US House Redistricting: New York

[Torie]

Does all that comport with the VRA?

[Torie]

Well, it maintains 50% black districts in Brooklyn (10, 11), 47% black district in Queens (6), and the 3 Hispanic districts (12, 15, 16).

Swapping precincts between 4 and 6 doesn't change much.  So, more or less

My goal was to equalize districts across the boroughs, and to cut down on borough crossings. Manhattan now has 3 districts for 2 districts worth of population which comes at the expense of the other boroughs.

In my plan Brooklyn gets 3 districts, Queens gets 3 districts, Staten Island gets its 1, Manhattan gets 2.5, and the Bronx gets 1.5, based on the dominant source of population of each district.

I don't like the 14th crossing 3 boroughs but I think there's a theme to that at least.

Is Velasquez going to be happy with a 50% Hispanic CD?  Is Meeks going to be happy with 47% black?  Those two issues explain most of the major differences between my "court drawn" map and your map, putting aside the Long Island gerry.  The walls are so strong in NYC, that somethings don't change much no matter who is drawing what and why.

I doubt a court will do some of the things that you are doing. But that is nit picking. Well done. If I were a Pubbie I would still let the courts do it, because it generates a lot more Dems in marginal CD's, or semi marginal, that can be possibly knocked off in 2012.  You saw my matrix chart. It could be very sanguinary for the Dems in 2012 with that kind of map. And the idea of electing more moderate to semi-moderate Pubbies gets me particularly all hot and bothered.

[Torie]

Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black.

[Torie]

Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black.

Non-Hispanic Black Only I presume.

Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no.

[Torie]

Krazen says his Meeks CD is 47% black.

Non-Hispanic Black Only I presume.

Whatever number the DRA generates I presume, which does not make this distinction does it? Does it count Hispanic blacks as black or Hispanic or both? If both, then the answer is presumably no.

As Hispanic. We've been over this two pages ago in this thread IIRC.

IC. And nobody knows how the courts will count them I presume. Do they vote as blacks or Hispanics?  Or is it not possible to tell?

And isn't the black or Hispanic thing just self identification in the census? In other words, the black Hispanic can - and must - pick one or the other? Or does the census provide for picking both?

[Torie]

I have zero memory as to what was on the census form. 

Thanks for the reply. That was very informative Lewis.

[Torie]

if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th

Yeah, there's a funny six-precinct or so enclave of 90%+ Hasidic precincts ... that's split in two by the city line. I always thought that detail hilarious.

Back to the Hispanic black thing one more time. I take it that the DRA then is counting the black Hispanics in the Meek CD as Hispanic, even though the courts would count them as black (cuz it's a black "opportunity" CD). If so, that is not good! 

[Torie]

That would not explain why the DRA calls Hispanics who checked "black" Hispanic rather than black. Or visa versa. The only problem with the the DRA is that it is not subtle enough to call black Hispanics in existing black opportunity CD's "black," while calling the very same black Hispanic folks in Hispanic opportunity CD's "Hispanic." In any event, the DRA could have had a subcategory of black Hispanics separate from just Hispanic or black alone, and that way the map makers could add the two-fer category to either the Hispanic or black group as appropriate.

Make sense?

[Torie]

I told you Lewis that McCarthy's CD was the one to go. You see, I am right once in awhile.

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

[Torie]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive!

It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence.  I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise.

[Torie]

If NY-26 is the CD that a Dem nabbed in a special election, then yes, that CD could be converted to a Dem one. It might get a bit ugly however to get it over to Ithaca.  NY-29 is more convenient for that task. I suppose it could dip into Buffalo, and the Buffalo CD could take Ithaca to keep it safe for the Dems.

[Torie]

I don't think Buffalo to Ithaca is tenable without an unusually gerrymandered map. It's also an awkward combination of Dems.

I certainly cannot gainsay what you said, but that has not slowed down the partisan hacks in NY before, when they cut their deal. This map needs some work still, and maybe Syracuse and Rochester could be combined, but there is but one option if one wants to make Dem safe two Buffalo based CD's. As I said, NY just begs for a non partisan court to draw the map. Granted, I am skeptical such a beast exists in NY. Everything is partisan in NY, including the courts, is my impression.

[Torie]

You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state.

I did that (NY-26 took the black neighborhoods mostly in Buffalo), but the problem is that it dilutes the other Buffalo CD down too much, so NY-27 needs to make up for the lost Dems by going to Ithaca. Both CD's are about 57% Obama, and NY-26 is 52.5% average Dem based on some formula, and NY-27 is 54.5% average Dem.  Actually Buffalo can be fairly volatile, so anything less than these figures means the CD's are not safe Dem. As they are, they are only weak safe Dem.

[Torie]

You can not get 3 safe Dem seats out of western NY, but shifting parts of Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and possibly Monroe Cty from Slaughter to Hochul, Monroe county suburbs from Reed to Slaughter, and toxic Republican areas from Hochul to Reed provides a very satisfactory outcome for Dems without wasting the Ithaca votes to make a Strong Lean Dem seat into Safe.

Well, the idea was a compromise map, not a Dem gerry. 

[Torie]

Does Hochul really need 55%+ or would 50% Obama or so be enough?

As long as her district is kept within Buffalo and Niagara counties, Hochul should do fine, even without a partisan advantage.

Why is that?  And presumably the Obama percentage overstates the inherent Dem strength by a bit anyway.

[Torie]

Wouldn't a compromise map necessarily mean giving Hochul a decent chance at reelection and not privileging the GOP gerrymander already in place in western NY, though?

A compromise map saves Turner, and loses a GOP seat upstate. I consider the Hochul seat a GOP seat, even though a Dem sits in it at the moment. In a compromise map, the whole state is gerrymandered actually. And the existing map is a compromise map, which both parties signed off on. A court is unlikely to give Hochul anything much better than she has now in any event. A court would likely make the Syracuse seat a Dem seat, and flush the Hinchey seat, and the rest of the upstate CD's from a partisan standpoint would not change much, except that the Buffalo seat would get much more Dem, since it was drawn to help out the Pub Quinn, now long gone, and the Rochester seat much more Pub, almost to the point where Slaughter might have some trouble, who has zero cross over appeal, and is basically an embarrassment.

[Torie]

I'm inclined to believe the rumors about McCarthy's seat being on the block because it makes so much sense, demographically and politically.

With McCarthy being retired, dismantling Hochul's seat as a Republican loss doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just dismantle Hinchey and make Buerkle's seat into a Dem seat? At that point, the earmuffs gerrymander gets unpacked and any change helps Hochul.

Yes, that is the natural thing to do, and what I think a court would do, but no, it won't help Hochul much. In my "court drawn" map above, the partisan make-up of Hochul's seat stays about the same (51.7% McCain, 50 basis points more Dem than it is now). The earmuffs gerrymander is almost strictly a Buffalo v Rochester CD affair, involving just those two CD's. Hochul's CD just takes up the land bridge between the muffs is all along the lake, which is GOP territory. All the territory around Hochul's CD is GOP actually. If the Dems want to make it more Dem, they will have to pay for it. Nothing is for free. Or they can leave it alone, but then the odds are two incumbents will go down, one Pub (Buerkle), and Hochul, with Owens always kind of vulnerable, and the former Hinchey CD marginal, along with the CD running from Albany down to Dutchess County, now held by a Pub. Presumably in a party deal map, the latter two CD's would cease to be marginal, with the Albany to Dutchess Pub getting a better CD, and the former Hinchey CD made more Dem.

Upstate NY is not a good place for the Dems, in part because the Buffalo CD gets a lot more Dem right out of the box, sucking up Dems there, and in part because Slaughter is so weak, and in part because the Hinchey CD is so ridiculous.

[Torie]

The new Hinchey seat that I guesstimated a court would draw is marginal. Click on my link in the post above. Sure, as long as Owen keeps his skirts clean, he should be OK, as long as he tacks moderate from time to time.

[Torie]

I don't understand why the earmuffs should be considered off-limits to Hochul. She represents suburban Buffalo. In the previous iteration, LaFalce had Niagara Falls and half of Buffalo. Why shouldn't the courts create a district based on Rochester and two districts based on Erie-Niagara? Especially when that is exactly what we had in the 1990s?

Your court-drawn map makes Hochul a dead duck by creating a 60% Obama district in Buffalo. Such and outcome is not impossible. But I don't see why it's more probable than restoring the 1990s map with allowances for population loss now that Hinchey has conveniently removed an obstacle to eastward expansion.

And yes, there can indeed be a free lunch when so very, very many Dem votes are currently wasted in the earmuffs district. Pay for it that way. There's plenty in the bank!

The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda.

[Torie]

The Buffalo CD is drawn in a non partisan way, following municipal lines, and being kept compact. Isn't that the way a court that is non partisan would do it? If a court does anything else, it has an agenda.

They may be taking incumbent protection into account.

If a court did that, it would be a disgrace. The NY court did not do that last time. It drew a fair map. Then the parties cut a deal, to make marginal CD's less marginal.

[Torie]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.

So basically a gerrymander that doesn't look like a gerrymander. Even with the lipstick, the pig is still a pig. In my opinion, a fair map isn't what machine hack Repub and machine hack dem in a back room in Albany agree to scratch onto a map with their crayons. Therefore I don't think we can rely on bipartisan agreements to achieve the desired results. You can only do so much to leesh a legislature with standards, as MI proves and in FL is proving this time. Independent Non-Partisan Redistricting>Legislaitive Redistricting.

Whether it is your map or the one Torie did (if I recall it had a Buffalo seat then a Niagara Co. to PA seat surronding it), the question one has to ask is that "is it fair to put Niagara Falls, an urban area, into a district where it will be swamped by rural voters in a belt from Lake Ontario to PA, or place it into a district that would share similar urban rust belt issues, as it would with the city of Buffalo.

The MI standards came from the special master (Bernie Apol) appointed in the 80s, so they weren't the work of a bipartisan agreement. The bipartisan agreement was to codify the standards in 1999, thinking that they would tie the hands of whichever party might control the map in 2001. They failed to anticipate how far their geographic standards could be twisted. I would have no problem handing the MI standards to an independent commission, since that is essentially how Apol did his work. I just think that independent commissions can benefit from precise standards that are set before they begin mapping.

Yes, Torie wrapped Niagara around Buffalo and I wrapped it around Rochester. I looked at the former and found a very nice combination of counties with minimal deviation, but I wasn't wild about the connector along the eastern edge of Erie. Since I could wrap Rochester with whole counties and minimal deviation I went that way, but either path is a valid solution.

Niagara county didn't even give 50% to Obama. There are plenty of other upstate counties that have a strong Dem city in otherwise GOP turf. If Niagara should be split to link NF because of its interest, why not similar connections splitting counties throughout upstate?

I wasn't saying that it was the result of a bipartisan agreement. I said that it such relies on a bipartisan agreements to produce "fair" results, and even when such is the case, my point is I don't really trust say Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver in 2001 to produce a reasonably "fair" result. Certainly a commission would have strict standards, that is the only way such a commission would work. My point is, they are more likely to do a better job than a legislative body.

I merely mentioned the differences in your maps in passing. Both are essentially the same with regards to this issue.

I am not really concerned with what gave Obama 50% versus 70% or whatever here. The issue regards a CA style remap and they don't consider such variables, unless I am mistaken.

The difference between Niagara and say Utica is this. Buffalo is considerably short of a district's population, as a city. Any such remap, as I am asking about, would start the district by including all of Buffalo, since there is no reason to split it other than political considerations of yore. Niagara Falls is right there, has many similarities and if avoiding county splits isn't that big of a concern when other more pressing issues occur, it stands to reason that putting it in with Buffalo would be a logical move should the local officials and community meetings reveal such a desire as being prevalent.

You have a point SNCY, and one can either focus on uniting inner metro areas or political jurisdictions, where they come into conflict, but I don't think Niagara Falls is in play as part of a Buffalo metro CD in any event. It's separated by an empty zone from the Buffalo metro area (empty Grand Island), and I don't the folks in Niagara Falls would want to be subsumed by a Buffalo CD in any event. If any town in Niagara County would be joined to a Buffalo metro CD, it would be North Towanada. I have depicted an all Erie County Buffalo metro CD, and one that pick up North Towanada in Niagara County as an alternative, to illustrate that in no event is the city of Niagara Falls in play really. They are closer in more densely populated places in Erie County nearer to Buffalo to pick up first.

[Torie]

I wouldn't mind a court-drawn map, since it would probably threaten more upstate Republicans than downstate Democrats (the downstate Democratic seats Torie is salivating over are basically cases where the seat is currently in the 60s for Obama and would go to "only" high 50s or so. More legitimately Republican winnable seats downstate would also mean the possible end of Peter King.)

Where on earth are you getting your numbers BRTD?  My "fair and balanced" court drawn map had the numbers below, and it ain't Obama "high 50's" baby.  But be happy anyway BRTD. Think of all those green marginal seats that Atlasians can speculate about and game theory on for hours on end. It would just be fabulous BRTD. And you know it is good right to have marginal CD's don't you, from a public policy perspective right?  So the court will just be doing the Lord's work, assuming it draws my map, rather than some weird Lewis fantasy (although in the end I think I finally beat him down some in a protracted "war" of attrition).

[Torie]

The federal court is accepting maps from the public.  The deadline is Friday.

It's a federal court eh?  That means we are in for a "least change" map, subject to the VRA.  It will be interesting to see just how that is applied in the context of having to get rid of two seats. It might be fun to take a crack at it, since in this exercise where practicable, you pay your respects to the existing gerrymander.

[Torie]

I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time?

The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight.

The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too.

Is the judge drawing the lines really a Dem hack?

[Torie]

That map is very well done, Mike - considerably better than the maps the Pubs submitted, even though yours is a quite Pub friendly map obviously. Did you find it as difficult as I to find a good map of the town lines in Nassau County (clearly you did find such a map)? (Nassau has 3 towns and 2 cities, the rest being villages, I now find out.) The towns do not appear on the DRA maps.