2020 New York Redistricting

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/HenryRosoff/status/1521509138026713089?cxt=HHwWgsC-6f2fvp0qA...

rofl even Jeffries isn't asking the Special Master to draw the legislature maps.

https://newyork.redistrictingandyou.org/?districtType=cd&propA=current_2012&propB=unitymap_20211123&selected=-73.596,40.632#%26map=6.95/41.449/-72.918

Here's the unity maps, relatively least changey with the Nadler arm etc. Overall NY01 is a bit more R, NY02 is a bit more D, NY03 and NY04 swap places with NY04 becoming competitive and Malliotakis seat becomes 2 points more R.

Wow. An incumbent advocating for an extreme least change map. If this were really about representation, why not an Orthodox/Asian seat in south Brooklyn?

The point is that even Jeffries isn't trying to go with the legislature's maps. Also remember Jeffries isn't just an incumbent but also in house leadership.

Ye, I just adding that it’s still self-serving and disingenuous on his part.

[Sol]

Really like it, I still feel like the Park Slope-SI district is cursed so I decided to keep PS with Maloney's district where it fits with the rest of the Brooklyn/Queens progressive areas and just added some mixed areas similar to SI's north shore near Kensington. Not an effort to force 2 GOP districts , but this does make the SI district Biden +5 instead of Biden +10.

Don't hate it either, just went with Park Slope since it's a bit nicer looking/compact on the map.

Really any combination with Staten Island is going to suck--the places that are obviously the best fit with SI are the old school white ethnic gentile neighborhoods in Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, etc. But you can't really put them all in the SI seat imo due to the large Chinese population in parts and regardless the district is still short by quite a few people so you have to take in places which are obviously a bad fit, like Sunset Park, Park Slope (as I did), Kensington (like you did), or Borough Park.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://newyork.redistrictingandyou.org/?districtType=cd&propA=current_2012&propB=congress_harkenridercommoncause_20220503&selected=-72.661,40.947&opacity=2#%26map=6.87/41.262/-72.601

Here you can compare all the maps quite a nice tool

[lfromnj]

Really like it, I still feel like the Park Slope-SI district is cursed so I decided to keep PS with Maloney's district where it fits with the rest of the Brooklyn/Queens progressive areas and just added some mixed areas similar to SI's north shore near Kensington. Not an effort to force 2 GOP districts , but this does make the SI district Biden +5 instead of Biden +10.

Don't hate it either, just went with Park Slope since it's a bit nicer looking/compact on the map.

Really any combination with Staten Island is going to suck--the places that are obviously the best fit with SI are the old school white ethnic gentile neighborhoods in Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, etc. But you can't really put them all in the SI seat imo due to the large Chinese population in parts and regardless the district is still short by quite a few people so you have to take in places which are obviously a bad fit, like Sunset Park, Park Slope (as I did), Kensington (like you did), or Borough Park.

Well the Kensington area does seem at least similar to the north shore, while Park Slope just feels completely different but yeah I did realize after creating the switch arounds it really made the map a bit uglier.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[ProgressiveModerate]

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)

[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.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Torie, I trust your judgement. What will the final map actually look like? How many Trump 2020 seats will there be? Which seats get redder/bluer

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

You could keep both South Brooklyn Chinatowns and South Brooklyn Orthodox mostly whole, together, into one district that's about 31% Asian and 50% White. Such a seat would likely be a good idea.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Which legally means nothing. I can start an "emo religion" and claim anyone with "e" in their surname belongs to it but that would be meaningless to anyone who isn't me. Also "Jewish" is not a recognized ethnicity per the Census using this definition nor any other.

[Zaybay]

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.

[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.

[Zaybay]

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.

[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.

[Nyvin]

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. 

[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.

[Nyvin]

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.

I don't know why you're making a point that there's no question on the census when your original statement was 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.

You can "make a case" about just about anything,  whether or not it has any legal backing is the question.  

Would granting VRA districts to religious groups even be a good idea?   I think that could get kinda wacky down the road,  think like if Pastafarians all start living in the same area.

[Sol]

Please don't feed the troll.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Made it on 538 lol

[Sol]

Ok, here's a more polished version of a plurality Black version of Meeks's district map.





link

Gosh Oneida-Onondaga-Madison is such a life hack, lol

Don't have a great sense of CoIs on Long Island, would be interested in what people have to say.