2020 New York Redistricting

[Tintrlvr]

There are definitely improvements that can be made to that map without causing any chance of any issues. Three easy ones come to mind immediately:

1. Greene County goes into NY-21. Then push NY-18 and NY-20 a bit further north along the Hudson (there are more Dems in Saratoga County to mop up, e.g.). Also, NY-20 will definitely stretch to include Amsterdam in Montgomery County because Paul Tonko lives there.
2. Tioga County goes into NY-23. NY-21 then takes more (maybe all) of Jefferson County, and NY-19 pushes a bit more into Otsego County, where there are more Democratic areas in the center of the county for it to pick up.
3. Push NY-17 down the Hudson in Westchester instead of into Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant beyond Sleepy Hollow is the most Republican part of Westchester and should be left in NY-16, but Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, etc. are very Democratic. This could be worth as much as +0.5 in D partisanship for a very minor change.

There's another potential improvement, too, which adds county splits but which I don't think would run afoul of constitutional issues, which is putting the city of Auburn in NY-22 while slicing off parts of Oneida County in exchange and rejiggering NY-21 and 23 to compensate. The Onondaga-Madison-Oneida district is very neat but is not constitutionally mandated.

Finally, I don't think it's even worth discussing the NYC districts because what you've proposed (eliminating AOC's majority Hispanic seat in favor of establishing a majority white seat in SW Brooklyn) will never, ever happen, and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals.

[Tintrlvr]

That's a more dem NY-11, not sure what % though.

Not by much, honestly. This was a pretty lazy attempt if it was supposed to be a gerrymander.

[Tintrlvr]

Anyway, the fact that these are the commission plans should put to rest any belief that the redistricting standards in the state constitution mean anything at all. Obviously neither plan makes any serious attempt to comply with concepts like being reasonably compact or favoring communities of interest.

[Tintrlvr]

Tried a map of upstate NY. This is on that weird 2012/16 Pres composite data, but overall Biden did in between Obama and Clinton in upstate NY so it probably more or less cancels out. The hardest part was probably as you got closer to the city because the political geography gets really weird, hence why district 9 has the weird little tail. There's really no reason Dems can't go 23-3 (1 R seat in LI)

GOP loses 5 seats on that map right?  Wish we could get rid of Stefanik from the delegation but netting that many seats is nice.

For what it's worth, Stefanik lives in district 7 on that map, and I'm not sure she'd be able to beat Tenney in the primary for district 6; they're fairly evenly matched in terms of territory (a lot of the district is new to both of them, and I think population-wise it's about even in terms of what comes from each of their districts), but Tenney can out-crazy her.

[Tintrlvr]

Some expected results in these maps beyond partisan considerations, e.g., Yvette Clarke's district was purged of white liberals for the sin of voting for the candidate who nearly unseated her in the primary in 2018. Interesting but not shocking that they chose NY-02 as the R-pack on Long Island; that way, the Democratic candidate in NY-01 can be someone who also gets to rely on the fundraising of representing the Hamptons.

I expect the final result will be closer to Plan A than Plan B; don't think the Democrats want to risk two Republicans on Long Island for the outside chance of a sweep, and of course the Democrats would rather the Staten Island seat become D-leaning.

[Tintrlvr]

I feel like a NY-11 Staten Island - Lower Manhattan District could theoretically be won by Sarah Davis type Republicans if partisanship was reduced and they played all their cards right (not gonna happen) as it seems like a very high-propensity, somewhat diverse, pragmatic professional family sort of district. They'd obv have to run up large margins in Staten Island and prolly cut down the margins in Lower Manhattan Suburbs such as Battery Park City. Would be funny though if Republicans somehow ended up representing lower Manhattan

That sort of person would never be nominated by a Republican primary electorate that would still be dominated by Staten Island. Republican Party registration in neighborhoods like Tribeca or my very own SoHo that should be the base of such a candidate is in single digits, and New York has closed primaries.

You could see an independent David Catania-like candidate win at most, who would inevitably caucus with the Democrats anyway.

[Tintrlvr]

I never saw why it would need to go into Manhattan. Maloney's proposal was probably meant to get Rose into congress. There would be a very left wing Brooklyn portion and then also a portion in Manhattan but Staten Island Democrats could still have the primary. Issue is there still are a few progressive leftovers and no one else wants those until you reach AOC who is too far away. The simplest solution is to give the Crane Husbands of NYC their seat by attaching them to Staten Island.

AOC is not too far away. Have you never looked at how NYC districts snake all over the place for no logical reason? AOCs district could easily be made to snake down from Astoria or wherever to pick up significant progressive parts of Brooklyn. That would not make for a logical or compact district of course, but NYC districts have never really been compact or logical.

You are, however, right that it would probably be more logical to simply put the progressive areas with Staten Island, and it is surprising that they are apparently not going to do so. Your supposition that it may be intended to help Rose makes sense.

AOC lives in the Bronx. Her district is not going to stretch all the way down to Park Slope.

[Tintrlvr]

What's wrong with Staten Island into Manhattan? There's both historical precedent and a heavily used ferry.

Because drawing Staten Island to Brooklyn gives those annoying Crane Husbands of NYC their seat. Drawing to Manhattan doesn't do the same as neither Nadler nor Maloney will take Staten Island and now Maloney is further pushed out of Manhattan. Nadler is needed to take the Orthodox Jews anyway.

I'm not sure how possible this is if NY-11 is going up to Park Slope, and NY-07 still goes down to the Hispanic side of Sunset Park and Red Hook. Three districts squiggling along the coast is too much, which is probably why SPM discovered than Staten-Manhattan was an easier lift. But I'm sure one compromise or another will be found.

The SI district doesn't squiggle along the coast in that scenario; it snakes through the middle of the Orthodox areas between Nadler's district and the black districts to the east.

[Tintrlvr]

The map is clever, and what they did with NY-10 is interesting. I think they plan to justify it as an Asian-opportunity district that combines Manhattan and Brooklyn Chinatown areas, especially with the large ultra-Orthodox population that means the white vote is far from monolithic. To that end, I see why they didn't end up min-maxing NY-11 because it becomes harder to do so if you want to keep Manhattan Chinatown in NY-10. However, I do have a proposal below that actually gets NY-10 well below majority white on VAP (44.2% white, 33.4% Asian, 15.0% Hispanic) while improving the D% in NY-11 noticeably and keeping the ultra-Orthodox areas united in one district (not one they would like!) - but this would be unpopular with a certain group of white politicians on the Upper West Side:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c7481ad2-6ce8-48ea-ad40-9119301e6bee

[Tintrlvr]

The map is clever, and what they did with NY-10 is interesting. I think they plan to justify it as an Asian-opportunity district that combines Manhattan and Brooklyn Chinatown areas, especially with the large ultra-Orthodox population that means the white vote is far from monolithic. To that end, I see why they didn't end up min-maxing NY-11 because it becomes harder to do so if you want to keep Manhattan Chinatown in NY-10. However, I do have a proposal below that actually gets NY-10 below majority white on VAP (47.7% white, 29.8% Asian, 14.7% Hispanic) while improving the D% in NY-11 noticeably - but this would be unpopular with a certain group of white politicians on the Upper West Side:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c7481ad2-6ce8-48ea-ad40-9119301e6bee

Last I checked Velasquez lives in Red Hook, so that is the main reason why things have to get complicated around the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel. Obviously incumbents doesn't need to be in their seat, but the D legislature looks out for their own.

She doesn't live in the district proposed by the legislature, either, as she lives right on the waterfront, in a precinct that is currently and continues to be in the proposal in Nadler's district. I take the point, but it is still solvable on my proposal with some messier lines in downtown Brooklyn if you really want to get her district to touch Red Hook.

[Tintrlvr]

Kinda annoys me how they went for 0 deviation for most districts except the ones in Brooklyn/Manhattan

It's really hard to get zero deviation in NYC because many precincts (especially in Manhattan) consist of only one or two Census blocks that each have hundreds of people in them because it's just so dense. (One Manhattan block can easily have more than 1,000 residents.) Elsewhere in the state, and elsewhere in the country, a precinct will have dozens of Census blocks that are often in increments of 10-20 people.

[Tintrlvr]

By the way are the 2 r "sinks" in western NY that crazy ?
It mostly just seems like Morelle wanted absolute certainty so he took in Ontario and dropped conservative conservative  Rochester suburbs. If you reverse that one district just seems to be the southern tier and the other just seems to be various lakefront towns while keeping the Buffalo and Rochester metroes whole.

Yes, that lakeshore district is a leftovers district, not a gerrymander.
It’s obvious to have a Buffalo, a Rochester, and a Syracuse + Ithaca district. Once you do that, you are going to have bits that don’t have enough people to make a full district.  

Right - the Upstate districts are actually quite natural west of Albany and basically fine beyond some cuteness around Rochester. The main gerrymandering Upstate is in the Hudson Valley, and even then it's pretty light. Compared to the 23-3 maps that many people were pushing that would have required pretty extreme districts Upstate, this is tame.

[Tintrlvr]

By the way are the 2 r "sinks" in western NY that crazy ?
It mostly just seems like Morelle wanted absolute certainty so he took in Ontario and dropped conservative conservative  Rochester suburbs. If you reverse that one district just seems to be the southern tier and the other just seems to be various lakefront towns while keeping the Buffalo and Rochester metroes whole.

Yes, that lakeshore district is a leftovers district, not a gerrymander.
It’s obvious to have a Buffalo, a Rochester, and a Syracuse + Ithaca district. Once you do that, you are going to have bits that don’t have enough people to make a full district.  

Right - the Upstate districts are actually quite natural west of Albany and basically fine beyond some cuteness around Rochester. The main gerrymandering Upstate is in the Hudson Valley, and even then it's pretty light. Compared to the 23-3 maps that many people were pushing that would have required pretty extreme districts Upstate, this is tame.

I mean there is the Albany split considering the metro is a perfect district .

That's what I meant by the Hudson Valley but tbh what was done is still very moderate. It's not like they put Albany in a different district than the areas around it.

[Tintrlvr]

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

[Tintrlvr]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

[Tintrlvr]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

[Tintrlvr]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

[Tintrlvr]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

But a minority seat isn't being eliminated. The seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP -- it's only (barely) white plurality because of the large black and Hispanic populations.

In NYC that seat elects a white politician 10 times out of 10. You need to understand the local dynamics; a 40% white seat in NYC with splintered minority groups (especially when the main minority group is not black) is a white seat. These sorts of things are super contextual; you can't apply the same rule to every part of the country and expect it to work out.

[Tintrlvr]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

Arkansas continued a map drawn by Democrats in 2010. Just because you can draw a map that links the Delta to Little Rock does not mean that one should: keeping the Little Rock metro whole is a more natural community of interest. You're right on Kentucky: that should be moved to slight gerrymander (I was more focused on the not touching Louisville part). For Alabama and South Carolina, that's a consequence of the FPTP system, the VRA, and geography: it is impossible to draw more than 2 Dem seats in South Carolina because doing so would violate the VRA, and in Alabama a fair map would have a Black Belt district and a Birmingham district, but current law (pre the recent ruling, at least) interprets the Birmingham split as necessary.

Edit: Also, not the Alabama thread, but it's worth noting that a fair AL map doesn't necessarily go 5-2 either. Without either a Birmingham or a Mobile split, the 7th either has to take in Montgomery (force the 2nd out of the Wiregrass region) or take in redder rural areas to gain sufficent population. A fair map in Alabama could easily be 6-1-1, with a Biden +10ish Birmingham seat and a competitive rural seat.

The fact that the AR map is roughly similar to what the AR Dems drew in 2010 in a completely different context is irrelevant (and frankly it was a gerrymander then, too, albeit a totally failed one).

It is not at all impossible to draw three Biden seats in SC while complying with the VRA; in fact, it is quite easy. In any event, that doesn't mean there should be only one super-safe Dem seat and other seats that are as packed with Republicans as they can be given the geography; the absolute worst case for Dems on a fair map would be a safe Black Belt seat, a Lean/Likely D Columbia-based seat and a Toss-up/Lean R Charleston-based seat. Is that what the SC Republicans drew? No. So it's a gerrymander.

"Current law" has never interpreted the split of Birmingham as necessary. No one ever forced the split of Birmingham to comply with the VRA; it was done specifically to pack in as many Democrats into a single black-majority seat. And your follow-up doesn't make sense at all; it's quite easy for the Black Belt seat to be Safe D and majority black (really you can draw around 55% black) without either Mobile or Birmingham; it's just the Birmingham seat that becomes potentially competitive but still Likely D. And that would clearly be the fair result considering communities of interest.

[Tintrlvr]

Here’s the Dem proposal:

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1520511947325779968?s=21&t=6-2mL1Da9B4FRR4...

WHY ARE DEMS SO OBSESSED WITH NY-10

Why not ? South Brooklyn and Si is a whole lot of r leaning areas to crack andy ny 10 is there on the current map(pretty similar to the FL map having the collier Hialeah district.) Considering both were court approved why wouldn't you keep it ?

Cause as a NY-er the district really doesn't make sense, and it just seems like a bid to keep Nadler happy. And besides they made it worse than the old map config.

Well the reason its is to keep NY 11th with Park Slope. Overall its a futile effort and I see it next to impossible that there won't be 1 R seat in NYC. Democrats should still try to keep Nadlers district as its the only way to fully crack South Brooklyn and avoid that 2nd R seat.

This reminds me of Sarbanes and the MD map. I think another way would just be to cede a Jewish/Asian seat that forces NY-11 to either go up to Park Slope anyways or connect to Lower Manhattan which I still think is an underrated possibility.

You can draw a neat Dem district in Brooklyn ex. the black seats while still making NY-11 Dem (Biden+12 on this map). This NY-10 is even 32% Asian for a clear opportunity district while also keeping all of the ultra-Orthodox areas together (you'll see some heavily R areas left out, but those places are Russian, not ultra-Orthodox) and being Biden+11.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a9c470fb-a6b2-473e-9566-6d7a04ab0de6

The messiness is entirely to preserve Nadler's district (this configuration would mean only two Manhattan-based districts) and to satisfy Velazquez by putting most of Red Hook (where she lives, although her actual residence is in Nadler's district both currently and in the state Democrats' map) in her seat.

[Tintrlvr]

SP Maloney has announced that he’s going to switch districts in an attempt to take out Mondaire Jones. Terrible.

Jones could challenge Bowman and they are doublebunked.

16th is overwhelmingly Bowman’s current district and its northern boundaries have barely changed.

Similarly, 17th is mostly Jones’ current seat and 18th is majority SPM’s current territory. Maloney is quite clearly the one who is stepping out of line here, evidently because leadership views Jones as a threat and wants him eliminated. Watch for DCCC’s biggest primary spend to be here even though they suppsosedly set stringent rules and blacklisting for “campaigning against incumbents”.

Nobody is entitled to their seat. Running where your home is located, regardless of difficulty, is far more noble than trying to follow "your" district as it moves.

[Tintrlvr]

Wow, they really bacon-stripped the Orthodox and Asian communities in south Brooklyn.

At least Tompkins is in a competitive seat.

I have said it before and I will say it again: in order to not discriminate against the various NYC groups that are legally protected, you need to find Whites from somewhere to add into the seats to prevent minority packing, and the Orthodox are just the closest and most readily available. The progressives are also a viable option, but as shown by this map, you need to partially carve them both up for all the minority seats. There is a reason why the GOP's dream map had one of the LI seats reach into the region, rather than use a existing dem seat.

NY-9 is an interesting choice regardless. Previously the gentrifying areas in Fort Greene/Clinton Hill/Bed-Stuy/Prospect Heights/Crown Heights/Lefferts Gardens were split between NY-8 and NY-9 so that neither was at particular risk for a primary challenge from the progressive (white, at least as far as its voters go) left as demographics change. But this NY-9 could well be plurality white among actual primary voters by the end of the decade, despite pulling out of some of the progressive liberal areas, although its white voters will of course include a lot of Orthodox Jews from Midwood and Italians from Bath Beach.

[Tintrlvr]

Mr.Cervas does a DeSantismander in Rochester(he splits by some river there) splitting the black community more egregiously than Ron DeSantis did in Jacksonville

He could have done this better (keeping the black community together) but it wouldn't make a difference from a partisan perspective as the white voters in the western district (presumably from the towns south of Rochester) to be moved to the eastern are still solid D, and the eastern district would still include the solid D heavily white parts of east Rochester, so this isn't a partisan issue.

Meanwhile district 40 in Northern Westchester drowns out Republican areas of the Lower Hudson valley in Putnam and Rockland counties. Infact rather than crossing the only bridge in Nyack in SE Rockland which is very D it decides to take the Trump +20 town of Stony point. Maybe this could be justified on a township split but it is true that there is literally no bridge connection until you go much further south or north along the Hudson river. Infact Stony Point is actually the least connected township on the West bank of the Hudson River with the East Bank.

This is simply wrong: The Bear Mountain Bridge is right at the northern end of Stony Point and means that there is a connection within the district.

[Tintrlvr]

On a serious note Suraj Patel could run for the 10th and possibly win

I think he has little chance in our primary, which will be dominated by the ultra-progressive wing of the party centered in brownstone Brooklyn. He only came close to beating Maloney previously because Maloney was unpopular with the progressives, not because he himself had any particular appeal. He's not nearly left enough for this district when there's no incumbent to run against.

The mention of de Blasio... He would be a fool to run. He's not popular even in this district, and he would do quite poorly. An ally who is less polarizing like Maya Wiley is much more likely.

[Tintrlvr]

Mr.Cervas does a DeSantismander in Rochester(he splits by some river there) splitting the black community more egregiously than Ron DeSantis did in Jacksonville

He could have done this better (keeping the black community together) but it wouldn't make a difference from a partisan perspective as the white voters in the western district (presumably from the towns south of Rochester) to be moved to the eastern are still solid D, and the eastern district would still include the solid D heavily white parts of east Rochester, so this isn't a partisan issue.

Meanwhile district 40 in Northern Westchester drowns out Republican areas of the Lower Hudson valley in Putnam and Rockland counties. Infact rather than crossing the only bridge in Nyack in SE Rockland which is very D it decides to take the Trump +20 town of Stony point. Maybe this could be justified on a township split but it is true that there is literally no bridge connection until you go much further south or north along the Hudson river. Infact Stony Point is actually the least connected township on the West bank of the Hudson River with the East Bank.

This is simply wrong: The Bear Mountain Bridge is right at the northern end of Stony Point and means that there is a connection within the district.

I apologize about the Stony point one. I didn't see the bridge at the corner. However Mr.Cervas did this exact same move in Harrisburg PA with Rochester. He clearly split the city up to deny Republicans any seats in the area even if they do exceptionally well such as DeFoor. Democrats no matter what will have 3 Safe seats in Harrisburg.  The same is now true with Rochester, they will get 2 Safe seats instead of him deciding to make 1 Super Safe seat and 1 actually semi competitive seat.   Of course even if one forced him to keep Rochester whole he would likely add conservative exurbs to it instead of the inner ring suburbs to still create the 2nd seat as Democratic as possible just like Syracuse.

But there *is* no semi-competitive seat even when you keep the black community together. He didn't eliminate a competitive seat at all. The eastern seat would still be Biden+20-ish even if it were bleached completely. Go ahead and draw it and see. You're complaining about nothing.