Dwi Wanna
In the high-stakes arena of redistricting, the concept of "compactness" is often touted as a primary defense against the corrosive effects of gerrymandering. Across the United States, state and local laws frequently mandate that electoral districts be drawn in a compact fashion to ensure fair representation. Yet, in practice, this requirement has become a "rule without a ruler"—a nebulous legal standard that courts struggle to define, measure, or enforce.
The recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission serves as a poignant case study of this judicial paralysis. While the court upheld the city’s controversial new ward map, it did so by relying on a vague "bizarreness" standard that offers little utility to future litigants or legislators. By shying away from developing a robust, manageable framework, the court missed a critical opportunity to transform a hollow mandate into a functional safeguard for democratic integrity.
A Chronology of the Jersey City Ward Dispute
The controversy began in the shadow of the 2020 decennial census. Under New Jersey’s Municipal Ward Law (MWL), municipalities are legally obligated to ensure that their electoral wards adhere to three core principles: population equality, contiguity, and, crucially, compactness. Following the 2020 data release, it became evident that Jersey City’s existing map was severely malformed, exhibiting a 59% population deviation between wards—a figure that significantly exceeded legal thresholds.
In response, the City of Jersey City Ward Commission initiated a redistricting process to rectify these imbalances. On January 22, 2022, the Commission adopted a new map, which reorganized the city into six distinct wards. However, the plan was met with immediate public skepticism and organized opposition.
A coalition of plaintiffs, including local residents, community advocacy groups, and City Councilperson Frank Gilmore, filed suit. Their challenge was twofold: they argued that the new wards were not sufficiently compact, citing poor scores on established mathematical metrics like the Polsby-Popper and Reock tests, and they contended that the map intentionally fractured long-standing communities of interest. Beyond these statutory claims, the plaintiffs invoked the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA) and alleged violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), as well as claims of political retaliation against Councilperson Gilmore.
The litigation traveled through the state court system, beginning with a dismissal in the Superior Court. The Appellate Division later affirmed the dismissal of most claims but remanded the case for limited fact-finding on the MWL compliance. Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court stepped in, ultimately siding with the Commission and setting a precedent that prioritizes judicial deference over objective measurement.
The Mathematical vs. The Visual: A Disconnect in Evidence
The crux of the legal argument centered on whether "compactness" is a measurable scientific standard or a subjective aesthetic judgment. The plaintiffs argued for the former. By presenting Polsby-Popper and Reock scores—widely accepted tools in political science that quantify the geometric efficiency of a shape—they sought to demonstrate that the new ward boundaries were unnecessarily elongated and irregular.
However, the Commission and the courts largely rejected the relevance of these metrics. In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Patterson affirmed that the MWL does not mandate the use of specific mathematical formulas. Instead, the court doubled down on the "visual inspection" method, holding that a district is only non-compact if it is "bizarrely shaped."
This reliance on "bizarreness" effectively places the burden of proof on the eye of the beholder. The court noted that while "horseshoe" or "shoelace" configurations are clearly unacceptable, the Jersey City wards did not reach that level of visual absurdity. Justice Wainer Apter, in her partial concurrence and dissent, sharply criticized this approach. She argued that by deeming compactness an "elusive concept," the majority had effectively devalued a clear statutory requirement, noting that precedent cited by the majority involved legislative redistricting, which is inherently more complex than municipal ward-drawing.
Implications for Future Litigation
The Jersey City United decision leaves a vacuum where a standard should be. By refusing to define what constitutes a "non-compact" district beyond a handful of extreme examples, the court has provided no guidance for future commissions.
The Problem of Judicial Manageability
In constitutional and statutory law, when a text is inherently ambiguous, courts are generally expected to create "implementing doctrines"—manageable rules that translate abstract requirements into predictable outcomes. Professor Richard Fallon has noted that if the language of a law is not a manageable standard itself, the court bears the responsibility to devise one. By failing to do so, the Jersey City United court has invited future litigation that will likely remain trapped in the same cycle of inconsistency.
The Risk of Subjectivity
The "bizarreness" standard is functionally equivalent to the "I know it when I see it" test. Without a definition, the standard grants courts broad, unconstrained discretion. As scholars have observed regarding the "absurdity doctrine," such open-ended requirements fail to provide the predictability necessary for democratic stability. Furthermore, by dismissing the importance of "communities of interest," the court has stripped citizens of a vital metric for determining whether a map actually serves the people it is meant to represent.
A Path Forward: Proposing Alternatives
The court’s decision was rooted in a traditionalist view of judicial deference—the idea that redistricting is a political process that should remain largely in the hands of legislators. However, as political process theorists like John Hart Ely have argued, judicial intervention is essential when those in power "choke off the channels of political change."
There are two primary ways the court could have implemented a more effective standard without abandoning its deferential posture:
1. The Relative Mathematical Approach
A "Predominance Test," as proposed by Professor Michael McDonald, offers a balanced alternative. Under this model, plaintiffs would submit a hypothetical, maximally compact map that satisfies all legal requirements. The court would then compare the challenged district to the nearest equivalent in that model. If the challenged district is significantly less compact—perhaps by a 50% margin—it could be presumed invalid. This provides a quantitative, predictable baseline that still allows legislatures the flexibility to justify their choices.
2. The Guided Visual Approach
If the court prefers visual analysis, it could move beyond mere "bizarreness." Using statistical models developed by researchers like Aaron Kaufman and Gary King, the court could define non-compactness through objective features: specifically, the presence of "arms, pockets, and jagged edges." A map could be deemed presumptively invalid if it exhibits these features, shifting the burden to the Commission to provide a legitimate, non-political justification for such irregularities.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity
The Jersey City United decision reinforces a troubling status quo. By characterizing compactness as an "elusive concept," the court has essentially excused itself from the duty of oversight. While the desire to remain deferential to the political process is a hallmark of judicial restraint, it should not come at the expense of statutory enforcement.
When a state legislature mandates that electoral districts must be compact, they are making a promise to the voters that their representation will not be diluted by arbitrary lines. By failing to leverage its authority to craft a manageable, predictable test, the New Jersey Supreme Court has left that promise unfulfilled. The "rule without a ruler" remains, and until the judiciary develops a more rigorous standard, the integrity of local representation will continue to depend more on the whims of mapmakers than on the clear, enforceable requirements of the law.
Lina Hope
Neng Nana
