Daggett v. Kimmelman

¶1 OPINION

¶2 Before GIBBONS, Circuit Judge, FISHER, Chief Judge, and BROTMAN, District Judge.

¶3 These consolidated cases are before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which on June 22, 1983 affirmed this court’s holding that P.L.1982, c. 1 (codified at N.J.Stat. Ann. § 19:46-5 (West Supp. 1983-84) (hereinafter Feldman Plan)), creating districts for the election of Members of the House of Representatives from New Jersey, is unconstitutional, and enjoining the defendant state officers from conducting primary or general congressional elections under its terms. 1 This court’s prior order fixed March 22, 1982 as the date for enactment by-New Jersey of a new constitutional congressional redistricting plan, and provided that if no such plan was enacted by that date the court would convene to undertake further proceedings. Because the Supreme Court, on March 15, 1982, issued a stay of this court’s injunction, 2 the 1982 congressional election took place under the Feld-man Plan. The Supreme Court’s affirmance of this court’s order, however, restored the injunction. On December 19, 1983, this court fixed February 3, 1984 as the date by which New Jersey could enact a constitutional congressional redistricting plan, and February 7, 1984 as the date of a hearing on further proceedings if no such plan was enacted.

¶4*1261 On January 5, 1984 the New Jersey Legislature adopted Senate Bill 3564, but that bill was vetoed by Governor Thomas H. Kean, and had insufficient support for reenactment over his veto. Since no legislation was adopted in the time permitted by this court’s December 19, 1983 order, we convened on February 7, 1984 and held a hearing on further relief.

¶5 At that hearing six separate redistricting proposals were advanced by various parties. No party urged that the next New Jersey congressional election be held on an at-large basis without districts. Instead, the parties unanimously urged that the court select the plan, among those admitted in evidence, which satisfied the constitutional standards for congressional districts, while most nearly satisfying non-constitutional criteria for fair districting. Thus the parties urged that the court should adopt a remedy similar to that adopted, following the 1970 decennial census, in David v. Cahill, 342 F.Supp. 463 (D.N.J.1972). We note in passing that although the decree in David v. Cahill did not so require, the redistricting plan which it adopted was utilized for New Jersey congressional elections until the 1980 decennial census rendered it obsolete.

¶6 The population of New Jersey in the 1980 decennial census, as most recently corrected by the Bureau of Census, is 7,365,011. New Jersey is entitled to representation in the House of Representatives by fourteen Representatives; one less than under the 1970 decennial census. Thus the ideal congressional district would have a population of 526,072.

¶7 Article I, § 2, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, permits only such limited population variances from the standard of equal district population as “are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.” Karcher v. Daggett, — U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 2658 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 531, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 1229, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969)). Moreover, a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality is not established by producing a redistricting plan with a maximum population deviation “smaller than the predictable undercount in available census data.” Karcher v. Daggett, — U.S. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 2658, 2662. Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F.Supp. at 983, 985 (Gibbons, J., dissenting). Once it has been established that a redistricting plan “was not the product of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality,” the burden shifts “to the State to prove that the population deviations in its plan were necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective.” Karcher v. Daggett, — U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 2663. Among the policies which may justify some variance are “making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives.” Id. In the pri- or decision of this court we found that the State had failed to carry its burden of justification with respect to the Feldman Plan, and the Supreme Court affirmed that finding as not clearly erroneous. Id. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 2665. Finally, the opinion of the court in Karcher v. Daggett, while declining to rely, as a constitutional violation, on the obviously partisan purposes behind the Feldman Plan, recognizes that “[a] federal principle of population equality does not prevent any State from taking steps to inhibit gerry-mandering, so long as a good-faith effort is made to achieve population equality as well.” Id. at-n. 6,103 S.Ct. at 2660 n. 6 (emphasis supplied).

¶8 While Karcher v. Daggett considers what interests may be taken into account by state legislatures in justifying deviations from the ideal of district population equality based on the decennial census, it also provides useful instruction to district courts faced, as we are, with selecting a districting plan because of a failure in the legislative process. We may take into account at least those factors which the Court has recognized as legitimate, namely: making districts compact, preserving municipal boundaries, preserving cores of pri- or districts, avoiding contests between in *1262 cumbents, and inhibiting gerrymandering. With those factors in mind we turn to the several plans which have been proposed.

¶9 A. The Haverly Plan

¶10 Taxpayers Political Action Committee, an intervenor, proposed Exhibit IM1(a), a plan, and exhibit IM-l(b), a district map, produced at its request by C.A. Haverly, an expert in applied mathematics and computer science. Haverly’s plan, according to his report, was designed with the objective of keeping the maximum population deviation of any district at less than + /- 1%, preserving municipal boundaries, maximizing compactness and contiguity, avoiding county fragmentation, and preserving population stability from old to new districts. The Haverly plan, while reasonably attractive in other respects, proposes a population variation between the largest and smallest districts of 1.82%. An alternative version proposes a population variation of .85%. This variation between the largest and smallest districts is larger than any which would occur in the plans proposed by other parties. Since we must make a good-faith effort to maximize population equality, we decline to adopt Exhibit IM-l(a) as a remedy.

¶11 B. Senate Bill 3564

¶12 The Democratic Congressmen, interve-nors, urge that the court adopt as a remedy the plan embodied in Senate Bill 3564 which passed the New Jersey Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Kean. That plan, Exhibit IF-2(c), is reflected in the map, Exhibit D-6. A comparison of Exhibit D-6 with the map of the New Jersey congressional districts resulting from the Feldman Plan reveals that the districts are virtually identical. Some slight changes have been made, by moving municipalities among districts, so as to achieve a low district population of 526,020, and a high of 526,087, or a maximum variation of 67 persons and an absolute mean deviation of 11.50 persons. This plan produces a relative overall range of .01273%, and a relative mean deviation of .00218%.

¶13 We need not consider how Exhibit IF-2(c) would have fared had it been validly enacted by the State of New Jersey. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, — U.S. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 2667-78 (Stevens, J., concurring) with id. — U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 2687-90 (Powell, J., dissenting). Senate Bill 3564 is proposed to us as a remedy. As such it does not meet the criteria which we consider relevant to the exercise of our discretion in devising a remedy. First, it does not achieve as small an overall or mean deviation as other plans which are in evidence. While it does succeed in preserving municipal boundaries, the population variances it would maintain are not maintained for that purpose, but rather for the purpose of preserving, as nearly as possible, the districts erected in the Feldman Plan. While Exhibit IF-2(c) preserves the cores of the districts established in the Feldman Plan, those districts are unconstitutional. The plan in Exhibit IF-2(c) has little if any relationship to the cores of districts established under David v. Cahill, and even less relationship to the cores of the last valid New Jersey congressional reapportionment enactment. Exhibit IF-2(c) avoids contests between incumbents. These contests are avoided, however, only because some incumbents moved in 1982 or ran outside their home district, thereby managing to win elections from unconstitutional districts. The most glaring defects in the Feldman Plan, however, are carried forward in Exhibit IF-2(c). These are an obvious absence of compactness, and an intentional gerrymander in favor of certain Democratic Representatives.

¶14 The Democratic Congressmen interven-ors urge that we must, as a matter of law, adopt Exhibit IF-2(c) as a remedy. Their legal position in this regard is predicated on certain language in White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973), which is said to require that result. In that case the Supreme Court held that a district court should, in choosing among remedial plans, choose the plan which most closely approximates that selected by a state legislature. Id. at 795, 93 S.Ct. at 2354. The policy dispute in White v. Weis *1263 er among the competing plans was over the district court’s rejection of a state policy of avoiding contests among incumbents. The Feldman Plan did not implement such a policy; quite the opposite. It was designed to produce contests among certain Republican incumbents. Moreover, White v. Weiser teaches that “the District Court should defer to state policy in fashioning relief only where that policy is consistent with constitutional norms and is not itself vulnerable to legal challenge.” 412 U.S. at 797, 93 S.Ct. at 2355. The State policy embodied in the Feldman Plan was to deviate from the norm of population equality for the patently discernible purpose of partisan advantage. That policy was not merely vulnerable to legal challenge; the challenge succeeded. We owe no deference to an unconstitutional state statute.

¶15 The proponents of the plan in Exhibit IF-2(c) urge that in fact the Feldman Plan was not a partisan gerrymander, but only a neutral effort by the legislature and the former Governor to provide for congressional representation roughly equivalent to the voting strength of the Democratic and Republican parties in the state. In support of that contention, they have produced computer generated analyses of the results, in each of the districts proposed in Exhibit IF-2(e), of several statewide elections. The inference they would have us draw from these analyses is that the districts established by the Feldman Plan were in fact non-partisan.

¶16 For several reasons we decline the invitation to endorse as a remedy the basic districts set forth in the Feldman Plan. First, the present effort to justify those districts as non-partisan is a thinly veiled effort to relitigate the liability stage of this lawsuit after an affirmance by the Supreme Court of the holding that the Feldman Plan is unconstitutional. We have grave doubt whether, consistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment, this court is free to permit such relitigation. Assuming we were free to consider the evidence of hypothetical results, in each district, of elections other than those for Congress, we would not find that evidence of any real relevance. While it is true that congressional elections are frequently affected by the same issues that influence the outcome of presidential and senatorial contests, the patent reality is that they are strongly influenced by the more direct relationship of a Representative with the voters in his own district. Thus the fact that a district may have voted in favor of a senatorial or presidential candidate of one party is hardly a strong predictor of the outcome of a congressional race. The case of a gubernatorial election, which may turn on statewide rather than national or district issues, is even less relevant.

¶17 A final contention advanced in favor of Exhibit IF-2(c) is that in the election held under the Feldman Plan all Republican incumbents save one survived the election. With the benefit of such hindsight we are asked to adhere as closely as possible to the districts established in the 1982 legislation. The Supreme Court, however, had the benefit of the same hindsight when, on June 22, 1983, it decided Karcher v. Dag-gett. The Court undoubtedly was as aware as we are of the unique set of circumstances surrounding that election, such as Representative Fenwick’s race for the Senate, which permitted Congressman Courier to run unopposed in the district to which he moved, and Congressman Rinaldo’s decision to run outside his home district, which produced results unexpected by those responsible for enacting the Feldman Plan. That statute’s unconstitutionally cannot be disregarded merely because its intended partisan results were not fully realized.

¶18 Thus we conclude that Exhibit IF-2(c), embodying the provisions of Senate Bill 3564, is not an appropriate remedy for the unconstitutionally of the Feldman Plan. For the same reasons, we conclude that a modification of that plan, which would shift one census block from the proposed eleventh to the proposed tenth district, thereby reducing the variation from 67 to 42 persons, is also an inappropriate remedy.

¶19 C. The Hagedorn and Zimmer Plans

¶20 The executive branch defendants propose for our consideration two redistricting *1264 plans which were introduced, but not enacted, in the New Jersey Legislature. The first, introduced by Senator Hagedorn as Senate Bill 1111, is reflected in the district map Exhibit D7. The second, introduced by Assemblyman Zimmer, as Assembly Bill 839, is reflected in the district map Exhibit D9. The Hagedorn map produces a high population district of 526,115 and a low population district of 526,055, or a maximum variation of 60 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 11.50 persons. The relative overall range is .01140% and the relative mean deviation is .00218%. The Zimmer map produces a district with a high population of 526,087 and a district with a low population of 526,020, or a maximum variation of 67 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 10.92 persons. The Zim-mer plan’s relative overall range is .01273% and its relative mean deviation is .00207%. A comparison of these deviation figures with those that would result from the adoption of Senate Bill 3564 shows that the numerical differences are so slight as to be irrelevant.

¶21 Since neither the Hagedorn nor the Zim-mer plans were enacted, the executive branch defendants do not suggest that they come clothed with any mantle of state policy. The districts reflected in Exhibits D7 and D9 are considerably more compact than those in the Feldman Plan, and thus also more compact than those in Senate Bill 3564. Neither splits municipal boundaries, and neither places incumbent representatives in the same district. If the choice were between Senate Bill 3564 and either the Hagedorn or the Zimmer plan, either of the latter two would in our view embody preferable remedial features. And, as between Hagedorn and Zimmer, the slightly lower absolute mean deviation in the Zim-mer plan, 10.92 persons, probably would tip the scale in its favor. The Zimmer plan must, however, be compared with one remaining proposal.

¶22 D. The Forsythe, et al. Plan

¶23 The original plaintiffs in one of these consolidated cases, No. 82-388, were Republican candidates in the 1982 primary congressional elections. All but one of them 3 have proposed a redistricting plan. That plan is embodied in Exhibit P-l(a) and (b), and the map depicting the proposed districts is Exhibit P-l(c). The plan shown on Exhibit P-l(c) produces a high population district of 526,087 and a low population district of 526,062, or a maximum variation of only 25 persons, and an absolute mean deviation of 5.9 persons. The relative overall range is .00475% and the relative mean deviation is .00112%. Thus the plan reflected in Exhibit P-l(c) achieves the lowest population deviation of any plan which has been presented. Moreover it goes much further than the Hagedorn or Zim-mer plans in achieving compact districts. Like all the plans considered, it avoids placing incumbents in the same district. Unlike any of the others, however, it achieves the extremely low population deviation in part by splitting off certain census tracts from the Essex County municipality of Belleville, and the Hudson County community of Kearny. The plan, in what it proposes as the 10th Congressional District, preserves a congressional district in which a majority of the population is black. No evidence has been offered from which we could find that it is designed to achieve partisan advantage.

¶24 The two great advantages of the Exhibit P-l(c) plan, over any of the others, are the achievement of smaller population deviations, and the creation of more compact districts. The only disadvantage which the plan presents is the splitting of two North Jersey municipalities in order to achieve those advantages. We hold that this disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages of compactness and population near uniformity. Thus, among those in evidence, the plan which in our view most nearly fits the appropriate criteria for a *1265 court considering a congressional reapportionment plan as a remedy for an unconstitutional reapportionment statute, is that set forth in Exhibits P-l(a)(b) and (c).

¶25 Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the primary elections and elections for Members of the House of Representatives shall be conducted, in New Jersey, until the further order of this court. or until the next decennial census, whichever is earlier, from the single member districts set forth in the Opinion filed herewith.

¶26 1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶27 Burlington County

¶28 Maple Shade Township 20,525

¶29 Palmyra Borough 7,085

¶30 Riverton Borough 3,068

¶31 Camden County

¶32 Audubon Park Borough 1,274

¶33 Barrington Borough 7,418

¶34 Bellmawr Borough 13,721

¶35 Berlin Borough 5,786

¶36 Berlin Township 5,348

¶37 Brooklawn Borough 2,133

¶38 Camden City 84,910

¶39 Chesilhurst Borough 1,590

¶40 Clementon Borough 5,764

¶41 Collingswood Borough 15,838

¶42 Gibbsboro Borough 2,510

¶43 Gloucester City 13,121

¶44 Gloucester Township 45,156

¶45 Haddon Township 15,875

¶46 Hi-Nella Borough 1,250

¶47 Laurel Springs Borough 2,249

¶48 Lawnside Borough 3,042

¶49 Lindenwold Borough 18,196

¶50 Magnolia Borough 4,881

¶51 Mount Ephraim Borough 4,863

¶52 Oaklyn Borough 4,223

¶53 Pennsauken Township 33,775

¶54 Pine Hill Borough 8,684

¶55 Pine Valley Borough 23

¶56 Runnemede Borough 9,461

¶57 Somerdale Borough 5,900

¶58 Stratford Borough 8,005

¶59 Tavistock Borough 9

¶60 Winslow Township 20,034

¶61 Woodlynne Borough 2,578

¶62 Gloucester County

¶63 Clayton Borough 6,013

¶64 Deptford Township 23,473

¶65 East Greenwich Township 4,144

¶66 Greenwich Township 5,404

¶67 Gloucester County

¶68 Harrison Township 3,585

¶69 Logan Township 3,078

¶70 Monroe Township 21,639

¶71 National Park Borough 3,552

¶72 Paulsboro Borough 6,944

¶73 Swedesboro Borough 2,031

¶74 Washington Township 27,878

¶75 Wenonah Borough 2,303

¶76 West Deptford Township 18,002

¶77 Westville Borough 4,786

¶78 Woodbury City 10,353

¶79 Woodbury Heights Borough 3,460

¶80 Woolwich Township 1,129

¶81 526,069

¶82 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶83 Atlantic County

¶84 All 194,119

¶85 Cape May County

¶86 All 82,266

¶87 Cumberland County

¶88 All 132,866

¶89 Gloucester County

¶90 Elk Township 3,187

¶91 Franklin Township 12,396

¶92 Glassboro Borough 14,574

¶93 Mantua Township 9,193

¶94 Newfield Borough 1,563

¶95 Pitman Borough 9,744

¶96 South Harrison Township 1,486

¶97 Salem County

¶98 All 64,676 526,070

¶99 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶100 Monmouth County

¶101 Allenhurst Borough 912

¶102 Asbury Park City 17,015

¶103 Atlantic Highlands Borough 4,950

¶104 Avon-by-the-Sea Borough 2,337

¶105 Belmar Borough 6,771

¶106 Bradley Beach Borough 4,772

¶107 Deal Borough 1,952

¶108 Eatontown Borough 12,703

¶109 Fair Haven Borough 5,679

¶110 Hazlet Township 23,013

¶111 Highlands Borough 5,187

¶112 Interlaken Borough 1,037

¶113*1266 Monmouth County

¶114 Keansburg Borough 10,613

¶115 Keyport Borough 7,413

¶116 Little Silver Borough 5,548

¶117 Loch Arbour Village 369

¶118 Long Branch City 29,819

¶119 Manasquan Borough 5,354

¶120 Middletown Township 62,574

¶121 Monmouth Beach Borough 3,318

¶122 Neptune City Borough 5,276

¶123 Neptune Township 28,366

¶124 Oceanport Borough 5,888

¶125 Ocean Township 23,570

¶126 Red Bank Borough 12,031

¶127 Rumson Borough 7,623

¶128 Sea Bright Borough 1,812

¶129 Sea Girt Borough 2,650

¶130 Shrewsbury Borough 2,962

¶131 Shrewsbury Township 995

¶132 Spring Lake Borough 4,215

¶133 Spring Lake Heights Borough 5,424

¶134 South Belmar Borough 1,566

¶135 Tinton Falls Borough 7,740

¶136 Union Beach Borough 6,354

¶137 West Long Branch Borough 7,380

¶138 Ocean County

¶139 Bay Head Borough 1,340

¶140 Brick Township 53,629

¶141 Dover Township 64,455

¶142 Island Heights Borough 1,575

¶143 Lakewood Township 38,464

¶144 Lavallette Borough 2,072

¶145 Mantoloking Borough 433

¶146 Point Pleasant Beach Borough 5,415

¶147 Point Pleasant Borough 17,747

¶148 Seaside Heights Borough 1,802

¶149 South Toms River Borough 3,954

¶150 526,074

¶151 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶152 Burlington County

¶153 Bordentown City 4,441

¶154 Bordentown Township 7,170

¶155 Burlington City 10,246

¶156 Burlington Township 11,527

¶157 Chesterfield Township 3,867

¶158 Eastampton Township 3,814

¶159 Fieldsboro Borough 597

¶160 Florence Township 9,084

¶161 Mansfield Township 2,523

¶162 Springfield Township 2,691

¶163 Westampton Township 3,383

¶164 Mercer County

¶165 East Windsor Township 21,041

¶166 Ewing Township 34,842

¶167 Hamilton Township 82,801

¶168 Hightstown Borough 4,581

¶169 Hopewell Borough 2,001

¶170 Hopewell Township 10,8.93

¶171 Mercer County

¶172 Lawrence Township 19,724

¶173 Pennington Borough 2,109

¶174 Trenton City 92,124

¶175 Washington Township 3,487

¶176 Middlesex County

¶177 Jamesburg Borough 4,114

¶178 Monroe Township 15,858

¶179 Plainsboro Borough 5,605

¶180 Monmouth County

¶181 Allentown Borough 1,962

¶182 Brielle Borough 4,068

¶183 Colts Neck Township 7,888

¶184 Englishtown Borough 976

¶185 Farmingdale Borough 1,348

¶186 Freehold Borough 10,020

¶187 Freehold Township 19,202

¶188 Holmdel Township 8,447

¶189 Howell Township 25,065

¶190 Manalapan Township 18,914

¶191 Marlboro Township 17,560

¶192 Millstone Township 3,926

¶193 Roosevelt Borough 835

¶194 Upper Freehold Township 2,750

¶195 Wall Township 18,952

¶196 Ocean County

¶197 Jackson Township 25,644

¶198 526,080

¶199 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶200 Bergen County

¶201 Allendale Borough 5,901

¶202 Alpine Borough 1,549

¶203 Bergenfield Borough 25,568

¶204 Closter Borough 8,164

¶205 Cresskill Borough 7,609

¶206 Demarest Borough 4,963

¶207 Dumont Borough 18,334

¶208 Emerson Borough 7,793

¶209 Glen Rock Borough 11,497

¶210 Harrington Park Borough 4,532

¶211 Haworth Borough 3,509

¶212 Hillsdale Borough 10,495

¶213 Hohokus Borough 4,129

¶214 Mahwah Township 12,127

¶215 Midland Park Borough 7,381

¶216 Montvale Borough 7,318

¶217 Northvale Borough 5,046

¶218 Norwood Borough 4,413

¶219 Oakland Borough 13,443

¶220 Old Tappan Borough 4,168

¶221 Oradell Borough 8,658

¶222 Paramus Borough 26,474

¶223 Park Ridge Borough 8,515

¶224 Ramsey Borough 12,899

¶225*1267 Bergen County

¶226 Ridgewood Village 25,208

¶227 Rivervale Township 9,489

¶228 Rochelle Park Township 5,603

¶229 Rockleigh Borough 192

¶230 Saddle River Borough 2,763

¶231 Tenafly Borough 13,552

¶232 Upper Saddle River Borough 7,958

¶233 Waldwick Borough 10,802

¶234 Washington Township 9,550

¶235 Westwood Borough 10,714

¶236 Woodcliff Lake Borough 5,644

¶237 Wyckoff Borough 15,500

¶238 Passaic County

¶239 Bloomingdale Borough 7,867

¶240 Haledon Borough 6,607

¶241 Hawthorne Borough 18,200

¶242 North Haledon Borough 8,177

¶243 Ringwood Borough 12,625

¶244 Wanague Borough 10,025

¶245 West Milford Township 22,750

¶246 Sussex County

¶247 Andover Borough 892

¶248 Andover Township 4,506

¶249 Branchville Borough 870

¶250 Frankford Township 4,654

¶251 Franklin Borough 4,486

¶252 Fredon Township 2,281

¶253 Hamburg Borough 1,832

¶254 Hardyston Township 4,553

¶255 Hopatcong Borough 15,531

¶256 Lafayette Township 1,614

¶257 Montague Township 2,066

¶258 Newton Town 7,748

¶259 Ogdensburg Borough 2,737

¶260 Sandyston Township 1,485

¶261 Sparta Township 13,333

¶262 Stanhope Borough 3,638

¶263 Sussex Borough 2,418

¶264 Vernon Township 16,302

¶265 Walpack Township 150

¶266 Wantage Township 7,268

¶267 526,075

¶268 6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶269 Middlesex County

¶270 Carteret Borough 20,598

¶271 Edison Township 70,193

¶272 Highland Park Borough 13,396

¶273 Metuchen Borough 13,762

¶274 New Brunswick City 41,442

¶275 North Brunswick Township 22,220

¶276 Old Bridge Township 51,515

¶277 Perth Amboy City 38,951

¶278 Sayreville Borough 29,969

¶279 South Amboy 8,322

¶280 South River Borough 14,361

¶281 Woodbridge Township 90,074

¶282 Monmouth County

¶283 Aberdeen Township 17,235

¶284 Matawan Borough 8,837

¶285 Union County

¶286 Linden City 37,836

¶287 Rahway City 26,723

¶288 Roselle Borough 20,641

¶289 526,075

¶290 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶291 Essex County

¶292 Millburn Township 19,543

¶293 Middlesex County

¶294 Dunellen Borough 6,593

¶295 Middlesex Borough 13,480

¶296 Somerset County

¶297 Bound Brook Borough 9,710

¶298 Bridgewater Township 29,175

¶299 Green Brook Township 4,640

¶300 Manville Borough 11,278

¶301 North Plainfield Borough 19,108

¶302 Warren Township 9,805

¶303 Watchung Borough 5,290

¶304 Union County

¶305 Berkley Heights Township 12,549

¶306 Clark Township 16,699

¶307 Cranford Township 24,573

¶308 Elizabeth City 106,201

¶309 Fanwood Borough 7,767

¶310 Garwood Borough 4,752

¶311 Kenilworth Borough 8,221

¶312 Mountainside Borough 7,118

¶313 New Providence Borough 12,426

¶314 Plainfield City 45,555

¶315 Roselle Park Borough 13,377

¶316 Scotch Plains Township 20,774

¶317 Springfield Township 13,955

¶318 Summit City 21,071

¶319 Union Township 50,184

¶320 Westfield Town 30,447

¶321 Winfield Township 1,785

¶322 526,076

¶323 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶324 Bergen County

¶325 Franklin Lakes Borough 8,769

¶326*1268 Essex County

¶327 Belleville Town (part)

¶328 Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,146

¶329 Ward # 1 — District # 3 1,112

¶330 Ward # 1 — District # 6 926

¶331 Ward # 1 — District # 7 976

¶332 Ward # 1 — District # 8 2,453

¶333 Ward # 1 — District # 9 1,413

¶334 Ward # 1 — District # 10 2,547

¶335 Ward # 1 — District #11 2,000

¶336 Ward # 1 — District #12 1,349

¶337 Ward # 2 16,566

¶338 Bloomfield Town 47,792

¶339 Glen Ridge Borough 7,855

¶340 Montclair Town 38,321

¶341 Nutley Town 28,998

¶342 Morris County

¶343 Riverdale Borough 2,530

¶344 Passaic County

¶345 Clifton City 74,388

¶346 Little Falls Township 11,496

¶347 Passaic City 52,463

¶348 Paterson City 137,970

¶349 Pompton Lakes Borough 10,660

¶350 Prospect Park Borough 5,142

¶351 Totowa Borough 11,448

¶352 Wayne Township 46,474

¶353 West Paterson Borough 11,293

¶354 526,087

¶355 9TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶356 Bergen County

¶357 Bogota Borough 8,344

¶358 Carlstadt Borough 6,166

¶359 Cliffside Park Borough 21,464

¶360 East Rutherford Borough 7,849

¶361 Edgewater Borough 4,628

¶362 Elmwood Park Borough 18,377

¶363 Englewood City 23,701

¶364 Englewood Cliffs Borough 5,698

¶365 Fair Lawn Borough 32,229

¶366 Fairview Borough 10,519

¶367 Fort Lee Borough 32,449

¶368 Garfield City 26,803

¶369 Hackensack City 36,039

¶370 Hasbrouck Heights Borough 12,166

¶371 Leonia Borough 8,027

¶372 Little Ferry Borough 9,399

¶373 Lodi Borough 23,956

¶374 Lyndhurst Township 20,326

¶375 Maywood Borough 9,895

¶376 Moonachie Borough 2,706

¶377 New Milford Borough 16,876

¶378 North Arlington Borough 16,587

¶379 Palisades Park Borough 13,732

¶380 Ridgefield Borough 10,294

¶381 Bergen County

¶382 Ridgefield Park Village 12,738

¶383 River Edge Borough 11,111

¶384 Rutherford Borough 19,068

¶385 Saddle Brook Township 14,084

¶386 South Hackensack Township 2,229

¶387 Teaneck Township 39,007

¶388 Teterboro Borough 19

¶389 Wallington Borough 10,741

¶390 Wood-Ridge Borough 7,929

¶391 Hudson County

¶392 East Newark Borough 1,923

¶393 Kearny Town (part)

¶394 Ward # 1 — District # 1 962

¶395 Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,109

¶396 Ward # 1 — District # 6 1,019

¶397 Ward # 3 8,578

¶398 Ward # 4 — District # 5 836

¶399 Ward # 4 — District # 6 1,281

¶400 Ward # 4 — District # 7 1,483

¶401 Secaucus Town 13,719

¶402 526,066

¶403 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶404 Essex County

¶405 Belleville Town (part)

¶406 Ward # 1 — District # 1 1,414

¶407 Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,550

¶408 Ward # 1 — District # 5 1,915

¶409 East Orange City 77,878

¶410 Irvington Town 61,493

¶411 Newark City 329,248

¶412 Orange City 31,136

¶413 Union County

¶414 Hillside Township 21,440

¶415 526,074

¶416 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶417 Essex County

¶418 Caldwell Borough 7,624

¶419 Cedar Grove Township 12,600

¶420 Essex Fells Borough 2,363

¶421 Fairfield Borough 7,987

¶422 Livingston Township 28,040

¶423 Maplewood Township 22,950

¶424 North Caldwell Borough 5,832

¶425 Roseland Borough 5,330

¶426 South Orange Village Township 15,864

¶427 Verona Borough 14,166

¶428 West Caldwell Borough 11,407

¶429 West Orange Town 39,510

¶430*1269 Morris County

¶431 Boonton Town 8,62»

¶432 Boonton Township 3,273

¶433 Butler Borough 7,616

¶434 Chatham Borough 8,537

¶435 Chester Borough 1,433

¶436 Chester Township 5,198

¶437 Denville Township 14,380

¶438 Dover Town 14,681

¶439 East Hanover Township 9,319

¶440 Florham Park Borough 9,359

¶441 Hanover Township 11,846

¶442 Jefferson Township 16,413

¶443 Kinnelon Borough 7,770

¶444 Lincoln Park Borough 8,806

¶445 Madison Borough 15,357

¶446 Mendham Borough 4,899

¶447 Mendham Township 4,488

¶448 Mine Hill Township 3,325

¶449 Montville Township 14,290

¶450 Mountain Lakes Borough 4,153

¶451 Mount Arlington Borough 4,251

¶452 Mount Olive Township 18,748

¶453 Netcong Borough 3,557

¶454 Parsippany-Troy Hills Township 49,868

¶455 Pequannock Township 13,776

¶456 Randolph Township 17,828

¶457 Rockaway Borough 6,852

¶458 Rockaway Township 19,850

¶459 Roxbury Township 18,878

¶460 Victory Gardens Borough 1,043

¶461 Wharton Borough 5,485

¶462 Sussex County

¶463 Byram Township 7,502

¶464 Green Township 2,450

¶465 Warren County

¶466 Allamuchy Township 2,560

¶467 Frelinghuysen Township 1,435

¶468 Independence Township 2,829

¶469 Liberty Township 1,730

¶470 526,078

¶471 12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶472 Hunterdon County

¶473 All 87,361

¶474 Mercer County

¶475 Princeton Borough 12,035

¶476 Princeton Township 13,683

¶477 West Windsor Township 8,542

¶478 Middlesex County

¶479 Cranbury Township 1,927

¶480 East Brunswick Township 37,711

¶481 Helmetta Borough 955

¶482 Milltown Borough 7,136

¶483 Piscataway Township 42,223

¶484 South Brunswick Township 17,127

¶485 South Plainfield Township 20,521

¶486 Spotswood Borough 7,840

¶487 Morris County

¶488 Chatham Township 8,883

¶489 Harding Township 3,236

¶490 Morris Township 18,486

¶491 Morris Plains Borough 5,305

¶492 Morristown Town 16,614

¶493 Passaic Township 7,275

¶494 Washington Township 11,402

¶495 Somerset County

¶496 Bedminster Township 2,469

¶497 Bernards Township 12,920

¶498 Bernardsville Borough 6,715

¶499 Branchburg Township 7,846

¶500 Far Hills Borough 677

¶501 Franklin Township 31,358

¶502 Hillsborough Township 19,061

¶503 Millstone Borough 530

¶504 Montgomery Township 7,360

¶505 Peapack Gladstone Borough 2,038

¶506 Raritan Borough 6,128

¶507 Rocky Hill Borough 717

¶508 Somerville Borough 11,973

¶509 South Bound Brook Borough 4,331

¶510 Sussex County

¶511 Hampton Township 3,916

¶512 Stillwater Township 3,887

¶513 Warren County

¶514 Alpha Borough 2,644

¶515 Belvidere Town 2,475

¶516 Blairstown Township 4,360

¶517 Franklin Township 2,341

¶518 Greenwich Township 1,738

¶519 Hackettstown Town 8,850

¶520 Hardwick Township 947

¶521 Harmony Township 2,592

¶522 Hope Township 1,468

¶523 Knowlton Township 2,074

¶524 Lopatcong Township 4,998

¶525 Mansfield Township 5,780

¶526 Oxford Township 1,659

¶527 Pahaquarry Township 26

¶528 Phillipsburg Town 16,647

¶529 Pohatcong Township 3,856

¶530 Washington Borough 6,429

¶531*1270 Warren County

¶532 Washington Township 4,243

¶533 White Township 2,748

¶534 526,063

¶535 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶536 Burlington County

¶537 Bass River Township 1,344

¶538 Beverly City 2,919

¶539 Cinnaminson Township 16,072

¶540 Delanco Township 3,730

¶541 Delran Township 14,811

¶542 Edgewater Park Township 9,273

¶543 Evesham Township 21,508

¶544 Hainesport Township 3,236

¶545 Lumberton Township 5,236

¶546 Medford Lakes Borough 4,958

¶547 Medford Township 17,622

¶548 Moorestown Township 15,596

¶549 Mount Holly Township 10,818

¶550 Mount Laurel Township 17,614

¶551 New Hanover Township 14,258

¶552 North Hanover Township 9,050

¶553 Pemberton Borough 1,198

¶554 Pemberton Township 29,720

¶555 Riverside Township 7,941

¶556 Shamong Township 4,537

¶557 Southampton Township 8,808

¶558 Tabernacle Township 6,236

¶559 Washington Township 808

¶560 Willingboro Township 39,912

¶561 Woodland Township 2,285

¶562 Wrightstown Borough 3,031

¶563 Camden County

¶564 Audubon Borough 9,533

¶565 Cherry Hill Township 68,785

¶566 Haddonfield Borough 12,337

¶567 Haddon Heights Borough 8,361

¶568 Merchantville Borough 3,972

¶569 Voorhees Township 12,919

¶570 Waterford Township 8,126

¶571 Ocean County

¶572 Barnegat Township 8,702

¶573 Barnegat Light Borough 619

¶574 Beach Haven Borough 1,714

¶575 Beachwood Borough 7,687

¶576 Berkeley Township 23,151

¶577 Eagleswood Township 1,009

¶578 Harvey Cedars Borough 363

¶579 Lacey Township 14,161

¶580 Lakehurst Borough 2,908

¶581 Little Egg Harbor Township 8,483

¶582 Long Beach Township 3,488

¶583 Manchester Township 27,987

¶584 Ocean Gate Borough 1,385

¶585 Ocean Township 3,731

¶586 Pine Beach Borough 1,796

¶587 Plumsted Township 4,674

¶588 Seaside Park Borough 1,795

¶589 Ocean County

¶590 Ship Bottom Borough 1,427

¶591 Stafford Township 10,385

¶592 Surf City Borough 1,571

¶593 Tuckerton Borough 2,472

¶594 526,062

¶595 14TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

¶596 Hudson County

¶597 Bayonne City 65,047

¶598 Guttenberg Town 7,340

¶599 Harrison Town 12,242

¶600 Hoboken City 42,460

¶601 Jersey City 223,532

¶602 Kearny Town (part)

¶603 Ward # 1 — District # 3 1,045

¶604 Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,245

¶605 Ward # 1 — District # 5 1,103

¶606 Ward # 2 10,506

¶607 Ward # 4 — District # 1 1,174

¶608 Ward # 4 — District # 2 1,673

¶609 Ward # 4 — District # 3 846

¶610 Ward # 4 — District # 4 1,323

¶611 Ward # 4 — District # 8 1,552

¶612 North Bergen Township 47,019

¶613 Union City 55,593

¶614 Weehawken Township 13,168

¶615 West New York Town 39,194

¶616 526,062