Redistricting: how-to and how-not-to

by: simonstl

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM EDT

Since folks are already moving on to redistricting conversations, today might be a good day to post this.

Way back in October, I posted about a forum on redistricting held by Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton and featuring Assemblyman William Parment and former Tompkins County Legislator Mike Lane.

I posted audio and some of my handouts then, but I had the audio transcribed, and then spent a fair amount of time cleaning up the transcription. I think it's accurate now, but of course, if you find something wrong, please let me know.

The transcript seemed to be too long for the extended text, so here it is.

The key piece for me is Parment's saying:

Telling tales out of school. Perhaps the press could ask us, “Well, did you consider voter enrollments?” And I say no. Or, they say, “You mustn't consider voter enrollments.” And no, we won't consider voter enrollments.

And we didn't. We considered voter performance. We don't care how people enroll. And if you ever looked in rural… New York State… you know… that everybody that's a rural Republican doesn't vote that way. And the same is true in the cities where you have heavy, heavy Democratic component, and not everyone votes that way. So the only thing we're interested in is voter performance, not voter enrollment.

Most of the rest of it is less surprising, but in case you were wondering about the criteria legislative leaders use to gerrymander districts, registration is apparently not their focus. Much of the rest of Parment's talk illustrates the other constraints that help determine how districts are drawn. I suspect Mike Lane's comments will be popular here, but the Assembly members' response to his suggestions for independent redistricting - heck, any change to the process whatsoever - was less than encouraging.

If you can manage to read to the end, it's worth the trip. If not, hopefully it'll prove useful as reference. (And I wish I could find Assemblyman Parment's handouts - sorry!)

Bloodsucking legislators?

by: simonstl

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:17:16 AM EDT

I know it's the day after the primary, and everyone's excited (for better or worse) about that, but there's still some action in Albany. Governor Paterson's initial remarks:

Mr. Paterson, a former state senator, uttered the "bloodsuckers" line as he was telling a joke about what he saw as the hypocrisy in the way some of his colleagues treated advocates for groups like the disabled.

"There were legislators who I used to think practiced their own versions of being Count Dracula in that they would be very nice to the advocates when they came to Albany," Mr. Paterson said in a speech to a group of activists for the disabled at an Albany hotel. "By 5 o'clock, the sun would go down, and they'd go back to who they really are: a bunch of bloodsuckers."

And his clarification:

"I didn't say that my colleagues were bloodsuckers. I said that there were certain people who listened to advocates, and as soon as they left and, you know, it got dark, were acting in that way - like Count Dracula - because they really didn't care."

The Daily News takes the Dracula reference and runs with it. They also explore it in an editorial.

Legislators of both parties seem to be very sad that the Governor isn't kind enough to their always-to-be-highly-respected branch. First he calls legislators back into session from "vacation" to address potentially huge fiscal problems. Then he suggests that some legislators might be hypocritical, pretending good will while really just waiting for the advocacy bus to leave Albany.

I don't know, though - despite the choice of metaphor, this doesn't sound remotely Spitzerian to me. (And at least he's not suggesting that the Democrats are for sale.)

Update: And NYCO's take on it is also fun. Duels? Hmmm... Albany's had some interesting times.

Redistricting conversation

by: simonstl

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 18:30:39 PM EDT

I don't have enough time to write a real story yet, but if anyone wants to listen to a two-hour session on redistricting, I've posted the audio (42.7MB MP3) from an event this afternoon and may eventually get a transcript.

Assemblyman William Parment, who chaired the 2002 Assembly redistricting, talks for most of it, with varying levels of interestingness. A lot of it feels to me like running out the clock, and ducking and dodging points that might be genuinely troublesome if addressed - but at the same time I think what he says makes pretty clear what a broken process it is. Former Tompkins County Legislator Michael Lane speaks up for reform and independent redistricting, and Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton plays host.

I also brought some handouts, and I'll get more online soon.

I'll have more soon, but wanted to get that out into the world. Local elections are a massive distraction right now.

Update: The transcript is now available.

Redistricting is "complicated"

by: simonstl

Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:23:54 AM EDT

On the opinion page of today's Ithaca Journal, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton has a guest column that should be remembered for years to come as a classic case of how to argue for inaction. She says she's "interested" in an independent commission, but apparently dreads the details of how it would work as "the devil is in the details."

She only comes vaguely close to acknowledging that having Republicans draw the lines for the State Senate and the Democrats draw the lines for the Assembly is a really really truly horrible idea, one that ensures that legislators turn over their seats mostly when the leadership, not the voters, want them to go:

Bipartisan systems have often been a check on corruption, as in our electoral system, which is run in a bipartisan fashion. On the other hand, it runs the danger of bias toward maintaining the status quo.

Praise the current system first, then back off slightly with a comment about the status quo. The piece is brilliantly short, long enough only for her to express her concerns about solutions without ever expressing whether or not there might possibly be a problem. Bringing Assemblyman Parment, who chaired the effort creating the current lines for the Assembly, in for a visit, certainly doesn't sound like she thinks that there may be a problem.

Amazing - and depressing. It may be a "complicated issue", but it wouldn't take a perfect solution to make matters a lot better than they are today.