Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission
A-10/11-24
| N.J. | Jun 18, 2025Background
- The Jersey City Ward Commission redrew ward boundaries after the 2020 federal census, reducing a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards to 1.8%.
- Plaintiffs (community groups and individuals) challenged the new ward map, arguing it failed the Municipal Ward Law's (MWL) "compactness" requirement and diminished representation of communities of interest.
- Plaintiffs also brought constitutional equal protection and New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) claims.
- The trial court dismissed all claims, finding the map sufficiently compact. The Appellate Division reversed on the MWL claim and remanded for factfinding, but affirmed dismissal of the constitutional and NJCRA claims.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification, limited to the MWL compactness, equal protection, and NJCRA issues.
- The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the map, reversing the Appellate Division’s remand and reinstating the trial court’s dismissal of all claims, finding the Commission’s actions within its discretion under the MWL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MWL Compactness Requirement | Map not compact; failed mathematical & visual tests | Discretion allowed; no mandatory math test | Map satisfied MWL; no requirement for math measures |
| Use of Mathematical Measures | Must use Polsby-Popper/Reock scores for compactness | Not required by statute | Not required by MWL; up to commission’s discretion |
| Communities of Interest | Map should preserve historic communities/neighborhoods | Law requires only compactness, not community unity | Preserving communities not required for compactness |
| Equal Protection (NJ Constitution) | Division of neighborhoods violated equal protection | No invidious discrimination or class-based harm | No EP violation; claim requires class-based discrimination |
| NJ Civil Rights Act Claim | MWL violation creates an actionable claim | No substantive individual right created | No violation; MWL offers no private right for damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackman v. Bodine, 49 N.J. 406 (N.J. 1967) (population equality paramount; compactness relevant only re: bizarre shapes)
- Davenport v. Apportionment Comm’n, 65 N.J. 125 (N.J. 1974) (compactness is elusive; deference to commission unless showing of invidious discrimination)
- Greenberg v. Kimmelman, 99 N.J. 552 (N.J. 1985) (equal protection requires discriminatory classification)
- Brady v. N.J. Redistricting Comm’n, 131 N.J. 594 (N.J. 1993) (EP challenge only succeeds with actual exclusion or discrimination)