Daggett v. Kimmelman

580 F. Supp. 1259

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: March 5, 1984
• Docket: Civ. A. 82-297, 82-388
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION

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

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 cumbents, and inhibiting gerrymandering. With those factors in mind we turn to the several plans which have been proposed.

A. The Haverly Plan

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.

B. Senate Bill 3564

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%.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

C. The Hagedorn and Zimmer Plans

The executive branch defendants propose for our consideration two redistricting 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.

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.

D. The Forsythe, et al. Plan

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.

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 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).

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.

1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Burlington County

Maple Shade Township 20,525

Palmyra Borough 7,085

Riverton Borough 3,068

Camden County

Audubon Park Borough 1,274

Barrington Borough 7,418

Bellmawr Borough 13,721

Berlin Borough 5,786

Berlin Township 5,348

Brooklawn Borough 2,133

Camden City 84,910

Chesilhurst Borough 1,590

Clementon Borough 5,764

Collingswood Borough 15,838

Gibbsboro Borough 2,510

Gloucester City 13,121

Gloucester Township 45,156

Haddon Township 15,875

Hi-Nella Borough 1,250

Laurel Springs Borough 2,249

Lawnside Borough 3,042

Lindenwold Borough 18,196

Magnolia Borough 4,881

Mount Ephraim Borough 4,863

Oaklyn Borough 4,223

Pennsauken Township 33,775

Pine Hill Borough 8,684

Pine Valley Borough 23

Runnemede Borough 9,461

Somerdale Borough 5,900

Stratford Borough 8,005

Tavistock Borough 9

Winslow Township 20,034

Woodlynne Borough 2,578

Gloucester County

Clayton Borough 6,013

Deptford Township 23,473

East Greenwich Township 4,144

Greenwich Township 5,404

Harrison Township 3,585

Logan Township 3,078

Monroe Township 21,639

National Park Borough 3,552

Paulsboro Borough 6,944

Swedesboro Borough 2,031

Washington Township 27,878

Wenonah Borough 2,303

West Deptford Township 18,002

Westville Borough 4,786

Woodbury City 10,353

Woodbury Heights Borough 3,460

Woolwich Township 1,129

526,069

2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Atlantic County

All 194,119

Cape May County

All 82,266

Cumberland County

All 132,866

Elk Township 3,187

Franklin Township 12,396

Glassboro Borough 14,574

Mantua Township 9,193

Newfield Borough 1,563

Pitman Borough 9,744

South Harrison Township 1,486

Salem County

All 64,676 526,070

3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Monmouth County

Allenhurst Borough 912

Asbury Park City 17,015

Atlantic Highlands Borough 4,950

Avon-by-the-Sea Borough 2,337

Belmar Borough 6,771

Bradley Beach Borough 4,772

Deal Borough 1,952

Eatontown Borough 12,703

Fair Haven Borough 5,679

Hazlet Township 23,013

Highlands Borough 5,187

Interlaken Borough 1,037

Monmouth County

Keansburg Borough 10,613

Keyport Borough 7,413

Little Silver Borough 5,548

Loch Arbour Village 369

Long Branch City 29,819

Manasquan Borough 5,354

Middletown Township 62,574

Monmouth Beach Borough 3,318

Neptune City Borough 5,276

Neptune Township 28,366

Oceanport Borough 5,888

Ocean Township 23,570

Red Bank Borough 12,031

Rumson Borough 7,623

Sea Bright Borough 1,812

Sea Girt Borough 2,650

Shrewsbury Borough 2,962

Shrewsbury Township 995

Spring Lake Borough 4,215

Spring Lake Heights Borough 5,424

South Belmar Borough 1,566

Tinton Falls Borough 7,740

Union Beach Borough 6,354

West Long Branch Borough 7,380

Ocean County

Bay Head Borough 1,340

Brick Township 53,629

Dover Township 64,455

Island Heights Borough 1,575

Lakewood Township 38,464

Lavallette Borough 2,072

Mantoloking Borough 433

Point Pleasant Beach Borough 5,415

Point Pleasant Borough 17,747

Seaside Heights Borough 1,802

South Toms River Borough 3,954

526,074

4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Bordentown City 4,441

Bordentown Township 7,170

Burlington City 10,246

Burlington Township 11,527

Chesterfield Township 3,867

Eastampton Township 3,814

Fieldsboro Borough 597

Florence Township 9,084

Mansfield Township 2,523

Springfield Township 2,691

Westampton Township 3,383

Mercer County

East Windsor Township 21,041

Ewing Township 34,842

Hamilton Township 82,801

Hightstown Borough 4,581

Hopewell Borough 2,001

Hopewell Township 10,8.93

Lawrence Township 19,724

Pennington Borough 2,109

Trenton City 92,124

Washington Township 3,487

Middlesex County

Jamesburg Borough 4,114

Monroe Township 15,858

Plainsboro Borough 5,605

Allentown Borough 1,962

Brielle Borough 4,068

Colts Neck Township 7,888

Englishtown Borough 976

Farmingdale Borough 1,348

Freehold Borough 10,020

Freehold Township 19,202

Holmdel Township 8,447

Howell Township 25,065

Manalapan Township 18,914

Marlboro Township 17,560

Millstone Township 3,926

Roosevelt Borough 835

Upper Freehold Township 2,750

Wall Township 18,952

Jackson Township 25,644

526,080

5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Bergen County

Allendale Borough 5,901

Alpine Borough 1,549

Bergenfield Borough 25,568

Closter Borough 8,164

Cresskill Borough 7,609

Demarest Borough 4,963

Dumont Borough 18,334

Emerson Borough 7,793

Glen Rock Borough 11,497

Harrington Park Borough 4,532

Haworth Borough 3,509

Hillsdale Borough 10,495

Hohokus Borough 4,129

Mahwah Township 12,127

Midland Park Borough 7,381

Montvale Borough 7,318

Northvale Borough 5,046

Norwood Borough 4,413

Oakland Borough 13,443

Old Tappan Borough 4,168

Oradell Borough 8,658

Paramus Borough 26,474

Park Ridge Borough 8,515

Ramsey Borough 12,899

Bergen County

Ridgewood Village 25,208

Rivervale Township 9,489

Rochelle Park Township 5,603

Rockleigh Borough 192

Saddle River Borough 2,763

Tenafly Borough 13,552

Upper Saddle River Borough 7,958

Waldwick Borough 10,802

Washington Township 9,550

Westwood Borough 10,714

Woodcliff Lake Borough 5,644

Wyckoff Borough 15,500

Passaic County

Bloomingdale Borough 7,867

Haledon Borough 6,607

Hawthorne Borough 18,200

North Haledon Borough 8,177

Ringwood Borough 12,625

Wanague Borough 10,025

West Milford Township 22,750

Sussex County

Andover Borough 892

Andover Township 4,506

Branchville Borough 870

Frankford Township 4,654

Franklin Borough 4,486

Fredon Township 2,281

Hamburg Borough 1,832

Hardyston Township 4,553

Hopatcong Borough 15,531

Lafayette Township 1,614

Montague Township 2,066

Newton Town 7,748

Ogdensburg Borough 2,737

Sandyston Township 1,485

Sparta Township 13,333

Stanhope Borough 3,638

Sussex Borough 2,418

Vernon Township 16,302

Walpack Township 150

Wantage Township 7,268

526,075

6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Carteret Borough 20,598

Edison Township 70,193

Highland Park Borough 13,396

Metuchen Borough 13,762

New Brunswick City 41,442

North Brunswick Township 22,220

Old Bridge Township 51,515

Perth Amboy City 38,951

Sayreville Borough 29,969

South Amboy 8,322

South River Borough 14,361

Woodbridge Township 90,074

Aberdeen Township 17,235

Matawan Borough 8,837

Union County

Linden City 37,836

Rahway City 26,723

Roselle Borough 20,641

7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Essex County

Millburn Township 19,543

Dunellen Borough 6,593

Middlesex Borough 13,480

Somerset County

Bound Brook Borough 9,710

Bridgewater Township 29,175

Green Brook Township 4,640

Manville Borough 11,278

North Plainfield Borough 19,108

Warren Township 9,805

Watchung Borough 5,290

Berkley Heights Township 12,549

Clark Township 16,699

Cranford Township 24,573

Elizabeth City 106,201

Fanwood Borough 7,767

Garwood Borough 4,752

Kenilworth Borough 8,221

Mountainside Borough 7,118

New Providence Borough 12,426

Plainfield City 45,555

Roselle Park Borough 13,377

Scotch Plains Township 20,774

Springfield Township 13,955

Summit City 21,071

Union Township 50,184

Westfield Town 30,447

Winfield Township 1,785

526,076

8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Franklin Lakes Borough 8,769

Essex County

Belleville Town (part)

Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,146

Ward # 1 — District # 3 1,112

Ward # 1 — District # 6 926

Ward # 1 — District # 7 976

Ward # 1 — District # 8 2,453

Ward # 1 — District # 9 1,413

Ward # 1 — District # 10 2,547

Ward # 1 — District #11 2,000

Ward # 1 — District #12 1,349

Ward # 2 16,566

Bloomfield Town 47,792

Glen Ridge Borough 7,855

Montclair Town 38,321

Nutley Town 28,998

Morris County

Riverdale Borough 2,530

Clifton City 74,388

Little Falls Township 11,496

Passaic City 52,463

Paterson City 137,970

Pompton Lakes Borough 10,660

Prospect Park Borough 5,142

Totowa Borough 11,448

Wayne Township 46,474

West Paterson Borough 11,293

526,087

9TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Bogota Borough 8,344

Carlstadt Borough 6,166

Cliffside Park Borough 21,464

East Rutherford Borough 7,849

Edgewater Borough 4,628

Elmwood Park Borough 18,377

Englewood City 23,701

Englewood Cliffs Borough 5,698

Fair Lawn Borough 32,229

Fairview Borough 10,519

Fort Lee Borough 32,449

Garfield City 26,803

Hackensack City 36,039

Hasbrouck Heights Borough 12,166

Leonia Borough 8,027

Little Ferry Borough 9,399

Lodi Borough 23,956

Lyndhurst Township 20,326

Maywood Borough 9,895

Moonachie Borough 2,706

New Milford Borough 16,876

North Arlington Borough 16,587

Palisades Park Borough 13,732

Ridgefield Borough 10,294

Ridgefield Park Village 12,738

River Edge Borough 11,111

Rutherford Borough 19,068

Saddle Brook Township 14,084

South Hackensack Township 2,229

Teaneck Township 39,007

Teterboro Borough 19

Wallington Borough 10,741

Wood-Ridge Borough 7,929

Hudson County

East Newark Borough 1,923

Kearny Town (part)

Ward # 1 — District # 1 962

Ward # 1 — District # 2 1,109

Ward # 1 — District # 6 1,019

Ward # 3 8,578

Ward # 4 — District # 5 836

Ward # 4 — District # 6 1,281

Ward # 4 — District # 7 1,483

Secaucus Town 13,719

526,066

10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Ward # 1 — District # 1 1,414

Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,550

Ward # 1 — District # 5 1,915

East Orange City 77,878

Irvington Town 61,493

Newark City 329,248

Orange City 31,136

Hillside Township 21,440

11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Caldwell Borough 7,624

Cedar Grove Township 12,600

Essex Fells Borough 2,363

Fairfield Borough 7,987

Livingston Township 28,040

Maplewood Township 22,950

North Caldwell Borough 5,832

Roseland Borough 5,330

South Orange Village Township 15,864

Verona Borough 14,166

West Caldwell Borough 11,407

West Orange Town 39,510

Morris County

Boonton Town 8,62»

Boonton Township 3,273

Butler Borough 7,616

Chatham Borough 8,537

Chester Borough 1,433

Chester Township 5,198

Denville Township 14,380

Dover Town 14,681

East Hanover Township 9,319

Florham Park Borough 9,359

Hanover Township 11,846

Jefferson Township 16,413

Kinnelon Borough 7,770

Lincoln Park Borough 8,806

Madison Borough 15,357

Mendham Borough 4,899

Mendham Township 4,488

Mine Hill Township 3,325

Montville Township 14,290

Mountain Lakes Borough 4,153

Mount Arlington Borough 4,251

Mount Olive Township 18,748

Netcong Borough 3,557

Parsippany-Troy Hills Township 49,868

Pequannock Township 13,776

Randolph Township 17,828

Rockaway Borough 6,852

Rockaway Township 19,850

Roxbury Township 18,878

Victory Gardens Borough 1,043

Wharton Borough 5,485

Byram Township 7,502

Green Township 2,450

Warren County

Allamuchy Township 2,560

Frelinghuysen Township 1,435

Independence Township 2,829

Liberty Township 1,730

526,078

12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Hunterdon County

All 87,361

Princeton Borough 12,035

Princeton Township 13,683

West Windsor Township 8,542

Cranbury Township 1,927

East Brunswick Township 37,711

Helmetta Borough 955

Milltown Borough 7,136

Piscataway Township 42,223

South Brunswick Township 17,127

South Plainfield Township 20,521

Spotswood Borough 7,840

Chatham Township 8,883

Harding Township 3,236

Morris Township 18,486

Morris Plains Borough 5,305

Morristown Town 16,614

Passaic Township 7,275

Washington Township 11,402

Bedminster Township 2,469

Bernards Township 12,920

Bernardsville Borough 6,715

Branchburg Township 7,846

Far Hills Borough 677

Franklin Township 31,358

Hillsborough Township 19,061

Millstone Borough 530

Montgomery Township 7,360

Peapack Gladstone Borough 2,038

Raritan Borough 6,128

Rocky Hill Borough 717

Somerville Borough 11,973

South Bound Brook Borough 4,331

Hampton Township 3,916

Stillwater Township 3,887

Alpha Borough 2,644

Belvidere Town 2,475

Blairstown Township 4,360

Franklin Township 2,341

Greenwich Township 1,738

Hackettstown Town 8,850

Hardwick Township 947

Harmony Township 2,592

Hope Township 1,468

Knowlton Township 2,074

Lopatcong Township 4,998

Mansfield Township 5,780

Oxford Township 1,659

Pahaquarry Township 26

Phillipsburg Town 16,647

Pohatcong Township 3,856

Washington Borough 6,429

Warren County

Washington Township 4,243

White Township 2,748

526,063

13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Bass River Township 1,344

Beverly City 2,919

Cinnaminson Township 16,072

Delanco Township 3,730

Delran Township 14,811

Edgewater Park Township 9,273

Evesham Township 21,508

Hainesport Township 3,236

Lumberton Township 5,236

Medford Lakes Borough 4,958

Medford Township 17,622

Moorestown Township 15,596

Mount Holly Township 10,818

Mount Laurel Township 17,614

New Hanover Township 14,258

North Hanover Township 9,050

Pemberton Borough 1,198

Pemberton Township 29,720

Riverside Township 7,941

Shamong Township 4,537

Southampton Township 8,808

Tabernacle Township 6,236

Washington Township 808

Willingboro Township 39,912

Woodland Township 2,285

Wrightstown Borough 3,031

Audubon Borough 9,533

Cherry Hill Township 68,785

Haddonfield Borough 12,337

Haddon Heights Borough 8,361

Merchantville Borough 3,972

Voorhees Township 12,919

Waterford Township 8,126

Barnegat Township 8,702

Barnegat Light Borough 619

Beach Haven Borough 1,714

Beachwood Borough 7,687

Berkeley Township 23,151

Eagleswood Township 1,009

Harvey Cedars Borough 363

Lacey Township 14,161

Lakehurst Borough 2,908

Little Egg Harbor Township 8,483

Long Beach Township 3,488

Manchester Township 27,987

Ocean Gate Borough 1,385

Ocean Township 3,731

Pine Beach Borough 1,796

Plumsted Township 4,674

Seaside Park Borough 1,795

Ship Bottom Borough 1,427

Stafford Township 10,385

Surf City Borough 1,571

Tuckerton Borough 2,472

526,062

14TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Bayonne City 65,047

Guttenberg Town 7,340

Harrison Town 12,242

Hoboken City 42,460

Jersey City 223,532

Ward # 1 — District # 3 1,045

Ward # 1 — District # 4 1,245

Ward # 1 — District # 5 1,103

Ward # 2 10,506

Ward # 4 — District # 1 1,174

Ward # 4 — District # 2 1,673

Ward # 4 — District # 3 846

Ward # 4 — District # 4 1,323

Ward # 4 — District # 8 1,552

North Bergen Township 47,019

Union City 55,593

Weehawken Township 13,168

West New York Town 39,194

1 . Karcher v. Daggett, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983), aff’g Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F.Supp. 978 (D.N.J.1982).

2 . Karcher v. Daggett, 455 U.S. 1303, 102 S.Ct. 1298, 71 L.Ed.2d 635 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers).

3 . We are advised that Congressman Courter, a plaintiff in No. 82-388, has terminated the authority of the firm of Hellring, Lindcman, Gold-stein & Siegal to act on his behalf, and that he disapproves of the submission of the plan in question.