The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the City of Jersey City in a longstanding case challenging the Board of Ward Commissioners approval of a new map in January 2022.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
The 65-page decision, which comes over six months after the state’s highest court heard oral arguments in the case, disagrees with the appellate court’s March 2024 ruling that additional fact finding was needed to determine if compactness requirements were met.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled 4-3, determining that Municipal Ward Law (MLW) was followed and the New Jersey Constitution was not violated in any way by the ward commissioners.
“The Commission’s map represents a proper exercise of the substantial
discretion the MWL grants to ward commissions to set the boundaries of municipal
wards. The Court does not concur with the Appellate Division’s ruling that
additional fact finding is necessary to determine whether the Commission’s map
meets N.J.S.A. 40:44-14’s compactness requirement,” the Supreme Court ruled.
“The Court reverses the Appellate Division’s judgment on that claim and reinstates the trial court’s judgment as to the Commission’s compliance with the MWL without further proceedings. The Court’s conclusion that the Commission complied with the MWL compels rejection of the equal protection claim.”
Two lawsuits challenged the maps, one filed by James Calderon and another by a wide coalition of city residents known as Jersey City United against the New Ward Map, which includes Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore (the latter filed in March 2022).
The appellate court then heard arguments from both the plaintiffs and defendants in the case back in November and it was unclear if or when they would hear on the case until it appeared on the court’s upcoming docket in March 2024.
They ultimately reinstated the case on a single count, indicating that further hearings should be held on whether or not MWL was violated.
The Supreme Court’s opinion was delivered by Justice Anne M. Patterson, with Justice Rachel Wainer Apter providing an opinion that dissented in part.
” … If a ward commission draws a new ward map that is substantially less compact than the previous map, that change could suggest that the commission did not adequately consider compactness or inappropriately subordinated it to extra-statutory considerations,” she wrote.
“If the commission could not explain how a substantial decline in compactness was
necessary to meet other MWL requirements, it would be obligated to redraw the ward boundaries to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement.”
Therefore, she agreed with the appellate court’s decision that the MWL claim should not have been dismissed, though she felt the scope of the remand should have been expanded.
In a joint statement, counsel for the plaintiffs, Renee Steinhagen of NJ Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, Yael Bromberg of Bromberg Law, and Bill Matsikoudis of Matsikoudis & Fanciullo, said the decision “allowed a gerrymandered map to stand.”
“In a 4-3 decision, the NJ state Supreme Court today allowed a gerrymandered map to stand in Jersey City, diluting the strength of the Municipal Ward Law, thereby creating new precedence which dilutes the right to fair and effective representation on the local level,” they said.
” … We agree with the three dissenting justices, who comprise the newer members of the Court, that the majority effectively ‘devalued’ the importance of compactness in the drawing of municipal wards, and that this statutory requirement is all the more critical on the local level where neighbors rely on their representatives to advocate for issues of concern in their section of a municipality. It is the very reason that city council wards exist …”
City spokeswoman Kimberly Wallace-Scalcione dismissed the case as political posturing from opponents of Mayor Steven Fulop and the administration.
“Today’s ruling comes as no surprise. It is yet another example in a long string of politically motivated lawsuits and baseless accusations that were aimed at damaging the mayor and this administration,” she said in a statement.
“Time and again, these efforts have been exposed for what they are – both meritless and misleading. For the past 12 years, we have led this city with integrity, transparency, and a commitment to putting residents first. This decision reaffirms that record.”
Transparency in my a**.