2020 New York Redistricting

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Not to mention giving Staten Island to Dan Goldman allows for an Asian plurality Brooklyn district.

Yep, it is the only way to draw a big beautiful fair map that is reflective of the diversity of the people of New York. Anything less is a disgraceful violation of the the rights of the growing Asian-American minority community.

[henster]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here. Yes they can repeal it but it increases the odds of a GOP lawsuit succeeding because they'd definitely have a case of partisan intent from Dems. I think Dems biggest priority should be maps that boost Dems and is least vulnerable to lawsuit.

[Virginiá]

I mean, the legislature pretty much gave themselves an off-ramp from the commission specifically so they could pass their own maps. An intense pressure campaign to appoint a liberal justice was also in large part to approve new maps (among other things). Why would they not take advantage of the groundwork they have laid? The complaints about incumbent protection also seem set up to give the legislature an excuse to reject the map.

These faux-reform commissions never do what they are supposed to do. It's always the same. New York, Virginia, Ohio.... If they were intended to actually work, they wouldn't have all sorts of exceptions for the legislature to abuse.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here. Yes they can repeal it but it increases the odds of a GOP lawsuit succeeding because they'd definitely have a case of partisan intent from Dems. I think Dems biggest priority should be maps that boost Dems and is least vulnerable to lawsuit.

This map doesn’t fix any of the issues from the prior one.  I’m sure that the Judges in Albany will recognize that in their infinite wisdom

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

[Virginiá]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

If the legislature wants to modify the commission plan, it can't deviate more than 2% pop. for any given district.

But Democrats can always reject the first map, and then the second map, and then pass their own if they have a 2/3rd majority.

[henster]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

If the legislature wants to modify the commission plan, it can't deviate more than 2% pop. for any given district.

But Democrats can always reject the first map, and then the second map, and then pass their own if they have a 2/3rd majority.

The 2% rule is only statutory and not included in the original constitutional amendment so it can be repealed easily. The problem is the constitution prohibits partisan intent in redistricting, so the case could be made that repealing the rule to draw more favorable maps is partisan intent. Dems could adjust the rule from 2 to say 5 or 10% rather than repealing it or just follow the rule and shift what seats they can 2% to the left.

[Tekken_Guy]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

If the legislature wants to modify the commission plan, it can't deviate more than 2% pop. for any given district.

But Democrats can always reject the first map, and then the second map, and then pass their own if they have a 2/3rd majority.

The 2% rule is only statutory and not included in the original constitutional amendment so it can be repealed easily. The problem is the constitution prohibits partisan intent in redistricting, so the case could be made that repealing the rule to draw more favorable maps is partisan intent. Dems could adjust the rule from 2 to say 5 or 10% rather than repealing it or just follow the rule and shift what seats they can 2% to the left.

Unless there's any reason to think the court will strike a gerrymander down, I don't think Democrats will care. Dems have the 3 dissenters and the new judge.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...

Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&s=19
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

He may be slime, but he's our slime.

[Dan the Roman]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

If the legislature wants to modify the commission plan, it can't deviate more than 2% pop. for any given district.

But Democrats can always reject the first map, and then the second map, and then pass their own if they have a 2/3rd majority.

The 2% rule is only statutory and not included in the original constitutional amendment so it can be repealed easily. The problem is the constitution prohibits partisan intent in redistricting, so the case could be made that repealing the rule to draw more favorable maps is partisan intent. Dems could adjust the rule from 2 to say 5 or 10% rather than repealing it or just follow the rule and shift what seats they can 2% to the left.

Unless there's any reason to think the court will strike a gerrymander down, I don't think Democrats will care. Dems have the 3 dissenters and the new judge.

The original decision was

4-2-1. The one agreed the map was gerrymandering but constitutionally it should have gone back to the commission and the legislature.

The new vote is 3-1----3 not 4-3 in that there were four votes that proper procedure was not followed and the appointment of the special master was unconstitutional, but only 3 votes for Ds being able to do what they want. The fourth judge voted with Democrats there, but he pointedly did not disagree with any of the old majority's complaonts about the Hochulmander, merely with the special master.

I am going to be generous and say I don't think anyone in this thread seriously believes in the relevance f the fairness/COI complaints being made anymore than DeSantis genuinely believed that the VRA required getting rid of Lawson's seat. It's clear that the main objections are that there are not enough Democratic seats and that's fine if your objection is the need to balance R hackers in NC/OH.

But unlike North Carolina, where the state Constitution is silent, the NY one explicitly bans partisanship as a motive regardless of what margin the legislature votes by, and deciding not to give the Judges a figleaf is an issue in a jurisdiction which still has a fairly strong culture of a bar code of professional ethics.

I mean it's a game of smirking here, but if the Court can't even come up with a clever argument there will be social consequences for those involved that don't exist in other jurisdictions. (Not least because with elected courts people are more likely to move into higher office)

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

The 2% rule is the biggest hurdle for Dems here.

What is this 2% rule? Whatever it is, if it is a problem, then I would think the supermajority legislature should simply change it.

If the legislature wants to modify the commission plan, it can't deviate more than 2% pop. for any given district.

But Democrats can always reject the first map, and then the second map, and then pass their own if they have a 2/3rd majority.

The 2% rule is only statutory and not included in the original constitutional amendment so it can be repealed easily. The problem is the constitution prohibits partisan intent in redistricting, so the case could be made that repealing the rule to draw more favorable maps is partisan intent. Dems could adjust the rule from 2 to say 5 or 10% rather than repealing it or just follow the rule and shift what seats they can 2% to the left.

Unless there's any reason to think the court will strike a gerrymander down, I don't think Democrats will care. Dems have the 3 dissenters and the new judge.

The original decision was

4-2-1. The one agreed the map was gerrymandering but constitutionally it should have gone back to the commission and the legislature.

The new vote is 3-1----3 not 4-3 in that there were four votes that proper procedure was not followed and the appointment of the special master was unconstitutional, but only 3 votes for Ds being able to do what they want. The fourth judge voted with Democrats there, but he pointedly did not disagree with any of the old majority's complaonts about the Hochulmander, merely with the special master.

I am going to be generous and say I don't think anyone in this thread seriously believes in the relevance f the fairness/COI complaints being made anymore than DeSantis genuinely believed that the VRA required getting rid of Lawson's seat. It's clear that the main objections are that there are not enough Democratic seats and that's fine if your objection is the need to balance R hackers in NC/OH.

But unlike North Carolina, where the state Constitution is silent, the NY one explicitly bans partisanship as a motive regardless of what margin the legislature votes by, and deciding not to give the Judges a figleaf is an issue in a jurisdiction which still has a fairly strong culture of a bar code of professional ethics.

I mean it's a game of smirking here, but if the Court can't even come up with a clever argument there will be social consequences for those involved that don't exist in other jurisdictions. (Not least because with elected courts people are more likely to move into higher office)

The judge may not be as hackish as the other 3 but I highly doubt they would strike down a map that looked like the Gerrymander DeSantis drew in FL(Clean but still a gerrymander) So, probably not maximal but a gerrymander none the less

[Tekken_Guy]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e04f3c40-a052-4df0-9149-2ef3ad95530f

How does this as a “soft” gerrymander look?

NY-01: Trump+6.8
NY-02: Biden+6.2
NY-03: Biden+8.1
NY-04: Biden+14.4
NY-11: Biden+0.6
NY-17: Biden+11.3
NY-18: Biden+11.1
NY-19: Biden+5.8
NY-22: Biden+11.3

[Sol]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e04f3c40-a052-4df0-9149-2ef3ad95530f

How does this as a “soft” gerrymander look?

NY-01: Trump+6.8
NY-02: Biden+6.2
NY-03: Biden+8.1
NY-04: Biden+14.4
NY-11: Biden+0.6
NY-17: Biden+11.3
NY-18: Biden+11.1
NY-19: Biden+5.8
NY-22: Biden+11.3

It sure seems like Democrats are setting the groundwork for Staten Island-Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn Chinatown-Manhattan Chinatown districts, so I would maybe switch 10 and 11 for that.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e04f3c40-a052-4df0-9149-2ef3ad95530f

How does this as a “soft” gerrymander look?

NY-01: Trump+6.8
NY-02: Biden+6.2
NY-03: Biden+8.1
NY-04: Biden+14.4
NY-11: Biden+0.6
NY-17: Biden+11.3
NY-18: Biden+11.1
NY-19: Biden+5.8
NY-22: Biden+11.3

It sure seems like Democrats are setting the groundwork for Staten Island-Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn Chinatown-Manhattan Chinatown districts, so I would maybe switch 10 and 11 for that.

Yeah that would make sense for a “hard” gerrymander but not this soft one.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...

Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...

Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

[David Hume]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

because their constitution explicitly bans partisan gerrymander, while NC/TX did not.

[Tekken_Guy]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

because their constitution explicitly bans partisan gerrymander, while NC/TX did not.

Well depends on how hackish the judges are feeling.

[oldtimer]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

Democrats want to ban gerrymandering, but oppose unilateral disarmament.  Republicans oppose banning gerrymandering.  It’s not the same.

[Spectator]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e04f3c40-a052-4df0-9149-2ef3ad95530f

How does this as a “soft” gerrymander look?

NY-01: Trump+6.8
NY-02: Biden+6.2
NY-03: Biden+8.1
NY-04: Biden+14.4
NY-11: Biden+0.6
NY-17: Biden+11.3
NY-18: Biden+11.1
NY-19: Biden+5.8
NY-22: Biden+11.3

Dems would never go for that Long Island setup since they’d lose all of them in any red leaning year, and if they’re gonna gun for Malliotakis, they’d nuke her with a Biden +20 seat or something.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e04f3c40-a052-4df0-9149-2ef3ad95530f

How does this as a “soft” gerrymander look?

NY-01: Trump+6.8
NY-02: Biden+6.2
NY-03: Biden+8.1
NY-04: Biden+14.4
NY-11: Biden+0.6
NY-17: Biden+11.3
NY-18: Biden+11.1
NY-19: Biden+5.8
NY-22: Biden+11.3

No deal, way too Republican a map

[kwabbit]

The Long Island Sound Crossing isn't even that bad tbh. Relatively similar areas demographically. You can connect them quite easily if land contiguity is a must as well.

[Dan the Roman]

https://twitter.com/nydems/status/1758287925144703009?t=a2WI36TEdR3pZeiBJyuPrA&a...
Lol it's so dead.

This guy is slime, but he knows he's slime, and knows what he needs to do to keep people happy and himself in a job.

What a pathetic statement from someone who is killing fair maps.

Why should New York have to play by the rules when North Carolina and Texas can gerrymander to their heart’s desire?

The reverse is also true.

Why N.C. and Texas play by the rules when Nevada, NM, NJ, IL, OR, ect ect can gerrymander ?

The Democrats have gerrymandered so much, Republicans need the to win the P.V. by 2+ to have a majority, and that's without a NY gerrymander.

Democrats want to ban gerrymandering, but oppose unilateral disarmament.  Republicans oppose banning gerrymandering.  It’s not the same.

That isn't really true as the Democratic definition of "gerrymandering" is outcome rather than process based. The Wi Supreme Court ruling basically obligates partisan gerrymandering to ensure "geography is not destiny".

So I doubt Democrats would back a legal ban on the consideration of partisan outcomes in redistricting.

They would insist on some sort of efficiency gap/proportionality requirement