The 11th member of the legislative redistricting commission, Philip Carchman  (a former judge who was appointed to be the tiebreaker in case of partisan gridlock) has issued a directive containing five criteria for a successful legislative map. The first three are recognition of communities of interest, partisan fairness and compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  No arguments there. The final two criteria are competitiveness and “continuity of representation”. Can’t argue with competitiveness. Heck, if I had my way, we would just draw forty strips across New Jersey and slug it out – recognizing communities of interest, of course. At least voters would be making the decisions and candidates would have to convince voters to vote for them. The problem is that “continuity of representation” (which means “design a district that favors the current representative”) is in direct opposition to competitiveness, which is supposed to be the bedrock of the American political system. To be fair to Judge Carchman, he acknowledges the inherent conflicts among the directives. And to be fair to everyone involved in the process, they are working within the constraints of the system as currently devised.

So let’s ask the question, why do we need “continuity of representation” in a legislative district? I understand the motive in congressional redistricting. Congress is based on seniority; the longer you are there, the higher up the ladder you move. Bob Menendez would not be the chair of Foreign Relations if he were a freshman senator. AND, does anyone think they would allow Bernie Sanders to chair the Budget Committee – if they could avoid it? They’d put him in charge of the Committee to Reduce Government Paperwork – if they could.

So there is a reason for “continuity of representation” in Washington, but no such reason exists in Trenton. The sole criteria for a Chair appointment is being in the good graces of the Senate President or Assembly Speaker, which is why one of the most talented and dedicated legislators of the last half century, Dick Codey, can be out in the cold for the entire ten year tenure of a Senate President. (Try looking up Dick Codey and Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital if someone wants to argue with my characterization.)

So what argument can one make for “continuity of representation”? The longer they are there, the better they understand their district? Well, first, there is no empirical evidence anywhere that supports this. It’s just something people say. Others say it contributes to stale ideas and a lack of innovative thinking. One, both or none of these may be true, but there is no proof on either side.

Second, the district, which is an artificial construct, changes every ten years. We are just talking about how that change is determined. Voters should choose their politicians. Politicians should not be allowed to choose their voters, which is what “continuity of representation” becomes.

There are only 40 competitive seats in congress out of 435. Maybe that’s why Princeton and Stanford studies show that .05 percent of congressional decisions are based on consideration of voter sentiment – that’s one half of one percent. Think the number would be higher if the seats were competitive? This dysfunction is why over 70% of the electorate wants Medicare for All, a system that works in over 30 countries, for a total of hundreds of years of successful experience, but can’t even get a sniff in DC. Same for abolishing student loans.

I think about some of the most popular elected officials in New Jersey, Steve Fulop (re-elected to a third term with 68% of the vote), Brian Stack or Ras Baraka. They run in the same area – a town/city, every time. Their area is not retailored to meet their needs. They don’t say “I just want to run in the ¾ of my town that I’m popular in”. They just run and convince voters to support them. I’m willing to bet that the number of decisions based on voter sentiment is much higher than .05% – as it should be.  Politicians are supposed to face and convince voters to support them, not avoid them. To do otherwise is simply un-American.