2020 New York Redistricting

[Torie]

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.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

[Torie]

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?

I see it was filed at the trial court level in a Pub County, so the process may take awhile. I wonder if the trial court could find for the plaintiffs and appoint a special master, and the Dems then appeal, etc. There is the Appeals Court, and because the trial court is called the Supreme Court, the the high court is called the Appeals Court, appellate division. Yes, the nomenclature is ridiculous.

And Wasserman, as he does at least a couple of times a week, outs himself as the biggest uber Dem hack of them all by not even mentioning that some legal uncertainty attends the NYS map while popping the cork of the champaign bottle over Hochul's signature and the Dems netting two or three seats from the redistricting wars.

[Torie]

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.

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?

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

I am skeptical of any party paying a price for bad behavior, but I agree that Dems will win the battle and lose the war over redistricting, because I don't think Congressional Democrats will ever pass an effective anti-gerrymandering law now that the IL and NY delegations will be dependent on gerrymanders. I fear this Congress was the window for change to happen and it's slammed shut for decades.

Once Texas flips, Republicans may change their view on gerrymandering, but I don't think it will change what their justices on the SC think and our government isn't set up for Republicans to partner with good government Dems to make a majority.

I fear that you are right. Redistricting brings out the worst in people, and particularly politicians that in general (with some exceptions of course) I find to be rather unpleasant  people in any event, which is  understandable given the indignities one needs to go through to get elected. I read somewhere Schumer commanded Dem candidates to spend inordinate hours dialing for dollars. Who in their right mind who is remotely normal would rather do that than have a root canal without anesthetic?

The hope here left in Pandora's box is the partisan coalitions change enough to upset the apple cart, and make the lines stale for gerrymandering purposes.* And there is some hope of that because my impression is that both parties' coalitions are quite unstable at the moment. Trump can take considerable credit for that, along with the re-oligopolization** of the economy (e.g. Amazon). 

*One factlet that has happened while we have both been here, is that Muon2's congressional district in 2011 was drawn by the Dems to be a Pub vote sink. In 2018 it fell to the Dems. The shift was that dramatic.

**Which can be expected to give private sector unions a new lease on life perhaps.

[Torie]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

Uh, are you the slightest bit familiar with the New York Court of Appeals?

Nope… enlighten me

Every member was appointed by Cuomo except one who was by Hochul and thus is stacked with some of the biggest hacks you can imagine. It might be the single most partisan state high court in the country.

What do you base this on other than surmise? I am not saying you are wrong, but just because of who appoints

[Torie]

Does anyone see a chance the map stands? I can’t

Uh, are you the slightest bit familiar with the New York Court of Appeals?

Nope… enlighten me

Every member was appointed by Cuomo except one who was by Hochul and thus is stacked with some of the biggest hacks you can imagine. It might be the single most partisan state high court in the country.

What do you base this on other than surmise? I am not saying you are wrong, but just because of who appoints

6/7 appointed by a total machine hack (and the last one also from a hack) in a state dominated by machine hack politics.

Thank you. I don't think either of the governors are machine hacks actually (one was a creep obviously), and Cuomo apparently appointed a Pub per some post above, and well whatever. We shall see. The best argument that the court is hack city is that if the Dems did not have inside info, how could they have had the chutzpah to be this brazen? Color me paranoid, but maybe they have a back channel through the clerks to get feedback.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1491795714174685187?s=20&t=5JQjWnOBVV0...

Wasserman, that is a total distortion of what the court said, which involved an evaluation of likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Even if it were what it said, it is in the context of the court then proceeding to evaluate the map, not that the map was being upheld as legal. It is also BS that there is not enough time. You just set back the election calendar, the way the NC high court just did. In any event, what would be analogous is the court denying a stay of the use of the map that was passed, and allowing an election to proceed under it, while the case is adjudicated. But the stay is not well taken if the odds are high that the map will be tossed after the election, or at some point during the process. Then the disruption will be worse, as all the incumbents end up with new seats all over again. But yeah, stall was part of the Dem playbook here. Idiot.

[Torie]

The judge mouthing off without knowing the law regarding keeping in place the map this year was subsequently heavily briefed, including pointing out having a federal election in 2023 is illegal as in Unconstitutional. So I tend to think remote the judge will rule the map is illegal, but wait for 2024. Alabama is not apposite, because that was an unsettled federal law issue before federal courts, not a state law issue before a state court.

[Torie]

The Judge voided the CD and State Senate maps. New maps must be enacted into law with bipartisan support for him to review by April 11. If such maps do not appear on his desk, he hires a special master at state expense to draw them. There might not be time to get it all done given the federal requirements if he has to go the special master route, but such is life.

I assume he will line a special master up in advance, since he isn't going to get his bipartisan maps, just in case he still has jurisdiction on April 11.

[Torie]

This opinion will be automatically stayed when the Democrats appeal. This is the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

No, not unless the higher court orders it. This was an interlocutory decision. What will happen is he will hire his special master on April 11, and proceed, unless the higher court affirmatively issues a stay precluding him from doing that.

[Torie]

Lol pretty depressing. Another decade of Dems having little shot of winning the house

Even if this map is overturned the median seat will be Biden + 3ish nationally. Certainly not “no chance”

Biden +3…

Biden won by 5. So that means it’s Republicans +2

Meaning Dems have to win the national popular vote by (like last time) 4-5 to win a bare majority.

For this decade only time they’re going to win the house is in a 2018 type environment

51-47=5?

Also, yeah. The House isn't designed to be proportional. A set of truly fair maps (communities of interest) would have the median seat essentially neutral and perhaps even voting for Trump. A Biden +3 median seat means the nationwide map is gerrymandered for Dems, which makes sense once you realize that states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, NC, and more have all passed Dem "proportionality"-manders.

Getting into an argument as to whether a truly neutral metrics national map, that inter alia tossed subjective COI BS into the trash can, and followed the Muon2 rules or something very close to it, would end up with more Pub seats than what we will end up with, is a truly entropic exercise, and will max out the partisan hack factor in a way that nothing else will. It might add a handful more Pub seats, but even that is somewhat speculative.

The bigger factor causing the Pub redistricting tail wind to largely abate is that its natural geographic advantage hit the doldrums as the suburbs broke bad against it, and rural areas generated more wasted votes for it when drawing lines using neutral metrics, e.g. VA-09.

The Pubs really do need a course correction to expand their base beyond the uneducated white vote that harbors a more masculine view of how the planet should revolve on its axis (that formula works a lot better in Russia but I digress). Which it will of course, since Newtonian physics dictates that parties over time regress to a competitive state. Parties like to spend capital to effect their agenda, which means tossing overboard excess ballast that slows down their envisioned march to utopia.

Thanks heavens that I can swim. Otherwise I would have drowned long ago. This particular barrel of pontification tends to be one of the first to be tossed over the side when the waters get roiled.

[Torie]

Some judges even though of partisan provenance actually are influenced by the laws and facts of a case, even when it goes against their team. Where the facts or case is very lopsided, that influence increases.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1517271516144189442

I question that. Election dates can be changed. I also doubt the Court of Appeals will stay all of this. If it does not stay, then the question is whether the Dems will submit a new map. This is a classic example of pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. They should have ceded a couple of more seats to the Pubs, but as hogs they did not. NYS all too often, attracts the dumbest and most cynical and most corrupt. The intellectual class in the state is too busy engaged in changing the nation and the world to bother with something that is degrading as the cesspool that it NYS governance. I do know based on my buddy lawyer system, that when it comes to drafting legislation, its lawyers can't draft their way out of a paper bag. Even the lawyers seem to be patronage positions for the dumbs.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1517271516144189442

I question that. Election dates can be changed. I also doubt the Court of Appeals will stay all of this. If it does not stay, then the question is whether the Dems will submit a new map. This is a classic example of pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. They should have ceded a couple of more seats to the Pubs, but as hogs they did not. NYS all too often, attracts the dumbest and most cynical and most corrupt. The intellectual class in the state is too busy engaged in changing the nation and the world to bother with something that is degrading as the cesspool that it NYS governance. I do know based on my buddy lawyer system, that when it comes to drafting legislation, its lawyers can't draft their way out of a paper bag. Even the lawyers seem to be patronage positions for the dumbs.

1. The. Filing. Deadline. Has. Already. Passed
2. Even if your correct, Dems will just rig the commission like the GOP did in OH, so a "Fair Map" isn't happening regardless. Sorry Torie

Rigged commission or not, the Constitution in NYS says you cannot deliberately F the other party through gerrymandering. So sorry about that kind sir. The Commission is no longer relevant. What is relevant is how partisan the Dem friendly courts are. I suspect the judges will not want to soil their reputations by twisting the clear provisions and intent of the Constitution into a pretzel. We shall see.

[Torie]

Well I have not listened to all of the oral argument yet, but I have a prediction.
What do you think that it is?  

I found one of the justices intolerable. Any guesses who that might be?  

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1518969388178759680

Where does this 2% concept come from? I can't find it in the redistricting law myself.

[Torie]

Where does this 2% concept come from? I can't find it in the redistricting law myself.

I think it's from a law the legislature passed a while back. I can't find a cite either. They might have repealed it in the interim.

Edit: It's Section 3 of the bill passed in 2012 establishing the commission:

§  3. Any amendments by the senate or assembly to a redistricting plan
    31  submitted by the independent redistricting commission, shall not  affect
    32  more  than  two  percent  of the population of any district contained in
    33  such plan.  If two or more plans for districts in the  same  legislative
    34  house or for congressional districts are submitted by the commission and
    35  voted  upon  by the legislature, such plans shall be considered individ-
    36  ually and not combined.

See Assembly bill A 9557 (2012) here:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/navigate.cgi?NVDTO:

I can't find it in the Constitution itself. Where the F is it? And it makes no sense. If the legislature cannot reject the commission maps by more than 2% solution (you can't even get high on that anemic percentage), it has been castrated. We seem to live in a clueless, disingenuous, irrational madhouse.

[Torie]

]I can't find it in the Constitution itself. Where the F is it? And it makes no sense. If the legislature cannot reject the commission maps by more than 2% solution (you can't even get high on that anemic percentage), it has been castrated. We seem to live in a clueless, disingenuous, irrational madhouse.

I don't think it is in the Constitution, just that Session Law. IIRC, there was an argument before the 4th Department from one of the Dem lawyers that because it wasn't in the constitution, a subsequent legislature wasn't bound by it, and by passing what they did, they invalidated it.

How is that different from a mere statute trumping the Constitution?

[Torie]

]I can't find it in the Constitution itself. Where the F is it? And it makes no sense. If the legislature cannot reject the commission maps by more than 2% solution (you can't even get high on that anemic percentage), it has been castrated. We seem to live in a clueless, disingenuous, irrational madhouse.

I don't think it is in the Constitution, just that Session Law. IIRC, there was an argument before the 4th Department from one of the Dem lawyers that because it wasn't in the constitution, a subsequent legislature wasn't bound by it, and by passing what they did, they invalidated it.

How is that different from a mere statute trumping the Constitution?

I don't know - but the leg should be bound by its own statutes - or at least the act of repealing them should say something about intent

Justice Garcia, in his questioning, seems to have indicated that he thinks that the legislature getting rid of the 2% requirement is itself evidence of partisan intent. I'd be very surprised if he didn't rule to strike down the Congressional map. He might even go one step further and strike down the State Senate map on the procedural argument.

Yes, I agree. And none of the justices took the time to defend the map's legality. Much of the questioning, particularly Garcia, was for the benefit of the other judges.

My guess is that the legislature will get until April 30 to cure, perhaps a tad later, with maybe the the RC having a chance to submit maps to the Legislature if it wants, and perhaps if those deadlines are blown, to submit maps to the Special Master or in tandem.

[Torie]

Who was it who suggested that just because justices have partisan affiliations, to assume that they will go full hack on partisan issues when you get high enough up the judicial food chain is a mistake?

[Torie]

Who was it who suggested that just because justices have partisan affiliations, to assume that they will go full hack on partisan issues when you get high enough up the judicial food chain is a mistake?

Did you see the accolades I gave you earlier?

I did not, but I did now, and thank you. i am a hopeless idealist. But you know what? One person can make a difference. It just takes some willingness to get out there.

[Torie]

torie, do you think dems will try to squirm their way out of this (not that they would necessarily be auccessful) or just give in

Of course the Dems will try to squirm out of it. The Dem chairperson says there is a federal court order mandating a June 28 primary date that cannot be changed. Nope. It can and will be changed.

[Torie]

torie, do you think dems will try to squirm their way out of this (not that they would necessarily be auccessful) or just give in

Of course the Dems will try to squirm out of it. The Dem chairperson says there is a federal court order mandating a June 28 primary date that cannot be changed. Nope. It can and will be changed.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/28/new-york-redistricting-spooks-house-dems-00028753

Heres a politico Dems in Dissarray that's finally true. Seems that is their hail mary strategy.

Yeah, they are. It's all going down in flames. The courts are in charge now, and the highest court has ruled. The primary date will have to be moved. It is right there in black and white in their opinion.  The court can do what is necessary to afford the people the right to vote in an election with maps that are Constitutional.

[Torie]

torie, do you think dems will try to squirm their way out of this (not that they would necessarily be auccessful) or just give in

Of course the Dems will try to squirm out of it. The Dem chairperson says there is a federal court order mandating a June 28 primary date that cannot be changed. Nope. It can and will be changed.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/28/new-york-redistricting-spooks-house-dems-00028753

Heres a politico Dems in Dissarray that's finally true. Seems that is their hail mary strategy.

Yeah, they are. It's all going down in flames. The courts are in charge now, and the highest court has ruled. The primary date will have to be moved. It is right there in black and white in their opinion.  The court can do what is necessary to afford the people the right to vote in an election with maps that are Constitutional.

Did you see the courts taking the map drawing power though? Everyone else seems surprised by that one. The ruling was more bold than the Stueben judge.

Of course, although I thought the court would let the legislature pass a remedial map, the legality of which Judge McAllister could assess along with whatever his special master does. But I think the credibility of whatever the legislature does, along with their lawyers, has been shot. Embarrassing really. They were incredibly arrogant. And their arguments were make weight, and frankly insulting.

Right now, the Dems are at risk that they will not be able to submit any maps at all to the court. They are twisting, twisting, slowly, slowly in the wind. Their communications just exude panic and fear and desperation. Sad.

Oh, the Dems are submitting a map today it appears. It will be interesting to see how much less ugly it was than their last one, if at all.