“Visual-Compactness” over Algorithms:
Supreme Court Clarifies the Municipal Ward Law in Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission

1. Introduction

Following Jersey City’s explosive growth revealed by the 2020 Census, its Ward Commission was legally required to rebalance the City’s six wards. The Commission’s 2022 map slashed a staggering 59% population deviation to 1.8% but attracted swift litigation from community groups and a pro-se resident. Three principal charges were levelled: (a) the wards were not “compact” under the Municipal Ward Law (MWL); (b) the configuration violated state equal-protection guarantees by fracturing neighbourhood “communities of interest”; and (c) those failures created a damages action under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).

The trial court dismissed all claims. The Appellate Division largely agreed, but—importantly—revived the MWL claim and ordered a limited remand so the trial court could test whether the Commission had a “rational basis” for its compactness finding. On further review, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed that remand, reinstated the dismissal, and in the process announced a precedent that reaches well beyond Jersey City: “compactness” under the MWL is a flexible, visually-assessed concept left to the substantial discretion of ward commissions; neither sophisticated mathematical indices nor the preservation of “communities of interest” are statutorily required.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• MWL Claim: The Court held that the Commission’s map satisfies N.J.S.A. 40:44-14. The statute demands compact, contiguous wards with less than a 10 % population spread, but does not dictate methodology. The Commission’s visual assessment sufficed; additional fact-finding was unnecessary.
• Equal Protection: Because the wards met the MWL standard and no invidious discrimination was alleged, the constitutional challenge failed.
• NJCRA: No violation of a substantive right occurred; therefore, no NJCRA remedy lies.
• Procedural Footnote: The majority rejected a dissenting view that, absent a cross-petition, the Court could not vacate the remand. It reasoned that once certification was granted, the entire Appellate Division judgment on the MWL was “squarely in issue.”

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Jackman v. Bodine, 49 N.J. 406 (1967)
   • Recognised “compactness” as secondary to achieving population equality when drawing legislative districts.
   • Endorsed the “eyeball test” and warned only against “bizarre” shapes such as “shoelaces” or “horseshoes.”
   • Here, the Court imported those teachings to the municipal level, stressing visual reasonableness over formulaic precision.
2. Davenport v. Apportionment Commission, 65 N.J. 125 (1974)
   • Reaffirmed judicial deference and again used the “bizarrely-shaped” yardstick.
   • The Court borrowed Davenport’s presumption of legality and limited scope of review.
3. In re Establishment of Congressional Districts, 249 N.J. 561 (2022)
   • Restated that courts intervene only if a map is “unlawful or reflects invidious discrimination.”
   • Provided the contemporary articulation of deference now applied to ward maps.
4. Federal equal-protection cases (Gaffney v. Cummings, Davis v. Bandemer)
   • Emphasised the political nature of redistricting; relied on to reject the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Reading of the MWL
   – The statute merely says “compact,” “contiguous,” and “±10 % deviation,” without defining “compact.”
   – Legislative silence on methodology = legislative choice; courts must not graft additional requirements.
   – Mathematical indices (Polsby-Popper, Reock) existed in 1981; if the Legislature wanted them it would have said so.
2. Visual (Not Algorithmic) Compactness
   – The majority reaffirmed the “eyeball test”: look for obviously tortured shapes; absent “horselaces,” map stands.
   – Geography matters: Jersey City’s rivers and jagged municipal border justify irregular ward edges.
3. Communities of Interest ≠ Compactness
   – Communities may be relevant policy considerations, but they are not embedded in the MWL’s compactness command.
   – Thus, splitting neighbourhood associations is not per se unlawful.
4. Deference & Limited Review
   – Political branches draw maps; courts police only for clear statutory or constitutional breach.
   – No claim of race-based or other suspect-class discrimination = no heightened scrutiny.
5. Procedural Clarification
   – A remand solely to ask “what was the Commission’s rational basis?” adds a test not in the statute and is unnecessary when the record shows visual compactness.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Statewide Redistricting Practice: Ward commissions across New Jersey now have a clear blueprint: if they achieve population equality and avoid grotesque shapes, courts are unlikely to disturb their maps.
• Litigation Strategy: Future plaintiffs must plead beyond low mathematical scores; they must point to bizarre boundaries or explicit discrimination.
• Legislative Signal: If the Legislature wants mathematical precision or protection for communities of interest, it must amend the MWL expressly.
• Equal-Protection Doctrine: The decision underscores that equal-protection attacks on neutral redistricting decisions face steep odds without evidence of class-based prejudice.
• Civil Rights Act Usage: NJCRA remains tethered to substantive statutory or constitutional rights; procedural preferences (e.g., for more compact lines) will not support damages claims.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Municipal Ward Law (MWL)

A 1981 statute that tells every city using wards how to redraw them after each federal census. It has only three substantive rules: wards must be (1) contiguous (touching, no islands); (2) compact (not spindly or sprawling); and (3) population-balanced (largest ward may be at most 10 % above smallest, relative to the mean).

Compactness Measures

• Polsby-Popper: Compares the area of a district to the area of a circle with the same perimeter (scores 0-1).
• Reock: Ratio of the district’s area to the area of the smallest circle enclosing it (scores 0-1).
• Key Take-away: Helpful diagnostics, but not legally compulsory in New Jersey ward mapping.

“Eyeball Test”

A court’s commonsense, visual inspection of a map: Are the wards grotesque “horseshoes,” “dumbbells,” or “shoelaces”? If not, they likely satisfy compactness.

Communities of Interest

Neighbourhoods or groups sharing cultural, economic, or policy concerns. Many states elevate them, but New Jersey’s MWL does not.

Equal Protection (NJ Constitution, Art. I, ¶1)

Guarantees that government cannot treat similarly situated groups differently without justification. Absent a showing of intentional discrimination, redistricting usually survives.

New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA)

Allows damages when state actors deprive someone of a substantive right. No right violated → no NJCRA claim.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision cements a deferential, visually-grounded approach to municipal redistricting. In effect, the Court told ward commissions: “Mind the population numbers, keep your shapes sane, and you are safe.” By refusing to import mathematical thresholds or community-of-interest doctrines into the MWL, the opinion preserves local flexibility but also narrows the litigation avenues available to challengers. If future reformers desire algorithmic exactness or explicit neighbourhood protections, they must lobby the Legislature, not the courts.

“The Legislature directed a ward commission to design wards that are compact, but did not prescribe a methodology for that determination or otherwise constrain a ward commission’s discretion.”  — Justice Patterson

Whether one views the ruling as sensible restraint or missed opportunity, its precedent is plain: in New Jersey, “compactness” is ultimately in the eye of the beholder—provided that beholder is the duly appointed ward commission.