Tuesday, March 06, 2012
The New Jersey Constitution Prevails in the Fourth Legislative District Election Contest
The New Jersey Constitution provides a one year durational residency requirement for membership in the New Jersey Assembly. For ten years, the entire New Jersey political establishment operated on the understanding that this provision of the New Jersey Constitution itself violated the United States Constitution. That all changed when the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the provision was valid and enforceable. This decision will make the next legislative reapportionment process even more tense than it already is.
The decennial legislative reapportionment process in New Jersey is blood sport. The outcome of the process determines for the most part which party will control the New Jersey legislature for the succeeding decade. The political parties jockey for position both in the press and within the process itself. In addition to control of the legislature, the reapportionment process determines the political fate of a handful of state legislators.
Many times when the boundaries of the legislative districts move, that movement displaces a sitting legislator. That is, the town of residence “moves” into a new legislative district. In 2011, this fate befell several legislators. The displacement causes problems for the legislator in question, and perhaps those around him/her. The displacement could place the legislator in a district that contained other legislators of his or her own party, or it might land that legislator in a district that he or she has not chance of winning.
Displaced legislators all believed that they had at least three options: (1) move to another town and run in the more agreeable district; (2) remain in their home and run in the new district; or (3) retire.
The entire New Jersey political establishment believed that option number one above existed despite the fact that it flies in the face of the New Jersey Constitution. Article IV, section 1, paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution mandates a one-year durational residency requirement for members of the New Jersey Assembly. As with many aspects of New Jersey law, it was more complicated than the plain language of the constitution. In Robertson v. Bartels, 150 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2001), the United States District Court fond that the durational residency requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and enjoined the New Jersey Attorney General from enforcing it.
As such, in 2011, at least two displaced legislators relied on the Robinson case, and moved to new municipalities in favorable districts. In addition, a new candidate moved into a district and ran successfully for the office. One of her opponents challenged her election in court, arguing that the New Jersey Constitution barred her from serving.
The case found its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court is the final arbitor of the interpretation of the New Jersey Constitution. It is not bound by the decisions of a federal trial court like the one in Roberston. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the durational residency requirement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and disqualified the incumbent. (Note: The incumbent later took office as the interim successor because she later satisfied the durational residency requirement.)
The importance of this decision is not so much in this past years’s displaced legislators, but in those that may be displaced in 2021. Those future displaced legislators will be in a more difficult position because one of their options no longer exists.