|Not a single expert witness or group testified in favor of SCR-43 during a Nov. 26, 2018 committee hearing on the constitutional amendment, which would make cataclysmic changes to New Jersey ‘s legislative redistricting process.
The constitutional amendment, as proposed by New Jersey Democrats, has been widely characterized as a political scheme designed to cement a permanent Democratic majority, disenfranchising millions of New Jersey voters in the process.
The following is a roundup of statements made by nonpartisan election experts, academics, journalists, elected officials, and representatives from variety of organization spanning the political spectrum, who have opposed the legislation since news of the amendment came to light shortly before Thanksgiving.
Here’s what they’re saying…
“I’m a proud Democrat, but I’m also a believer in democracy and opening up democracy and transparency and good processes of government in getting to the right solutions. And I don’t think this meets those tests,” Governor Phil Murphy (NJ.com, Nov. 26, 2018)
“This has been a classic throw something out in the proverbial backrooms. It’s completely unacceptable,”Governor Phil Murphy (Insider NJ, Nov. 27, 2018)
“This is undemocratic. Voters should be choosing their politicians — not the other way around.” – Helen Kioukis, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey (Nov. 26, 2018)
“Such a map would create an artificial, evenly-distributed advantage for the majority party. This would drastically reduce the number of seats for the minority party in a way most New Jerseyans would consider to be unfair,” Brian Williams, Princeton University Gerrymandering Project (Nov. 26, 2018)
“By focusing on partisanship and treating communities of interest, and communities of color in particular, as an afterthought, the proposed constitutional amendment is an unacceptable step backwards for New Jersey. We will not go back. Passage of this proposal will virtually ensure the voting power of communities of color will be diluted for decades to come. We successfully opposed this ill-conceived measure before, and we are doing so again today,” Richard Smith, the New Jersey Chapter of the NAACP. (Joint Statement, Nov. 27, 2018)
“It is at best an unproved assumption, and at worst a mistaken one, that voters always vote for the same party’s candidate whether for President or for State Assemblyman. Especially in New Jersey, where state legislative elections are not held in the same year as federal elections, uncritically imposing the results of one election on the process for an entirely different election is ‘mixing apples and oranges.’ As a general matter, requiring that districts be drawn on order to favor one political party, or even both major political parties, is contrary to sound redistricting practice, and enables partisan gerrymandering.” – Ronald K. Chen, Center for Law and Justice (Letter to Sen. Paul Sarlo, Nov. 23, 2018)
“SCR43 would constitutionalize a redistricting process for New Jersey that elevates partisanship over people, and prioritizes ‘competition’ over protecting the ability of communities of color to elect their candidates of choice. We cannot support this proposal. And we urge everyone who cares about the protection of our democracy’s ability to put people first—not partisanship—to join us in opposing SCR43.” – Ryan P. Haygood, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice Institute (Joint Statement, Nov. 27, 2018)
“Attempting to mandate political outcomes is not the best way to reform redistricting—and, in fact, could open the door to gerrymandering.” Yurij Rudensky, Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law (Joint Statement, Nov. 27, 2018)
“It is very difficult to see this as anything but a naked power grab by Democrats.” – David Pringle, Clean Water Action (Nov. 26, 2018)
“This is not what Democracy is supposed to look like. The process is fatally flawed.. This doesn’t help create faith in government; it creates more distrust.” David Pringle, Clean Water Action (Nov. 26, 2018)
“Promoting competition shouldn’t start with a virtual guarantee that 75 percent of the districts will be noncompetitive,” Asbury Park Press Editorial Board (Nov. 25, 2018)
“The way most people use the word “competitive” — if they are at all conversant in conversational English — and the way the sponsors of the proposed changes define the word “competitive” are worlds apart. Heck, they aren’t even in the same dictionary. […] They know you wouldn’t vote for the type of system they want if they described it honestly.” Patrick Murray, Monmouth University Polling Institute, as published in his Nov. 25 NJ.com op-ed, “Top N.J. pollster: Beware, Dems want you to vote for their redistricting scheme.”
“The constitutional amendment is worded in such a way as to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. This is Democrats being overly greedy for no good reason. It’s almost certain that they will do well with the next map and there are less egregious ways to prioritize the fairness metric. This just further erodes public trust in government for little actual gain.” – Patrick Murray, Monmouth University Polling Institute Director (Politico, Nov. 19, 2018)
Recently in the News…
11/27/2018 on NJ.com: “After the legal weed drama came a classic Jersey power fight featuring, yes, backroom deals”
11/27/2018 in Politico NJ Playbook:
11/27/2018 on NJ Spotlight: “DEMOCRATS PUSH CONTROVERSIAL REDISTRICTING OVERHAUL, CRITICS PUSH BACK”
11/26/2018 on NJ.com: “N.J. Democrats have all kinds of power these days. This new plan of theirs could give them more.”
(Visited 140 times, 1 visits today)