concluding that application of State Constitution’s political-boundary requirement to two largest municipalities was preempted by “one person, one vote” mandate and federal Voting Rights Act in light of Supremacy Clause
How later courts described this case
- concluding that application of State Constitution’s political-boundary requirement to two largest municipalities was preempted by “one person, one vote” mandate and federal Voting Rights Act in light of Supremacy Clause
- holding a provision of New Jersey’s state constitution preempted under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and noting “we believe that Georgia v. Ashcroft supports our conclusion that [influence dilution] claims are permitted”
- stating claim preclusion governs "valid, final and on the merits" prior orders if the parties in the two actions are identical or in privity and the claim in the second action "grow[s] out of the same transaction or occurrence" as the claim in the first action
- “The concept that a party is required to bring all possible claims in one proceeding is embodied in the closely linked concepts of res judicata and the entire controversy doctrine.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VERNIERO, ALBIN, JJ.,
dissenting.
Pursuant to Article IV, section 2 of the New Jersey Constitution, Newark and Jersey City can be divided into no more than two State legislative districts each. The majority declares that following that constitutional mandate would violate the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and, on that basis, upholds the current legislative apportionment map. We cannot determine whether the majority’s position is correct based on the present record. We thus would remand this matter to the Law Division, giving the current map a presumption of validity. We would allow the challengers the opportunity to demonstrate, with substantial certainty, whether an alternative apportionment plan can pass muster under federal law consistent with the New Jersey Constitution.
*401 We do not accept the majority’s conclusion that past departures from Article IV, section 2, paragraph 3 effectively have written that provision out of the State’s constitution. The cases that arguably support the Court’s holding were decided under circumstances not present here. Accordingly, we would not import the rationale of those decisions to this ease. Simply put, Article IV, section 2 of our State’s constitution remains in effect and need only yield to superior federal voting-rights principles. The recently-decided Georgia v. Ashcroft, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 2498 , 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003), addresses a section of the VRA that is not implicated in this case. Accordingly, Ashcroft does not resolve the issues before us.
Contrary to the Appellate Division, we also are not prepared at this juncture to hold that Article IV, section 2 invalidates the Commission’s 2001 plan, which otherwise is presumed valid. Davenport v. Apportionment Comm’n, 65 N.J. 125, 135 , 319 A.2d 718, 723 (1974). Neither the Commission nor the Law Division explicitly tested the notion whether Newark and Jersey City can be divided into two districts each consistent with federal law. In sum, we cannot determine the validity of the 2001 apportionment plan on the present record. We respectfully dissent.