City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

"Splitting blocks is horrid public policy, and arguably in violation of state law."

Citation please.

ELN § 4-100

That section deals with election districts (precincts), and not ward lines. It further says a block may be divided as long as the addresses are appropriately identified that belong in each election district. So its 1) inapposite, and 2) does not prohibit dividing blocks (meaning street blocks), much less census blocks.

It is clearly a strongly discouraged practice.

The Columbia County Board of Elections is demonstrably incompetent in administering elections that involve non-visible boundaries and split blocks.

Not me me around (and you of course, who keep me on the straight and narrow, for which I am profoundly grateful ). I picked up on your idea, of getting the census bureau to make counts in split census blocks, or potential split census blocks, and I will prepare a list for the City Clerk (we're buds), and make sure it happens in the next census. Everybody in City Hall knows me now. I'm a regular.

It was fun after I was done with the City Attorney going through my little (well actually rather big) pile of documents, knocking on the door of the Mayor's Office, to pick up my hat that I left there, and see 4 women in the room, the Treasurer, the Mayor, her executive assistant, and the City Clerk, who collectively basically run the executive branch of the government, and have 2 of the the 3 votes on the Board of Estimate, which basically controls spending.

[Torie]

The VAP map is nice (but I am in the wrong ward, which discommodes me). But VAP is irrelevant honey.

[Torie]

"This forces the south side of Robinson in the same ward. No luck on the toriemander."

Forces? In law? Where? Other than in the VAP fantasy, legal under state law, but not mandated, and thus DOA, absent Constitutional issues.

[Torie]

"This forces the south side of Robinson in the same ward. No luck on the toriemander."

Forces? In law? Where? Other than in the VAP fantasy, legal under state law, but not mandated, and thus DOA, absent Constitutional issues.

Use of the alleyways is arbitrary and capricious.

I think not keeping streets together sucks. The folks you know, run into, deal with, hit up (yeah!), live on your street, not across the alley, as to which nobody uses for vehicular parking, but rather for storage in the garage wrecks, or junk just strewn around in the back yard. It's sort of a visual feast, actually. Pity when it all goes away, which will not be that long.

[Torie]

With some help from partner Dan using photoshop, here's a map illustrating the least change regime.

[Torie]

Stay tuned to this channel.

[Torie]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

[Torie]

What's the fairest least change map of them all guys: version 1, 2 or 3? The washed out green in one of the maps needs to be enhanced if it becomes the one that is used.

By fairest, I assume you mean most comely in presentation.

I like the green of #1, since it provides the best contrast with the cyan of Ward 4.

Can you show the the new alignment of 2nd Street, and eliminate the spur to the button factory?

I like the placement of the ward labels in #1. That shows what people are actually voting on. The existing boundaries are for reference only. Anyone living in Hudson (and their parents and grandparents) would be familiar with the existing wards.

Objectively, what is happening is that Ward 5 is being divided into two wards:

Ward 1: 593 persons moved to Ward 3.
Ward 2: 186 persons moved to Ward 4
Ward 3: 390 persons moved to Ward 6
Ward 4: No deductions.
Ward 5: Split into Ward 5 and Ward 6, 278 persons to Ward 4.

Total shifts 1447.

You are the one that thought that showing the existing wards in red lines, and the new wards in color, was better than my version 1. Thus I did versions 2 and 3 (the only difference is where the text of "ward 3 goes), and now you say you like version 1 best. Color me confused.

[Torie]

I am still not sure what version you like best. It appears to be version 1.

[Torie]

I like version 2, but with a shade of green like that in version 1. I like the placement of the ward labels in 2, since they have the advantage of being in both the current and proposed wards of their number. I would darken the label for Ward 3 so that it has better contrast with the color of the ward. If you move to the green in version 1 you might need to darken the Ward 2 label as well.

Perhaps the labels should be in black?

[Torie]

Here are the mappies. I will let the folks preparing the slide show/video pick and choose what they want to use. Do they look OK now?

[Torie]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map! 

[Torie]

Well given that half of ward 5 needs to be calved away, about 20% of the population, 36% is a splendidly modest least change number. Somebody did a really good job with that map!  

Given that Ward 5 has almost 2/5 of the population, the proper analysis is to see it as a division of the ward into two wards, just as when Ward 4 was divided into two wards. And then since Ward 1 has less than half the population of an average ward, dissolve it.

Every change in ward boundaries has been accomplished by division:

(1) Division of city into two wards (City -> 1,2 on 3rd Street)
(2) Division of city into four wards (1 -> 1,2 on Warren Street; 2 -> 3,4 on Warren-Public Square-Columbia-Columbia Turnpike)
(3) Division of 4th ward into two wards (4 -> 4,5 on 5th Street).

The least change regime is to divide Ward 5 into two wards (5 -> 5,6 on railroad tracks and State Street).

Fair enough, but that would make the map a mess (including inter alia crossing Warren Street where the 4th ward would need to find extra population). It would also traduce communities of interest, and the delicate political balance that I effected, and lose at the ballot box. So call it the least change practicable map.

[Torie]

Where else is Ward 4 going to get more population, if it can't poach from the old Ward 5, nor old ward 1, nor any more of ward two? That only leaves one place.

In other news, I tried downloading google earth pro, and it does not have a license box pop up, so that I can enter the license key of gepfree. Can you guys do it? I want to be able to measure areas within a polygon for my latest mapping brainstorm for Hudson. Can you uber smart guys guess what I want to do?  

But so far, no dice.

You answer the above, and I will give you my most fascinating primer of the COI's of Hudson. I know that you can hardly wait.

[Torie]

The license is free. But after I download it, the pro features don't work, because there is no license box to enter the license code - gepfree.

I wanted to draw ward lines, where their existing percentage of the total Hudson population and the percentage of land area that they take are equal.

Your map shoves the 2nd ward around, and is erose. As I said, least change that is also practicable change.

[Torie]

I used google maps that has an area utility, although it does not depict complete city boundaries alas.

[Torie]

I have not dealt with the census block issue yet. I do have somebody to email though after having spoke with him.

[Torie]

We had a dry run of our campaign materials before about 30 trusted Hudsonions, and curiously enough, a lot of intelligent people were concerned about the geographic size differentials of the proposed wards. I guess they are concerned about the size differential between the CD in Alaska, and the one based in San Francisco. So gorgeous colorized maps are out (they are deemed to emphasize too much area size, rather than population numbers), with the near equal population figures writ large, and the ward number references de-emphased. So we have the maps below, which if given a "go" by the campaign committee, will be pasted together and laminated, with the proposed wards map on one side, and the least change map on the other side, to show voters when going door to door, or at tables, as we collect signatures.

We have a "soft launch" of the campaign on June 14, and a press conference on June 15, when we remove the curtain of confidentiality  and go public. We have plans afoot to try to get some statewide and national press attention. Getting a law passed by a voter petition getting a referendum on the ballot, and then passing it, will be a first in the state of New York, for the only city in the nation with a weighted voting system (but hopefully not after November). As usual, Hudson is at the cutting edge!

It's kind of a weird feeling realizing that the text of the petition that I pounded out, has the potential to actually have the force and effect of law. I had partner Dan read me the legal descriptions word for word, while I followed the map, and yes, I found an error. I skipped on block connection involving the run of the ward line from Green and Fairview to the city boundary. Ouch!

I also have the voter lists color and font style coded by propensity to vote, in two sets, one set organized alphabetically, and the other by first wards, and then street addresses, for use going door to door. It seems that probably a third or so of the names on the list are stale. The two sets, together wit the petition, and instructions that I have prepared, including talking points, voter registration forms, and  sheet to fill out the names of new residents, and of voters who have changed address in Hudson, will all be included in a pressboard folder, along with the laminated maps, for the petition carriers. One chap who was at the private meeting is a professional graphic designer, and well known artist, who is going to play with the maps, to use in other materials, to try to make them even more wonderful, and persuasive. In little Hudson, we have rounded up media experts, graphic artists, marketing moguls, you name it. It's great to meet new people as this all unfolds.

So, I have been very busy. But it's happening! It's really happening. And we aim to win. We have videos, door hangers, buttons (the design of which is still under discussion), banners, one of which will be huge and in the front yard of a residence on Worth Ave just as you enter the city, a website, with a money raising feature, a state registered campaign committee that I set up (Fair Vote 2016), and there is even talk of running ads on cable TV. This will be like no campaign that Hudson has ever seen before.

Oh yes, I signed myself up to work the 2nd and 4th wards. By the time I will done, I will have met most of the voters in those wards, and signed up a lot of new voters. Now why in the world would I pick those two wards I wonder?

In my spare time, I am trying to reform the ZBA. That is a work in progress. And then there is rewriting the zoning code on my to do list. And oh yes, trying to push the Hudson bed tax through the state legislature. At least bills are now pending in both houses, after I pushed our legislators to get moving on that, or well, face my displeasure. Better to move, then listening to me on the phone I guess they finally decided. I don't blame them!.

The moral of the story? A high energy relatively unemployed lawyer with too much time on his hands, is a very dangerous thing!  I wonder if this would have all happened if I never had discovered the Leips Atlas website. One will never know I guess. But getting to love census blocks is an acquired taste I think, sort of like learning to love to eat seaweed.

[Torie]

Does your voter list include the prospective ward numbers? Which ward numbers are you using, those used by the CBOE, or those in the charter?

Those used by the CBOE of course. For a city wide election, it does not matter.I have the names organized by ward solely for door to door election workers and petition signature gatherers.  

Does your proposed charter amendment address uses of wards for purposes other than election of aldermen?

It changes the ward lines, and changes the votes needed on the common council to pass stuff, and other less important, and CYI, hazarai. Functionally it also changes the supervisor lines, which piggy back in the charter off the ward lines.

I would describe the boundary between Wards 5 and 6 as going from Green Street and Fairview Avenue to Fairview Avenue and Graham Avenue, and then following the city limits.

The city boundary as described in the charter says that it hews to the northern side of Farmers' Turnpike, aka Fairview Avenue. So when the city boundary crosses the center line of Fairview Avenue to the "northern" side, that is the intersection point of the jut from Green St and Fairview to the city boundary. I missed this leg in my prior legal description by the way and fixed that (see below). Graham avenue need not apply. You disagree? If you do, make your case, and well, today. The hard deadline for finalization is tomorrow AM.

Corrected legal description:

... and thence along the center line of Green Street in an easterly and then southeasterly direction to the center line of Fairview Avenue, and thence along the center line of Fairview Avenue in a northeasterly direction to where the center line of Fairview Avenue intersects the easterly bounds of the City, and thence along the easterly bounds of the City in a northerly direction to the place of beginning, shall be the Fifth Ward.



Your map is particularly inaccurate with regard to the boundary along Fairview Avenue north of Oakwood Boulevard. The two residences facing Fairview Avenue north of Oakwood Boulevard are in the city of Hudson, and the city charter clearly specifies a straight line from Fairview Avenue to the original city limits.

I don't really care if the city boundary is accurate. The map is not even a part of the proposed statute. Only the legal description is. The lines I used are what is on a city map, no doubt not perfect. Very little in the City with legal implications is perfect, and much a total cf. That is one reason that I find I have so much to do, honey!

The green cross-hatched line is misplaced. The current ward boundary crosses Public Square from Warren Street and 7th Street to Columbia Street and Park Place. It then follows Columbia Street to Columbia Turnpike. You have drawn it from Warren and 7th Street to somewhere Columbia Street and Green Street.

Show me the correct line and I will ponder how much the error is. The least change map is just intended to give an idea of the changes entailed. It is not a legal document.

My understanding is that an initiative local law is subject to all the legal requirements that such a measure passed by the Common Council would need to meet. With regard to a redistricting measure this would require an accurate map and an attachment of any estimates used. Does your measure include a legally accurate map (your posters do not correctly show the correct city limits) and a detailed explanation of any estimates used.

No. See above. A map is not a legal requirement. Only a legal description is.

Shouldn't voters be voting in their correct wards, before they approve a change to those wards?

No, it is a City wide initiative.

The County Board of Elections disregards the current ward boundaries, what makes you think they will follow any changes passed by the city?

That is why God created courts and lawsuits dear. We may have one to get this puppy on the ballot. The Pub BOE dude in Columbia finds following the law secondary to the caring and feeding of his pit bosses. Suing the SOB if need be is penciled into my time line. I will particularly enjoy suing him, because he is a cute gay man, and I enjoy his presence in that sense. He has a toy dog name "Kimmie" which he carries everywhere with him.

[Torie]

CYI was meant to be CYA.  Hazarai is a Yiddish word meaning "junk." The CBOE is independent, although subject to direction from the NYCBOE.

Are you satisfied with my legal description language for the leg from Fairview and Green to the city boundary now?

You have a point about the population allocations alas. It does not require a map, but it does require perhaps an explanation. So I think I will add the chart below to the Petition, and explain  the census block split methodology for the asterisked numbers (involving two split census blocks), using the language word for word from the city clerk as to her methodology. Sound like a plan?

I will email you the petition for comment (I would need the comments ASAP), without this modification inserted yet, if you promise to keep it totally confidential until July 6.

[Torie]

You are absolutely right, that if Hudson had followed the law about census block splits, the errors would have been caught. The former Common Council president told me that last night, when I showed him the additional text in the petition that your mischief making has wrought. But Hudson in this area of endeavor, as well as so many others, never has followed the law. That however is in the past. A new age in the Shining City on a Hill has arrived.

Thank you for reminding me of the prisoner thing. I forgot about that. So here is the subparagraph introducing the matrix chart:


Caught the typo from the screen shot about mentioning Ward ! twice as to the Warren street census block split.

Your prolixity would cause the petition, which is already the longest seemingly ever written in the history of man, would cause it to get yet longer (it has now due to your trouble making expanded from 8 legal sized pages to 10). The law requires that all of the copies of the petition be stapled together to be deemed one petition, when submitted to the City Clerk. That is going to take one humongous staple to accomplish!

Your next task, should you choose to accept it, is to try and find if any other citizen ballot proposition petition has ever been circulated in the State of New York, and if any have, whether or not it was successful. I have found no such instance, other than one, that I will unearth again (it is a case I found someplace), that the court tossed out, because the petitioners were clueless about what the law entailed. Imagine that! I ask, because we want to point out that what Hudson is doing, is a first in New York, to try to garner Albany and NYC press attention. Maybe I can get another story written about me in the WSJ.

[Torie]

Great minds think alike. I found that case, and have hit up both attorneys, the Saratoga County BOE, and the Saratoga Springs City Clerk, for copies of the subject petition and abstract. If need be, I will visit the town in which I took the NY Bar exam on Friday, to get in their face. When the Torie man really wants something, he works very hard, and obsessively, to get it.

The trial court decision is a trip about binding, and I have now warned of the need for a massive staple. The signature page for each Petition has an sheet number blank to fill in, which will be filled in consecutively. Consecutively numbering each page in the entire petition, when it is multi page, is an impossibility.

[Torie]

I found Pat Kane's phone number on the internet, and left a message yesterday.

Don't you still have the conundrum with the Saratoga plan, of assuming that the two supervisors from a single district vote randomly vis a vis each other, when calculating the voting power index?

Here are mappies which a professional graphic designer ginned up.

[Torie]

"The current ward boundary goes at a diagonal across Public Square from 7th Street and Warren Street to Park Place and Columbia Street."

I am aware of that, but when you work in a group, you pick your shots (keeping everybody happy, when it will not materially degrade the chances of achieving the end result, and thus letting them feel important, even if you think their input worthless, is job one). In addition, as I was once told by the senior partner of the firm where I first got a job, long before most Atlasians were born, he told me, "Dunn, you dumb F (he taught me to swear like a sailor), a nickel's worth of accuracy is never worth a pound's worth of confusion." Not quite on point here, but learn to pick your shots baby.

I bolded the part above for the youngs around.

[Torie]

Now that Hudson has new wards under its belt, it's time to move on to a Columbia County legislative map. Commencing in about  a year from now, one of my projects will be to begin a serious dialogue regarding Columbia County dumping its crazed governmental system, that has no chief executive, and where little gets done competently, or often not at all (as in a codification of its laws, contract maintenance (the sales tax agreement with Hudson expired 10 years ago, and nobody seems to care (yeah sales taxes are also another one of my projects, and I am on it), etc., etc., and the system needs to go. Now that the modus operandi of getting matters on the ballot by petition has been perfected, that will be a weapon in the arsenal if the Supervisors stonewall on the issue.

So I am interested in seeing a legislative map for Columbia County, with no less than 11 districts, and no more than 19. The exact number would be largely driven by what makes for the best map. Since population changes are so sluggish in Columbia County, a map should have a relatively long half life as to its basic design I would think.

The constraints are to split as few towns as possible, and no town, or Hudson, would have more than one chop if at all possible. Tri-chops would be a big demerit, and there would need to be compelling reasons to go there. And yes, the chop in Hudson cannot involve the 2nd ward being appended to Greenport. That would not work politically, as it would neuter persons of color. The same is also almost as true for the 4th ward. So the chop for Hudson would probably need to involve the 5th ward, although it could perhaps be the 3rd ward in a pinch, or a combo of the two.

Thanks.