A Republican challenge to the new congressional district map has failed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-0 to side with Democrats and dismiss a GOP lawsuit that asked the court to remand the map to the redistricting commission for further consideration and require the tie-breaker commissioner, former Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, to recuse himself.
The state’s highest court ruled that for all the Republicans’ complaints about the process, the lawsuit did not challenge the map itself as unlawful or unconstitutional.
“Historically, after meeting in private with the respective partisan delegations to discuss their proposals, the independent member serves as the tiebreaker and selects one party’s preferred map,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court. “The outcome commonly garners praise from one party and criticism from the other. This redistricting cycle was no different … This Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is ‘unlawful.’”
Democrats won the redistricting process when Wallace voted with the six Democratic members of the commission, installing a congressional district map that, barring a major wave election, would likely result in a 9-3 Democratic majority in the New Jersey’s House delegation. Democrats currently have a 10-2 majority.
Rabner selected Wallace, whom Democrats recommended as tie-breaker, over the Republicans’ recommendation of former Superior Court Judge Marina Corodemus.
Wallace, a registered Democrat with ties to the South Jersey Democratic machine, shocked observers and upset Republicans when he stated during the commission’s final meeting in December that he voted for the Democrats’ map because Republicans won the congressional redistricting process in 2011.
Republicans said in their lawsuit that Wallace’s rationale was “arbitrary and capricious.” They also accused Wallace of a conflict of interest because his wife in 2020 made a $250 donation to an interested party: Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.).
The court asked Wallace to elaborate further on his reasons for selecting the Democrats’ map, which he did last month. But Rabner wrote that the court did not rely on the statement in the decision it rendered on Thursday.
“The Constitution does not bar the selection of a person who has contributed to a political campaign or a partisan political group, or whose spouse has done so, as the independent member,” Rabner wrote. “We therefore find no disqualifying conflict.”
Rabner held that the redistricting process is a “political process” and that “it is not the Court’s task to decide whether one map is fairer or better than another” so long as the chosen map is not illegal or unconstitutional.
“Questions of partisanship or the appearance of partisanship can affect the public’s confidence, yet our current system is designed to be overseen by twelve partisan members and a thirteenth member whom the party delegations propose,” Rabner wrote.
But, Rabner added, “there are other ways to conduct the redistricting process.” He noted that several states have redistricting commissions that are structured in an effort to limit partisanship.
If New Jersey wants a new system, the Legislature would have to pass a ballot question to amend the state constitution. Voter would then have to approve the ballot question ahead of the next redistricting process in 10 years.
“To change the system and distance it from partisan politics would require a proposed constitutional amendment and voter approval,” Rabner wrote. “Those decisions can begin with grassroots efforts … or the political branches of government. In the end, the choice is left to the people of our State.”
Two justices, Faustino Fernandez-Vina and Fabiana Pierre-Louis, did not participate in the ruling.
While the Supreme Court decision ends Republican efforts to overturn the map at the state level, it’s not yet clear if they will pursue a federal court challenge, as GOP lawyers indicated they might when they first filed the lawsuit.
In a statement, Janice Fuller, who chaired the Democrats’ redistricting team, called the lawsuit “absolutely meritless” and said it “amounted to nothing more than political theater intended to play to their radical base, not any genuine concern about fairness or voting rights.”
