Redistricting Map Proposed by the Citizens' Campaign

Census and sensibility vs. pride and prejudice

IT'S HARD to get worked up over the 2010 census. It's a year away. And with so many other pressing issues, like the tanking economy and the upcoming gubernatorial race, the census seems unimportant. Wrong.

This week, the chairman of Citizen's Campaign, Harry Pozycki, former state Supreme Court Justice Gary Stein (and Citizens' Campaign's Legal Task Force Chair), and retired Rutgers University Professor Ernie Reock met with The Record's editorial board to discuss congressional redistricting. The state's 13 districts may be redrawn after the census. Those new district lines would affect 2012 races in New Jersey. Wrong.

If what happened 10 years ago occurs again, New Jersey politicians will carve the state into almost equal bipartisan pieces. On first blush, it sounds remarkable - Republicans and Democrats working together. But it is not average New Jerseyans who should be turning red; it is the state's political leadership from both parties who should be hanging their heads in shame.

Stein refers to what happened after the last census as bipartisan gerrymandering. The party powerful created almost impregnable walls around the 13 districts that guarantee that even if the incumbents were to leave office, the districts would remain in the control of the current incumbents' parties.

Republican districts will remain Republican. Democratic districts will remain Democratic. Last year, the walls around the 3rd District did come down and it was won by a Democrat, giving the state eight Democrats in the House. But that hardly signals the dawn of competitive districts in New Jersey.

The process of redrawing district lines is controlled by a group of 13. Six are Republicans and six are Democrat; the 13th member is the independent voice to break potential deadlocks. That hasn't been a problem.

The result is that not only are districts rarely competitive, some are downright ridiculous in configuration. For example, the 5th District resembles a large boomerang. Stein, Reock and Pozycki are concerned that short of a public outcry, the 2012 districts will be little changed from the current ones. Yes, it is possible that New Jersey could lose a district after the census count. But Reock believes the state will hold on to its 13 seats - a minority opinion.

Either scenario will result in something that our Founding Fathers had not envisioned. And New Jersey is not alone. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill giving the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. A companion bill is expected to pass in the House next week.

Congress may increase House membership from 435 to 437. That's two seats, you may note. Why? The reason is that the District is heavily Democratic and Republicans would want to add another Republican seat in Utah to balance out the additional Democratic vote in the House.

It is yet another example of bipartisan self-preservation. There are constitutional questions as whether giving the District a vote in the House can be done by Congress or must be achieved through a constitutional amendment. But the real issue worth debating is not what body can make the change, but why the change is made.

Adding another representative to Congress gives the people of the District of Columbia a direct vote. Whether the people are Democrats or Republicans at this moment in American history should be of no consequence. What is of consequence is that they are under-represented Americans.

It may be constitutional, but it is unconscionable that partisans have decided how many Republican and Democratic House members the people of New Jersey should have. The incumbents may be the best candidates. But a lack of competitiveness guarantees that they are, in effect, the only candidates. And to use an argument that returning seasoned legislators to office is preferable to bringing in new members is antithetical to the precepts upon which our nation was created. Our Founding Fathers wanted to create a lasting nation, not a permanent legislative class.

In New Jersey, there is a notion that if we remove the big-money influences from campaigns, we will have clean elections. It's a misnomer. The campaign may be clean, but the process that determines who can actually win is muddy at best. Elections should be about ideas. In New Jersey, they have become too often meaningless exercises, where the outcome is determined every 10 years by 12 highly partisan individuals.

There is no pride in this process. It discriminates against the very people who are supposed to be represented. Here's some irony: The census is used to ensure that the opinions and choices of everyday New Jersey voters never count.

Click here to view larger map and to read about the Citizens' Campaigns compeitive redistricting recommendations.