Jersey City United v. Jersey City Ward Comm'n

311 A.3d 989

478 N.J.Super. 132

JERSEY CITY UNITED AGAINST THE NEW WARD MAP, Downtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, Greenville Neighborhood Alliance, Friends of Berry Lane Park, Riverview Neighborhood Association, Pershing Field Neighborhood Association, Sgt. Anthony Neighborhood Assoc., Gardner Avenue Block Association, Lincoln Park Neighborhood Watch, Morris Canal Redevelopment CDC, Harmon Street Block Association, Crescent Avenue Block Association, Democratic Political Alliance, and Frank E. Gilmore, in his individual and official capacity as Ward F Councilman, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.JERSEY CITY WARD COMMISSION and John Minella, in his official capacity as Chair of the Commission, Defendants-Respondents.

James Calderon, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.City of Jersey City Ward Commission, John Minella, Chairman, Sean J. Gallagher, Secretary, and Commissioners Daniel E. Beckelman, Paul Castelli, Janet Larwa, and Daniel Miqueli, Defendants-Respondents.

DOCKET NOS. A-0356-22, A-0560-22

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued November 27, 2023

Decided March 12, 2024

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket Nos. L-0960-22 and L-0821-22.

Renée W. Steinhagen argued the cause for appellants in A-0356-22 (New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, Inc., Matsikoudis & Fanciullo, LLC, and Yael Bromberg, Glen Rock, (Bromberg Law LLC), attorneys; Renée W. Steinhagen, Yael Bromberg, and William C. Matsikoudis, on the briefs).

James Calderon, appellant in A-0560-22, argued the cause pro se.

Jason F. Orlando, Roseland, argued the cause for respondents (Murphy Orlando LLC, attorneys; Jason F. Orlando and Tyler Newman, on the briefs).

Before Judges Gilson, DeAlmeida, and Bishop - Thompson.

₁₃₈The opinion of the court was delivered by

GILSON, P.J.A.D.

Following the 2020 decennial United States Census, the City of Jersey City Ward Commission (the Commission) redrew the six election wards for the City of Jersey City (the City). In these two appeals, which we consolidate for purposes of this opinion, plaintiffs₁₃₉ challenge the ward boundaries and map adopted by the Commission.

Plaintiffs appeal from orders dismissing their complaints in lieu of prerogative writs, contending that the new ward map violates the Municipal Ward Law (the MW Law), N.J.S.A. 40:44-9 to -18, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (the CR Act), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, and their rights of free speech, free association, and equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution. They also argue that the Commission did not comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (the OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to - 21.

Having reviewed these arguments in light of the record and law, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims asserting violations of their constitutional rights, the CR Act, and the OPMA. We reverse the dismissal of the claims of violations of the MW Law. Resolution of those statutory claims requires some, albeit limited, factfinding. Thus, we remand the MW Law claims for further proceedings.

I.

The Legislature allows municipalities to adopt a charter or form of government under which a municipality is divided into wards for the purpose of electing members of the municipal governing body. N.J.S.A. 40:44-10. When a municipality adopts that form of government, the MW Law identifies the commissioners who will create the wards and periodically reassess and adjust those wards. See N.J.S.A. 40:44-11, -13. The MW Law provides that the commission shall be composed of the members of the county board of elections and the municipal clerk. N.J.S.A. 40:44-11.

The MW Law also provides that the municipal ward commission "shall" divide the municipality into "compact and contiguous" wards that are roughly equal in population. N.J.S.A. 40:44-14. In that regard, the MW Law states:

The ward commissioners shall fix and determine the ward boundaries so that each ward is formed of compact and contiguous territory. The population of the most populous ward so created shall not differ from the population of the least populous ₁₄₀ward so created by more than [ten percent] of the mean population of the wards derived by dividing the total population of the municipality by the number of wards created. The most recent [f]ederal decennial census shall be used as the population determinant.

[Ibid.]

Wards must be evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted every ten years based on the federal decennial census. In that regard, the MW Law states:

Within [three] months following the receipt by the Governor of each federal decennial census, the ward commissioners shall meet in the manner provided in subsection a. of this section and proceed to make such adjustments in ward boundaries as shall be necessary to conform them to the requirements of this act.

[N.J.S.A. 40:44-13(c).]

The City is, and has been for decades, divided into six election wards: Wards A, B, C, D, E, and F. In 2020, the United States Census was conducted, and, on September 16, 2021, the Governor promulgated the results. The 2020 Census revealed that Ward E, the largest ward by population in the City, was fifty-nine percent more populous than Ward D, the least populous ward. As of the 2020 Census, Ward E had 69,524 residents, while Ward D had 40,733 residents. Therefore, under the MW Law, the Commission had to redraw the City’s ward boundaries and related map.

The MW Law required the Commission to hold at least one meeting, which was to be within three months of the receipt of the 2020 Census by the Governor. Ibid. The MW Law also provided that the Commission can hire and be assisted by a surveyor, an engineer, and "other assistants as shall be necessary to aid [the Commission] in the discharge of [its] duties." N.J.S.A. 40:44-12. The Commission was to prepare a report on the boundaries of the wards, together with a map, and the report was to be certified by at least three Commissioners. N.J.S.A. 40:44-15(a). Thereafter, the certified report and map were to be filed with the county clerk, the Secretary of State, and the municipal clerk. Ibid. Finally, the municipal clerk was to cause notice of the ward boundaries to be published in a local newspaper within two weeks of the filing of the Commission’s report. N.J.S.A. 40:44-16.

₁₄₁After receiving the 2020 Census, the Commission held three public meetings on December 15, 2021, January 14, 2022, and January 22, 2022. The Commissioners also conducted several working sessions during that time, but the Commissioners certified that no more than three Commissioners were present at any one working session.

On January 22, 2022, after listening to approximately three hours of public comment, the Commission voted to adopt new boundaries for the six wards and approved a new ward map (the 2022 Ward Map). The ward maps before and after 2022 are depicted in the two maps set forth below:

311 A.3d 995.bmp

As these maps reflect, the City is irregularly shaped because its boundaries are based on rivers, harbors, bays, cliffs, and adjoining municipalities. The Commission made various adjustments to the boundaries of the six wards. Those adjustments particularly affected Wards A, E, and F. The shape of Ward F also changed from a somewhat square shape to a jagged, sideways L-shape.

On February 3, 2022, the Commissioners’ certified report and 2022 Ward Map were filed with the county clerk, the City’s municipal clerk, and the Secretary of State. Two days later, on February 5, 2022, notice of the new ward boundaries was published in a local newspaper, The Jersey Journal.

₁₄₂Plaintiffs filed two complaints in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the new ward boundaries and the 2022 Ward Map. The first action was filed on March 7, 2022, by James Calderon, a City resident. Calderon challenged the new wards on two grounds, contending that the Commission had violated (1) the OPMA because the Commissioners had met in private sessions; and (2) the MW Law because the wards, and in particular Wards A and F, were not compact and had broken up the Lafayette neighborhood.

The second action was filed on March 21, 2022, by several community organizations and Frank E. Gilmore, the Ward F Councilperson (collectively, the CO plaintiffs). The CO plaintiffs contended that in redrawing the boundaries of the wards, the Commission "disrupted and carved up long-standing neighborhoods, ignored natural geographic dividers, and even split buildings in half," and thereby "violated basic principles of fair representation and communities of interest" embedded in the statutory requirement that wards be "compact."

The CO plaintiffs’ complaint contained four counts. Count one alleged a violation of the MW Law, contending that the wards were not compact, and as a result violated the equal protection provision of the New Jersey Constitution. Count two alleged that the Commissioners had failed to draw the wards compactly, and that failure violated the CO plaintiffs’ rights of free speech and association under the New Jersey Constitution. In count three, the CO plaintiffs alleged a violation of the OPMA, contending that the Commission had met and made decisions on the new ward map in private working sessions. Finally, in count four, they alleged that the Commission and its Chairperson had violated the CR Act by depriving the CO plaintiffs of their "rights to reside in … ward[s] that consist[ ] of compact territory that preserves their communities of interest" and their ability to elect representatives of their choice. They also alleged that the Commission had violated the CR Act by retaliating against Gilmore "for his campaign advocacy around affordable housing, gentrification and displacement by removing a significant number of his supporters" from Ward F.

₁₄₃Plaintiffs sought several forms of relief, including (1) a declaration that the 2022 Ward Map and ward boundaries were invalid; (2) an order directing the Commission to redraw the wards more compactly and...