Opinion · District Court, D. New Jersey
Daggett v. Kimmelman
Daggett v. Kimmelman, 580 F. Supp. 1259 (District Court, D. New Jersey 1984)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court, D. New Jersey
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1984-03-05
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- the Senate Plan had districts that were “virtually identical” to the districts included in the Feldman Plan
- districts in another plan were “considerably more compact than those in the Feldman Plan, and thus also more compact than those in [the] Senate [Plan]”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Daggett v. Kimmelman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 11 opinions
DAGGETT v. KIMMELMAN, (D.N.J. 1984)
580 F. Supp. 1259
George T. DAGGETT, Plaintiff, 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.
Civ. A. Nos. 82-297, 82-388.
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
February 17, 1984.
As Amended March 5, 1984.
West Page 1260
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.
OPINION
Before GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, FISHER, Chief Judge, and BROTMAN, District Judge.
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, inDavid v. Cahill,342 F. Supp. 463(D.N.J. 1972). We note in passing that although the decree inDavid v. Cahilldid 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(quotingKirkpatrick 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 inKarcher 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 toinhibitgerry-mandering, so long as a good-faith effort is made to achieve population equality as well."Id.at ___ n. 6,103 S.Ct. at 2660n. 6 (emphasis supplied).
WhileKarcher v. Daggettconsiders 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,West Page 1262and 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 underDavidv. 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 inWhite 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 inWhite v. WeiserWest Page 1263among 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. Weiserteaches 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 decidedKarcher 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 redistrictingWest Page 1264plans 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 them3have 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 aWest Page 1265court 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 1,037West Page 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 12,899West Page 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 8,769West Page 1268
Essex County
Belleville Town (part) Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,146 Ward # 1 — District # 3 1,112 Ward # 1 — District # 6 926 Ward # 1 — District # 7 976 Ward # 1 — District # 8 2,453 Ward # 1 — District # 9 1,413 Ward # 1 — District # 10 2,547 Ward # 1 — District # 11 2,000 Ward # 1 — District # 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 # 1 — District # 1 962 Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,109 Ward # 1 — District # 6 1,019 Ward # 3 8,578 Ward # 4 — District # 5 836 Ward # 4 — District # 6 1,281 Ward # 4 — District # 7 1,483 Secaucus Town 13,719 ------- 526,066
10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Essex County
Belleville Town (part) Ward # 1 — District # 1 1,414 Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,550 Ward # 1 — District # 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 39,510West Page 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 6,429West Page 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
Ocean County
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 # 1 — District # 3 1,045 Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,245 Ward # 1 — District # 5 1,103 Ward # 2 10,506 Ward # 4 — District # 1 1,174 Ward # 4 — District # 2 1,673 Ward # 4 — District # 3 846 Ward # 4 — District # 4 1,323 Ward # 4 — District # 8 1,552 North Bergen Township 47,019 Union City 55,593 Weehawken Township 13,168 West New York Town 39,194 ------- 526,062West Page 1276
- 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). ↩
- Karcher v. Daggett,455 U.S. 1303,102 S.Ct. 1298,71 L.Ed.2d 635(1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers). ↩
- 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. ↩