Three judges of the New Jersey Appellate Division listened intently this morning as attorneys sparred over the boundaries of Ward F.
According to Renee Steinhagen of New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, the new Ward F, approved by the Jersey City Ward Commission in 2022, was designed to strip Councilman Frank Gilmore of power over several high-profile developments and to retaliate against him for defeating a member of Mayor Steven Fulop’s slate in the 2021 election.
Steinhagen is representing Gilmore along with 18 local organizations opposed to the ward map.
“They removed every development where Gilmore demanded more affordable housing,” said Steinhagen of the Commission. The new ward map, she said, also removed an Opportunity Zone from Gilmore’s jurisdiction.
The Commission was tasked with redrawing ward maps throughout Jersey City to reflect population changes noted in the 2020 census, a process repeated every ten years.
The “L shape” of the Ward was suggestive of gerrymandering, she said. Indeed, critics have previously noted the similarity in shape between Ward F and the oddly shaped Massachusetts district that gave rise to the term “gerrymander” in colonial America.
Fatal to the map, said Steinhagen, was Ward F’s lack of “compactness,” a requirement of the Municipal Ward Law. “Compactness is necessary for effective representation in a city like Jersey City where effective representation implicates the right to vote.”
Superior Court Judge Joseph A. Turula, whose dismissal of the case last year was on appeal this morning, declined to define “compactness” when he rendered his decision, a problem the appellate court pressed Steinhagen on. Compact meant “dense or closely united,” she responded.
But a related goal was uniting “communities of interests” tied to local, geographic interests. The map had placed voters in Lafayette, with concerns surrounding toxic remediation and economic displacement and who rely on public services, with wealthy voters of Paulus Hook, who had entirely different interests, she said.
Asked by Judge Robert Gilson for evidence that the map was retaliatory, Steinhagen pointed to the fact that the Commission’s chairman was John Minella, chief of staff to Mayor Steve Fulop. “Some of it sounds like you are speculating,” said Judge Gilson. “You have the shape and the split of communities of interest” answered Steinhagen.
Steinhagen said that experts had created an alternative ward map that would have kept communities of interest together and required less displacement of voters.
The process was also flawed, said Steinhagen, in that the Commission met privately in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Representing the Commission, attorney Jason Orlando disputed that the Commission was biased against Gilmore, instead maintaining that it was bipartisan, appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the state senate. It “followed the law to the t.”
“How do we know the ward is compact?” Judge Patrick Dealmeida asked Orlando. “Do we have any record? Wouldn’t it be useful to adopt an objective standard?”
Orlando noted that there was no law in New Jersey defining compactness and asked the court to defer to the Commission. Courts, said Orlando, had held that “the process is inherently political and legislative.”
Judge Avis Bishop-Thompson asked Orlando about the racial implications of the ward map. “It appears that the constituents impacted the most were people of color.” Orlando responded that there was no claim of “invidious discrimination,” a standard used in federal gerrymandering cases.
Asked what standard the court should use to analyze gerrymandering cases, Orlando responded “judicial deference.”
“The court should not strike down a map because a better one could be drawn.”
Outside the courtroom, Councilman Gilmore said “I thought the attorneys did a great job with presenting our case. More importantly, the judges asked the right questions.”
Disclosure: The writer previously made a contribution to New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center.