal wards will depend on relative population growth rates within those jurisdictions. The apportionment of seats on regional school district boards of education also will depend on relative population growth rates within each district, but the prospects are complicated by court decisions declaring the current statute unconstitutional in some cases. Finally, after all the other districts have been redrawn, local election districts will have to be conformed to the new boundaries established.

To facilitate redistricting, New Jersey has broken from a time-honored tradition in many states that sees a partisan elected body, usually the state legislature, carry out the work. New Jersey has created bipartisan boards that include a mechanism for breaking ties.

The state’s congressional districts are the most recent constituencies to be placed within the responsibility of a bipartisan districting commission, with the state Constitution being amended for this purpose in 1995. Prior to this amendment, New Jersey’s districts established in 1931 remained largely untouched, despite population shifts, until the state received an additional House seat after the Census of 1960.

Partisan gerrymandering after the 1980 census resulted in the districts being declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992, the state Legislature created a temporary, 13-member New Jersey Redistricting Commission after the Census of 1990 resulted in the state’s allotment of seats being reduced from 14 to 13. The temporary commission was replaced following the ratification of the 1995 constitutional amendment.

Even with the creation of bipartisan boards to prevent runaway gerrymandering, political considerations will never be completely eliminated from the districting process, Reock concludes. Still, he calls the removal of the districting responsibility from elected partisan political bodies almost certainly “a step toward providing a more level political playing field.”

Copies of the study are available for $4 from the Center for Government Services. Call 732-932-3640, ext. 628.

Media Contact: Steve Manas
732-932-7084, ext. 612
E-mail: smanas@ur.rutgers.edu