Let's look to mirror how it was done in the 1966 convention, with 126 elected delegates representing every county in the state
By Kevin J. O'Toole
New Jersey's Constitution was created to protect all citizens at the expense of political partisanship.
Unfortunately, as of late, the Democratic Party has begun a barrage of amendments to the constitution to protect the will of their political party at the direct expense of all New Jerseyans.
A glaring example of that is their last-minute push to pass SCR-188, a constitutional amendment that Democrats purport would create competitive elections. In fact, this amendment would enshrine in the constitution as many as 30 "safe" legislative districts, meaning taxation without representation for as many as 75 percent of voters. SCR-188 would also dilute minority voting strength, as safe districts won't have opportunity to elect a candidate of choice; give politicians greater influence over election results; and use irrelevant federal and statewide political data to craft more pro-Democrat districts.
Given our recent downward trend of voter turnout -- approximately 20 percent in the last election -- our overall goal should be to ensure every legislative district is competitive. We should not constitutionally or purposefully make any percentage of legislative races uncompetitive, as the Democrats' SCR-188 would do.
It is not just my opinion that it is outrageous to attempt to use the constitution as a tool for political gain. Out of the 85 ballot questions presented to voters since 1947, only one has sought to change state legislative redistricting.
The way it was done in 1966, by a Democrat governor and Republican-controlled legislature, should be revered and imitated, if New Jersey's redistricting process, which is considered across the country as being one of the least partisan, truly needs to be changed.
In the 1966 New Jersey Constitutional Convention, our forefathers held sacred the responsibility to dedicate sufficient time and resources when they considered proposing to voters a constitutional amendment to change New Jersey's legislative redistricting process.
The official record of that convention's proceedings clearly shows the best way to amend the legislative redistricting section was to do so in a strictly bipartisan, transparent and comprehensive manner, with an equal number of Democrat and Republican delegates.
Editorial: Voting rights should not be stalled by one obstinate senator
The backers of the enabling legislation were so keenly aware of the importance of strict bipartisanship that they authorized a convention to take place in New Brunswick, to avoid the specter of partisan politics associated with the New Jersey Capitol.
Let's look to mirror how it was done in the 1966 convention, with 126 elected delegates representing every county in the state. Delegates received a weighty packet of research and background materials such as court decisions, issue briefs and research reports. A compilation of the reports prepared for that convention has been preserved in the New Jersey State Library and provides a record of the depth and extent of research conducted by the convention staff. Nine committees in the 1966 convention met publicly on 14 separate days between March 21, 1966, and June 14, 1966.
In addition to background materials and research reports on legislative districting, several organizations and individuals provided testimony to convention committees or to the convention as a whole. Among those who appeared before the convention or a convention committee to give testimony and/or and answer questions were: Gov. Richard Hughes; Nebraska Lieutenant Gov. Philip Sorenson; U.S. Senator Clifford Case; the New Jersey League of Women Voters; political scientists and attorneys; and New Jersey Citizens for a Representative Legislature.
The 1966 convention proposed over 50 individual proposals that were made available to the public to amend the legislative redistricting section of the constitution. These proposals covered a wide variety of ideas including establishing a unicameral legislature, determining the size of the legislature, the advantages and disadvantages of single versus multiple member districts and statistical analyses of acceptable population calculations.
There is no comparison between the level of thoughtfulness and concern for the public in 1966 and the Democrats' current tactic of trying to jam through enabling legislation during the week of Christmas, without an adequate public vetting process.
Why all the cloak and dagger?
If we truly want to honor the legacy of our constitutional founders and represent all New Jerseyans, let's scrap SCR-188 and come together in a truly bipartisan fashion to provide equal representation to everyone. All ideas should be on the table, such as my proposal during Monday's state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to enact term limits for legislators.
Whatever we do, let's be transparent about how and why we change the Constitution and ensure we aren't doing it to help one political party at the expense of everyone else.
Kevin J. O'Toole is a Republican representing Essex County in the New Jersey Senate.
Follow NJ.com Opinion on Twitter @NJ_Opinion. Find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.