2020 New York Redistricting

[cinyc]

is there any reason Democrats wouldn't gerrymander next year?  It doesn't make any sense to unilaterally not do so when half of the republican states are doing so.  A big state like this can counteract some of that.

Republicans currently hold 5/26 seats, with a vacancy in the 27th (an R-leaning seat). There's no way you can eliminate all 5 or 6. At most, you can probably take out 2 or 3 Republicans without baconstripping NYC or some really funny business upstate - and all but the baconstripping would probably end up being a dummymander after a few years, anyway.

The NY 2020 goal will likely be shoring up D incumbents. The commission will likely do that even if Dems get a supermajority in the Senate, rendering the commission essentially toothless.

[cinyc]

Seriously f NY for having such bad election systems even the data is hard to gather. The one thing I will say is NY prolly has some of the nicest precincts, especially upstate.

Now do Long Island. Don't get me started.

[cinyc]

Always remember: Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered. Especially when there are rules in the NYS constitution barring partisan Gerrymandering.

[cinyc]

Always remember: Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered. Especially when there are rules in the NYS constitution barring partisan Gerrymandering.

A lot of states have "anti-gerrymandering" clauses in their constitution.

Like most of these other states, the NYS constitution specifies no objective metrics and the NYSC leans left.

It's not impossible a gerrymandered map is overturned, but it's probably have to be really egregious. I could see state legistlative maps being overturned more easily though as more things could go wrong with VRA/COIs and also there's a bit less pressure on the justices as a NYS CD case could ultimately decide the House control

These proposed 26-0, 25-1, 24-2, 23-3 and probably even 22-4 maps won't pass muster with any court, especially if the map looks like the nonsense posted here. As Torie has repatedly said, courts can be hacks, but they can't be total hacks - especially when what they do sets precedents for the future.

[cinyc]

This is a job well done by New York Democrats. While awful for democracy, they know how to boost their own interests. Republicans can take up the offer any time to outlaw this kind of map drawing nationwide.

You mean like New Yorkers tried to do in 2014 when passing the state anti-Gerrymandering amendment? A lot good that did in stopping Democrats from Gerrymandering New York. And the language of the NYS Constitution is probably tougher than the proposed federal law, anyway.

We'll see if this map gets overturned in court. I'm not optimistic, but a good number of these districts aren't compact, as required by the NYS Constitution, and the map was drawn to favor a political party - which also violates the NYS Constitution.

[cinyc]

One can also argue the law as written in the constitution only applies directly onto the commission and not if the state legistlature draws the lines; the wording makes this kinda undlear

One can argue anything, but it's a constitutional amendment, not a law, and the voters didn't put in place a commission so that the legislature could make an end-run around it and not be subject to the same rules. Especially when the NYS Constitution says that the rules equally apply to any amendments of the plan set forth by the legislature:

If either house shall fail to approve the legislation implementing the second redistricting plan, or the governor shall veto such legislation and the legislature shall fail to override such veto, each house shall introduce such implementing legislation with any amendments each house of the legislature deems necessary. All such amendments shall comply with the provisions of this article. If approved by both houses, such legislation shall be presented to the governor for action.

[cinyc]

Kinda annoys me how they went for 0 deviation for most districts except the ones in Brooklyn/Manhattan

What makes you say that? When I created the map for RRH, I only found very minor deviations of +/-1, except in NY-10, where some blocks got cut off by the VEST Team Shp when doing the intersection, and one district upstate where the same thing probably happened.

[cinyc]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-confronts-top-democrat-on-partys-redistricting-you-dont-accept-that-youre-gerrymandering/

So you tell me how the House of Representatives that represents the population, one side wins the majority vote and loses seats. If the House doesn’t reflect the majority will, what the heck is it? So that tells you what kind of map we’re dealing with right now. So we can argue for fair districts and pick up Democratic seats because if the Republicans have gerrymandered it all to hell over the last couple of cycles.

lol wut

This tortured word salad is Exhibit A in the inevitable GOP lawsuit against the map.

[cinyc]

Hochul signs the maps.

John Faso brings the lawsuit. (Probably):

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/congressional-remap-faces-likely-legal-challenge/article_92985b14-8394-11ec-9a11-fbdecf756d06.html

[cinyc]

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.

That was neiither the intention of the voters who voted to put both the commission and rules regarding the commission in place in 2014, and directly contradicts the clear language of Subsection b, which binds the legislature to the redistricting rules put in place by the people when amending any commission plan.

[cinyc]

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.

That was neiither the intention of the voters who voted to put both the commission and rules regarding the commission in place in 2014, and directly contradicts the clear language of Subsection b, which binds the legislature to the redistricting rules put in place by the people when amending any commission plan.

But there was no commission plan. They never submitted round 2. The Leg never had the authority to draw its own maps according to the flowchart. But The commission died. The plaintiffs and the public record make a very good case for murder rather than suicide. But what comes next after death?

The legislature's bill amended the proposed commission plan. And the legislature can't do an end-run around the NYS Constitution's requirements by deliberately killing off the commission, then disregarding the voter's 2014 decree (which, I might add, was passed by two successive legislatures to get on the ballot in the first place, since that's the way we amend our constitution).

That dog's not going to hunt.

[cinyc]

Cinyc, what do you think of RRH’s suggestion that Curtis Sliwa could be a strong candidate to defeat Grace Meng in NY-6 based on his performance against Eric Adams in the mayor’s race?

Mayoral race turnout isn't the same as midterm turnout. It's usually worse.

Would Silwa be the strongest candidate Republicans could find for NY-6? Depends on whether there is an Asian Republican with higher name recognition who could run for the seat. If not, he might be. He has name recognition and can hammer home on the crime issue.

Strongest is relative, though - Meng should win regarldless of what Republican runs.

[cinyc]

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.

To add to this zero-sum analysis:

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1489663746704392192?s=20&t=_sZpBb4t2cTUwu_q...

So what? Federal and state law are different, and lawyers argue whatever their clients pay them to argue. I'm sure Democratic superlawyer Marc Elias has argued inconsistent things in the past, too.

[cinyc]

Stueben County Supreme Court Judge Patrick F. McAllister has been assigned the redistricting case, according to NYS’s eCourts system.

Trellis.law says McAllister is a registered Republican.

https://trellis.law/judge/patrick.f.mcallister

[cinyc]

https://twitter.com/JeffWice/status/1512146038420869137

[cinyc]

Note the original judge also struck down the senate and assembly maps on procedural grounds. The original lawsuit only went against the senate maps but the judge actually ruled that he didn't believe they were a gerrymander.

However the appellate judge is saying its very likely the procedure was fine and is only letting congressional maps go ahead under the partial stay. So overall this ruling keeps the GOP slightly alive regarding the congressional maps at the forementioned miniscule but the state senate maps are now effectively final.

Effectively final, but not final final. As I understand it, the Appellate Judge is just the judge assigned to hear motions from Stueben County Supreme Court. He may or may not even be on the 5? judge panel assigned to hear the merits of the case.

The panel could come to a different conclusion on the Senate and Assembly maps, but it’s probably not likely. The procedural argument was always the weaker of the two.

It’s too bad that the appellate judge isn’t enabling the lower court judge to hire a special master to tentatively redraw the State Senate and Assembly maps. That might have put more pressure on the Dem-majority legislature to settle by passing a new map. They care about their own fate much more than the fate of the Congressional delegation, after all.

The game theory here is interesting. I don’t think I’ve thought it fully through. I guess it’s possible that the lower court proposed draft Congressional map could be released before the case even gets to the NYS Court of Appeals, creating a battle of the maps there, where the 2 most likely outcomes are known.

[cinyc]

The initial NYS Court of Appeals Briefs in the NY Redistricting case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hfuD5k_OuAbZimaRuAD-m1LHfIzBv0GC/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nri78l4NJ0OYl9kdUU2M8QAk3bzGamUM/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NUAF-t2JGSPEV6IUFIyq4DP9EdwrriXV/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I1pTEVbrLOgQCIjTEb618mryJACCUgNf/view?usp=sharing

Reply briefs:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z6cCef2X-2zYmzMbVFyyG7rhMryJqsUW/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15UjtbimKndSYo8clO_mJdlTSH0yVFmku/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F_dDLJpED0r6-Afc3Q2XANjfc4MxFzn4/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C69L2ysRi3OiggwA8UlOWrcx_-ev7P32/view?usp=sharing

Oral arguments are set for Tuesday at 11AM.

[cinyc]

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:

[cinyc]

]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.

[cinyc]

]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.

[cinyc]

Ouch they even lost on the senate map, which even the "R hack" Stueben County judge didn't strike down. Eerily similar to Florida's 2010 case.

That is incorrect. Justice McAllister struck down the State Senate and even Assembly maps, even though nobody contested the Assembly's map.

[cinyc]

The Democrats should just ignore this legally meritless ruling and print primary ballots for the legislature map’s district lines

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

The decision was actually 5-2 or 4-2-1. The Hochul appointee, Judge Troutman, ruled that the proper process to pass the maps wasn't followed, too. She dissented from the remedy, and would have given the legislature a chance to cure by passing one of the 2 IRC maps with up to a 2% difference.

[cinyc]

Here’s the Dem proposal:

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1520511947325779968?s=21&t=6-2mL1Da9B4FRR4...

[cinyc]

Btw I was able to submit both State Senate and Congressional maps to the court ultimately.

Congressional was basically a least change with a new NY-10 in south Brooklyn that was like 33% Asian and NY-22 cut. It was 21-5 in 2020 but lots of competitive seats especially upstate.

State Senate had 17 Trump seats iirc but again a lot of competitive seats. The supermajority would prolly be a tossup most elective while Dems should safely hold the majority

Is there a DRA or block assignment file or shapefile for this plan?

[cinyc]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-appeal.html

NY Dems lawsuit.

This one is so bad, that it might be subject to sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. I will leave it at that.

I mean does a Federal court not need to give approval to move the primary?

No. Primary dates are a matter of state law. That is why we have primary dates all over the place.

US House is a FEDERAL election. The federal court can(they won't but my point still stands) absolutely say no the US House primary must be held on the 28th, the filing deadline has already passed yada yada yada

Nope, because by virtue of delaying the primary, the filing deadline, and petition gathering will be delayed pari-passu. In fact, in state court, parties have intervened to clarify that issue.

Is that the purpose of the Libertarian Party intervenors? They initially filed some blank pieces of paper, I think.