U.S. House Redistricting: New Jersey

[Torie]

It doesn't seem there are any rules or constraints as to how Congressional districts are drawn in NJ, so it seems that the default option is a map drawn by the nominee of one of the two parties, with the one chosen being made by the Chief Justice as to which of the two the Justice thinks is most qualified, and will represent the interests of the people.

So I suspect the default option, unless both parties nominate hacks, or the judge selects the hack over the straight shooter, is a non partisan map. So to me the game is looking at what a non partisan map looks like, and whether there is any other map that both parties would favor over that one. So only if 1) a non partisan map does not really favor one party for whatever reason, and 2) the two parties would prefer over a non partisan map that does not help either party, a map that makes everyone safe and happy, except that two incumbents would be pitted against each other in a fair fight district, will it seem reasonable that any other than a non partisan map will be adopted.

Make sense?

[Torie]

It doesn't seem there are any rules or constraints as to how Congressional districts are drawn in NJ, so it seems that the default option is a map drawn by the nominee of one of the two parties, with the one chosen being made by the Chief Justice as to which of the two the Justice thinks is most qualified, and will represent the interests of the people.

So I suspect the default option, unless both parties nominate hacks, or the judge selects the hack over the straight shooter, is a non partisan map. So to me the game is looking at what a non partisan map looks like, and whether there is any other map that both parties would favor over that one. So only if 1) a non partisan map does not really favor one party for whatever reason, and 2) the two parties would prefer over a non partisan map that does not help either party, a map that makes everyone safe and happy, except that two incumbents would be pitted against each other in a fair fight district, will it seem reasonable that any other than a non partisan map will be adopted.

Make sense?

It does, but I would add some priority for incumbent protection, except for the seat that pits two incumbents against each other. That seems consistent with NJ practice, and a non-partisan map maker would likely look at precedents from the previous couple of maps.

Yes, although the last map was a two party compromise deal, in which the independent 13th guy did not have the whip hand. So they either cut a deal, or to get a majority vote, one party or the other has to get the independent guy to go along, and if they don't, there is no map, and ultimately the court will draw it I guess. So I think as you do that it will be like last time, because neither party wants some independent to mess up all their little inside deals, and incumbent protection schemes.

[Torie]

It doesn't seem there are any rules or constraints as to how Congressional districts are drawn in NJ, so it seems that the default option is a map drawn by the nominee of one of the two parties, with the one chosen being made by the Chief Justice as to which of the two the Justice thinks is most qualified, and will represent the interests of the people.

So I suspect the default option, unless both parties nominate hacks, or the judge selects the hack over the straight shooter, is a non partisan map. So to me the game is looking at what a non partisan map looks like, and whether there is any other map that both parties would favor over that one. So only if 1) a non partisan map does not really favor one party for whatever reason, and 2) the two parties would prefer over a non partisan map that does not help either party, a map that makes everyone safe and happy, except that two incumbents would be pitted against each other in a fair fight district, will it seem reasonable that any other than a non partisan map will be adopted.

Make sense?

It does, but I would add some priority for incumbent protection, except for the seat that pits two incumbents against each other. That seems consistent with NJ practice, and a non-partisan map maker would likely look at precedents from the previous couple of maps.

Yes, although the last map was a two party compromise deal, in which the independent 13th guy did not have the whip hand. So they either cut a deal, or to get a majority vote, one party or the other has to get the independent guy to go along, and if they don't, there is no map, and ultimately the court will draw it I guess. So I think as you do that it will be like last time, because neither party wants some independent to mess up all their little inside deals, and incumbent protection schemes.

Looks to me that the Court can only pick, not modify. It only goes to the Court though if the independent guy doesn't do his job.




If the commission is unable to certify the establishment of districts by the time required due to the inability of a plan to achieve seven votes, the two district plans receiving the greatest number of votes, but not fewer than five votes, shall be submitted to the Supreme Court, which shall select and certify whichever of the two plans so submitted conforms most closely to the requirements of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

OK, Krazen1211, I didn't read that far, so both parties will have an incentive not to get too greedy. It actually is a very well thought out redistricting statute in NJ. I like it.

But what if both plans fully and equally comport with the laws of the US and NJ Constitution (and Jersey doesn't have any limitations, so if both plans comport with VRA and the equal population requirement, by just what metric does the Jersey SC decide which plan is best, since their appears to be no further text to guide it?

[Torie]

It would seem to me that if fiscal issues are at the fore in 2012, that would tend to maximize the Pubbies' potential in a state like New Jersey. 

[Torie]

Estimated Obama/McCain numbers from DKE:

1    65.4    34.6
2    53.9    46.1
3    51.9    48.1
4    45.7    54.3
5    48.9    51.1
6    59.1    40.9
7    47.8    52.2
8    74.4    25.6
9    64.2    35.8
10    85       15
11    47.4    52.6
12    66.3    33.7

And who currently represents how much of the new districts:

1    Andrews 90%    Runyan 10%              
2    LoBiondo 94%    Runyan 6%              
3    Runyan 76%    Smith 23%    LoBiondo 1%    Andrews 1%    
4    Smith 66%    Holt 19%    Pallone 14%    Runyan 2%    
5    Garrett 79%    Rothman 21%              
6    Pallone 64%    Lance 20%    Sires 11%    Holt 6%    
7    Lance 61%    Freylinghuysen 27%    Garrett 5%    Holt 3%    Payne 3%
8    Sires 68%    Rothman 16%    Payne 11%    Pascrell 5%    
9    Rothman 52%    Pascrell 44%    Garrett 4%         
10    Payne 72%    Sires 15%    Pascrell 10%    Lance 3%    
11    Freylinghuysen 65%    Pascrell 32%    Garrett 3%         
12    Holt 68%    Pallone 14%    Smith 10%    Lance 7%

For NJ, where the Obama-McCain numbers overstate Dem PVI by a bit for NJ-05, those numbers are the numbers of a "responsible" Pub gerrymander. I assume the Pubs got lucky with the geography of the state.