Daggett v. Kimmelman, 580 F. Supp. 1259 (D.N.J. 1984)
March 5, 1984
v.
Irwin I. KIMMELMAN, etc., et al., Defendants,
and
Edwin B. FORSYTHE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Thomas H. KEAN, etc., et al., Defendants,
James J. Florio, et al., Intervenors.
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
*1260 George T. Daggett, pro se.
Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein & Siegal by Bernard Hellring, Jonathan L. Goldstein, John Sheridan, Robert S. Raymar, Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Newark, N.J., for plaintiffs in No. 82-388.
Michael R. Cole, Michael R. Clancy, William Harla, Deputy Attys. Gen., Trenton, N.J., for defendants.
Greenstone & Sokol by Leon J. Sokol, Hackensack, N.J., for defendant-intervenor Orechio.
Marinari & Farkas, P.C. by Lawrence T. Marinari, Kenneth J. Guido, Jr., Trenton, N.J., for defendant-intervenor Karcher.
Sills, Beck, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin & Tischman by Clive S. Cummis, Charles J. Walsh, Jerald D. Baranoff, Angelo J. Genova, Newark, N.J., for defendant-intervenors Florio, et al.
Joseph F. Shanahan, Lambertville, N.J., and Ralph Fucetola, III, North Arlington, N.J., for proposed plaintiff-intervenors Magee, et al.
Frank Askin, Newark, N.J., proposed defendant-intervenor pro se.
Before GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, FISHER, Chief Judge, and BROTMAN, District Judge.
OPINION
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated cases are before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which on June 22, 1983 affirmed this court's holding that P.L.1982, c. 1 (codified at N.J.Stat. Ann. § 19:46-5 (West Supp.1983-84) (hereinafter Feldman Plan)), creating districts for the election of Members of the House of Representatives from New Jersey, is unconstitutional, and enjoining the defendant state officers from conducting primary or general congressional elections under its terms.[1] This court's prior order fixed March 22, 1982 as the date for enactment by New Jersey of a new constitutional congressional redistricting plan, and provided that if no such plan was enacted by that date the court would convene to undertake further proceedings. Because the Supreme Court, on March 15, 1982, issued a stay of this court's injunction,[2] the 1982 congressional election took place under the Feldman Plan. The Supreme Court's affirmance of this court's order, however, restored the injunction. On December 19, 1983, this court fixed February 3, 1984 as the date by which New Jersey could enact a constitutional congressional redistricting plan, and February 7, 1984 as the date of a hearing on further proceedings if no such plan was enacted.
*1261 On January 5, 1984 the New Jersey Legislature adopted Senate Bill 3564, but that bill was vetoed by Governor Thomas H. Kean, and had insufficient support for reenactment over his veto. Since no legislation was adopted in the time permitted by this court's December 19, 1983 order, we convened on February 7, 1984 and held a hearing on further relief.
At that hearing six separate redistricting proposals were advanced by various parties. No party urged that the next New Jersey congressional election be held on an at-large basis without districts. Instead, the parties unanimously urged that the court select the plan, among those admitted in evidence, which satisfied the constitutional standards for congressional districts, while most nearly satisfying non-constitutional criteria for fair districting. Thus the parties urged that the court should adopt a remedy similar to that adopted, following the 1970 decennial census, in David v. Cahill, 342 F. Supp. 463 (D.N.J.1972). We note in passing that although the decree in David v. Cahill did not so require, the redistricting plan which it adopted was utilized for New Jersey congressional elections until the 1980 decennial census rendered it obsolete.
The population of New Jersey in the 1980 decennial census, as most recently corrected by the Bureau of Census, is 7,365,011. New Jersey is entitled to representation in the House of Representatives by fourteen Representatives; one less than under the 1970 decennial census. Thus the ideal congressional district would have a population of 526,072.
Article I, § 2, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, permits only such limited population variances from the standard of equal district population as "are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." Karcher v. Daggett, ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2658 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 531, 89 S. Ct. 1225, 1229, 22 L. Ed. 2d 519 (1969)). Moreover, a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality is not established by producing a redistricting plan with a maximum population deviation "smaller than the predictable undercount in available census data." Karcher v. Daggett, ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2658, 2662. Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F. Supp. at 983, 985 (Gibbons, J., dissenting). Once it has been established that a redistricting plan "was not the product of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality," the burden shifts "to the State to prove that the population deviations in its plan were necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective." Karcher v. Daggett, ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2663. Among the policies which may justify some variance are "making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives." Id. In the prior decision of this court we found that the State had failed to carry its burden of justification with respect to the Feldman Plan, and the Supreme Court affirmed that finding as not clearly erroneous. Id. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2665. Finally, the opinion of the court in Karcher v. Daggett, while declining to rely, as a constitutional violation, on the obviously partisan purposes behind the Feldman Plan, recognizes that "[a] federal principle of population equality does not prevent any State from taking steps to inhibit gerry-mandering, so long as a good-faith effort is made to achieve population equality as well." Id. at ___ n. 6, 103 S. Ct. at 2660 n. 6 (emphasis supplied).
While Karcher v. Daggett considers what interests may be taken into account by state legislatures in justifying deviations from the ideal of district population equality based on the decennial census, it also provides useful instruction to district courts faced, as we are, with selecting a districting plan because of a failure in the legislative process. We may take into account at least those factors which the Court has recognized as legitimate, namely: making districts compact, preserving municipal boundaries, preserving cores of prior districts, avoiding contests between incumbents, *1262 and inhibiting gerrymandering. With those factors in mind we turn to the several plans which have been proposed.
A. The Haverly Plan
Taxpayers Political Action Committee, an intervenor, proposed Exhibit IM-1(a), a plan, and exhibit IM-1(b), a district map, produced at its request by C.A. Haverly, an expert in applied mathematics and computer science. Haverly's plan, according to his report, was designed with the objective of keeping the maximum population deviation of any district at less than +/- 1%, preserving municipal boundaries, maximizing compactness and contiguity, avoiding county fragmentation, and preserving population stability from old to new districts. The Haverly plan, while reasonably attractive in other respects, proposes a population variation between the largest and smallest districts of 1.82%. An alternative version proposes a population variation of .85%. This variation between the largest and smallest districts is larger than any which would occur in the plans proposed by other parties. Since we must make a good-faith effort to maximize population equality, we decline to adopt Exhibit IM-1(a) as a remedy.
B. Senate Bill 3564
The Democratic Congressmen, intervenors, urge that the court adopt as a remedy the plan embodied in Senate Bill 3564 which passed the New Jersey Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Kean. That plan, Exhibit IF-2(c), is reflected in the map, Exhibit D-6. A comparison of Exhibit D-6 with the map of the New Jersey congressional districts resulting from the Feldman Plan reveals that the districts are virtually identical. Some slight changes have been made, by moving municipalities among districts, so as to achieve a low district population of 526,020, and a high of 526,087, or a maximum variation of 67 persons and an absolute mean deviation of 11.50 persons. This plan produces a relative overall range of .01273%, and a relative mean deviation of .00218%.
We need not consider how Exhibit IF-2(c) would have fared had it been validly enacted by the State of New Jersey. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2667-78 (Stevens, J., concurring) with id. ___ U.S. at ___, 103 S. Ct. at 2687-90 (Powell, J., dissenting). Senate Bill 3564 is proposed to us as a remedy. As such it does not meet the criteria which we consider relevant to the exercise of our discretion in devising a remedy. First, it does not achieve as small an overall or mean deviation as other plans which are in evidence. While it does succeed in preserving municipal boundaries, the population variances it would maintain are not maintained for that purpose, but rather for the purpose of preserving, as nearly as possible, the districts erected in the Feldman Plan. While Exhibit IF-2(c) preserves the cores of the districts established in the Feldman Plan, those districts are unconstitutional. The plan in Exhibit IF-2(c) has little if any relationship to the cores of districts established under David v. Cahill, and even less relationship to the cores of the last valid New Jersey congressional reapportionment enactment. Exhibit IF-2(c) avoids contests between incumbents. These contests are avoided, however, only because some incumbents moved in 1982 or ran outside their home district, thereby managing to win elections from unconstitutional districts. The most glaring defects in the Feldman Plan, however, are carried forward in Exhibit IF-2(c). These are an obvious absence of compactness, and an intentional gerrymander in favor of certain Democratic Representatives.
The Democratic Congressmen intervenors urge that we must, as a matter of law, adopt Exhibit IF-2(c) as a remedy. Their legal position in this regard is predicated on certain language in White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S. Ct. 2348, 37 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1973), which is said to require that result. In that case the Supreme Court held that a district court should, in choosing among remedial plans, choose the plan which most closely approximates that selected by a state legislature. Id. at 795, 93 S. Ct. at 2354. The policy dispute in White v. Weiser *1263 among the competing plans was over the district court's rejection of a state policy of avoiding contests among incumbents. The Feldman Plan did not implement such a policy; quite the opposite. It was designed to produce contests among certain Republican incumbents. Moreover, White v. Weiser teaches that "the District Court should defer to state policy in fashioning relief only where that policy is consistent with constitutional norms and is not itself vulnerable to legal challenge." 412 U.S. at 797, 93 S. Ct. at 2355. The State policy embodied in the Feldman Plan was to deviate from the norm of population equality for the patently discernible purpose of partisan advantage. That policy was not merely vulnerable to legal challenge; the challenge succeeded. We owe no deference to an unconstitutional state statute.
The proponents of the plan in Exhibit IF-2(c) urge that in fact the Feldman Plan was not a partisan gerrymander, but only a neutral effort by the legislature and the former Governor to provide for congressional representation roughly equivalent to the voting strength of the Democratic and Republican parties in the state. In support of that contention, they have produced computer generated analyses of the results, in each of the districts proposed in Exhibit IF-2(c), of several statewide elections. The inference they would have us draw from these analyses is that the districts established by the Feldman Plan were in fact non-partisan.
For several reasons we decline the invitation to endorse as a remedy the basic districts set forth in the Feldman Plan. First, the present effort to justify those districts as non-partisan is a thinly veiled effort to relitigate the liability stage of this lawsuit after an affirmance by the Supreme Court of the holding that the Feldman Plan is unconstitutional. We have grave doubt whether, consistent with the Supreme Court's judgment, this court is free to permit such relitigation. Assuming we were free to consider the evidence of hypothetical results, in each district, of elections other than those for Congress, we would not find that evidence of any real relevance. While it is true that congressional elections are frequently affected by the same issues that influence the outcome of presidential and senatorial contests, the patent reality is that they are strongly influenced by the more direct relationship of a Representative with the voters in his own district. Thus the fact that a district may have voted in favor of a senatorial or presidential candidate of one party is hardly a strong predictor of the outcome of a congressional race. The case of a gubernatorial election, which may turn on statewide rather than national or district issues, is even less relevant.
A final contention advanced in favor of Exhibit IF-2(c) is that in the election held under the Feldman Plan all Republican incumbents save one survived the election. With the benefit of such hindsight we are asked to adhere as closely as possible to the districts established in the 1982 legislation. The Supreme Court, however, had the benefit of the same hindsight when, on June 22, 1983, it decided Karcher v. Daggett. The Court undoubtedly was as aware as we are of the unique set of circumstances surrounding that election, such as Representative Fenwick's race for the Senate, which permitted Congressman Courter to run unopposed in the district to which he moved, and Congressman Rinaldo's decision to run outside his home district, which produced results unexpected by those responsible for enacting the Feldman Plan. That statute's unconstitutionality cannot be disregarded merely because its intended partisan results were not fully realized.
Thus we conclude that Exhibit IF-2(c), embodying the provisions of Senate Bill 3564, is not an appropriate remedy for the unconstitutionality of the Feldman Plan. For the same reasons, we conclude that a modification of that plan, which would shift one census block from the proposed eleventh to the proposed tenth district, thereby reducing the variation from 67 to 42 persons, is also an inappropriate remedy.
C. The Hagedorn and Zimmer Plans
The executive branch defendants propose for our consideration two redistricting *1264 plans which were introduced, but not enacted, in the New Jersey Legislature. The first, introduced by Senator Hagedorn as Senate Bill 1111, is reflected in the district map Exhibit D7. The second, introduced by Assemblyman Zimmer, as Assembly Bill 839, is reflected in the district map Exhibit D9. The Hagedorn map produces a high population district of 526,115 and a low population district of 526,055, or a maximum variation of 60 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 11.50 persons. The relative overall range is .01140% and the relative mean deviation is .00218%. The Zimmer map produces a district with a high population of 526,087 and a district with a low population of 526,020, or a maximum variation of 67 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 10.92 persons. The Zimmer plan's relative overall range is .01273% and its relative mean deviation is .00207%. A comparison of these deviation figures with those that would result from the adoption of Senate Bill 3564 shows that the numerical differences are so slight as to be irrelevant.
Since neither the Hagedorn nor the Zimmer plans were enacted, the executive branch defendants do not suggest that they come clothed with any mantle of state policy. The districts reflected in Exhibits D7 and D9 are considerably more compact than those in the Feldman Plan, and thus also more compact than those in Senate Bill 3564. Neither splits municipal boundaries, and neither places incumbent representatives in the same district. If the choice were between Senate Bill 3564 and either the Hagedorn or the Zimmer plan, either of the latter two would in our view embody preferable remedial features. And, as between Hagedorn and Zimmer, the slightly lower absolute mean deviation in the Zimmer plan, 10.92 persons, probably would tip the scale in its favor. The Zimmer plan must, however, be compared with one remaining proposal.
D. The Forsythe, et al. Plan
The original plaintiffs in one of these consolidated cases, No. 82-388, were Republican candidates in the 1982 primary congressional elections. All but one of them[3] have proposed a redistricting plan. That plan is embodied in Exhibit P-1(a) and (b), and the map depicting the proposed districts is Exhibit P-1(c). The plan shown on Exhibit P-1(c) produces a high population district of 526,087 and a low population district of 526,062, or a maximum variation of only 25 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 5.9 persons. The relative overall range is .00475% and the relative mean deviation is .00112%. Thus the plan reflected in Exhibit P-1(c) achieves the lowest population deviation of any plan which has been presented. Moreover it goes much further than the Hagedorn or Zimmer plans in achieving compact districts. Like all the plans considered, it avoids placing incumbents in the same district. Unlike any of the others, however, it achieves the extremely low population deviation in part by splitting off certain census tracts from the Essex County municipality of Belleville, and the Hudson County community of Kearny. The plan, in what it proposes as the 10th Congressional District, preserves a congressional district in which a majority of the population is black. No evidence has been offered from which we could find that it is designed to achieve partisan advantage.
The two great advantages of the Exhibit P-1(c) plan, over any of the others, are the achievement of smaller population deviations, and the creation of more compact districts. The only disadvantage which the plan presents is the splitting of two North Jersey municipalities in order to achieve those advantages. We hold that this disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages of compactness and population near uniformity. Thus, among those in evidence, the plan which in our view most nearly fits the appropriate criteria for a *1265 court considering a congressional reapportionment plan as a remedy for an unconstitutional reapportionment statute, is that set forth in Exhibits P-1(a) (b) and (c).
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the primary elections and elections for Members of the House of Representatives shall be conducted, in New Jersey, until the further order of this court, or until the next decennial census, whichever is earlier, from the single member districts set forth in the Opinion filed herewith.
1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Burlington County
Maple Shade Township 20,525
Palmyra Borough 7,085
Riverton Borough 3,068
Camden County
Audubon Park Borough 1,274
Barrington Borough 7,418
Bellmawr Borough 13,721
Berlin Borough 5,786
Berlin Township 5,348
Brooklawn Borough 2,133
Camden City 84,910
Chesilhurst Borough 1,590
Clementon Borough 5,764
Collingswood Borough 15,838
Gibbsboro Borough 2,510
Gloucester City 13,121
Gloucester Township 45,156
Haddon Township 15,875
Hi-Nella Borough 1,250
Laurel Springs Borough 2,249
Lawnside Borough 3,042
Lindenwold Borough 18,196
Magnolia Borough 4,881
Mount Ephraim Borough 4,863
Oaklyn Borough 4,223
Pennsauken Township 33,775
Pine Hill Borough 8,684
Pine Valley Borough 23
Runnemede Borough 9,461
Somerdale Borough 5,900
Stratford Borough 8,005
Tavistock Borough 9
Winslow Township 20,034
Woodlynne Borough 2,578
Gloucester County
Clayton Borough 6,013
Deptford Township 23,473
East Greenwich Township 4,144
Greenwich Township 5,404
Gloucester County
Harrison Township 3,585
Logan Township 3,078
Monroe Township 21,639
National Park Borough 3,552
Paulsboro Borough 6,944
Swedesboro Borough 2,031
Washington Township 27,878
Wenonah Borough 2,303
West Deptford Township 18,002
Westville Borough 4,786
Woodbury City 10,353
Woodbury Heights Borough 3,460
Woolwich Township 1,129
_______
526,069
2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Atlantic County
All 194,119
Cape May County
All 82,266
Cumberland County
All 132,866
Gloucester County
Elk Township 3,187
Franklin Township 12,396
Glassboro Borough 14,574
Mantua Township 9,193
Newfield Borough 1,563
Pitman Borough 9,744
South Harrison Township 1,486
Salem County
All 64,676
_______
526,070
3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Monmouth County
Allenhurst Borough 912
Asbury Park City 17,015
Atlantic Highlands Borough 4,950
Avon-by-the-Sea Borough 2,337
Belmar Borough 6,771
Bradley Beach Borough 4,772
Deal Borough 1,952
Eatontown Borough 12,703
Fair Haven Borough 5,679
Hazlet Township 23,013
Highlands Borough 5,187
Interlaken Borough 1,037
*1266
Monmouth County
Keansburg Borough 10,613
Keyport Borough 7,413
Little Silver Borough 5,548
Loch Arbour Village 369
Long Branch City 29,819
Manasquan Borough 5,354
Middletown Township 62,574
Monmouth Beach Borough 3,318
Neptune City Borough 5,276
Neptune Township 28,366
Oceanport Borough 5,888
Ocean Township 23,570
Red Bank Borough 12,031
Rumson Borough 7,623
Sea Bright Borough 1,812
Sea Girt Borough 2,650
Shrewsbury Borough 2,962
Shrewsbury Township 995
Spring Lake Borough 4,215
Spring Lake Heights Borough 5,424
South Belmar Borough 1,566
Tinton Falls Borough 7,740
Union Beach Borough 6,354
West Long Branch Borough 7,380
Ocean County
Bay Head Borough 1,340
Brick Township 53,629
Dover Township 64,455
Island Heights Borough 1,575
Lakewood Township 38,464
Lavallette Borough 2,072
Mantoloking Borough 433
Point Pleasant Beach Borough 5,415
Point Pleasant Borough 17,747
Seaside Heights Borough 1,802
South Toms River Borough 3,954
_______
526,074
4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Burlington County
Bordentown City 4,441
Bordentown Township 7,170
Burlington City 10,246
Burlington Township 11,527
Chesterfield Township 3,867
Eastampton Township 3,814
Fieldsboro Borough 597
Florence Township 9,084
Mansfield Township 2,523
Springfield Township 2,691
Westampton Township 3,383
Mercer County
East Windsor Township 21,041
Ewing Township 34,842
Hamilton Township 82,801
Hightstown Borough 4,581
Hopewell Borough 2,001
Hopewell Township 10,893
Mercer County
Lawrence Township 19,724
Pennington Borough 2,109
Trenton City 92,124
Washington Township 3,487
Middlesex County
Jamesburg Borough 4,114
Monroe Township 15,858
Plainsboro Borough 5,605
Monmouth County
Allentown Borough 1,962
Brielle Borough 4,068
Colts Neck Township 7,888
Englishtown Borough 976
Farmingdale Borough 1,348
Freehold Borough 10,020
Freehold Township 19,202
Holmdel Township 8,447
Howell Township 25,065
Manalapan Township 18,914
Marlboro Township 17,560
Millstone Township 3,926
Roosevelt Borough 835
Upper Freehold Township 2,750
Wall Township 18,952
Ocean County
Jackson Township 25,644
_______
526,080
5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bergen County
Allendale Borough 5,901
Alpine Borough 1,549
Bergenfield Borough 25,568
Closter Borough 8,164
Cresskill Borough 7,609
Demarest Borough 4,963
Dumont Borough 18,334
Emerson Borough 7,793
Glen Rock Borough 11,497
Harrington Park Borough 4,532
Haworth Borough 3,509
Hillsdale Borough 10,495
Hohokus Borough 4,129
Mahwah Township 12,127
Midland Park Borough 7,381
Montvale Borough 7,318
Northvale Borough 5,046
Norwood Borough 4,413
Oakland Borough 13,443
Old Tappan Borough 4,168
Oradell Borough 8,658
Paramus Borough 26,474
Park Ridge Borough 8,515
Ramsey Borough 12,899
*1267
Bergen County
Ridgewood Village 25,208
Rivervale Township 9,489
Rochelle Park Township 5,603
Rockleigh Borough 192
Saddle River Borough 2,763
Tenafly Borough 13,552
Upper Saddle River Borough 7,958
Waldwick Borough 10,802
Washington Township 9,550
Westwood Borough 10,714
Woodcliff Lake Borough 5,644
Wyckoff Borough 15,500
Passaic County
Bloomingdale Borough 7,867
Haledon Borough 6,607
Hawthorne Borough 18,200
North Haledon Borough 8,177
Ringwood Borough 12,625
Wanague Borough 10,025
West Milford Township 22,750
Sussex County
Andover Borough 892
Andover Township 4,506
Branchville Borough 870
Frankford Township 4,654
Franklin Borough 4,486
Fredon Township 2,281
Hamburg Borough 1,832
Hardyston Township 4,553
Hopatcong Borough 15,531
Lafayette Township 1,614
Montague Township 2,066
Newton Town 7,748
Ogdensburg Borough 2,737
Sandyston Township 1,485
Sparta Township 13,333
Stanhope Borough 3,638
Sussex Borough 2,418
Vernon Township 16,302
Walpack Township 150
Wantage Township 7,268
_______
526,075
6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Middlesex County
Carteret Borough 20,598
Edison Township 70,193
Highland Park Borough 13,396
Metuchen Borough 13,762
New Brunswick City 41,442
North Brunswick Township 22,220
Old Bridge Township 51,515
Perth Amboy City 38,951
Sayreville Borough 29,969
South Amboy 8,322
South River Borough 14,361
Woodbridge Township 90,074
Monmouth County
Aberdeen Township 17,235
Matawan Borough 8,837
Union County
Linden City 37,836
Rahway City 26,723
Roselle Borough 20,641
_______
526,075
7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Essex County
Millburn Township 19,543
Middlesex County
Dunellen Borough 6,593
Middlesex Borough 13,480
Somerset County
Bound Brook Borough 9,710
Bridgewater Township 29,175
Green Brook Township 4,640
Manville Borough 11,278
North Plainfield Borough 19,108
Warren Township 9,805
Watchung Borough 5,290
Union County
Berkley Heights Township 12,549
Clark Township 16,699
Cranford Township 24,573
Elizabeth City 106,201
Fanwood Borough 7,767
Garwood Borough 4,752
Kenilworth Borough 8,221
Mountainside Borough 7,118
New Providence Borough 12,426
Plainfield City 45,555
Roselle Park Borough 13,377
Scotch Plains Township 20,774
Springfield Township 13,955
Summit City 21,071
Union Township 50,184
Westfield Town 30,447
Winfield Township 1,785
_______
526,076
8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bergen County
Franklin Lakes Borough 8,769
*1268
Essex County
Belleville Town (part)
Ward # 1District # 2 1,146
Ward # 1District # 3 1,112
Ward # 1District # 6 926
Ward # 1District # 7 976
Ward # 1District # 8 2,453
Ward # 1District # 9 1,413
Ward # 1District # 10 2,547
Ward # 1District # 11 2,000
Ward # 1District # 12 1,349
Ward # 2 16,566
Bloomfield Town 47,792
Glen Ridge Borough 7,855
Montclair Town 38,321
Nutley Town 28,998
Morris County
Riverdale Borough 2,530
Passaic County
Clifton City 74,388
Little Falls Township 11,496
Passaic City 52,463
Paterson City 137,970
Pompton Lakes Borough 10,660
Prospect Park Borough 5,142
Totowa Borough 11,448
Wayne Township 46,474
West Paterson Borough 11,293
_______
526,087
9TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bergen County
Bogota Borough 8,344
Carlstadt Borough 6,166
Cliffside Park Borough 21,464
East Rutherford Borough 7,849
Edgewater Borough 4,628
Elmwood Park Borough 18,377
Englewood City 23,701
Englewood Cliffs Borough 5,698
Fair Lawn Borough 32,229
Fairview Borough 10,519
Fort Lee Borough 32,449
Garfield City 26,803
Hackensack City 36,039
Hasbrouck Heights Borough 12,166
Leonia Borough 8,027
Little Ferry Borough 9,399
Lodi Borough 23,956
Lyndhurst Township 20,326
Maywood Borough 9,895
Moonachie Borough 2,706
New Milford Borough 16,876
North Arlington Borough 16,587
Palisades Park Borough 13,732
Ridgefield Borough 10,294
Bergen County
Ridgefield Park Village 12,738
River Edge Borough 11,111
Rutherford Borough 19,068
Saddle Brook Township 14,084
South Hackensack Township 2,229
Teaneck Township 39,007
Teterboro Borough 19
Wallington Borough 10,741
Wood-Ridge Borough 7,929
Hudson County
East Newark Borough 1,923
Kearny Town (part)
Ward # 1District # 1 962
Ward # 1District # 2 1,109
Ward # 1District # 6 1,019
Ward # 3 8,578
Ward # 4District # 5 836
Ward # 4District # 6 1,281
Ward # 4District # 7 1,483
Secaucus Town 13,719
_______
526,066
10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Essex County
Belleville Town (part)
Ward # 1District # 1 1,414
Ward # 1District # 4 1,550
Ward # 1District # 5 1,915
East Orange City 77,878
Irvington Town 61,493
Newark City 329,248
Orange City 31,136
Union County
Hillside Township 21,440
_______
526,074
11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Essex County
Caldwell Borough 7,624
Cedar Grove Township 12,600
Essex Fells Borough 2,363
Fairfield Borough 7,987
Livingston Township 28,040
Maplewood Township 22,950
North Caldwell Borough 5,832
Roseland Borough 5,330
South Orange Village Township 15,864
Verona Borough 14,166
West Caldwell Borough 11,407
West Orange Town 39,510
*1269
Morris County
Boonton Town 8,620
Boonton Township 3,273
Butler Borough 7,616
Chatham Borough 8,537
Chester Borough 1,433
Chester Township 5,198
Denville Township 14,380
Dover Town 14,681
East Hanover Township 9,319
Florham Park Borough 9,359
Hanover Township 11,846
Jefferson Township 16,413
Kinnelon Borough 7,770
Lincoln Park Borough 8,806
Madison Borough 15,357
Mendham Borough 4,899
Mendham Township 4,488
Mine Hill Township 3,325
Montville Township 14,290
Mountain Lakes Borough 4,153
Mount Arlington Borough 4,251
Mount Olive Township 18,748
Netcong Borough 3,557
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township 49,868
Pequannock Township 13,776
Randolph Township 17,828
Rockaway Borough 6,852
Rockaway Township 19,850
Roxbury Township 18,878
Victory Gardens Borough 1,043
Wharton Borough 5,485
Sussex County
Byram Township 7,502
Green Township 2,450
Warren County
Allamuchy Township 2,560
Frelinghuysen Township 1,435
Independence Township 2,829
Liberty Township 1,730
_______
526,078
12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Hunterdon County
All 87,361
Mercer County
Princeton Borough 12,035
Princeton Township 13,683
West Windsor Township 8,542
Middlesex County
Cranbury Township 1,927
East Brunswick Township 37,711
Helmetta Borough 955
Milltown Borough 7,136
Piscataway Township 42,223
South Brunswick Township 17,127
South Plainfield Township 20,521
Spotswood Borough 7,840
Morris County
Chatham Township 8,883
Harding Township 3,236
Morris Township 18,486
Morris Plains Borough 5,305
Morristown Town 16,614
Passaic Township 7,275
Washington Township 11,402
Somerset County
Bedminster Township 2,469
Bernards Township 12,920
Bernardsville Borough 6,715
Branchburg Township 7,846
Far Hills Borough 677
Franklin Township 31,358
Hillsborough Township 19,061
Millstone Borough 530
Montgomery Township 7,360
Peapack Gladstone Borough 2,038
Raritan Borough 6,128
Rocky Hill Borough 717
Somerville Borough 11,973
South Bound Brook Borough 4,331
Sussex County
Hampton Township 3,916
Stillwater Township 3,887
Warren County
Alpha Borough 2,644
Belvidere Town 2,475
Blairstown Township 4,360
Franklin Township 2,341
Greenwich Township 1,738
Hackettstown Town 8,850
Hardwick Township 947
Harmony Township 2,592
Hope Township 1,468
Knowlton Township 2,074
Lopatcong Township 4,998
Mansfield Township 5,780
Oxford Township 1,659
Pahaquarry Township 26
Phillipsburg Town 16,647
Pohatcong Township 3,856
Washington Borough 6,429
*1270
Warren County
Washington Township 4,243
White Township 2,748
_______
526,063
13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Burlington County
Bass River Township 1,344
Beverly City 2,919
Cinnaminson Township 16,072
Delanco Township 3,730
Delran Township 14,811
Edgewater Park Township 9,273
Evesham Township 21,508
Hainesport Township 3,236
Lumberton Township 5,236
Medford Lakes Borough 4,958
Medford Township 17,622
Moorestown Township 15,596
Mount Holly Township 10,818
Mount Laurel Township 17,614
New Hanover Township 14,258
North Hanover Township 9,050
Pemberton Borough 1,198
Pemberton Township 29,720
Riverside Township 7,941
Shamong Township 4,537
Southampton Township 8,808
Tabernacle Township 6,236
Washington Township 808
Willingboro Township 39,912
Woodland Township 2,285
Wrightstown Borough 3,031
Camden County
Audubon Borough 9,533
Cherry Hill Township 68,785
Haddonfield Borough 12,337
Haddon Heights Borough 8,361
Merchantville Borough 3,972
Voorhees Township 12,919
Waterford Township 8,126
Ocean County
Barnegat Township 8,702
Barnegat Light Borough 619
Beach Haven Borough 1,714
Beachwood Borough 7,687
Berkeley Township 23,151
Eagleswood Township 1,009
Harvey Cedars Borough 363
Lacey Township 14,161
Lakehurst Borough 2,908
Little Egg Harbor Township 8,483
Long Beach Township 3,488
Manchester Township 27,987
Ocean Gate Borough 1,385
Ocean Township 3,731
Pine Beach Borough 1,796
Plumsted Township 4,674
Seaside Park Borough 1,795
Ship Bottom Borough 1,427
Stafford Township 10,385
Surf City Borough 1,571
Tuckerton Borough 2,472
_______
526,062
14TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Hudson County
Bayonne City 65,047
Guttenberg Town 7,340
Harrison Town 12,242
Hoboken City 42,460
Jersey City 223,532
Kearny Town (part)
Ward # 1District # 3 1,045
Ward # 1District # 4 1,245
Ward # 1District # 5 1,103
Ward # 2 10,506
Ward # 4District # 1 1,174
Ward # 4District # 2 1,673
Ward # 4District # 3 846
Ward # 4District # 4 1,323
Ward # 4District # 8 1,552
North Bergen Township 47,019
Union City 55,593
Weehawken Township 13,168
West New York Town 39,194
_______
526,062
NOTES
[1] Karcher v. Daggett, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 2653, 77 L. Ed. 2d 133 (1983), aff'g Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F. Supp. 978 (D.N.J.1982).
[2] Karcher v. Daggett, 455 U.S. 1303, 102 S. Ct. 1298, 71 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers).
[3] We are advised that Congressman Courter, a plaintiff in No. 82-388, has terminated the authority of the firm of Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein & Siegal to act on his behalf, and that he disapproves of the submission of the plan in question.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
