Section V is on the ropes

[Mr.Phips]

Rick Perry is allegedly planning a special session for such redistricting.

A new formula would I suppose have to come from the US congress. In the interim S5 could be voided until such a new formula, if it comes at all.

You just watch the uproar that would come from the Hispanic community if the legislature and governor try to take away their representation(and do it mid-decade at that).  That is what this is, pure and simple. 

[Mr.Phips]

Rick Perry is allegedly planning a special session for such redistricting.

A new formula would I suppose have to come from the US congress. In the interim S5 could be voided until such a new formula, if it comes at all.

You just watch the uproar that would come from the Hispanic community if the legislature and governor try to take away their representation(and do it mid-decade at that).  That is what this is, pure and simple. 

The state's map would claim Marc Veasey's district. He is not a Hispanic and defeated a Hispanic in the primary.

OK, fine, then Democrats can do the same thing in New York by getting rid of Grimm and Gibson easily as payback.  All they need to do is get the independent Dems on board by also redrawing the State Senate map to be safely Dem so they dont even have to worry about being bipartisan anymore. 

[Mr.Phips]

OK, fine, then Democrats can do the same thing in New York by getting rid of Grimm and Gibson easily as payback.  All they need to do is get the independent Dems on board by also redrawing the State Senate map to be safely Dem so they dont even have to worry about being bipartisan anymore.  

That's not going to happen.  The New York Constitution only calls for state senate districts to be redistricted once and states that they "shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade".  Plus, the independent Democrats would rather rule the Senate and have power with the Republicans than be minnows in the shallow pond of Senate Democrats, many of whom are too liberal for the independent Democrats' tastes.   Redrawing the map to give Democrats full control of the Senate would ultimately end up lessening the power held by the independent Democrats, as their votes would not be necessary to maintain power.

There is clear precedent for doing this.  Republicans did it in NY for the 1970 elections. 

Also, all these independent Democrats need is for someone to warn them that if Republicans were to regain the Senate(possible at this point under these lines), they would throw these independent Democrats out on their a**es and they wouldnt have any power. 

[Mr.Phips]

OK, fine, then Democrats can do the same thing in New York by getting rid of Grimm and Gibson easily as payback.  All they need to do is get the independent Dems on board by also redrawing the State Senate map to be safely Dem so they dont even have to worry about being bipartisan anymore.  

That's not going to happen.  The New York Constitution only calls for state senate districts to be redistricted once and states that they "shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade".  Plus, the independent Democrats would rather rule the Senate and have power with the Republicans than be minnows in the shallow pond of Senate Democrats, many of whom are too liberal for the independent Democrats' tastes.   Redrawing the map to give Democrats full control of the Senate would ultimately end up lessening the power held by the independent Democrats, as their votes would not be necessary to maintain power.

There is clear precedent for doing this.  Republicans did it in NY for the 1970 elections. 

Also, all these independent Democrats need is for someone to warn them that if Republicans were to regain the Senate(possible at this point under these lines), they would throw these independent Democrats out on their a**es and they wouldnt have any power. 

I don't think so.  Article III, Section 4 of the New York Constitution can't be clearer.  Once a senate or assembly map is passed by the legislature, it cannot be changed.   Districts "shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined".

The 1960-70 maps were a unique case.  The original 1960s map was thrown out for violating one-man-one-vote.  The 1966-70 map was a court-drawn one, not a legislatively passed map.

The independent Democrats have power now, something they would not have much of if Senate Democrats had a large majority.  So the tradeoff would be lessening the power they actually have now by ceding it to the dysfunctional senate Democrat minority in exchange for being thrown totally out of power when so-called "progressive" Democrats have a large senate majority.  Republicans may or may not get back their majority under the current lines, but the independent Democrats would not be necessary at all under any illegal new Gerrymander to boost Senate Democrats.  The so-called "progressives" would rule both the Senate and Assembly, passing things that the more moderate independent Democrats don't want to be enacted.

Well that part of the state constitution was violated in 1970(and 1965), so there is clear precedent there.  This would be no more illegal than what Republicans did when they added a 63rd seat. 

The independent Democrats are actually very liberal on almost every issue and the only reason they are what they are is because they think it will allow them to keep shared power even if Republicans were to regain a narrow majority.  They are wrong and somebody needs to tell them that.