 |
Schematic of Plainfield's Ward after the 2000 Census. |
This will be done AFTER Gov. Christie 'promulgates' the official Census 2010 numbers, which is not expected to happen before April 1. That means that the local maps (see list at end of post) will be redrawn to take effect with the primary election of 2012.
And that will be done by the 'Board of Ward Commissioners' which New Jersey law stipulates is the county Board of Elections (composed of four members, two from each party) PLUS the Municipal Clerk (who is the tie-breaker).
The Ward Commissioners must meet within THREE MONTHS of the governor's 'promulgation' of the Census numbers and has thirty days thence to complete its work, as outlined in Dr. Ernest Reock's redistricting report (see here, PDF).
The statutory requirement is that the largest Ward's population may not exceed the smallest by more than 10% of the 'mean average population of the wards' -- which translates to 5% on either side of the average Ward population.
With Plainfield having a gain of 1,979 (to 49,808) over the 2000 population (47,829), the outer parameters on an average size of 12,452 per Ward would be 13,075 for the largest and 11,829 for the smallest.
My surmise is that the bulk of the growth in the population has been in Ward 1 and Ward 4, which would mean the GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES would shrink slightly as population was moved into the wards where population growth was less pronounced. (I expect this will continue the trend shown with the redrawing of the Ward boundaries after the 2000 Census.)
VOTING DISTRICTS, as Reock points out, are flexibly sized, but he says 'they usually should not have more than 750 registered voters...[nor be] smaller than 250 voters'.
The matter of the redrawing of the voter districts seems to me to be more problematic, as my analysis of the 2010 General Election shows that there is an enormous range in numbers of registered voters in Plainfield's voting districts (from 441 in 1-3 to 1,121 in 4/2).
Here are the details as I discovered them --
| 2010 GENERAL ELECTION | |||
| Total Registered | Turnout | % Voting | |
| Ward 1 | |||
| 01 | 625 | 282 | 45% |
| 02 | 961 | 287 | 30% |
| 03 | 441 | 163 | 37% |
| 04 | 495 | 185 | 37% |
| 05 | 543 | 166 | 31% |
| 06 | 571 | 231 | 40% |
| 07 | 743 | 300 | 40% |
| 08 | 601 | 265 | 44% |
| | |||
| Ward 2 | |||
| 01 | 712 | 212 | 30% |
| 02 | 509 | 235 | 46% |
| 03 | 553 | 262 | 47% |
| 04 | 594 | 212 | 36% |
| 05 | 477 | 244 | 51% |
| 06 | 584 | 292 | 50% |
| 07 | 585 | 265 | 45% |
| 08 | 458 | 229 | 50% |
| 09 | 512 | 257 | 50% |
| 10 | 494 | 242 | 49% |
| 11 | 869 | 342 | 39% |
| Ward 3 | |||
| 01 | 496 | 168 | 39% |
| 02 | 545 | 222 | 41% |
| 03 | 551 | 268 | 49% |
| 04 | 887 | 377 | 43% |
| 05 | 478 | 272 | 57% |
| 06 | 522 | 282 | 54% |
| 07 | 524 | 250 | 48% |
| 08 | 498 | 206 | 41% |
| 09 | 689 | 259 | 38% |
| 10 | 903 | 273 | 30% |
| | |||
| Ward 4 | |||
| 01 | 1,201 | 332 | 28% |
| 02 | 1,121 | 425 | 38% |
| 03 | 821 | 395 | 48% |
| 04 | 568 | 200 | 35% |
| 05 | 499 | 191 | 38% |
| | |||
Would a rationalizing of the number and distribution of Plainfield's voting districts seem to be in order?
From the point of view of the economics of operating the elections, it seems Plainfield could use fewer voting districts overall (with the exception that Ward 4 could possibly benefit from having ONE DISTRICT MORE).
But the statutes seem to remain silent on whether any particular action MUST be taken.
And that is where politics can rear its head, with the two political parties having vested interests in keeping the status quo with regard to voting districts.
Perhaps I forgot to mention that all this is taking place in NEW JERSEY?
Where change, if it comes, comes ever so slowly.
- Plainfield Ward Maps: | Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4 |
- Rutgers: "Redistricting Resource Center"
- Report: "Redistricting New Jersey after the 2010 Census" (PDF)
- Union County: "Board of Elections"
- US Census: "Plainfield, 2000 Census"
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment