2020 New York Redistricting

[Zaybay]

NY is projected to lose 2 seats in re-apportionment

I hate to be a stickler, but currently New York is projected to only lose one seat. That could change come 2020, but the 2019 census gave them 26 seats.

[Zaybay]

Im surprised people think the legislature will go after AOC and Bowman. It doesnt look at all likely. Not only has the legislature seen large growth in left wing over the course of these 4 years, but the two are also in very strategically important areas that are hard to dismantle.

AOC's seat has rapidly seen a demographic shift, to the point that it could considered a VRA Hispanic seat. By eliminating her seat, the surrounding seats have to take in very Hispanic territory, which would dilute many of the VRA required seats in the area. Meng cant take them in, and neither can Espaillat nor (probably) Torres. There are no good ways to divide up AOC's seat, and, in fact, it would probably better serve the map for her seat to just be given more Hispanics from other neighboring territories.

Bowman's seat also has a roughly similar problem, as cutting his seat means the largely Hispanic VRA seats have to take in African American territory, but besides that, his seat is rather geographically secure. Its very difficult, not impossible but difficult, to draw a map that doesnt include a seat that crosses between Westchester and the Bronx. Its definitely possible, but it would require a lot of contortions and twists that would likely endanger many other seats.

Also, sidenote, they're likely not going to eliminate a Hispanic seat. The Hispanic population in NYC is growing, and it wouldnt look good to either the courts nor other Democrats to crack one of their seats. There's also the problem of dividing up the Hispanic seat's population, which would lead to problems similar to the ones outlined with eliminating AOC's seat. If NYC+LI are losing a seat, its probably going to be a white seat.

[Zaybay]

You’re right, I was misremembering how Wasserman did it and the third district does go east to Syracuse. Here’s the tweet.

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1424841034316517388?s=21

I have not that much confidence in the Dems’ ability to win that NY-22.

The Buffalo district is D+8.87, and the Rochester district is D+6.75. The district in between is R+11.69. I have a hard time seeing how you could create another D-leaning district out of that without putting one or both of the other seats at real risk.

You can't while having relatively "clean" lines like you have, but if you use squiggly lines instead, there is a way ("where there's a squiggle there's a way"):

I mean, you could also draw a 26-0 map in NY if you’re willing to squiggle enough. But the state politicians also have other priorities.

Is this true?

If so, the Dems should totally do this, if for nothing else to show how absurd the lack of any rules or restraint federally on political gerrymandering is.  Imagine how ballistic Republicans would get if Dems kept their house majority because of this.  They'd suddenly care about gerrymandering.

Haha, no. Absolutely no one would allow it. Not the courts, Republicans, Democrats, the VRA, etc. And this isn't because "Oh the Dems are cowards", its because drawing a seat from NYC to Plattsburgh is ridiculous.

In all honesty, the map posted by 306 is likely the best map you can hope for from the Dems, taking out 1 LI seat, the Staten Island seat, and eliminating an R upstate seat while somewhat strengthening the marginals. It'd be a weak 22-4 map, but that's better than the current 20-7 map (going by if Biden won the seat or not).

[Zaybay]

You’re right, I was misremembering how Wasserman did it and the third district does go east to Syracuse. Here’s the tweet.

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1424841034316517388?s=21

I have not that much confidence in the Dems’ ability to win that NY-22.

The Buffalo district is D+8.87, and the Rochester district is D+6.75. The district in between is R+11.69. I have a hard time seeing how you could create another D-leaning district out of that without putting one or both of the other seats at real risk.

You can't while having relatively "clean" lines like you have, but if you use squiggly lines instead, there is a way ("where there's a squiggle there's a way"):

I mean, you could also draw a 26-0 map in NY if you’re willing to squiggle enough. But the state politicians also have other priorities.

Is this true?

If so, the Dems should totally do this, if for nothing else to show how absurd the lack of any rules or restraint federally on political gerrymandering is.  Imagine how ballistic Republicans would get if Dems kept their house majority because of this.  They'd suddenly care about gerrymandering.

Haha, no. Absolutely no one would allow it. Not the courts, Republicans, Democrats, the VRA, etc. And this isn't because "Oh the Dems are cowards", its because drawing a seat from NYC to Plattsburgh is ridiculous.

In all honesty, the map posted by 306 is likely the best map you can hope for from the Dems, taking out 1 LI seat, the Staten Island seat, and eliminating an R upstate seat while somewhat strengthening the marginals. It'd be a weak 22-4 map, but that's better than the current 20-7 map (going by if Biden won the seat or not).

They can't get rid of 2 upstate seats without it looking obscene?  I am not a fan of bacon strip districts (though the GOP gets away with it to cut up places like Austin from time to time).  But I'd have to think the Dems could leave maybe 1 GOP LI district and 2 upstate districts for a 23-3 map without it looking crazy. 

(This is gonna be a long one, bare with me)

Well, the biggest issue isn't the looks for the district. Of course, if one just draws spaghetti or makes...interesting pairings and shapes, its gonna arise suspicion and possibly get challenged. The much larger issue is the geography of NY, along with the makeup of specifically upstate NY.

Before I delve in, its important to remember that congressional representatives, fundamentally, don't want to be put into dangerous positions, even if it is a perceived threat rather than an actual one. Its important to the makeup of upstate NY.

Now, to start off, Downstate NY (NYC+LI) cannot really help out the Dems here. Due to VRA restrictions, along with the simple geographic issue of trying to thread something northward through the narrow peninsula, everything south of Bowman's seat has no bearing on upstate NY's makeup. So going upwards, Bowman's seat largely has to take up much of Westchester county, with Jones' seat coming in to take the rest along with Rockland county.

Now we get to the problem reps, Delgado and Maloney. These two are currently in rather marginal seats, and would have to expand their reach due to the population lost upstate. To keep these two, you'd have to shore them up in some way. However one chooses to do so, this eats into the amount of blue territory that can be administered to other seats.

Next, we have the 4 islands, Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, and Buffalo. These 4 seats, while Democratic, aren't really that Democratic. The safest of these seats was only Clinton +19 (Buffalo), while the weakest went to her by only 4 points (Syracuse). Now, its simple to shore these guys up, no problem. But the real issue is with your query, trying to eliminate another R seat. To eliminate said R seat, the only real way to do so is to split these 4 islands between 5 seats. Now, its very possible to do so, the easiest way being to create a seat that goes from Buffalo to Rochester, but doing so creates 3 lean D/tossup seats, which would could both easily fall apart for Dems, while also angering  Morelle, Higgins, and their numerous allies.

Simply put, its just not really that feasible nor practical. Creating 3 sinks for the Rs while maximizing D gains is really the best practical solution for upstate NY.

Haha, no. Absolutely no one would allow it. Not the courts, Republicans, Democrats, the VRA, etc. And this isn't because "Oh the Dems are cowards", its because drawing a seat from NYC to Plattsburgh is ridiculous.

It certainly is ridiculous, but that is not a legal argument.

There is no legal case against it that could not also be used to stop other ridiculous gerrymanders as well, such as all the districts splaying out from Austin TX to God only knows where, or the KS-01 that Republicans are apparently planning to draw that will go extend from the center of Kansas City all the way to the Colorado border.

As a side note, if Stefanik were to hypothetically get drawn out by a ridiculous district like that, IMO the best way to do it would be to draw Trump tower into her district (along with a reasonably sized chunk of neighboring territory from the middle of Manhattan). If Stefanik likes Trump so much, let her represent Trump Tower.

Three things:
1. I have no idea on this Kansas district you're talking about, and frankly it sounds ridiculous and infeasible.

2. There is actually a legal argument, the obvious one being a racial argument. You could also make one by looking at the state constitution, which NY specifically does have provisions.

3. In all honesty, the biggest opponents to radical gerrymanders are not going to be lawyers and voting rights groups. Its gonna be the people drawing and those affected by the map. If AOC or Maloney or whoever don't like the lines, they and their allies can make a stink and get them fixed. Hell, we're already seeing this in other states with TX (Cornyn and his allies wanting Cuellar preserved) and in KY (Kentucky Republicans including Mitch not wanting to split up KY-03) and those are just the public disputes that have flared up before the census numbers even came out.

[Zaybay]

So yeah rather than streching that district like that, why not just give the progs to Staten Island where they can get their own district when as long as they don't nominate a complete loon they should win everytime. And that was the solution that is being proposed by the legislature atleast according to rumors.

I agree that is more logical, it is just not what that memo which was posted a page or two back in this thread is talking about, with having Staten Island combined with part of Manhattan, that's all.

That was the SPM memo which didn't make much sense.

SPM is the DCCC chair, so unless Demos are totally incompetent, they should have already coordinated between DCCC, the NY congressional delegation, and NY State legislative Dems and have already drawn the map and are simply describing the map that they already drew in the memo. That's what Republicans would do (and did do in other states like Texas).

Then again, these are elected Dems we are talking about here, so it is probably more likely that they are hopelessly incompetent and the state legislature will accidentally draw a Republican gerrymander.

This is absolutely not what Republicans would do. There's instances where pressure from national groups have been applied on the map-making decisions of local politicians, but every time the local interests are what matters. Sometimes you see a similar interest between national and local, but most of the time the two conflict massively.

TX itself is a good example of this. Although the national and statewide parties agreed on overall objectives, shoring up their delegation, the map drawn by the statewide leaders was not looked upon favorably by national interests. National interests in MO and IN wanted vastly different maps compared to what the Rs got. Dems nationally were pushing for an 8-0 map, rather loudly I might add, and instead god a watershed 7-0-1. This is redistricting.

More likely, SPM is trying to exert a degree of influence on the map-making process. Its a good move, but its effectiveness is questionable. We'll find out in a couple of days.

[Zaybay]

TX itself is a good example of this. Although the national and statewide parties agreed on overall objectives, shoring up their delegation, the map drawn by the statewide leaders was not looked upon favorably by national interests. National interests in MO and IN wanted vastly different maps compared to what the Rs got. Dems nationally were pushing for an 8-0 map, rather loudly I might add, and instead god a watershed 7-0-1. This is redistricting.

The TX map was coordinated and drawn directly by Mike McCaul, representing national interests and the interests of the TX Congressional delegation, and state legislators. It is true that it was not coordinated with RRH, but McCaul represented national GOP interests on behalf of the TX Congressional delegation, not RRH. And of course, McCaul also managed to represent his own personal interests by giving himself a particularly safe and much more rural district. The reason why the TX map was not more aggressive was simply that it would not have been in the best interest of the national GOP to risk losing even more seats in Dem trending urban-suburban TX.

He absolutely did not represent the interests of the national party, and many national figures got displeased with him for his mapping choices. Not folks on Reddit or RRH, real party officials in the national party. In fact, many statewide members and congressional figures were displeased with his map, which seemed to only favor Mike McCaul and his cronies rather than anyone else (the Fajitas in particular were not well received). Its a good partisan map, mind you, but the connection between it being good from a partisan perspective and the national party coordinating with the state officials (with said state officials accurately following along) isn't there.

Is there anything that even shows national Republicans are doing anything at all to influence redistricting this time around?

It's true they are doing a worse job of it this time around than they have done in the past, but that is just the natural consequence of letting Trump run the GOP and having the national party fall into an uncoordinated chaotic mess, devoid of any serious leadership and intelligent well-informed strategic analysis of the sort they used to have.

Same kinda story here, there's never actually been any evidence of national dictation when it comes to drawing maps. The closest you get is the national effort through Redmap, but the goal there was to give the state parties the tools and incentive to gerrymander, but not actually help make the maps themselves.

And this time around they don't even have Redmap, or a similar program, going on.

[Zaybay]

So the Hochul map was 22-4 right?

The current map is 19-8 / Dem wave 21-6 / GOP Wave 18-9 /

What’s the BEST Democrats can hope for?

A “fair map” is 16-10.

I have no idea where you even got the idea that a 16-10 map is fair/even possible. Not even the GOP proposal gives them 10 seats.

Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo are 3 D seats. NYC, even in its most R friendly configuration (1 Staten Island seat, 1 Orthodox seat that probably voted for Clinton), gives the Dems 11 safe seats. That's already 14, and we haven't even looked into the configuration of LI, the Hudson River Valley, Syracuse/Ithaca, or pointed out that giving NYC the most R friendly configuration in NYC is distinctly not fair.

In all likelihood, the map produced is likely gonna be somewhat similar to the 2010s era map. We can likely expect 4 urban seats upstate (Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Albany), as well as 12 Dem seats based in NYC (1 R seat being given to either the Orthodox or Staten Island). You're also likely to get the 2 Dem leaning seats that immediately border the city on Long Island.

The only big questions are how the Hudson River Valley is configured, as well as the remaining two Long Island seats. For the former, you could get anywhere from Biden winning all 3 by small/decent margins, to Biden winning only 1 by a large margin and Trump winning the other two by small/decent margins. For the remaining two Long Island seats, you could see one D leaning and one R leaning seat, or two very close seats that may have voted for either Biden or Trump.

The larger point here is that the big change from going from the Dem gerry to a fair map is largely just that seats become more competitive, rather than the Rs being given seats. The details of the map will matter a ton, of course, in determining if many of these seats flip or simply remain close, but we're unlikely to see full-on R safe seats being created or safe D seats being dismantled.

[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.

[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.

[Zaybay]

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.

While I agree with most of what you've said about NY redistricting, I have to disagree that Jones is the primary beneficiary of this sort of split while Bowman is the loser. If anything, its the complete opposite.

Lets look at what the current map means for both Jones and Bowman first. For the former, he's got a solid opportunity to take the D primary easily for NY-17, a Biden +10 seat that, while occupied by a GOP incumbent, represents a pretty favorable general election scenario assuming the seat remains politically similar. For the latter, we've got an incumbent that, while in a safe seat, is in a precarious position. On the one hand, his primary voting base in The Bronx and Southern Westchester has been shrunk via redistricting, while the rest of Westchester county views him with suspicion. Add onto this the fact that the entrenched and popular County Executive has chosen to fight him, and it looks like a tough battle.

Now lets take a look at these same two incumbents with the new map you've proposed. For Bowman, his seat has largely lost the parts of Westchester that weren't fans of him (including his dangerous challenger), and has instead seen a consolidation of his base. The area he's gained, Rockland county, is way more Republican than his old district's land, and therefore represents a much smaller portion of the D base in the seat; the portion that he lost had 100K Dem voters vs the 70K Dem voters in Rockland he gains. Just for comparison, the Bronx portion + Yonkers + Mount Vernon, areas that he did very well in when he fought Engel, have about 90K Dem voters by themselves. And this assumes other areas like New Rochelle aren't also thrown in, which would further entrench Bowman.

Meanwhile Jones has basically been screwed over. His easy primary to face off against Lawler has now been thrown completely off course, as he now has to reorient to battle Bowman. His base in Rockland, which used to dominate the district and allowed for his initial victory in the old NY-17 in the first place, has now been eclipsed by Bowman's base. He now has to fight an uphill battle to get the vote of places like Mount Vernon and the Bronx, regions in which Bowman has fairly strong ties to.

Fundamentally, the new district's political geography would shift from a place where Bowman's base could be overwhelmed by high-income, highly educated white voters north of the city, to a seat where Bowman has sway over way more D primary voters, further entrenching him. Hell, its this kind of seat combination that Bowman wanted all along, as the Hochulmander demonstrates (though his followed the eastern border rather than the western one).
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f53f766e-f701-4501-a282-4cac74036408
Though Jones could still win such a hypothetical primary, it'd be quite the uphill battle by geography alone.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/asinmarx/status/1762538171009569041?s=46

Not only is none of this substantiated, as the user in question appears to be some literal rando, but 2/3 of the villains listed don't make any sense.

Regarding Suozzi: shoring up his seat was always in the cards. What happened on Long Island in 2022 basically necessitated a more conservative strategy, as we lost literal double digit Biden seats in an embarrassing rout. In terms of which seat to shore up, NY-04 being Biden +15 means that such a GOP win could be excused as the result of midterm dynamics (POC base didn't turn out, GOP wave with Whites in the state) that won't be in place for 2024. NY-03 does not have this luxury, as its a way more white seat that's only Biden +7; a shore up was practically one of the few requirements of the map (especially with his return to congress).

Regarding Latimer: It should be pretty clear from the district map that he had very little, if any, influence on the map's proceedings. The only change NY-16 witnessed was in picking a different AA area in the Bronx over another AA area in the Bronx. The general consensus is that such a move was done to help Bowman, so theoretically if you want to blame anyone (though the true blame should rest with the NY State Assembly having cold feet), it should go to Bowman.