2020 New York Redistricting

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

Loving this gerrymander.  It looks like it's 24-2?  Plus it screws Stefanik.  Beautiful.

That is still with the 2012/2016 PVI, right? It could probably be done more cleanly with 2020 Presidential results due to greater polarization. Or alternatively, 25-1 could probably be achievable with one mega-R-rural pack district and un-packing the Westchester/Bronx Dem districts a bit. Personally though, I still favor a 26-0 map baconmandering upstate from Manhattan. If the partisan R Supreme Court doesn't like that, let them strike it down, in which case we will have judicial precedent against partisan gerrymandering which could also be used to strike down R gerrymanders in states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee where otherwise Republicans will just do whatever they want for partisan advantage. Dems need to use all the leverage they have in the handful of states where they have it like NY, IL, and MD.

[Torie]

Please forgive them God, for they know not what they do.

[Brittain33]

Are those the rules for the commission, or for any districts drawn? I assume gerrymanders assume the legislature ignores the commission with a supermajority vote.

[Torie]

Are those the rules for the commission, or for any districts drawn? I assume gerrymanders assume the legislature ignores the commission with a supermajority vote.

I asked the same question to myself, and they appear to be the law, that all must follow, until such time as the Constitution is changed. There was talk of that, but I think that is by the boards now due to covid, resignation and the general chaos that is out there in the Empire State.

Drawing illegal maps, or very probably illegal maps, or assuming somewhat partisan courts are the functional equivalent of Jim Jordon, or Cori Bush, or even MTG being the one person court, seems all the rage, both here and on RRH. Resistance is futile. I have basically given up. I just get attacked as a clueless dirt bag attorney just lawyering it up and sh*t posting.

[Brittain33]

Well, it will be interesting if Dems go for the 23-3 and someone challenges on the "favoring one party" rule. That would seem to have potential if all of the others (including compactness) will be easy to avoid.

[Torie]

Well, it will be interesting if Dems go for the 23-3 and someone challenges on the "favoring one party" rule. That would seem to have potential if all of the others (including compactness) will be easy to avoid.

I am working on a map that would give the Dems the best objective function given the constraints. It is not easy. But I suspect that the objective function will have to cede to the Pubs 4 seats, with some more in a bad year a tad vulnerable. In other news, my former (I changed my principal residence to Hoboken - I live in Jersey now, where the garbage meets the sea, can you imagine?) Congressman, Delgado (NY-19)  is running hard, as if he thinks that assuming an easy ride is stuck on stupid, and he's right. I think I have received about 5 meet and greet offers from him in the last month via email.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, it will be interesting if Dems go for the 23-3 and someone challenges on the "favoring one party" rule. That would seem to have potential if all of the others (including compactness) will be easy to avoid.

I am working on a map that would give the Dems the best objective function given the constraints. It is not easy. But I suspect that the objective function will have to cede to the Pubs 4 seats, with some more in a bad year a tad vulnerable. In other news, my former (I changed my principal residence to Hoboken - I live in Jersey now, where the garbage meets the sea, can you imagine?) Congressman, Delgado (NY-19)  is running hard, as if he thinks that assuming an easy ride is stuck on stupid, and he's right. I think I have received about 5 meet and greet offers from him in the last month via email.

There is no universe where conceding 4 seats makes even a modicum of sense here

[Torie]

Well, it will be interesting if Dems go for the 23-3 and someone challenges on the "favoring one party" rule. That would seem to have potential if all of the others (including compactness) will be easy to avoid.

I am working on a map that would give the Dems the best objective function given the constraints. It is not easy. But I suspect that the objective function will have to cede to the Pubs 4 seats, with some more in a bad year a tad vulnerable. In other news, my former (I changed my principal residence to Hoboken - I live in Jersey now, where the garbage meets the sea, can you imagine?) Congressman, Delgado (NY-19)  is running hard, as if he thinks that assuming an easy ride is stuck on stupid, and he's right. I think I have received about 5 meet and greet offers from him in the last month via email.

There is no universe where conceding 4 seats makes even a modicum of sense here

Thanks for sharing.

[Mr.Phips]

Are those the rules for the commission, or for any districts drawn? I assume gerrymanders assume the legislature ignores the commission with a supermajority vote.

I asked the same question to myself, and they appear to be the law, that all must follow, until such time as the Constitution is changed. There was talk of that, but I think that is by the boards now due to covid, resignation and the general chaos that is out there in the Empire State.

Drawing illegal maps, or very probably illegal maps, or assuming somewhat partisan courts are the functional equivalent of Jim Jordon, or Cori Bush, or even MTG being the one person court, seems all the rage, both here and on RRH. Resistance is futile. I have basically given up. I just get attacked as a clueless dirt bag attorney just lawyering it up and sh*t posting.

The Florida redistricting amendment has these same rules but it doesn’t look like that will stop Republicans from passing a gerrymander there, does it?

[Torie]

Are those the rules for the commission, or for any districts drawn? I assume gerrymanders assume the legislature ignores the commission with a supermajority vote.

I asked the same question to myself, and they appear to be the law, that all must follow, until such time as the Constitution is changed. There was talk of that, but I think that is by the boards now due to covid, resignation and the general chaos that is out there in the Empire State.

Drawing illegal maps, or very probably illegal maps, or assuming somewhat partisan courts are the functional equivalent of Jim Jordon, or Cori Bush, or even MTG being the one person court, seems all the rage, both here and on RRH. Resistance is futile. I have basically given up. I just get attacked as a clueless dirt bag attorney just lawyering it up and sh*t posting.

The Florida redistricting amendment has these same rules but it doesn’t look like that will stop Republicans from passing a gerrymander there, does it?

That is an assumption, and if that is the law, probably a false one, if the Pubs are not careful. Florida however is a self packing state by and large, in a way NYS is not in many places. I was vaguely aware of that rule in Florida, and knew doing Florida would be a lot of work. Doing maps with legal constraints requires effort, a lot of effort.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Are those the rules for the commission, or for any districts drawn? I assume gerrymanders assume the legislature ignores the commission with a supermajority vote.

I asked the same question to myself, and they appear to be the law, that all must follow, until such time as the Constitution is changed. There was talk of that, but I think that is by the boards now due to covid, resignation and the general chaos that is out there in the Empire State.

Drawing illegal maps, or very probably illegal maps, or assuming somewhat partisan courts are the functional equivalent of Jim Jordon, or Cori Bush, or even MTG being the one person court, seems all the rage, both here and on RRH. Resistance is futile. I have basically given up. I just get attacked as a clueless dirt bag attorney just lawyering it up and sh*t posting.

The Florida redistricting amendment has these same rules but it doesn’t look like that will stop Republicans from passing a gerrymander there, does it?

That's the thing, a lot of states have these rules that are really pretty vauge and don't mean much. What is a "compact district"? What is considered drawn with "partisan intent"? If they had some objective metrics that'd be one thing, but because there aren't a lot of these because easily ignored guidlines.

Both sides are always going to be able to make an argument to either defend or protect a map, and as long as there's no logical system, those benchmarks hold. Dems could draw a gerrymander where the median seat is in line with the state's partisanship and say that's fair. Republicans could argue that because they win about 35-40% of the vote in NY in your average election they deserve that % of seats. Both those arguments are pretty BS for different reasons but who's to say they're wrong?

[Nyvin]

Really one would think Florida would be the stronger case if the compactness, COI, not favoring a party, etc guidelines mattered since the state already has court precedent to go by:

-Give Pinellas it's own seat and don't cross the Tampa Bay to cut out St Petersburg

-Have some kind of AA seat based out of Jacksonville

-Give Hispanics and AA's their own seats in Orange/Osceola

-No crazy baconstrip districts in the southeast

While in NY there's really not much of anything to go by since the law is new.   I'm expecting both states to mostly ignore what they can to maximize seats.   FLGOP is probably expecting to fly by with their new judges and NY Dems don't really have anything to define what the guidelines actually mean.

[Torie]

Here is the NY CD map that most probably will survive court challenge. The Pubs get 5 seats, assuming Katko hangs around. In other than a bad Dem election cycle, the Dems should pick up the Katko seat when he retires. That CD almost perfectly nests into Madison, Oneida and Onondaga counties. It draws itself. The Stefanick seat becomes more marginal. The 21 Dem seats are all quite safe. The NYC population gains above expectations “solved” the Dem challenges in the care and feeding (except for AOC whose district has moved to south Brooklyn) of all the Dem incumbents quite nicely. It was a stretch, but I even got Kiryas Joel into the Sean Maloney seat.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/420ea1ef-0497-42c4-9886-660076da64cf

[OBD]

Here is the NY CD map that most probably will survive court challenge. The Pubs get 5 seats, assuming Katko hangs around. In other than a bad Dem election cycle, the Dems should pick up the Katko seat when he retires. That CD almost perfectly nests into Madison, Oneida and Onondaga counties. It draws itself. The Stefanick seat becomes more marginal. The 21 Dem seats are all quite safe. The NYC population gains above expectations “solved” the Dem challenges in the care and feeding (except for AOC whose district has moved to south Brooklyn) of all the Dem incumbents quite nicely. It was a stretch, but I even got Kiryas Joel into the Sean Maloney seat.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/420ea1ef-0497-42c4-9886-660076da64cf

Wait, is that 3rd district legal? Pretty sure there’s literally no connection (road, cultural, or otherwise) between the northern bit and the remainder of the seat.

[Torie]

In answer to the above, the NYS Constitution does not define what "contiguous" means, nor is there any case law that I know of, as to whether a bridge or ferry or tunnel is need for contiguity as opposed to mere water. I suspect there is no such requirement, but surely it is favored, but in this case I think it is more than counterbalanced by the inconvenience. It could be done without upsetting the apple cart, but would require some more chops, in order to avoid some degrading of minority representation  concerns.

I like I like this version of my map which giggles the lines Upstate. It minimizes the change in the lines of NY-18, 19, 20, and 26, with the big switch of Dem Ulster County from NY-19, to NY-18. NY-19 of course gets Binghamton and Ithaca in recompense, plus losing heavily Pub Schoharie and half of Montgomery in exchange for marginal Cortland County as a bonus.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/7d8ff4b0-ff10-4706-90a4-d5b47fa16369



Here is a version that puts a bridge across the waters into NY-03, making it a four county wonder.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/3014ea93-0628-4654-ac9b-7ee2200c2d60



Here is one more fascinating little factlet. Because I took cognizance of the existing lines, I was  able to calculate easily what share of the loss of one seat in the state was absorbed by downstate versus upstate. And the answer is - the anticipation builds - is that downstate lost 30.5% of a seat, and upstate lost 69.5%.

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

Please forgive them God, for they know not what they do.

That doesn't do anything to rule out a 26-0 Dem gerrymander (much less a less extreme and more reasonable map like a 24-2 or 25-1).

"Subject to the requirements of the federal constitution and statutes and in compliance with state constitutional requirements, the following principles shall be used" - first of all, that makes all of these principles subject to the requirement of statutes. So one could simply pass a statute that says these principles don't apply (or perhaps, make them only apply if Republican controlled states agree to also apply similar principles), and then they would all be null and void. Note that only requires a majority vote, not even a supermajority to do. Moreover, one could always have a state Constitutional Convention and abolish these rules via majority vote in the convention.

"the following principles shall be used" - This doesn't say how they "shall be used." They could be used in any way that one wants. One could, for example, read them and then throw them in the trash. That would be one way of using the following principles.

"When drawing district lines, the commission shall consider whether such lines would result in the denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights" - You could simply say (what is true!) that if Republicans gain a trifecta they will pass legislation that denies and abridges racial and language minority voting rights. Therefore one could reasonably say that a 26-0 Dem gerrymander is actually REQUIRED by these principles.

"Each district shall consist of contiguous territory" - doesn't matter, you can simply make districts be contiguous on thing 1 inch wide tendrils which contain no people. Moreover, if push comes to shove, you could always say that they are contiguous via wormholes. Wormholes are thought by physicists to be a real physical phenomenon, and if the mere future possibility of wormhole contiguity is not enough, I am sure one could find a 'physicist' who would be willing to testify that at the quantum level, a district combining rural upstate and Manhattan would be contiguous via spooky action at a distance. Or, even if the district is not contiguous in 3 dimensional space, it is contiguous in 11 dimensional string theory space.

"Each district shall be as compact in form as is practicable" - I mean, a baconmander from the Canadian border to Trump Tower is as compact "as is practicable." Sure, you could have a more compact district than that, but it wouldn't be practicable.

"Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition" - Again, that mandates a 26-0 Dem gerrymander. Because if Republicans gerrymander R states and Dems don't draw gerrymanders in D states, then control of Congress won't be competitive and there will be no political competition. In that case, R's would always control Congress under a dictatorship of the minority, even if Dems win the majority of the nationwide Congressional/Senatorial vote (as has mostly been the case over the past decade or two).

"favoring or disfavoring incumbents" - We weren't trying to disfavor Elise Stefanik by drawing Trump Tower into her district, we were just combining communities of interest. Rural folk in the North Country love them some Trump. So they have a community of interest with Trump Tower. Ergo North Country + Manhattan baconmander district.

"The commission shall consider the maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions..." - Again, doesn't say how they should be considered. Perhaps the way they should be considered is by thinking about them and then saying, "nah, that doesn't make sense, and even if it did, gotta have that Trump tower north country community of interest respected."



The bottom line is, when one is operating in bad faith, anything is possible.

Ideally, sure, we could and should have a better system. But the system we actually do have and which we are unfortunately stuck with for now is Hobbesian war of all against all. What happens in the war of all against all if one group decides to be pacifists? They get eaten.

We know that Republicans will operate in bad faith to attempt to rig elections in other states, both via gerrymandering and also - increasingly - apparently by actual literal rigging, if the way Trump wanted to deal with 2020 is anything to go by. Very simply, if Democrats don't do likewise in states such as New York, then Republicans will win control of Congress (along with the Senate and perhaps the Presidency) and impose tyrannical minority rule once again. And who knows, with how off the rails the GOP has gone under Trump, it could even end up being permanent, not just more temporary minority rule for a few years.

An alternative possibility might be for Congress to pass voting rights legislation like HR1 or something to try to set up some sort of better national electoral system, but given that Congress refuses (or rather, a few Senators refuse) to do that we are stuck with the war of all against all. So turn to the person to your left or to your right and proceed with gouging their eyes out.

Or, at least personally, if Republicans were willing to step back and look at all of this on a meta level and realize that none of this crazy gerrymandering redistricting stuff makes any sense for having a functional system of government, then maybe we could re-design the electoral system to remove the incentive to gerrymander.

But Republicans have no interest in that. Consequently Democrats don't have a choice to be interested in it either, at least for now. It takes two to tango.



It is easier for older people like Torie (not to pick on Torie, he is a good guy whose heart is in the right place, and if the GOP consisted of people more like him then it would be possible to have a functional country) to ignore this or pretend that it is not reality, because they won't live forever and the future won't affect their lives. But the rest of us will have to live in a future ravaged by climate change etc.

[Torie]

Thank you for your legal brief. My only comment is that as you know one cannot pass a mere statute that violates the NYS Constitution, and the language that constrains the Dems from going utterly wild is in the NYS Constitution, and second to amend the Constitution requires approval by the voters in a referendum.

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

Thank you for your legal brief. My only comment is that as you know one cannot pass a mere statute that violates the NYS Constitution

Ordinarily one cannot. However, this amendment says "subject to the requirements of the federal constitution and statutes." The question is what "statutes" refers to. One reading is that it refers to Federal statutes. Another reading is that it refers to State statutes. You seem to be assuming/prefer that it refers to Federal statutes (which is certainly plausible, since it clearly refers to the Federal Constitution right before). But it could also be referring to state states (or both state and Federal statutes), in which case it would be similar to amendments of the U.S. Constitution that grant Congress power to enforce the amendment "by appropriate legislation." So which interpretation is better? You got dueling interpretations, dueling lawyers, I'm just asking questions, etc. In this case, this State constitutional Amendment could be similarly granting the New York state legislature to enforce the amendment "by appropriate legislation," i.e. by a state statute. And that state statute could say "you may/can/must draw a 26-0 Dem gerrymander" or whatnot.

Of course, I am not arguing this in good faith, but it is highly unusual in contemporary times for lawyers to argue things in good faith. Because, you know, the war of all against all.

, and the language that constrains the Dems from going utterly wild is in the NYS Constitution, and second to amend the Constitution requires approval by the voters in a referendum.

I mean, according to King George III New York could not set up a constitutional convention and become independent of Great Britain. But if you set up a constitutional convention, you can have a new Constitution. Or just change an amendment to the previous constitution (if that were even necessary, which it isn't, there are plenty of more parsimonious ways to get around these restrictions, such as by saying that they only apply if a commission actually draws the maps). Legitimate democratic (small d) power ultimately doesn't derive from any written document, it derives from the consent of the governed. Previous generations don't have a legitimate right to lock in failing governmental systems which are incapable of dealing with contemporary problems by imposing fake supermajority requirements if the current/future generation does not consent to that.

[Torie]

Thank you for your legal brief. My only comment is that as you know one cannot pass a mere statute that violates the NYS Constitution

Ordinarily one cannot. However, this amendment says "subject to the requirements of the federal constitution and statutes." The question is what "statutes" refers to. One reading is that it refers to Federal statutes. Another reading is that it refers to State statutes. You seem to be assuming/prefer that it refers to Federal statutes (which is certainly plausible, since it clearly refers to the Federal Constitution right before). But it could also be referring to state states (or both state and Federal statutes), in which case it would be similar to amendments of the U.S. Constitution that grant Congress power to enforce the amendment "by appropriate legislation." So which interpretation is better? You got dueling interpretations, dueling lawyers, I'm just asking questions, etc. In this case, this State constitutional Amendment could be similarly granting the New York state legislature to enforce the amendment "by appropriate legislation," i.e. by a state statute. And that state statute could say "you may/can/must draw a 26-0 Dem gerrymander" or whatnot.

Of course, I am not arguing this in good faith, but it is highly unusual in contemporary times for lawyers to argue things in good faith. Because, you know, the war of all against all.

, and the language that constrains the Dems from going utterly wild is in the NYS Constitution, and second to amend the Constitution requires approval by the voters in a referendum.

I mean, according to King George III New York could not set up a constitutional convention and become independent of Great Britain. But if you set up a constitutional convention, you can have a new Constitution. Or just change an amendment to the previous constitution (if that were even necessary, which it isn't, there are plenty of more parsimonious ways to get around these restrictions, such as by saying that they only apply if a commission actually draws the maps). Legitimate democratic (small d) power ultimately doesn't derive from any written document, it derives from the consent of the governed. Previous generations don't have a legitimate right to lock in failing governmental systems which are incapable of dealing with contemporary problems by imposing fake supermajority requirements if the current/future generation does not consent to that.

Sometimes lawyers get suck cases. It's not your fault. However, the words "federal constitution and statutes ," clearly when it comes to what statutes it refers to, means federal statutes. e.g. the VRA. The idea of having a state constitution provision that provides for a state statute to trump it, would be at once fascinating, novel and yes - nonsensical.

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

Sometimes lawyers get suck cases. It's not your fault. However, the words "federal constitution and statutes ," clearly when it comes to what statutes it refers to, means federal statutes. e.g. the VRA. The idea of having a state constitution provision that provides for a state statute to trump it, would be at once fascinating, novel and yes - nonsensical.

I would agree (if I were a judge and were being an objective judge like a judge ought ideally to be, and not a hackish partisan judge like many/most judges increasingly seem to be) that your proposed interpretation is the better one. But that is only when also taking into account presumable legislative intent and overall context, and not just the text.

However, I don't think it is actually as clear as you think. The correct/best way to state that as a matter of grammar/text would be to say "federal constitution and federal statutes," and if that were the intent of whoever wrote the amendment, they ought to have phrased it that way. When one leaves out the second adjective (second use of "federal"), the reader can only infer whether the writer/speaker intends for the adjective next to the first noun is also meant to modify the second noun. I don't know where you/others learned your grammar, but when I learned to write in English class, I remember clearly learning that was a bad way to write (although it is not uncommon).

IIRC there is some sort of technical term for that which you could find in a grammar book, but I forget what it was.

Not a grammar book, but here's something I found quickly about this general issue:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246762/same-adjective-for-two-nouns

So in terms of what the text literally says, there is no "federal" adjective directly modifying the noun "statute." A strictly "textualist" judge could pretty easily rule that way as far as I can see. That would IMO be a bad faith ruling and too rigidly textualist for non-hackish purposes, but bad faith rulings like that happen all the time.

[Torie]

And here is a map that should be close to bullet proof legally for the Dems, although it leaves NY-17 in an uncomfortably marginal state for them. And it forces Delgado in NY-19 to either move across the river the Reinbeck, or run while not living in his district, which is legal. But then the law states that districts cannot be drawn to  favor one party, or favor incumbents. If the Dems don't go here, this map might be the Pub map for litigation purposes. Games were played on Long Island to favor the Dems, but they are defensible games. Unite the north and south shores of Long Island baby. In a court room, always have talking points with traction, always. More analysis will be forthcoming in due course, and when finished, "published."

[Torie]

My NYS CD project is now complete. Commentary will be added to this post in due course, including a chart of the Trump 2020 numbers as to both the existing CD’s and the new ones.  If the Dems go for more, the Pubs should have a lawsuit of considerable merit. We shall see.

[Tintrlvr]

There are definitely improvements that can be made to that map without causing any chance of any issues. Three easy ones come to mind immediately:

1. Greene County goes into NY-21. Then push NY-18 and NY-20 a bit further north along the Hudson (there are more Dems in Saratoga County to mop up, e.g.). Also, NY-20 will definitely stretch to include Amsterdam in Montgomery County because Paul Tonko lives there.
2. Tioga County goes into NY-23. NY-21 then takes more (maybe all) of Jefferson County, and NY-19 pushes a bit more into Otsego County, where there are more Democratic areas in the center of the county for it to pick up.
3. Push NY-17 down the Hudson in Westchester instead of into Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant beyond Sleepy Hollow is the most Republican part of Westchester and should be left in NY-16, but Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, etc. are very Democratic. This could be worth as much as +0.5 in D partisanship for a very minor change.

There's another potential improvement, too, which adds county splits but which I don't think would run afoul of constitutional issues, which is putting the city of Auburn in NY-22 while slicing off parts of Oneida County in exchange and rejiggering NY-21 and 23 to compensate. The Onondaga-Madison-Oneida district is very neat but is not constitutionally mandated.

Finally, I don't think it's even worth discussing the NYC districts because what you've proposed (eliminating AOC's majority Hispanic seat in favor of establishing a majority white seat in SW Brooklyn) will never, ever happen, and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals.

[Non Swing Voter]

The more I think of it I really wish the New York Dems would gerrymander out "rising star" and MAGA enthusiast Elise Stefanik.  It would be a good talking point for them when she loses.  Then the GOP would be forced to rebut it by saying she only lost because of gerrymandering, which might trigger a conversation on gerrymandering on the right.  Really, any firebrand Republican in a state with Dem control should be on the chopping block.  It's absurd that California doesn't give Dems more control over the process because of the commission there.  Doing this to McCarthy would be amazing.

[Torie]

There are definitely improvements that can be made to that map without causing any chance of any issues. Three easy ones come to mind immediately:

1. Greene County goes into NY-21. Then push NY-18 and NY-20 a bit further north along the Hudson (there are more Dems in Saratoga County to mop up, e.g.). Also, NY-20 will definitely stretch to include Amsterdam in Montgomery County because Paul Tonko lives there.
2. Tioga County goes into NY-23. NY-21 then takes more (maybe all) of Jefferson County, and NY-19 pushes a bit more into Otsego County, where there are more Democratic areas in the center of the county for it to pick up.
3. Push NY-17 down the Hudson in Westchester instead of into Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant beyond Sleepy Hollow is the most Republican part of Westchester and should be left in NY-16, but Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, etc. are very Democratic. This could be worth as much as +0.5 in D partisanship for a very minor change.

There's another potential improvement, too, which adds county splits but which I don't think would run afoul of constitutional issues, which is putting the city of Auburn in NY-22 while slicing off parts of Oneida County in exchange and rejiggering NY-21 and 23 to compensate. The Onondaga-Madison-Oneida district is very neat but is not constitutionally mandated.

Finally, I don't think it's even worth discussing the NYC districts because what you've proposed (eliminating AOC's majority Hispanic seat in favor of establishing a majority white seat in SW Brooklyn) will never, ever happen, and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals.

Draw your own map, and see what you get. And if you publish it, I will opine how vulnerable it is to legal challenge, with which opinion you will probably disagree, and then off to court we go. Ha!


Below btw is a comparison of the existing NY-14 as compared to the one I drew for your viewing pleasure.