2020 New York Redistricting

[Smash255]

IMO everytime Dave posts a hypothetical NY he thinks the 2022 actions are guidelines for the most desirable outcome of presentactors. Which is a very fallacious since almost half the incumbents from that cycle have been replaced with new ones, changing the calculations at a most basic level.  

Like every NY-03 that was attempted back then crossed into Westchester cause Suozzi was out and the Legislators wanted Biaggi in. That's now been entirely reversed.  Or NY-22, which we just saw a good idea of what could be the final lines. Every Dem map then needed ithica to unseat Katko, ideally by bringing back Brindisi, but once he was gone Dems could afford to spread around the cities. And now the Legislators want John Mannion as well there, so the district goes westwards to follow his old senate seat.

Also there is zero chance they are screwing over Pat Ryan.

This won't happen but you wonder if Molinaro would run in NY-18 with Dutchess and Ryan in NY-19 with Ulster instead of the other way around.

Map is not completely horrible with a few minor changes. Williams and Lawler would be finished and 11 probably leans D. Giving Ryan a slightly bluer district might be enough with his incumbency edge and putting Ithaca in 19 can sink Molinaro. Dems in an average year open seat would have a shot at 2 and a 2018 wave is likely 23-3.

Also having the one Suffolk based Biden seat being a WWC South Shore seat is a bad idea for Dems IMO.

I would see LaLota running there (he lives in Amityville IIRC) and he would win.   I would be in the Nassau side of NY-2 FWIW in this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1760338496835801349

Old DRA map: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::8917cd49-860d-4755-ad21-48c65f36d5b0

This is just Wasserman being clueless

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

There is absolutely no way they could, should, or would pass a map like Wasserman suggests. It is practically a Republican gerrymander designed to try to defeat various Democrats such as Pat Ryan for example.

The legislature should pass a proper beautiful fair map which duly respects the great state of New York's communities of interest such as the south-Brooklyn Asian-American community, and doesn't take partisanship into account in order to go out of its way to give Republican incumbents a chance at re-election just because they are Republican. Why would you draw a map to deliberately re-elect some Republican incumbents when the voters of New York have just made clear in the NY-03 special election that they don't want Republicans? That would be anti-democratic. Clearly you would only do that if you were improperly taking partisanship into account, and the legislature would never do that.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This map would kill the Dems if they went the squad/anti-Israel future route. Would lose 1,2,3,4,11 in this scenario.

Yep, it is an anti-Dem and in particular anti-progressive gerrymander. If it were passed it would have to be struck down for that reason and replaced with a proper big beautiful fair map.

[David Hume]

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.



Now why do I personally think something like this is coming? Cause it is totally in favor of the the two people various legislators favor right now - Jones and Latimer - and harms the chances of both Bowman and Lawler. Latimer gets a seat all to himself with Rye and covering his base in the White Liberal side of Westchester. The other 3 are in the Yonkers seat: Bowman in Yonkers, Jones in Sleepy Hollow with ties to Rockland, and Lawler in Rockland's Pearl River. The elimination of the ideological divide between the primary combatants with the sole focus on competency will make Bowman's situation that much more challenging, but for other legislators it will just be a chance to hurt progressives. Lawler meanwhile can't win versus a D+30 almost-majority-minority electorate.


The districts getting "partially" renumbered follows from this. There is continuity
with Rockland in 17 and southern Westchester in 16, but 16 is now facing outwards whereas 17 is now facing inwards and Yonkers. This is of course cause of whose running where right now, and where their residencies are.

One thing I never fully understand is why Reps can demand so much regarding how to draw districts from state legs. The vast majority of Reps are not that powerful, as compared to House leader and DCCC chair. If the House leadership want a maximal safe gerrymander, at the cost of some Reps, why would the state leg defer to the Reps?

In particular, Jefferies is from NY. If some state leg leaders want to get promoted to the Congress, green light from him is much more crucial than other NY Reps. 

[politicallefty]

One thing I never fully understand is why Reps can demand so much regarding how to draw districts from state legs. The vast majority of Reps are not that powerful, as compared to House leader and DCCC chair. If the House leadership want a maximal safe gerrymander, at the cost of some Reps, why would the state leg defer to the Reps?

In particular, Jefferies is from NY. If some state leg leaders want to get promoted to the Congress, green light from him is much more crucial than other NY Reps.

I can't answer that (though I imagine part of it is that many Members of Congress move up through state-level politics), but I would say that this is a major test of Hakeem Jeffries's leadership. If he's the true heir to Pelosi, we should know soon.

[Oryxslayer]

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.


SNIP

One thing I never fully understand is why Reps can demand so much regarding how to draw districts from state legs. The vast majority of Reps are not that powerful, as compared to House leader and DCCC chair. If the House leadership want a maximal safe gerrymander, at the cost of some Reps, why would the state leg defer to the Reps?

In particular, Jefferies is from NY. If some state leg leaders want to get promoted to the Congress, green light from him is much more crucial than other NY Reps.  

By Reps here do you mean state Representatives or individual Congressional Representatives?

Either way the answer is the same: relationships. Connections and allies are one whole facet of politics after all. In this case, the leaders of the party are far away, proverbially in the clouds. Everyone knows them, but nobody actually knows them usually. Meanwhile the state legislators who have the pen (since we are talking about situations where incumbents have demands) have by the necessity of the job cultivated relationships with other legislators and often their congressman. This forms a block of votes that needs to be won. That is especially the case here in NY where there is almost no margin of error, and there is no simultaneous legislative maps to please them in other ways. To get the votes to pass a plan, you have to listen to each group, and therefore the congressman. Double the case if the state has a district residency requirement. This can actually be seen on the commissions map: even though they seem to have set out with the idea of least change, you can spot slight shifts like where Jefferies wanted his house back in the district and Meng wanted Shea Stadium.

What's unusual here is that the leader with these desires is a long term NY politician with many connections, and enough sway to form a block of his own. Jefferies saying No last week likely just immediately killed the map for that reason. And like is said above, its likely to become a test of his own power and sway, how far can he push them in his direction before other concerns start to become relevant.

[David Hume]

And if eliminating Lawler really takes a Biden >60% district, something is very, very wrong.

I think the answer is less "need" when it comes to Lawler, and rather "can so why not."

Now I'm personally fully under the impression we are getting something like this, though I will admit there isn't much evidence beyond Latimer's power and influence, which leads to it being more of an opinion right now. But it does show how Westchester is just that Democratic, One seat is D+20, one is D+30, and NY-18 is as blue as Ryan seems to want from the new proposal. And if you can force such a clear divide quite neatly, a divide that might just force Lawler to retire rather than tilt at the new windmill, more the better from the perspective of people like Jeffries.


SNIP

One thing I never fully understand is why Reps can demand so much regarding how to draw districts from state legs. The vast majority of Reps are not that powerful, as compared to House leader and DCCC chair. If the House leadership want a maximal safe gerrymander, at the cost of some Reps, why would the state leg defer to the Reps?

In particular, Jefferies is from NY. If some state leg leaders want to get promoted to the Congress, green light from him is much more crucial than other NY Reps.  

By Reps here do you mean state Representatives or individual Congressional Representatives?

Either way the answer is the same: relationships. Connections and allies are one whole facet of politics after all. In this case, the leaders of the party are far away, proverbially in the clouds. Everyone knows them, but nobody actually knows them usually. Meanwhile the state legislators who have the pen (since we are talking about situations where incumbents have demands) have by the necessity of the job cultivated relationships with other legislators and often their congressman. This forms a block of votes that needs to be won. That is especially the case here in NY where there is almost no margin of error, and there is no simultaneous legislative maps to please them in other ways. To get the votes to pass a plan, you have to listen to each group, and therefore the congressman. Double the case if the state has a district residency requirement. This can actually be seen on the commissions map: even though they seem to have set out with the idea of least change, you can spot slight shifts like where Jefferies wanted his house back in the district and Meng wanted Shea Stadium.

What's unusual here is that the leader with these desires is a long term NY politician with many connections, and enough sway to form a block of his own. Jefferies saying No last week likely just immediately killed the map for that reason. And like is said above, its likely to become a test of his own power and sway, how far can he push them in his direction before other concerns start to become relevant.

I mean Congressman.

I agree that the legs leaders who have the pen need allies so it is perfectly understandable that they draw seats for their friends. But the incumbent protection we are talking about seems more than that. I doubt how many Reps they know well enough such that they feel obliged to satisfy their demands. Moreover, they are doing a great favor for those Reps. I am not sure how much the Reps can give back to them.

I guess the dynamics might be, a Rep may have close friends/allies in state legs, likely in their districts. He made his demand clear to his allies. His allies would then ask legs leadership on his behalf. But I am not sure how much sway his allies have, and I think it varies case by case.  

[Oryxslayer]

The case by case nature is yes, very key here. Some incumbents just have more sway and connection, especially if they are near leadership.

Maryland in 2010 is a good case of this. Some very long serving incumbents, everyone had ambitions of some kind, and also the party wanted to make MD-06 a Dem seat.  This led to the spiderweb map that sought to give most of the prominent actors like Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, and Hoyer their desired seats. But since everyone had demands, some just could not be accommodated. The most obvious case of this is Donna Edwards, who publicly wanted to keep her PG-Montgomery county district. But she got to congress by primarying out a previous state legislator, aligned with the reformist wing of the party, and had by far the shortest tenure if we consider Sarbanes to have inherited some of his fathers aura. She just didn't have the sway to win a fight against the other incumbents for parochial demands.

[David Hume]

The case by case nature is yes, very key here. Some incumbents just have more sway and connection, especially if they are near leadership.

Maryland in 2010 is a good case of this. Some very long serving incumbents, everyone had ambitions of some kind, and also the party wanted to make MD-06 a Dem seat.  This led to the spiderweb map that sought to give most of the prominent actors like Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, and Hoyer their desired seats. But since everyone had demands, some just could not be accommodated. The most obvious case of this is Donna Edwards, who publicly wanted to keep her PG-Montgomery county district. But she got to congress by primarying out a previous state legislator, aligned with the reformist wing of the party, and had by far the shortest tenure if we consider Sarbanes to have inherited some of his fathers aura. She just didn't have the sway to win a fight against the other incumbents for parochial demands.

Is incumbent demands too hard to satisfy the main reason they didn't go 8-0 in 2010? Their map is so ugly that no judge would find it not an aggressive gerrymander. And if they think the constitution bans gerrymander, it will be strike down for sure. Moving from 7-1 to 8-0 would not change any thing.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/YanceyRoy/status/1761119439783698517?t=RnF6CM4hJ33BtucYcM9yi...

Anyway,  here's confirmation of the maps death if anyone still believed in it. Which reminds one to never speak with confidence about fluid situations:

Passed the commision 9-1. I know a lot of you don't want to believe it but the deal has been made and their is a 99% chance this is close to the final map (maybe minor changes within 2%).

[GALeftist]

The article alleges that the changes made will be minor (within 2%), but idk, it seems unlikely to me that the legislators who have such a problem with the current map would be OK with basically the same map. We'll see I suppose.

[Atlas Force]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1761798363882631413

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/poozer87/status/1762154666450727024?t=fOh2dlW9VEcH4wGq95J69w...

This bill is getting priority treatment.  It's not unusual for states to require certain venues for certain actions,  but given the nature of the NY courts,  this is the protection plan for anything that isn't obviously illegal and fails the gerrymander "appearances" test. The House's bill though has been in committee since January, perhaps revealing divergences in ideals or strategy.

[Minnesota Mike]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/26/new-york-democrats-house-map-00143307

The current thinking is that lawmakers will stick to the confines of 2012 legislation that says districts they draw can’t vary by more than 2 percent from the ones in the commission’s plans. So at least 761,000 people in a 777,000-person district as drawn by the commission would need to be the same in the amended map passed by the Legislature.

That means there can’t be many dramatic overhauls from the maps drawn by the commission — but there will still be some changes.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/26/new-york-democrats-house-map-00143307

The current thinking is that lawmakers will stick to the confines of 2012 legislation that says districts they draw can’t vary by more than 2 percent from the ones in the commission’s plans. So at least 761,000 people in a 777,000-person district as drawn by the commission would need to be the same in the amended map passed by the Legislature.

That means there can’t be many dramatic overhauls from the maps drawn by the commission — but there will still be some changes.

Sounds like Republican wishcasting

[henster]

Apparently the Senate wants to go the more aggressive route and the Assembly wants to adhere to the 2% rule. Seems some Dems are well aware of any legal repercussions that could occur. It'll be interesting to see how much influence Jeffries really has here and how much influence congressional leaders really have over state redistricting in general.

[Gass3268]

No way would they be looking to change the law on where redistricting cases could be held just to go the 2% route.

[Oryxslayer]

Apparently the Senate wants to go the more aggressive route and the Assembly wants to adhere to the 2% rule. Seems some Dems are well aware of any legal repercussions that could occur. It'll be interesting to see how much influence Jeffries really has here and how much influence congressional leaders really have over state redistricting in general.

Which would explain the senate fast-tracking the "lawsuit arenas/protection" bill and the house sitting on it.

In theory there map be maps revealed when the (committee?) votes are negative today.

[henster]

No way would they be looking to change the law on where redistricting cases could be held just to go the 2% route.

IMO all this legislation should've been passed months ago especially the 2% rule. If Dems had simply repealed the rule last year the threat of legal action wouldn't be as high as opposed to repealing it right as they pass a new map. From what I've seen everyone involved just seems kind of flat footed rather than cunning so I wouldn't be surprised if Dems fumbled all of this.

[Dan the Roman]

Assembly is much more likely to be lifers. The State Senate's Democratic majority, and hence caucus is younger. There are DINOS in the Assembly who have no great desire to create vanity seats for a whole cast of characters they probably detest, and like being able to collect bipartisan pork from congress.

It would be one thing is Democratic majorities could pass stuff. But given no one can get a budget through the Senate anyway, and that requires Republicans, well if you are a corrupt machine pol why do you care so much about a 4-seat D house majority or a 3 seat minority?

[Oryxslayer]

Assembly is much more likely to be lifers. The State Senate's Democratic majority, and hence caucus is younger. There are DINOS in the Assembly who have no great desire to create vanity seats for a whole cast of characters they probably detest, and like being able to collect bipartisan pork from congress.

It would be one thing is Democratic majorities could pass stuff. But given no one can get a budget through the Senate anyway, and that requires Republicans, well if you are a corrupt machine pol why do you care so much about a 4-seat D house majority or a 3 seat minority?

Something else to keep in mind here is who is running in 2024. NY-01 has former State Senator Jim Gaughran (retired before 2022) , NY-04 has current State Senator Kevin Thomas, and NY-22 has current State Senator John Mannion. NY-26, where partisanship will matter less than potential primary voters, will likely see current State Senator Tim Kennedy win the special election and look for a full term.

Even if we ignore the connections and relationships these people made in the chamber, the three current Senators literally vote on the present bill. And the Dems cannot spare any votes from the 2/3 majority.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1762221723946979346?t=WhyIpMgnpzSxeBh...

[Oryxslayer]

The votes in the Senate are 40-17 Nay. Totally expected.

Now voting on Venue Bill.

[GALeftist]

So does this IRC map count as the second map for the purposes of the NY state constitution, given that the legislature must reject plans twice before modifying them?