2020 New York Redistricting

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[Oryxslayer]

Supposedly the legislative lines will be coming today. Expect the senate map to permanently lock in the D supermajority by reversing the 2010 gerrymander, and probably offer opportunities beyond that. I wouldn't also be surprised if Felder gets an even more parochial personal seat.

[Oryxslayer]

What percentage of new NY-3 live in Bronx and Westchester?

36.3% Nassau, 55.7/43 Biden, 53.2/43.1 Clinton

29.2% Suffolk, 49.6/48.9 Biden, 44.3/51.5 Trump

18.5% Westchester, 69.4/29.4 Biden, 65.6/30 Clinton

11.3% Queens, 64.2/34.7 Biden, 64.5/32.4 Clinton

4.7% Bronx, 48.7/50.1 Trump, 47.3/49.5 Trump

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1488374102566055937?s=20&t=99XrPO...

Legislative maps are up. The twitter detectives are back at work btw.

All upstate D senators got safer seats. New Ithaca, Ulster, and Dutchess Dem seats. -2 R seats through reapportionment: one in Buffalo, one in the far North - both move into NYC.

https://twitter.com/WhaleBallot/status/1488391963439104000

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1488374102566055937?s=20&t=99XrPO...

Legislative maps are up. The twitter detectives are back at work btw.

All upstate D senators got safer seats. New Ithaca, Ulster, and Dutchess Dem seats. -2 R seats through reapportionment: one in Buffalo, one in the far North - both move into NYC.

https://twitter.com/WhaleBallot/status/1488391963439104000

Does this basically lock in a super majority in the state senate?

Certainly looks like it, as expected.

https://twitter.com/MassJumbo/status/1488398052624941058?s=20&t=99XrPOz3BHvs...

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1488539295912804353?s=20&t=99XrPO...

New York Assembly Districts have been uploaded. First things I noticed are: Least change in many areas, new Asian seats in Brooklyn and Queens, and the second nested seat in Rockland very likely becoming a Orthodox seat. DRA says 93 seats >55% Biden.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1488550185919729665?s=20&t=99XrPO...

Full Senate Map. 45 districts are more than 55% Biden according to DRA. This is larger then the present caucus, but there were a lot of 52-48ish Biden seats on the old map cause of the lengths the GOP previously went to spread out and maximize their vote.



Some very crazy stuff going on in South Brooklyn. SD20 (peach) is an asian seat though, and SD19 (olive) is even more of a Felder pack. SD07 (light brown) in South Queens and Rockaways is much safer than it appears.

[Oryxslayer]

What happens to Palumbo?

NY SD-01 is Biden+4.5, Previously Biden+1.2

[Oryxslayer]

What happens to Palumbo?

NY SD-01 is Biden+4.5, Previously Biden+1.2

Why didn’t they just pack the district?  Palumbo would still win the new district.

If you look at the maps, they choose to sink other Republicans. Despite Biden winning a few seats, the only Suffolk county Democrat is Cross-County SD-05's and SD-08's James Gaughran and John Brooks. Of course the Dems hold all the Nassau seats, but that is why they focusing on locking down those seats. In this instance they choose to nuke the successor to SD-03 and ensure the successor to SD-06, which slid further into Suffolk with SD-08's departure from the county, was as safe as possible. So SD-01 kinda got whatever leftover D areas are there.

[Oryxslayer]

What happens to Palumbo?

NY SD-01 is Biden+4.5, Previously Biden+1.2

Why didn’t they just pack the district?  Palumbo would still win the new district.

If you look at the maps, they choose to sink other Republicans. Despite Biden winning a few seats, the only Suffolk county Democrat is Cross-County SD-05's and SD-08's James Gaughran and John Brooks. Of course the Dems hold all the Nassau seats, but that is why they focusing on locking down those seats. In this instance they choose to nuke the successor to SD-03 and ensure the successor to SD-06, which slid further into Suffolk with SD-08's departure from the county, was as safe as possible. So SD-01 kinda got whatever leftover D areas are there.

Assuming they all run for re-election, based on the new maps, Thomas would likely run in the 56th, Brooks the 62nd and Gaughran the 45th.  I would go from Thomas's districts to Brooks's district.  

Also do we know if this numbering scheme is correct?  I went with what was on the DRA link and does seem to be an odd numbering scheme.

That was what was uploaded. Might change: NC used placeholder numbers until the final bill when legislatives districts got their same numbers as previously - Congressional ones did not, CA uses names for their seats until the final draft when they go N-S, and the NY commission used letters and names previously.

[Oryxslayer]

There are two issues that I have found with 26 seat NY fair maps, that you both brought up and I would like to see what the suggested answers are, both for diversity of opinion's sake and to see how others resolved them. These two issues make it very easy to gerry NY for the dems, but hard to make a sensible map I have found.

1) Upstate new York has to lose a CD. If you are gerrymandering, this is the 22nd or maybe even the 21st if you are doing something with the Clinton/St. Lawrence region. On a reasonable map, the seat most reasonably to be cut is the 19th. NYC is just pushing north - good if you are gerrymandering cause it can eat red turf - and upstate pushing south, exerting a squeeze. But how do you group that cut? Putting everything north of Ulster+Sullivan+Dutchess in a upstate block comes about 140k short of 8 seats. There is no easy remedy cause Ulster and Sullivan are best kept together, and both that grouping or Dutchess are both 250K+.

Looking at it a different way doesn't exactly help, cause everything north of Rockland+Westchester is about 140K overpopulated for 9 seats, and dropping Putnam still leaves it at over 40K overpopulated. A new allignment is needed.

2) There is an either-or relationship in Brooklyn+Queens. Given the necessary minority seats, the need to both prevent packing of each minority group AND prevent the dilution of other minority groups while you are preventing packing, some White regions must be used to as counterweights for the Brooklyn AA seats. There are two options: the South Brooklyn Jews+Eastern Europeans and the west Brooklyn Progressives. Given the seat count, whichever one you go for will not get a seat of its own. Whichever one is cut up will have pieces paired with Staten Island, pieces that slightly or not at all resemble the other part of the district.

[Oryxslayer]

There are two issues that I have found with 26 seat NY fair maps, that you both brought up and I would like to see what the suggested answers are, both for diversity of opinion's sake and to see how others resolved them. These two issues make it very easy to gerry NY for the dems, but hard to make a sensible map I have found.

1) Upstate new York has to lose a CD. If you are gerrymandering, this is the 22nd or maybe even the 21st if you are doing something with the Clinton/St. Lawrence region. On a reasonable map, the seat most reasonably to be cut is the 19th. NYC is just pushing north - good if you are gerrymandering cause it can eat red turf - and upstate pushing south, exerting a squeeze. But how do you group that cut? Putting everything north of Ulster+Sullivan+Dutchess in a upstate block comes about 140k short of 8 seats. There is no easy remedy cause Ulster and Sullivan are best kept together, and both that grouping or Dutchess are both 250K+.

Looking at it a different way doesn't exactly help, cause everything north of Rockland+Westchester is about 140K overpopulated for 9 seats, and dropping Putnam still leaves it at over 40K overpopulated. A new allignment is needed.

2) There is an either-or relationship in Brooklyn+Queens. Given the necessary minority seats, the need to both prevent packing of each minority group AND prevent the dilution of other minority groups while you are preventing packing, some White regions must be used to as counterweights for the Brooklyn AA seats. There are two options: the South Brooklyn Jews+Eastern Europeans and the west Brooklyn Progressives. Given the seat count, whichever one you go for will not get a seat of its own. Whichever one is cut up will have pieces paired with Staten Island, pieces that slightly or not at all resemble the other part of the district.

What percebt of the black vote did Clarke win in 2018 anyway. Was it very strong or was it more like Lacy Clay vs Cori Bush ?

I don't have the maps on hand, but when I saw them in the past, in all the Progressive vs AA races in the past 4 years, the Progressive, regardless of race, dominates the expected neighborhoods in West Brooklyn and Queens vs the incumbent in the AA areas usually in the east of the seat.

[Oryxslayer]

The congressional map has passed the Assembly by the (maybe not needed, but safe to have) 2/3 majority, 103-45

[Oryxslayer]

The congressional map has passed the Assembly by the (maybe not needed, but safe to have) 2/3 majority, 103-45

Interesting that it's not a party-line vote?

State Site has yet to be updated with the exact vote transcripts, but one NO D vote I can see on twitter was Marcela Mitaynes of Brooklyn. Senate is expected to vote between 3 and 4.

[Oryxslayer]

The congressional map has passed the Assembly by the (maybe not needed, but safe to have) 2/3 majority, 103-45

Interesting that it's not a party-line vote?

State Site has yet to be updated with the exact vote transcripts, but one NO D vote I can see on twitter was Marcela Mitaynes of Brooklyn. Senate is expected to vote between 3 and 4.

Is it a matter of any importance the precise margin by which the map passes the State Senate? In terms of its likelihood of being overturned or whatnot.

In this situation, where the commission collapsed and provided nothing to edit, the constitutional amendment is a mess. Nobody knows if a majority or 2/3s are needed, though 2/3s is obviously preferable cause then that can of worms can remain closed.

[Oryxslayer]

The best part of that dumpster fire take was that cinyc did this breakdown after Thorongil made one of the 2017 mayoral map. And in that election Malliotakis won the 6th as drawn by about 2 points, while doing almost exactly the same as Silva in this local election. So he actually did worse than other city-wide GOP'ers here!

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1489293397974265860?s=20&t=Zcm5GP...

State Legislature maps pass by supermajorities, supermajorities that were larger than the party line in the Assembly.

[Oryxslayer]

Hochul signs the maps.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...