*1 duty. claim for of the union’s Vaca be breach resolved at trial. Accordingly, and 171, 192-93, 903, Sipes, v. 87 S.Ct. light foregoing, U.S. in of the 917-18, (1967). In connec L.Ed.2d is It ORDERED that the supplemental investigation of Plain tion with the union’s motions of summary both Defendants for incident, tiff’s the Plaintiff con version of DENIED; judgment are conflicting tends evidence could It is FURTHER ORDERED that the mo- given the explained, opportunity. have been tions both Defendants for summary While a confrontation with Plaintiff con judgment granted part are in denied conflicting cerning this evidence above; part as set forth wise, company may hands of have been is FURTHER simply rise to of arbi ORDERED that this ac- does not the level is reset tion for trial on the trary again, August Plaintiff is Court’s conduct. once docket; discovery 2nd all is to merely seeking challenge completed the union’s 18th, 1982, no strategy presentation investiga later than June and all mo- are grievance. tion of the tions to be July submitted no later than 2nd, 1982. respect With Plaintiff’s final contentions, opin three is Court questions
ion that there remain fact that preclude summary judgment. respec The concerning
tive versions of the facts notice opportunity appear and the Plaintiff grievance hearing are in conflict. Further, undisputed it is that Plaintiff’s DAGGETT, George Plaintiff, T. hearing explained absence from the was not to the Finally, arbitration committee. v. while the hearing statements Prda at the KIMMELMAN, etc., Irwin I. et record, part remainder al., Defendants. proceedings Accordingly, are not. opinion Court finding is of the that a FORSYTHE, al., Plaintiffs, Edwin B. et arbitrary the union perfunctory was presentation grievance of Plaintiff’s is KEAN, etc., al., Thomas H. et by not the summary judgment foreclosed Defendants. evidence. 82-297, Civ. A. Nos. 82-388. V. CONCLUSION Court, United States District against action immediate em- D. New ployer and by the union not barred limi- against tations. claim Plaintiff’s union March 1982. governed two-year Texas’ tort statute As Amended March 1982. against limitations. The action the com- 21,1982. Probable Jurisdiction Noted June pany governed by day Texas’ 90 statute See 102 S.Ct. of limitations for actions to vacate arbitra- Court, however, tion awards. The not
apply day retroactively. the 90 limitation
This action is not barred Plaintiff’s failure to his exhaust intra-union remedies.
Further, although judgment the summary evidence some shows that of Plaintiff’s con- regarding
tentions the union’s conduct in grievance his processing of are without merit, questions there are still fact which *2 Gibbons, Judge, Circuit dissented and opinion. filed
George T. Daggett, pro se. Lindeman, Hellring, Siegal Goldstein & by Hellring, Goldstein, Bernard Jonathan L. Sheridan, John Raymar, Stephen Robert S. Newark, J., Dreyfuss, L. N. plaintiffs Forsythe, et al. Cole, Gen.,
Michael R. Asst. Atty. Tren- ton, J., (82--297 N. for defendants and 82- 388). Sokol,
Greenstone by & Sokol Leon J. Hackensack, J.,N. for defendant-intervenor Orechio. Farkas,
Marinari & by P. C. Lawrence T. Marinari, Trenton, J.,N. for defendant-in- tervenor Karcher.
Sills, Beck, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin & Tischman, Cummis, P. A. Clive S. Walsh, Baranoff, Charles J. Ange- Jerald D. Genova, Guido, Newark, lo J. Kenneth J. N. J., Florio, for defendants-intervenors et al. Shanahan, Lambertville, J., Joseph F. N. Fucetola, III, Ralph Arlington, North J., proposed plaintiffs-intervenors N. Magee, et al. Askin, Newark, J., proposed
Frank N. pro defendant-intervenor se. GIBBONS, Before Judge, Circuit FISH- ER, BROTMAN, Judge, District Chief Judge. District
OPINION FISHER, District
CLARKSON S. Chief Judge. bring
These consolidated cases
under at-
1982, 1,
constitutionality
tack the
of P.L.
c.
pop
the election of
The 1980 decennial census
districts for
recorded
which creates
7,364,826
ulation of
for the
from New
State of
representatives
United States
Heretofore,
citizens,
had 15
are concerned
Jersey. Plaintiffs
congressional
districts constituted
groups, incum-
of interested
representatives
Cahill,
F.Supp.
court
David
Congress,
Republican members
bent
(D.N.J.1972).
requirements
Pursuant to the
with various interests.
other
individuals
*3
2a(b),
of 2 U.S.C.
the Clerk of the United
§
Governor, Attorney
are the
The defendants
Representatives
States House of
has noti
New
Secretary of
General and
State
fied the Governor of the
of New
State
that,
on the basis of the 1980 decen
the incumbent Demo-
permitted
We have
census,
representatives
nial
the number of
Congress
and other con-
cratic members
to which the state is entitled has been de
persons to intervene as defendants.
cerned
from
creased
fifteen to fourteen. This noti
decision on the motions
We have reserved
present apportion
fication has rendered the
of still others. Because of the
to intervene
congressional
ment of
districts unconstitu
here, their status will remain un-
decision
tional.
changed.
notification,
After this
the duty
became
three-judge
pur-
This
court was convened
Jersey legislature
of the New
reappor
to
2284(a).
suant
The relief
to
U.S.C. §
tion the
congressional
fourteen
districts in
1982,
P.L.
sought includes a declaration that
conformity
I,
with the mandate of art.
2§
injunction
c. 1 is unconstitutional and an
of the United States Constitution and the
against
prevent
the state officers to
them
Preisler,
Kirkpatrick
standards of
implementing
by proceeding
Act
from
526,
1225,
U.S.
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 519
re-
primary
with the
election insofar as it
(1969), and the cases that followed. On the
Repre-
lates to candidates for the House of
office,
day he left
former Governor Bren
sentatives.
signed
T. Byrne
sponsored jointly
dan
a bill
by
Matthew Feldman
Senator
and Assem
19, 1982,
hearing
At a
February
on
blyman Byron M. Baer which then became
deposi-
parties
court directed the
to take
P.L.1982,
Appendix
c. 1.
A
See
for Senate
tions,
testimony,
summarize the
file affida-
P.L.1982,
1,
Bill
which became
c.
and a
hearing
final
vits and submit exhibits for
map
of the districts as drawn
the Act.
on
1982. Between these
February
litigation
This
followed.
dates,
parties
summary judg-
all
moved for
pursuant
ment
to rule 56 of the Federal
and,
The facts are
general
clear
Rules of Civil Procedure.
sense,
really disputed.
not
They emerge
exhibits,
affidavits,
espe
and
hearing,
parties agreed
At final
cially from the testimony
Assemblyman
judgment
summary
if the motions for
were
Jackman,
Christopher
Speaker of the 199th
denied, they
proofs
have no further
would
pro
Assembly
Speaker
tem of
comprised
to advance other than what then
200th;
Feldman,
Senator Matthew
Presi
prefer
the record. Because we
to decide
Senate;
pro
Assemblyman
dent
tem of the
application
injunctive
the matter on
Karcher, Speaker
Alan J.
of the 200th As
record,
relief on the entire
rather than
sembly;
Assemblyman
Richard Zim
summary judgment,
those motions are de-
mer.
preliminary
for a
in-
application
nied. The
7,1981,
junction
plaintiff’s
story really begins August
is consolidated with
de-
on
Reock, Jr.,
injunction
when Ernest
permanent
mand for a
into a
C.
sent a “model”
hearing pursuant
redistricting proposal
leadership
to
to the
final
Fed.R.Civ.P.
65(a).
legislature
Counterclaims advanced on behalf of
and the Governor. On Au-
dismissed,
11,1981,
gust
plan
either
Reock sent the
parties
some of the
all the
legislature.
renders members of the
disposition
of the case
Mr. Reock
because
was,
is,
moot,
they
professor
Rutgers
do not consti-
a research
them
or because
University since 1950 and Director of the
tute a cause of action.
Rutgers
Bureau of Government Research at
He further indicated that he was interested
University since 1960. The Bureau of
in preserving the
in Congress
influence
has
principal
Government Research
three
certain senior Democratic incumbents.
problems
research
functions:
conduct
on
Feldman,
bill,
Senator
sponsored
who
government
of state and local
Jer-
indicated that he desired numerical equality
develop
training
sey,
pro-
and to conduct
as near
possible.
to zero as
As additional
grams
government
local
officials in
priorities,
emphasized
he
importance
Jersey,
provide
technical assist-
protection
black
voters and a desire to
officers,
agencies
ance
state
as well
counties,
keep
especially Bergen County, in-
public
to those members
interested
possible.
tact as far as
problems
government.
in the
Every congressional
amended,
proposal,-
This
set
must be measured against the requirement
congressional
forth fourteen
I,
of art.
2: “The House of Representa
§
range
an overall absolute
of deviation of
*4
composed
tives shall be
of Members chosen
1,556 people
range
and the overall relative
...
People
of the several States
contrast, P.L.1982,
1,
c.
By
0.296%.
”
. . .
Sanders,
.
In Wesberry
1,
v.
376 U.S.
law,
present
an overall
range
has
absolute
526,
84 S.Ct.
11
(1964),
L.Ed.2d 481
3,674 people
deviation
and an overall
Court
I,
held that “the command of Art.
range
relative
of deviation of 0.6984%.
2 . .. means that
nearly
practica
as
as is
§
prompted
The
proposal
Reock
a remarka-
congressional
ble one man’s vote in a
elec
Speaker
ble
reply
then
of the Assem-
tion is to be worth as
as
much
another’s.”
bly Jackman. The letter is set
in its
forth
7-8,
982 783, Weiser, appropriate recognition v. given
In White
U.S.
S.Ct.
to be
to such
2348,
(1973),
Defendant-intervenors
fication for the deviations which
pro
were
is
nearly
practicable”
standard
satisfied
duced
on this
record be
rejected
population
when the
variation
less than
pretextual. Moreover I concede that
imprecision
the statistical
census.
law,
majority’s conclusion of
that P.L.
reasoning,
Under
defendant-interve
unconstitutional,
c.l is
quite plausible
conclude that
total devia
nors
.6984%
interpretation
of the relevant Supreme
insignificant
tion
P.L.
c.l
Nevertheless,
Court authorities.1
I dissent.
equiva
should
considered
functional
recognize
I
Kirkpatrick
v. Preis-
equality.
reject
of mathematical
We
lent
ler, supra, the court said
rejected
that it
margin
an approach.
Whatever
argument
there is
a fixed
numerical
present
was
error
the 1980 decennial
*6
percentage
population
variance
small
census, there were
similar limitations
enough to be considered de
In
minimus.
and 1970
1960
decennial censuses when
however,
paragraph,
same
the Court
Kirkpatrick and White
De
were decided.
acknowledged that some population vari-
factor,
spite this
not have
Court could
justified. Since,
ances could
literally,
be
clearly.
more
“We
. ..
spoken
reject
[the]
possible
would be
equal
achieve
number
argument
there is a fixed numerical or
districts,
one,
or minus
plus
by disregarding
percentage
population
small
variance
lines,
even
municipal or
census tract
enough to be
considered de minimus
Court
have meant
that some consider-
satisfy
question
nearly
without
‘as
ations other than
equality
numerical
could
practicable’
standard.”
Kirkpatrick,
upon
justification
be
relied
for such vari-
530,
derived from Article
Section
into the
tolerable,
constitutional standard is
Constitution,
equal popula-
is districts of
and no more. The Court has not done so.
tion,
purpose
prevent
of that rule is to
suggested
Instead it has
justifi
that some
phenomenon
of voters in smaller con-
may
cation for variances
be advanced.
It
having voting power
gressional districts
dis-
me, therefore,
seems to
that the rule must
voting power
to the
of voters
proportionate
be that
may
justified
variances
be
which do
The
larger
requiring ap-
districts.
rule
not achieve statistically significant dilutions
portionment
equal popula-
into districts of
representation
relative
of voters in
only
imprecise
tion is itself
an
means to larger districts when compared with that of
end,
applied
for it is
not to actual
voters in smaller districts. I would read the
population in each district from time to
language
de minimus
in Kirkpatrick v.
time,
population
but to
as determined in the
prohibition
Preisler as a
against toleration
any
census. In
popu-
decennial
election the
of de minimus dilutions of relative repre
vary
lation of each
may
district
from the
sentation rather
prohibition
than as a
During
ideal.
the course
ten years
against toleration
population
of de minimus
might
quite large,
variance
but the dis-
variances which have
statistically
no
rele
tricts determined on the basis of census
vant effect
representation.
on relative
A
equality
know,
still would be
We
valid.
plus-minus deviation of 0.6984%falls within
moreover,
census,
that the
while it is amaz-
the latter category.
accurate,
ingly
does not achieve one hun-
percent accuracy.
dred
It has been estimat-
apportionment
map produced by P.L.
ed that for
1970 census
margin
of 1982,
me,
c.l leaves
as a citizen of New
resulting
error
undercounting may
Jersey,
disturbed.
creates several dis-
have been as much as
nationally
2.5%
anything
tricts which are
compact,
but
See,
2.6% in New
Bureau of the
at least one district
contiguous
which is
Census,
Population Reports, Special
Current
yachtsmen.
While municipal
Studies, Coverage
Population
in the 1970
maintained,
boundaries have been
there has
Census
Implications
and Some
for Public
been little effort to create
having
Programs (August 1975).
community
districts,
of interests.
In some
dealing
We are not
with
equal protec
an
example,
different television and radio
problem,
tion
for we know from the cases
stations,
newspapers,
different
and differ-
dealing
apportionment
legis
for state
ent transportation systems serve the north-
governmental
latures and local
units that
ern and southern localities. Moreover the
1982,
deviations in excess of those in P.L.
harshly partisan
Speaker
tone of
Christo-
E.g., Chapman Meier,
c.l are tolerable.
pher Jackman’s
Reock,
letter to Ernest C.
420 U.S.
95 S.Ct.
equal member districts. wood, Cedars, Harvey Harbor, Little Egg Beach, Ocean,
Long Ship Bottom, Stafford, Tuckerton, City, Surf portion A APPENDIX county Burlington embracing Bass SENATE, No. 711 River, Tabernacle Washington. STATE OF NEW JERSEY portion Third. That of the county of embracing Aberdeen, Monmouth Alien- INTRODUCED JANUARY hurst, Park, Asbury Highlands, Atlantic Avon, Belmar, Beach, Deal, Bradley Eaton- By Senator FELDMAN town, Englishtown, Haven, Hazlet, Fair Highlands, Interlaken, Keansburg, Keyport, (Without Reference) Arbour, Branch, Loch Long Manalapan, Manasquan, Matawan, Middletown, Mon- creating AN ACT districts for the election Beach, Neptune mouth city, Neptune town- of members Represent- to the House of ship, Oceanport, Ocean, Bank, Red Sea atives of the United of America States Girt, Bright, Belmar, Sea Spring South Congress to serve in the 98th and each Lake, Spring Beach, Lake Heights, Union subsequent Congress, repealing Branch, Long West portion of the P.L.1966, sections and 2 of c. 156 and county of embracing Bay Head, Ocean P.L.1981,c. 561. Brick, Lakewood, Mantoloking, Point Pleas- BE IT ENACTED the Senate and Beach, Pleasant, ant Point portion and that Assembly General of the of New Jer- State county of Middlesex embracing Old sey: Bridge. 1. This act shall be known and may be portion Fourth. That of the county of “Congressional cited as the District Act for Burlington embracing Beverly, Bordentown (1982).” the State of New Jersey city, township, Burlington Bordentown city, purpose 2. For the of electing members Burlington township, Chesterfield, Cinna- *8 of the Representatives House of of the minson, Delanco, Delran, Park, Edgewater United of States America from the of Florence, Mansfield, State Shade, Maple Palmyrá, New to serve in Congress the 98th borough, Pemberton township, Pemberton subsequent and each Congress, the Riverside, State of borough, Springfield, Riverton New Jersey shall be divided into the follow- Willingboro, Wrightstown Fieldsboro, and ing single-member districts: portion that of the county of Camden em- county Linden, of Union embracing Pennsauken,
bracing Merchantville Rahway and Winfield. em- county of Mercer portion that of the portion That county Seventh. of the of Windsor, Hamilton, Ewing, bracing East Princeton, embracing Mercer Princeton Lawrence, Trenton, Wash- Hightstown, township, portion county that of the of Mid- Windsor, portion that of ington and West Dunellen, embracing Cranbury, dlesex' embracing Plains- county of Middlesex Middlesex, Monroe, Jamesburg, North county of Mon- portion that of the boro and Brunswick, por- Brunswick and South that Allentown, embracing Roosevelt mouth county tion of the of embracing Monmouth Upper Freehold. Freehold, township, Freehold Marlboro and portion county That of the Fifth. Millstone, portion county that of the Allendale, Closter, Cress- Bergen embracing Brook, embracing Bound Somerset Frank- Park, Haworth, kill, Demarest, Harrington lin, Manville, Millstone, Plainfield, North Park, Ho-ho-kus, Mahwah, Midland Mont- Rocky Hill and Bound South Brook and Oradell, vale, Northvale, Tappan, Old Park portion that the county of Union embrac- Ridgewood, Edge, River Ridge, Ramsey, Clark, Cranford, Elizabeth, Fanwood, ing Vale, River, Rockleigh, Upper River Saddle Garwood, Plainfield, Roselle, Park, Roselle River, Wyckoff, Waldwick and Saddle Scotch Plains and Westfield. portion county of the of Hunterdon embrac- Eighth. portion county That of the Alexandria, Bethlehem, ing Bloomsbury, Lakes, Bergen embracing Franklin Gar- Amwell, Delaware, Flemington, East field, Wallington, portion Oakland Franklin, Frenchtown, Holland, Hampton, Butler, embracing county of the of Morris Lambertville, Milford, Raritan, Kingwood, Dover, Kinnelon, Park, Pequan- Lincoln Stockton, Union, and that West Amwell Riverdale, nock, Rockaway Rockaway, portion county embracing of the of Mercer township, Victory and Wharton Gardens Penning- Hopewell, Hopewell township and county of Passaic portion and that of the ton, portion county of the of Morris Clifton, Haledon, embracing Bloomingdale, Boonton, township, embracing Boonton Hawthorne, Haledon, Passaic, North Pater- Denville, Jefferson, Hill, Montville, Mine son, Lakes, Park, Prospect Wa- Pompton Olive, Arlington, Randolph Mount Mount naque Wayne. county Roxbury, portion portion county Ninth. That of the Mil- embracing Ringwood Passaic and West Alpine, Bergen embracing Bergenfield, Bo- ford, portion county of the of Sussex Carlstadt, Park, Dumont, gota, Cliffside Frankford, Branchville, embracing Hamp- Rutherford, Edgewater, East Elmwood ton, Lafayette, Montaque, Sandyston, Still- Park, Emerson, Englewood Englewood, water, Sussex, Vernon, and Wan- Walpack Cliffs, Lawn, Fairview, Lee, Fort Glen Fair county of tage portion and that of the Rock, Hackensack, Heights, Hasbrouck Belvidere, embracing Alpha, Blairs- Warren Hillsdale, Leonia, Lodi, Maywood, Moona- town, Franklin, Greenwich, Hackettstown, Norwood, Paramus, chie, Milford, Hardwick, Knowlton, Lib- Harmony, Hope, Park, Park, Rutherford, Ridgefield Rochelle Oxford, erty, Lopatcong, Pahaquarry, Phil- Hackensack, Teaneck, Brook, Saddle South lipsburg, Pohatcong, Washington, Wash- Teterboro, Westwood, Tenafly, Washington, ington township and White. Wood-Ridge. Woodcliff Lake and portion county Sixth. That of the Carteret, embracing Middlesex East Bruns- portion county Tenth. That wick, Edison, Helmetta, Park, Highland embracing Orange, Ridge, Essex East Glen Metuchen, Milltown, Brunswick, Perth Irvington, Orange, Newark and South Amboy, Piscataway. Sayreville, Am- county South portion embracing of Union Plainfield, River, boy, Spots- Hillside, portion South South and that of the county of embracing Woodbridge portion wood and and that of Hudson Harrison. *9 portion
and that the county of of Warren portion Eleventh. That of the county embracing of Allamuchy, Frelinghuysen, Inde- Bergen embracing Arlington, pendence North that and Mansfield. portion of the Essex county embracing of portion Thirteenth. county That of the Belleville, Bloomfield, Caldwell, Cedar Burlington of embracing Eastampton, Grove, Fells, Fairfield, Essex Livingston, Evesham, Lumberton, Hainesport, Medford Montclair, Lyndhurst, Maplewood, North Lakes, Medford, Moorestown, Holly, Mount Caldwell, Roseland, Nutley, Orange, Vero- Laurel, Hanover, Mount New North Hano- na, Orange, West Caldwell and West that ver, Shamong, Southampton, Westhampton Hudson, of the portion county embracing of Woodland, portion and that of the county Newark, Secaucus, Kearny East and that Beachwood, Ocean embracing Berkeley, Do- portion of the Morris county embracing ver, Jackson, Heights, Island Lacey, Lake- Hanover, Lakes and Parsip- East Mountain hurst, Lavallette, Gate, Beach, Ocean Pine Hills, portion panny-Troy and that of the Plumsted, Heights, Park, Seaside Seaside Falls, county embracing of Passaic Little Manchester, Toms South River and and West Totowa Paterson. portion of the county Monmouth embrac- of the portion county Twelfth. That Brielle, Neck, ing Farmingdale, Colts Holm- Millburn, embracing portion Essex del, Howell, Silver, Rumson, Little Shrews- county embracing of Hunterdon Cali- bury, Shrewsbury township, Tinton Falls Clinton, fon, township, Clinton Glen Gard- and Wall and that portion county ner, Lebanon, High Bridge, Lebanon town- Hill, Camden embracing Cherry Collings- ship, Readington Tewksbury, por- wood, Haddon, Lawnside Oaklyn. of the county embracing tion of Morris portion
Chatham, county Fourteenth. That of the Chester, township, Chatham Bergen Park, embracing Ferry, Little Hanover, Palisades township, Chester Florham Mendham, Park Madison, Ridgefield portion and that Harding, of the Mendham county of township, Plains, embracing Bayonne, Morris Hudson township, Morris Gut- Morristown, tenberg, Hoboken, Jersey City, Netcong, Passaic and Wash- North Ber- portion gen, ington, county city, of the Union Weehawken and Somer- West Bedminster, embracing Bernards, York. set Ber- nardsville, Bridgewater, Branchburg, Far Sections 1 and of P. L. c. Hills, Brook, Hillsborough, Montgom- Green (C. 19:46-3) 19:46-2 and and P. L. c. Raritan, ery, Peapack-Gladstone, Somer- repealed. 561 are ville, Warren Watchung, portion 4. This act take effect shall immediate- county embracing
of the of Sussex And- ly- over, Byram, township, Franklin, Andover Fredon, Green, Hamburg, Hardyston, Ho- Newton, Ogdensburg, Sparta
patcong, STATEMENT Stanhope, portion county embracing Heights, Berkeley purpose Kenil- of this bill is Union to create worth, Mountainside, Providence, Congressional beginning Districts use Springfield, township Summit and Union the 98th Congress.
APPENDIX A B APPENDIX
General oe New Trenton Assemuly Jersey Christopher ASSEMBLYMAN, West New [6110] LEG. Monitor BUS. 201-86 OFF.201-861 RES. 201-060-2637 *11 speaker York,N.J.07093 DISTRICT J. Jackman Place I -0961 -726 (HUDSON) August Reock, Ernest C. Jr. Director Bureau of Government Research Rutgers Univsersity Brunswick, Jersey
Dear Mr. Reock: I recently your received letter and for New Congressional I you principle districts. want to thank for time you put your paper. and Teffort into As a in the process Jersey's Congressional which will decide New decade, opportuni- boundaries I the next have this taken ty respond your report. to reading your report After suggestion I am struck that your report produce adherence to the criteria in one only map. and single map suggestion one "fair" A further that against then serve as the standard which all plans other be presumptious. measured seems to me somewhat In fact I am single scientifically developed certain no blueprint applied Congressional can be in the case Apportionment. proposed plans variety clear a possible and approaches explored, must be all of which have being merits fair. applies Political Congressional fairness as it redistrict- ing is concept an you illusive which as know used as is.often a ing partisan political advantage. smokescreen Redistrict- process is subjective .necessarily comprised many diverse interests judgements. evaluating Just several doctors patient differing same could offer valid several but opinions, directly so it true those are who involved apportionment process in the would ill be advised to set out preconceived in the opinion notion one standard recognized. your should redistricting To call "fair" comparison plans in other all seems little more than an game. academic shell about fairness assertions I am concerned In addition recognition without your establishing urging standards about very political real process may deny the political Congressional apportionment. nature Legislators are Legislature. up by matter taken entire legislators and their parties. Those elected parties as members of represent which interest communities bind.members coalitions, governing together. to form parties serve Political strength The chaos. politics be in total without which would quite intricate depends many party-system varied on apportionment such, issues inherent relationships. As by parties by parties, negotiated have come to be defined by parties. ultimately solved very features definable have utilized Courts Federal Congressional apportionment comparative judging merits requirements for dis- paper your plans. discuss You divide compact, which do not contiguous tricts possible, county wherever boundaries municipalities and adhere new from older com- populations recognize which shifts *12 previous districts munities, the into account and which take recognize these factors being changed. You also which are a sense of and that competition each other are with often in two or more When criteria. to these priority be attached Although made? decisions be at should criteria are odds how intentions, it is judicial guessing to we must resort in included were not regrettable decision criteria your proposal explain your adequately report. you While you engage the more in judicial do not does standards meet is than other why plan this alluding better of technical discussion superiority possible to its are plans. Statements left unsubstantiated. criteria perhaps measurable In to the definable addition process. political is apportionment you your plan, which drew pres- exist the for interests which apologies No made need be with the decisions upon who burdened sures bear those are are which obviously quite Although you well versed apportionment. redistricting of history, your paper the is silent on in law and politics apportionment important community-level in de- role Congressional process within which perhaps the It cisions. redistricting outcome. Without its which dictates occurs Jersey apportionment process in changing in prescribed the plan any states, unlikely your has chance it other adoption. aware, mind, you it I'm are as sure in With this expect legislative action you how is difficult to understand plan possible. "fairest" the your views coincide for the solu- alternatives Why, you on did indeed concentrate process through mentioning political tion the even without pass? which it must mind, may With in be useful to examine the redistrict- ing process and the context Jersey within which the legis- up lative takes the issue. Here in New Party the Democratic has control over the Congressional apportionment process for the first time ever. occurs, know, you This as majority because Democrats hold a in both legislature, being represented houses as well years Governor's ago, every during seat. Ten Con- gressional Republicans Jersey's history, in New played predominant Republicans sought role. Each time legislate districts which would representation maximize their Congress. Republicans And time each drew districts which were improve upon intended previous partisan Congressional representation. — Well, interesting thing happened an along way I'm you sure are aware: Party the Democratic became dominant party Jersey; party in New representative considered more the needs of New Jersey wishes voters. In last ton — years — adaptation Republican under court-ordered of a Congressional Democratic overwhelmingly candidates have been never years choice the voters. In those Democrats have Congressional held less than the 15 districts and as Furthermore, many 12. Democratic electoral dominance over representa- past decade amongst reviewing can be established party political tion major period offices. Over which the place. current the State House at all districts have been in Democrats have levels, dominated represent the bulk Congressional the States delegation, represent and now both United Senators. political analysis justify your plan employs used elec- tion results from only. 1979 and 1980 my estimation determining Congressional the best districts years — — place be in the next ten the,previous election results years ten be should taken course, given into may account. Of more recent elections weight, more but not total exclusion other election view, my point data. From the 1980 election results *13 entirely partisan not indicative politics of the state of in Jersey. party There is no doubt the Democratic under Florio, candidate, leadership gubernatorial the of Jim our great enjoy amongst will of continue to success in the voters should, representatives Congress closely Our as possible, parallel Jersey as the sentiments of New voters. interesting you is in past fact make use election defining expected partisan makeup your plpn. data in the aware, you As I'm sure are suggestions others made who have as improvement to political the apportionment information, fairness in the process, perhaps to political tend shun the use of Nonetheless, altogether. you exclude it since have others past you surely expect reviewed election data must all process process involved in the do Given the to likewise. Legislature upon plan you expect which the members a how can decides Legislature ignore the data to election which would perhaps Congressional to configurations lead other district party more beneficial to asking in members? You essence are subjugate ignore Democrats to their in interests and effect political opinions election your results in order to accommodate on apportionment the "ideal" plan. Congressional redistricting Jersey in New also must be viewed from Republican the more perspective. broad-based national The party only Congress. 27 votes short absolute control population Congressional With a shift consequently and seats from traditionally the Democratic urban industrial states to Republican the more dominated sun-belt the states redistrict- ing process by Republicans opportunity viewed to as an close margin, entirely. 27 or perhaps vote even overcome (RNC) Republican Toward this undertaken end the has National Committee widely publicized redistricting a and well-financed program. strategy, following examples Their as the illustrate is they Republican potential maximize the in those states where process politi- control the and attack the Democrats cally in unfair those states involved. in which the Democrats Indiana a Republican party majority state where the holds a Legislature being represented both houses as well in the Governor's office. A the RNC state tailor-made strategy, they managed a sent team of advisors technical
992 signed into law later Legislature was through which a bill popu- Democratic By packing all available Governor. districts already heavily Democratic three into lation amongst several remaining population dividing Democratic Congressional hope to see they Republican otherwise delegation delegation of 6 a change dramatically. From current redistricting plan intends Republicans 5 the new and Democrats, Democrats delegation Democrats returning 3 a dump thus 3 to and 7 (Indiana like New Congress year. Republicans next year.) seat loses one next State, Washington great Republicans opportunity also saw a they process apportionment where dominate at all levels. Indiana, Following closely on their "success" tremendous through Legislature Republicans rammed a April. change Congressional delega- in tion The intended Republicans perhaps Democrats Demo- seat.) Republicans. (Washington gains crats an additional however, Republican Spellman plan, as this too Governor vetoed year. later extreme. The next effort made until not be Republicans control both houses In Colorado who Legislature Democratic Governor Richard contend with Lamm passed redistricting. Republicans already have on The and the plans has vetoed two which are intended shift Governor Congressional delegation from the current 3 Democrats and 2 (Colorado Republicans Republicans. gains to 1 Democrat seat.) Republicans nearly have now countered *14 advertising discrediting half million dollar TV blitz aimed at — partisan being playing politics Lamm politically in essence great going unfair. Without into detail over what the Colorado Republicans you can see the Democrats up have in mind are against Congressional battleground heretofore unheard tactics in the redistricting. Against odds, heavy person popular powerful a fundraising President and the organizational capability he represents, wary partisan politics. Democrats, Democrats of on the even to appear open when successful are often defensive just media-hyped arguments put those "fairness" forth your very work. The fact I is that plan feel strongly matter your that an academic Congressional redistricting little more than your statement views the desired outcome. Perhaps unwittingly, you Republican strategies play quite into Republican Of spokesmen deny any well. course will involvement perhaps your plan. you interest can bet But response Republicans propose, to whatever Democrats quick to embrace "fair" Reock alternative. Political posturing expected, nature but should be taken represents. rhetoric way do I in no to add that like Having this, all I would said complicated, very some- input yours process. into discourage such as expertise your has fact political In unwieldy times inordinate value be of been and I'm sure will continue a measure with government. those us in New of I lengthy your work which take seriousness response seems in order. given you have effort time you again I thank Once in New Congressional issue Jackman, J. n ' SPEAKER gm Byrne Brendan Honorable cc: Legislators Democratic Congressmen Democratic
UNITED STATES of America and An- Rosenblatt, Agent, Revenue In-
drew Petitioners, Service, Revenue ternal EXCHANGE, TRADE INC. and ISLAND Goldston, Mark President Island Inc., Exchange, Respondents. Trade No. 82 Civ. 611. Court, United States District E. D. New York.
March