Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission

This case centers on whether the redistricting maps for Jersey City Council Wards complies with the Municipal Ward Law and the Free Speech, Free Association, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

This case centers on whether the redistricting maps for Jersey City Council Wards comply with the Municipal Ward Law and the Free Speech, Free Association, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that the maps were unlawfully and unconstitutionally drawn in a way to favor incumbents to the disadvantage of a newly-elected independent City Councilman. The Ward Commission accomplished this, plaintiffs allege, by splitting “communities of interest,” i.e., historic neighborhoods with geographical boundaries, where the residents (in this case largely Black), shared common needs. The map that was drawn looked like a salamander, snaking through neighborhoods and crossing natural boundaries, and was not “compact.” “Compactness,” when used in redistricting means that the district should be drawn in as tight a configuration as makes sense. Nationwide, compactness is proved or disproved by the use of experts who apply accepted metrics, calculating the compactness of the newly-drawn district. Here, the Appellate Division dismissed all but one count of the complaint, and on the last, ordered that the lower court not only expert testimony on the issue of compactness. The ACLU filed an amicus brief focusing on the importance of compactness in determining whether there was an improper gerrymander and the importance of expert testimony on the issue.