It's not as high-profile or easy to digest as the fight to legalize marijuana or raise the minimum wage.

But there's another big battle raising lots of heat in Trenton right now: a controversial plan Democratic state lawmakers have suddenly resurrected to ask voters to approve an amendment to the state constitution that would overhaul how New Jersey draws its legislative districts.

Sponsors say the change would make the process of choosing state lawmakers fairer.

Critics warn it would insert a new formula into the constitution that would cement Democrats' control of the state Legislature for decades — and that the plan is being rushed through during the holiday season when peoples' attentions are elsewhere.

Naturally, Republicans are opposed. But the proposal has also put leading Democratic legislators at odds with Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and liberal-leaning groups.

And some academics say the whole idea is a little too close to gerrymandering that Republicans have been criticized for instituting in other states.

Here's what you need to know about the measure, which will be the subject of a public hearing Thursday at the Statehouse:

Don't Edit

What changes do Democrats want to make?

In a nutshell ...

New Jersey is divided into 40 legislative districts, each of which elect a member of the state Senate and two Assembly members to serve in the Legislature, the body that meets in Trenton to craft the state's laws.

Every 10 years, an 11-member committee redraws the district map to reflect demographic changes according to the U.S. Census. It's slated to happen again in 2021.

But if approved by the Legislature, this proposal (SCR152/ACR205) would place a referendum on next November's ballot asking voters to approve amending the state's constitution to revamp that process.

The most notable change: The districts would be drawn based on how political parties performed in statewide elections — for president, U.S. Senate, and governor — over the last 10 years.

The plan would also require 10 of the districts to be within five percent of the statewide party average in those elections. That, sponsors say, is an attempt to help make at least one-quarter of the districts competitive.

But the changes would likely benefit Democrats. There are more than 900,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in New Jersey — a state that hasn't gone to a Republican presidential candidate since 1988 and hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972.

Meanwhile, the proposal would also alter the makeup of the redistricting commission itself. Currently, five members are appointed by the state Democratic chairman, another five by the Republican chairman, and the last member by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

This plan would bump the number of members to 13. The two party chairs would each get two picks. The four leaders of the Legislature — two from each party — would also get two picks apiece, with one from each being a lawmaker. The chief justice would choose the final member.

Two members of the public representing that state’s “ethnic, gender and racial diversity” would also have to be included.

Don't Edit

State Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (Star-Ledger file photo)

Republicans say it's a con that threatens democracy.

New Jersey's minority party is painting the plan as a deceiving power grab by Democrats who want tighten their grasp of the state. Democrats already control the Legislature, the governor's office, both of the state's U.S. Senate seats, and, come January, 11 of 12 seats in the U.S. House.

"This sham of an amendment is about power," state Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., R-Union, said, accusing Democrats of trying to guarantee their control of the Legislature by "permanently rigging the election process in their favor."

Some Republicans have suggested basing the districts instead of the results of legislative elections — since these are legislative districts, after all, and those races tend not to tip as easily to Democrats.

Don't Edit

Gov. Phil Murphy. (Aristide Economopoulos | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

Some Democrats are against it, too. And some liberal advocates.

Murphy, New Jersey's rookie governor, has said multiple times he's against the measure even though he's a "proud Democrat."

"I'm also a believer in democracy and opening up democracy and transparency and good processes of government in getting to the right solutions," he said at a news conference in Trenton last month. "And I don't think this meets those tests."

Murphy's stance isn't surprising considering he's more progressive than most of the state's Democratic lawmakers and he so far has has a strained relationship with the top Democrats who control the Legislature.

Some insiders privately see the decision to strip party chairmen of some picks to the commission as a way to hurt Murphy because he's close to state Democratic Party Chairman John Currie.

But Murphy's not alone. Many liberal-leaning groups have spoken out. About a dozen activists held a news conference in Newark on Wednesday to lobby against the proposal — many of whom helped Democrats flip four U.S. House seats last month.

"We refuse to sit by and watch the Democratic party bosses further consolidate their power to have the ultimate leverage when it comes time to whip important votes," said Sue Altman of South Jersey Progressive Women for Change.

Yurji Rudensky of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law suggested this could "open the door to gerrymandering."

The Princeton Gerrymandering Report released a study that says the amendment would "make it possible for either Democrats or Republicans to commit a gerrymander under the radar."

And Richard Smith, president of the New Jersey chapter of the NAACP, said this all would "virtually ensure the voting power of communities of color will be diluted for decades to come."

Don't Edit

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari. (Star-Ledger file photo)

So how do Democrats defend this?

Democratic sponsors say it's simple: They're merely aiming to make the process for picking state legislators more fair and reflective of the state's voting makeup — which right now leans Democratic.

"This is not about political agendas," state Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, said.

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, a top sponsor of the measure, argued that basing districts on federal election results make the most sense because those races have the largest turnout.

Scutari said while Democrats "want the most amount of voters to be considered," Republicans want "the least amount."

"They want party politics as usual," Scutari, D-Union, said.

Plus, state Senate President Stephen Sweeney said, New Jersey was once a swing state, and it's possible the "pendulum (could) swing back" to Republicans again. Thus, this system would benefit them in the future if they're in power, reasoned Sweeney, D-Gloucester, another sponsor.

As for stripping power from Currie, the state Democratic Party chairmen? Sponsors say it's not the goal to hurt him or Murphy but rather to make sure party bosses don't have all the power and to give lawmakers a deserved spot at the table.

"Currie will still get two picks," Scutari said.

Sponsors also say the commission would be more democratic because it would include elected lawmakers and members of the public and not rely as much on non-elected party chairs.

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

This came up before. And died.

Yes, Democrats have pushed this plan in the past. A similar proposal was considered in 2015 — but it stalled after a similar backlash.

Don't Edit

There was a controversial vote already (complete with backroom deals).

Democrats began advancing the new measure late last month — but with a process that raised eyebrows.

The vote came just after a packed, five-hour hearing on a much-watched bill to legalize recreational marijuana in New Jersey on Nov. 27. The state Senate's budget committee took up the redistricting plan in front of a room that had largely emptied out.

Lawmakers also spent a large chunk of time that afternoon behind closed doors making amendments — including clarifying the question that voters would see in the voting booth. Critics have said the question is too vague and would mislead voters.

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth Polling Institute, told the panel he liked some of the changes. But he still felt the proposal was trying to pull the wool over voters' eyes in a way that could "further erode the public's trust" at a sensitive time in American politics.

(Murray also wrote an op-ed published by NJ.com bashing the measure.)

The committee's vote came after 7 p.m. and was split between party lines, 8-5, with the Democratic majority mustering enough votes to push it along.

But Republicans weren't happy. They said the proposal was changed after some lawmakers had already voted and left the building.

Democrats said the vote would stand and they would simply introduce a new measure with all the amendments that the full Legislature could consider.

At one point in the evening, a woman in the sparse crowd yelled that Democrats should be "ashamed."

Don't Edit

So what happens next?

One of two things must occur for the question to appear on voters' ballot next year:

Three-fifths of both the state Senate and Assembly need to approve the proposal by the end of this month.

Or simple majorities of each house need to approve it in separate votes this month and next year.

The first option seems unlikely because there's not widespread support for the plan.

Hence, Democrats appear to favor option No. 2 — which is likely why they're rushing to vote before the end of this year.

After Thursday's public hearing, both the Senate and Assembly are expected to hold final votes on the proposal Dec. 17.

If it does pass each chamber, they'd have to vote again early in 2019.

And if it passes again, voters would decide the amendment's fate next Nov. 5.

Don't Edit

Could Murphy stop it if he wanted to?

Not directly. Because this is a constitutional amendment, only the Legislature has to approve the measure for it to reach voters. The governor cannot veto it.

But Murphy could lobby lawmakers to vote against it. He said at a news conference last month that he hasn't reached that point yet.

"I've not spoken to anybody who's going to cast a vote one way or the other on that," he said. "That's not to say we wouldn't."

Don't Edit

MORE COVERAGE:

N.J. Democrats have all kinds of power these days. This new plan of theirs could give them more.

After the legal weed drama came a classic Jersey power fight featuring, yes, backroom deals

Moran: Stop the shameless power grab by N.J. Democrats

Don't Edit

Don't Edit

Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.