2020 New York Redistricting

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/NickReisman/status/1489402593386377217?s=20&t=Zcm5GPJQIQ...

And the GOP suit that appears to have been waiting for her signature, is now filed with the state courts.

[Lief 🗽]

THANK YOU Governor Hochul! A beautiful map that will restore FAIRNESS to the House of Representatives. She is quickly solidifying her place as the best NY Governor in my lifetime.

[Oryxslayer]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

[cinyc]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

That was neiither the intention of the voters who voted to put both the commission and rules regarding the commission in place in 2014, and directly contradicts the clear language of Subsection b, which binds the legislature to the redistricting rules put in place by the people when amending any commission plan.

[MillennialModerate]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

[Oryxslayer]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

That was neiither the intention of the voters who voted to put both the commission and rules regarding the commission in place in 2014, and directly contradicts the clear language of Subsection b, which binds the legislature to the redistricting rules put in place by the people when amending any commission plan.

But there was no commission plan. They never submitted round 2. The Leg never had the authority to draw its own maps according to the flowchart. But The commission died. The plaintiffs and the public record make a very good case for murder rather than suicide. But what comes next after death?

[politicallefty]

None of this discussion really matters. Virtually every court determines this question through a partisan lens. I'm looking at the judges that sit on the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the State of New York). They will be the ultimate arbiters of the new maps. The Court is entirely made up of Democratic appointees (a 7-member Court, 6 Cuomo and 1 Hochul). On the other hand, the Chief Judge was once a Republican and another Judge refused the COVID vaccine. If Democrats want this map upheld, they'd certainly be wise to have a better response and counsel compared to what Ohio Republicans put up.

[cinyc]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

That was neiither the intention of the voters who voted to put both the commission and rules regarding the commission in place in 2014, and directly contradicts the clear language of Subsection b, which binds the legislature to the redistricting rules put in place by the people when amending any commission plan.

But there was no commission plan. They never submitted round 2. The Leg never had the authority to draw its own maps according to the flowchart. But The commission died. The plaintiffs and the public record make a very good case for murder rather than suicide. But what comes next after death?

The legislature's bill amended the proposed commission plan. And the legislature can't do an end-run around the NYS Constitution's requirements by deliberately killing off the commission, then disregarding the voter's 2014 decree (which, I might add, was passed by two successive legislatures to get on the ballot in the first place, since that's the way we amend our constitution).

That dog's not going to hunt.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

Uh, are you the slightest bit familiar with the New York Court of Appeals?

[Babeuf]

None of this discussion really matters. Virtually every court determines this question through a partisan lens. I'm looking at the judges that sit on the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the State of New York). They will be the ultimate arbiters of the new maps. The Court is entirely made up of Democratic appointees (a 7-member Court, 6 Cuomo and 1 Hochul). On the other hand, the Chief Judge was once a Republican and another Judge refused the COVID vaccine. If Democrats want this map upheld, they'd certainly be wise to have a better response and counsel compared to what Ohio Republicans put up.

Michael Garcia is also a Republican despite the Cuomo appointment. The anti-vax judge is a Democrat by reputation, though not sure of her ideology. 4 of the judges were confirmed in the days of GOP/IDC senate control, 3 were confirmed after the Dems took the Senate. Will be an interesting case for sure, but I would bet on it being upheld.

[Brittain33]

Cinyc, what do you think of RRH’s suggestion that Curtis Sliwa could be a strong candidate to defeat Grace Meng in NY-6 based on his performance against Eric Adams in the mayor’s race?

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

The legislature's bill amended the proposed commission plan. And the legislature can't do an end-run around the NYS Constitution's requirements by deliberately killing off the commission, then disregarding the voter's 2014 decree (which, I might add, was passed by two successive legislatures to get on the ballot in the first place, since that's the way we amend our constitution).

That dog's not going to hunt.

But does it practically? Say the commission died before it drew any maps whatsoever. Then these maps would have gone in likely as a regular bill. Or what if the legislature respected the 2% amendment clause and then subsequently voted down the map by the titanic margins as previously. From the practical perspective, the end result is similar just with more hoops to jump through.

This is why I dislike politician commissions, give me a multi-partisan citizen affair - preferably one with minority access enshrined into its charter. A politician commission must define the extent of its power. In Virginia for example, the commission similarly died under circumstances that can be described as murder rather than suicide. Unlike in NY though, VA defines the Commonwealth's High Court as the final arbiter in the event of a breakdown. NY does not define what happens upon a breakdown.

So we reach the area of confusion. It is a game of power, and who should have it in an undefined situation. The plaintiffs argue that the NY courts, like those in VA or other states with deadlocks, should have had the final say. The Leg will argue that the wording leaves them as the final arbiter with implied authority to ensure NY would not have maps. The Dems likely would not have killed said maps and IRC if they did not expect to have the implied emergency authority.

[Torie]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

Thanks for the summary. I am not motivated enough to read the complaint as yet. The Pubs did not argue that if the commission refuses to do its work, etc., then the court draws the map, either state or federal, to equalize populations, as happened in the last cycle a few times, included in NYS?

I see it was filed at the trial court level in a Pub County, so the process may take awhile. I wonder if the trial court could find for the plaintiffs and appoint a special master, and the Dems then appeal, etc. There is the Appeals Court, and because the trial court is called the Supreme Court, the the high court is called the Appeals Court, appellate division. Yes, the nomenclature is ridiculous.

And Wasserman, as he does at least a couple of times a week, outs himself as the biggest uber Dem hack of them all by not even mentioning that some legal uncertainty attends the NYS map while popping the cork of the champaign bottle over Hochul's signature and the Dems netting two or three seats from the redistricting wars.

[Oryxslayer]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

Thanks for the summary. I am not motivated enough to read the complaint as yet. The Pubs did not argue that if the commission refuses to do its work, etc., then the court draws the map, either state or federal, to equalize populations, as happened in the last cycle a few times, included in NYS?

They argue that there is no constitutional map that exists for NY - because this map went through a undefined process and the previous one has pop deviation - and ask that if the court accept their argument that it and the legislature work to implement a map acceptable for the state. They are implying that the court should have had said emergency authority, but still play by the expectation that the legislature has some undefined say beyond it's approval by vote. A breakdown was not planned for or defined by law, and the question is who has the de facto authority and the limits of their authority in said situation.

Like this is a clear gerrymander and only a hack would accept the COI arguments the Dems will bring forward like SPM did, but if the legislature has De Facto unrestricted authority in the event of a power vacuum - like the state courts in some other states - then there was nothing illegal and NY should probably write a better law with actual citizen control over the politicians.

[Torie]

One can read the brief submitted against the congressional maps here. After reading it, I come to a similar conclusion to Michael Li of the Brennan Center: VRA/minority rights suits have clear legal parameters, but this would be the first test of NY's amendment that legally is situationally very muddy. The second part of their case, alleging that the maps diminish partisan competition, is clear for all to see.

But the first part is iffy at best: that because the commission broke down the legislature never had any mapping authority. This is the grey area. The NY IRC constitutional law was very clear about power dynamics in all situations expect the one where there are dual supermajorities - and there was never any point to define that one given the knowledge available to the GOP senators at the time. Once dems did have the supermajorities though they had every incentive to see the commission fail. And what if the commission failed, as it did die? The Dems allege that therefore power fell into the legislatures hands. The plaintiffs argue the commission still had its power. But with the commission dead and the Leg hypothetically powerless, there would be no body left with the legal authority to map. Unless of course, which is probably not what the plaintiffs want to argue, that the 2014 amendment only applies to the prioritized IRC and it's flowchart process. If the commission refuses to work, then the only other process available is the backup one done for the past 70 years, which means all the provisions pertaining to how the IRC draws its seats only apply to the new method that died and not the old ways. Which is frankly one way how this whole situation legally is a mess.

Thanks for the summary. I am not motivated enough to read the complaint as yet. The Pubs did not argue that if the commission refuses to do its work, etc., then the court draws the map, either state or federal, to equalize populations, as happened in the last cycle a few times, included in NYS?

They argue that there is no constitutional map that exists for NY - because this map went through a undefined process and the previous one has pop deviation - and ask that if the court accept their argument that it and the legislature work to implement a map acceptable for the state. They are implying that the court should have had said emergency authority, but still play by the expectation that the legislature has some undefined say beyond it's approval by vote. A breakdown was not planned for or defined by law, and the question is who has the de facto authority and the limits of their authority in said situation.

Like this is a clear gerrymander and only a hack would accept the COI arguments the Dems will bring forward like SPM did, but if the legislature has De Facto unrestricted authority in the event of a power vacuum - like the state courts in some other states - then there was nothing illegal and NY should probably write a better law with actual citizen control over the politicians.

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

[Oryxslayer]

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

We do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if it does cause the map flagrantly violates the fairness and in some areas geographic sensibility provisions. Justification could only come through a failure of jurisdiction. Other emergency bodies in other states usually have the power to ignore everything that came before them - usually in the name of fairness, minority opportunity, and most importantly, speed - so if the Leg is the De Facto emergency authority then New Yorkers should define a new and better law to strip it of this loophole.

[Torie]

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

We do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if it does cause the map flagrantly violates the fairness and in some areas geographic sensibility provisions. Justification could only come through a failure of jurisdiction. Other emergency bodies in other states usually have the power to ignore everything that came before them - usually in the name of fairness, minority opportunity, and most importantly, speed - so if the Leg is the De Facto emergency authority then New Yorkers should define a new and better law to strip it of this loophole.

Are you agreeing that that is the Dem argument, and that you think it might actually be successful, with the Dems knowing the court, because otherwise the Dems with such a brazenly lawless map, are at once reckless and stupid.

On this one, I think the Dems may win the battle but lose the war, because this will be a textbook example of a party gaming the system, and going lawless, and giving the finger to the voters, and that story will be told by the Pubs for a very long time. When one party totally controls all 3 branches of government, in this day and age, the rule of law ceases to be something one can rely upon. So to survive, it's back to pay to play.

[It’s so Joever]

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

We do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if it does cause the map flagrantly violates the fairness and in some areas geographic sensibility provisions. Justification could only come through a failure of jurisdiction. Other emergency bodies in other states usually have the power to ignore everything that came before them - usually in the name of fairness, minority opportunity, and most importantly, speed - so if the Leg is the De Facto emergency authority then New Yorkers should define a new and better law to strip it of this loophole.

Are you agreeing that that is the Dem argument, and that you think it might actually be successful, with the Dems knowing the court, because otherwise the Dems with such a brazenly lawless map, are at once reckless and stupid.

On this one, I think the Dems may win the battle but lose the war, because this will be a textbook example of a party gaming the system, and going lawless, and giving the finger to the voters, and that story will be told by the Pubs for a very long time. When one party totally controls all 3 branches of government, in this day and age, the rule of law ceases to be something one can rely upon. So to survive, it's back to pay to play.

Voters don’t give a s**t about gerrymandering.

[David Hume]

None of this discussion really matters. Virtually every court determines this question through a partisan lens. I'm looking at the judges that sit on the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the State of New York). They will be the ultimate arbiters of the new maps. The Court is entirely made up of Democratic appointees (a 7-member Court, 6 Cuomo and 1 Hochul). On the other hand, the Chief Judge was once a Republican and another Judge refused the COVID vaccine. If Democrats want this map upheld, they'd certainly be wise to have a better response and counsel compared to what Ohio Republicans put up.

What about O'Connor from OHSC?

Four of the judges in NYCA were confirmed when the senate is under R control, and they are unlikely to be D partisan hacks.

[Brittain33]

On this one, I think the Dems may win the battle but lose the war, because this will be a textbook example of a party gaming the system, and going lawless, and giving the finger to the voters, and that story will be told by the Pubs for a very long time.

I am skeptical of any party paying a price for bad behavior, but I agree that Dems will win the battle and lose the war over redistricting, because I don't think Congressional Democrats will ever pass an effective anti-gerrymandering law now that the IL and NY delegations will be dependent on gerrymanders. I fear this Congress was the window for change to happen and it's slammed shut for decades.

Once Texas flips, Republicans may change their view on gerrymandering, but I don't think it will change what their justices on the SC think and our government isn't set up for Republicans to partner with good government Dems to make a majority.

[cinyc]

Cinyc, what do you think of RRH’s suggestion that Curtis Sliwa could be a strong candidate to defeat Grace Meng in NY-6 based on his performance against Eric Adams in the mayor’s race?

Mayoral race turnout isn't the same as midterm turnout. It's usually worse.

Would Silwa be the strongest candidate Republicans could find for NY-6? Depends on whether there is an Asian Republican with higher name recognition who could run for the seat. If not, he might be. He has name recognition and can hammer home on the crime issue.

Strongest is relative, though - Meng should win regarldless of what Republican runs.

[MillennialModerate]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

Uh, are you the slightest bit familiar with the New York Court of Appeals?

Nope… enlighten me

[Oryxslayer]

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

We do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if it does cause the map flagrantly violates the fairness and in some areas geographic sensibility provisions. Justification could only come through a failure of jurisdiction. Other emergency bodies in other states usually have the power to ignore everything that came before them - usually in the name of fairness, minority opportunity, and most importantly, speed - so if the Leg is the De Facto emergency authority then New Yorkers should define a new and better law to strip it of this loophole.

Are you agreeing that that is the Dem argument, and that you think it might actually be successful, with the Dems knowing the court, because otherwise the Dems with such a brazenly lawless map, are at once reckless and stupid.

On this one, I think the Dems may win the battle but lose the war, because this will be a textbook example of a party gaming the system, and going lawless, and giving the finger to the voters, and that story will be told by the Pubs for a very long time. When one party totally controls all 3 branches of government, in this day and age, the rule of law ceases to be something one can rely upon. So to survive, it's back to pay to play.

To add to this zero-sum analysis:

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1489663746704392192?s=20&t=_sZpBb4t2cTUwu_q...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

Uh, are you the slightest bit familiar with the New York Court of Appeals?

Nope… enlighten me

Every member was appointed by Cuomo except one who was by Hochul and thus is stacked with some of the biggest hacks you can imagine. It might be the single most partisan state high court in the country.

[cinyc]

Except there are rules about how the lines should be drawn (cinyc listed them above). Is the Dem argument that those rules only apply to the commission and not to the legislature?

We do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if it does cause the map flagrantly violates the fairness and in some areas geographic sensibility provisions. Justification could only come through a failure of jurisdiction. Other emergency bodies in other states usually have the power to ignore everything that came before them - usually in the name of fairness, minority opportunity, and most importantly, speed - so if the Leg is the De Facto emergency authority then New Yorkers should define a new and better law to strip it of this loophole.

Are you agreeing that that is the Dem argument, and that you think it might actually be successful, with the Dems knowing the court, because otherwise the Dems with such a brazenly lawless map, are at once reckless and stupid.

On this one, I think the Dems may win the battle but lose the war, because this will be a textbook example of a party gaming the system, and going lawless, and giving the finger to the voters, and that story will be told by the Pubs for a very long time. When one party totally controls all 3 branches of government, in this day and age, the rule of law ceases to be something one can rely upon. So to survive, it's back to pay to play.

To add to this zero-sum analysis:

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1489663746704392192?s=20&t=_sZpBb4t2cTUwu_q...

So what? Federal and state law are different, and lawyers argue whatever their clients pay them to argue. I'm sure Democratic superlawyer Marc Elias has argued inconsistent things in the past, too.