In previous cycles the numbers had been increased from 61 to 62 and from 62 to 63 to assist Republicans in shorting up marginal seats. Very much a case of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, though.
False history to fit some narrative.
The New York Constitution has an odd provisions to prevent New York City and Brooklyn from coming to dominate the senate.
There are limits on the number of districts that the two could have.
The size of the senate is nominally 50, the number that existed in 1896. The constitution says that counties may not be divided except to create multiple districts within a single county.
First a quota is determined by dividing the population by 50. If a county is entitled to more than 3 senators, it must have a full ratio (e.g. 3.01; 3.5; and 3.99 all are entitled to 3 senators). If a large county gains a senator, then one is added to the total.
So for example, if Kings went from 8 to 9, they get the 9th district, but one is added to the total. This in essence is trying to maintain districts outstate, but has the effect of oversizing districts in New York and Brooklyn because they have to have a full ratio, and that ratio is based on only 50 districts.
Moreover, if a large district loses share, it does not reduce the senate size. So let's say that Kings went from 8 to 7, while Queens went from 4 to 5, Kings would lose a district, Queens would gain a district, and the state as a whole would gain a district, even though the senate had already been expanded to make room for an 8th seat for Kings.
Over time this has ratcheted the size of the senate upward from 50 to 63. The constitution also specifies the use of citizen population. This had a big impact on New York City as the pre-1920 immigrant population aged out or naturalized (in raw numbers Manhattan had its peak population in 1920).
This was all ruled unconstitutional in
WMCA v Lomenzo, a companion decision to
Reynolds v Sims.
New York didn't change the constitution but has just ignored parts of it. The commission was just grafted on top of it. Immediately after the decision the senate jumped from 58 to 66 members, perhaps to draw extra districts in New York City without slicing up the districts elsewhere.
It then dropped back, but has ratcheted back to 63, perhaps based on an interpretation of the determination of the size of the senate, even though they now use that size to determine the quota.
If it stays at 63 it would likely be because of some different interpretation. New York is corrupt.
