2020 New York Redistricting

[BigSkyBob]

New York Dems should really just pull an Ohio GOP and ignore the courts. Its what all the cool kids are doing now.

Except, the Court ruled the IRC has the power to redistrict, and, the legislature does not. That is a very hard ruling to ignore.

The Ohio Supreme Court blinked, apparently, for the Congressional map, and, federal courts intervened on the legislative ones.

I don't foresee the Federal Courts not deferring to the New York Court of Appeals.

[BigSkyBob]

New York Dems should really just pull an Ohio GOP and ignore the courts. Its what all the cool kids are doing now.

Except, the Court ruled the IRC has the power to redistrict, and, the legislature does not. That is a very hard ruling to ignore.

The Ohio Supreme Court blinked, apparently, for the Congressional map, and, federal courts intervened on the legislative ones.

I don't foresee the Federal Courts not deferring to the New York Court of Appeals.

Let ‘em enforce it

Inasmuch as the Federal Courts have a mandate to ensure that states have a "Republican form of government," whatever that means, I would be loath to test them. Federal Courts have been loath to involve themselves with state affairs, but, if some state's administration were to try to hold elections on districts that the state has definitively determined to be against that's states Constitution, the Federal Courts would be forced to open that can of worms.

[BigSkyBob]

Worth noting that any type of mandate for an Orthodox seat would be blatantly unconstitutional, and even taking religious identity into account drawing a map could be subject to a lawsuit. Although it's probably moot because any south Brooklyn Republican district would include a lot more than just Orthodox, and they aren't a Census category.

That is a dubious claim at best.

"Orthodox Jews" define themselves are a maternal-determined ethnic group ["You can eat a ham sandwich on Yom Kipper, but, if your mother was Jewish you're Jewish!"]  There simply isn't Constitutional prohibition of extending the VRA to ethnic groups.

Second, the key elements of the rational for the VRA apply to Orthodox Jews, just as Blacks in the South, Orthodox Jews have different voting patterns, are subject to animosity based on their ethnicity,  and, have been "cracked" to ensure that no Orthodox Jew has a reasonable chance of winning even though their population is reasonably concentrated to form such a district.

Nor, has anyone ever objected to creating "Hispanic" districts on Constitution grounds, when there is a strong correlation between electing an "Hispanic," and, electing a Roman Catholic.

It is a novel claim, but, don't be so quick to dismiss it.

[BigSkyBob]

Worth noting that any type of mandate for an Orthodox seat would be blatantly unconstitutional, and even taking religious identity into account drawing a map could be subject to a lawsuit. Although it's probably moot because any south Brooklyn Republican district would include a lot more than just Orthodox, and they aren't a Census category.

Ye that’s the issue I have with both parties. One side is basically arguing it’s not a COI at all while the other is treating it as if they’re VRA protected (even over Asian voters)

It is reasonable to VRA Orthodox Jews over  VRAing Asian voters in NYC, because in the particular case Orthodox Jews have radically different voting patterns from other New Yorkers, while with Asian voters such differences in voting patterns isn't as great.

Second, in such a lawsuit, the plaintiffs could propose a remedial map without the help of such census categories. In fact, one such map is essentially before the Court.

[BigSkyBob]

Worth noting that any type of mandate for an Orthodox seat would be blatantly unconstitutional, and even taking religious identity into account drawing a map could be subject to a lawsuit. Although it's probably moot because any south Brooklyn Republican district would include a lot more than just Orthodox, and they aren't a Census category.

That is a dubious claim at best.

"Orthodox Jews" define themselves are a maternal-determined ethnic group ["You can eat a ham sandwich on Yom Kipper, but, if your mother was Jewish you're Jewish!"]  There simply isn't Constitutional prohibition of extending the VRA to ethnic groups.

Second, the key elements of the rational for the VRA apply to Orthodox Jews, just as Blacks in the South, Orthodox Jews have different voting patterns, are subject to animosity based on their ethnicity,  and, have been "cracked" to ensure that no Orthodox Jew has a reasonable chance of winning even though their population is reasonably concentrated to form such a district.

Nor, has anyone ever objected to creating "Hispanic" districts on Constitution grounds, when there is a strong correlation between electing an "Hispanic," and, electing a Roman Catholic.

It is a novel claim, but, don't be so quick to dismiss it.

Not all Hispanics are Catholic. Orthodox Jews are by definition a religious group, there's not "Jewish" category on the Census even under ethnicity and the category here is based around being a type of religious Jew, not by ethnicity. It doesn't include non-practicing Jews or atheists or Jews who converted to another religion or even practicing Reform Jews.

Except, as I noted above, Orthodox Jews consider anyone who had a "Jewish" mother to be a "Jew," even if they are Roman Catholic. So, your point is counter-factual.

[BigSkyBob]

Um what… many types of Orthodox Jews do NOT consider secular or more liberal Jews to be Jewish. At best, we’re considered people who could return to the Jewish community from our present goyish lives without converting. The person who believed I could eat a ham sandwich and still be Jewish was Hitler, not the Hasidim.

Anyway, the whole idea of an Orthodox seat is Republican fantasy, VRA isn’t involved.

No, they consider them Jewish atheists, or Jewish apostates, but, if such a person has a "Jewish" mother, Orthodox Jews consider such a person "Jewish." On the other hand, if someone with a non-Jewish mother converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism, such a person is not considered a "Jew." It is a definition of ethnicity, not, religion.

Whether, or not, Orthodox Jews are subject to VRA protections has never been litigated, or determined. It is an open question. I would not be so quick to dismiss the merits of such a claim. As I noted before, many of the essential elements for needing such protect are there.

[BigSkyBob]

Um what… many types of Orthodox Jews do NOT consider secular or more liberal Jews to be Jewish. At best, we’re considered people who could return to the Jewish community from our present goyish lives without converting. The person who believed I could eat a ham sandwich and still be Jewish was Hitler, not the Hasidim.

Anyway, the whole idea of an Orthodox seat is Republican fantasy, VRA isn’t involved.

No, they consider them Jewish atheists, or Jewish apostates, but, if such a person has a "Jewish" mother, Orthodox Jews consider such a person "Jewish." On the other hand, if someone with a non-Jewish mother converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism, such a person is not considered a "Jew." It is a definition of ethnicity, not, religion.

Whether, or not, Orthodox Jews are subject to VRA protections has never been litigated, or determined. It is an open question. I would not be so quick to dismiss the merits of such a claim. As I noted before, many of the essential elements for needing such protect are there.

Your case is missing the literal most important part of the claim; being identified as a distinct ethnic group. As noted earlier, not even the census asks for anything close to this (there is no "Jewish" box), so there's basically no standing. The Portuguese of MA have a much better claim than the Orthodox-community.

A better argument, especially for the special master, is that they are a clear COI, which they do check off every box for.

Courts adjudicate reality. Reality is more than questions on a census. Two key questions would have to be shown sufficiently in a cause of action would revolve around are the plaintiffs entitled to relief, and, is relief possible? Yes, relief is possible.  Such relief has been proposed in the Republican map. You don't have a point. You have self-serving blindness.

I offered no opinion as to whether the COI argument is better or worse than the VRA argument. I merely noted that some posters here were way too quick to dismiss such a VRA case.

Hispanics and Blacks both have been granted VRA protection. Blacks are a race. Hispanics are series of ethnicities and/or nationalities. "Hispanic" is not a race. "Hispanics" can be of any race.

[BigSkyBob]

Um what… many types of Orthodox Jews do NOT consider secular or more liberal Jews to be Jewish. At best, we’re considered people who could return to the Jewish community from our present goyish lives without converting. The person who believed I could eat a ham sandwich and still be Jewish was Hitler, not the Hasidim.

Anyway, the whole idea of an Orthodox seat is Republican fantasy, VRA isn’t involved.

No, they consider them Jewish atheists, or Jewish apostates, but, if such a person has a "Jewish" mother, Orthodox Jews consider such a person "Jewish." On the other hand, if someone with a non-Jewish mother converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism, such a person is not considered a "Jew." It is a definition of ethnicity, not, religion.

Whether, or not, Orthodox Jews are subject to VRA protections has never been litigated, or determined. It is an open question. I would not be so quick to dismiss the merits of such a claim. As I noted before, many of the essential elements for needing such protect are there.

Your case is missing the literal most important part of the claim; being identified as a distinct ethnic group. As noted earlier, not even the census asks for anything close to this (there is no "Jewish" box), so there's basically no standing. The Portuguese of MA have a much better claim than the Orthodox-community.

A better argument, especially for the special master, is that they are a clear COI, which they do check off every box for.

Courts adjudicate reality. Reality is more than questions on a census. Two key questions would have to be shown sufficiently in a cause of action would revolve around are the plaintiffs entitled to relief, and, is relief possible? Yes, relief is possible. Such relief has been proposed in the Republican map. You don't have a point. You have self-serving blindness.

I offered no opinion as to whether the COI argument is better or worse than the VRA argument. I merely noted that some posters here were way too quick to dismiss such a VRA case.

Hispanics and Blacks both have been granted VRA protection. Blacks are a race. Hispanics are series of ethnicities and/or nationalities. "Hispanic" is not a race. "Hispanics" can be of any race.

When it comes to determining if the plaintiffs are entitled to relief, the census is paramount. To claim that a group is protected under the VRA, you have to be able to, you know, actually measure how large said group is and where said group is located. That's done through the census. The Orthodox Jewish community don't have any sort of box or category on the census. When it comes to the VRA, if they cannot be measured as a group, then they have no standing.

They can be argued in terms of a COI, just as the Portuguese community in MA or the Armenian community in Glendale can be argued, but there is really no argument for a VRA-protected seat.

Again, you reassert a claim that is simply false. Class action suits feature "damaged classes" that aren't identified in the census all the time. If Orthodox Jews are entitled to relief, a claim that I have noted is novel and has never been litigated, but, does seem to have merit potentially, then showing a relief map exists is not a real problem. The various Jewish synogogues know who their members are, and, could provide a list without a problem, for instance.

Further, we all know which neighborhoods are Orthodox Jewish. When you see a bunch of the men wearing the same very antiquated Polish fashion you know. The Courts know this.  Everybody knows this.

Your position is not merely self-serving and wrong. It is immoral. What you are arguing is that employers could discriminate against any class not identified in the census, for instance.

[BigSkyBob]

Again, you reassert a claim that is simply false. Class action suits feature "damaged classes" that aren't identified in the census all the time. If Orthodox Jews are entitled to relief, a claim that I have noted is novel and has never been litigated, but, does seem to have merit potentially, then showing a relief map exists is not a real problem. The various Jewish synogogues know who their members are, and, could provide a list without a problem, for instance.

Further, we all know which neighborhoods are Orthodox Jewish. When you see a bunch of the men wearing the same very antiquated Polish fashion you know. The Courts know this.  Everybody knows this.

Your position is not merely self-serving and wrong. It is immoral. What you are arguing is that employers could discriminate against any class not identified in the census, for instance.

They already can,  in most states you can be fired for being gay without any legal consequence for the employer for example. 

I would note there are no sexual orientation questions on the census. If there were some large concentration of homosexuals in an area, and, if the surrounding population discriminated against them, and, if that community had radically different voting patterns, and, if the powers that be deliberately cracked such neighborhoods to assure that no homosexual was elected, then, there could be a case even if the census has no questions on the topic.

I am aware of any geographical areas with high concentrations of homosexuals, but, none of them, to my knowledge, are places where the other conditions exists. Such conditions exist in South Brooklyn for Orthodox Jews.

[BigSkyBob]

Also lol at all the letters supporting the Dem State Sen and Congressional map.

Like maybe it's ok in some areas but overall it's def the worst in terms of COI and competitiveness and is very similar to what was made illegal.

I feel like a disproportionate amount of public comments are either from the Orthodox Community or one of the metros upstate, or a minority interests group that has a clear political agenda.

One of the recent ones even argues that "changing districts too much would lead to confusion" like bruh.

The Senate map was only struck down on procedural grounds so it definitely has some argument to leave most of it as is as deference. The congressional maps are lol tier screwed.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. What you dismiss as "procedural grounds" is a definitive decision that a bipartisan commission, and, not the legislature, has the right and duty to redistrict the state on a bipartisan basis. The opinion of some legislators is of no more importance than the opinion of any other New Yorker's. That is, except, that this is one opinion that the Courts should dismiss out of hand given the vote for this plan passed on a purely Democratic partisan vote rather than a bipartisan one. This strongly indicates that this map is far from the bipartisan requirement.