It's definitely worth a read. Here are just a few major findings from the Executive Summary.
The re-election rate for incumbents from 2002 to 2010 was 96 percent. In 941 races, incumbents lost 38 times.
In 2006, the re-election rate was 100%. You read that right.
Between 1968 and 2010, competition in NY State legislative general election contests diminished greatly, with the average margin of victory increasing from 33 percent to 51 percent.
I guess incumbents do so weel in New York because everyone thinks Albany is awesome, right?
October 6, 2011 by DAN JANISON / dan.janison@newsday.com
So far, an unusually large share of the state's redistricting process has been devoted to discussing the state's redistricting process.
Reasons for this unusual meta-method are clear.
Last year, now-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, among others, called for an independent commission to redraw congressional and state legislative lines. Most lawmakers, then up for election, agreed. Cuomo vowed to veto any plan done the old way -- by a task force controlled by legislative leaders of both major parties.
But when the GOP won back the State Senate majority, its leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), reversed course and "discovered" a constitutional rationale to put off any change in the process for another 10 years.
So the road map to next year's new map remains elusive. Barring a sudden legal change from Albany, the traditional system will prevail.
Sen. Mike Nozzolio (R-Seneca Falls), representing the Skelos position on the panel, occupies the hot seat. As the politics have worked out so far, Nozzolio's counterpart, Assemb. John McEneny (D-Albany), an appointee of Speaker Sheldon Silver, seems to have it relatively easy.
On Wednesday, this bipartisan panel called LATFOR, short for Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, convened in Farmingdale for the latest in its series of hearings -- and once again heard calls to stand down.
Nancy Marr of Suffolk's nonpartisan League of Women Voters testified: "The public wants an independent commission, not LATFOR, to draw boundaries according to fair and objective criteria while allowing public input into the process."
Marr alluded briefly in her testimony to how the new nonpartisan panel set up for Suffolk's legislative redistricting is proceeding. Nozzolio questioned her about how "independent" a redistricting commission could be.
When David Stonehill, a Merrick attorney, challenged the legality of the Senate's expansion from 61 to 62 seats the last time out, Nozzolio pressed him to explain the basis of the claim. Stonehill admitted he wasn't prepared to spell that out right away but vowed to "submit more analysis" at another hearing on Oct. 27 in Nassau.
Suffolk Legis. Rick Montano (D-Central Islip) proudly noted during his testimony that he'd run unopposed in a mostly Latino and African-American district. A cordial debate followed when Nozzolio noted that good-government groups such as Marr's complain that there is too little competition for seats.
The hearing did yield several specific pleas regarding the political map itself. Several speakers raised substantive concerns that certain central Suffolk legislative borders now cut abruptly through school districts, geographic entities and ethnic and racial communities.
But the event had its partisan edges. Terry Gipson arrived all the way from Rhinebeck and testified that "LATFOR is politics at its most political." Gipson, a Democrat, already is campaigning to challenge Sen. Steve Saland (R-Poughkeepsie) next year.
Also testifying was Regina Calcaterra of New Suffolk, a Democrat who said afterward that she has not decided if she'll run next year for the seat of Sen. Kenneth LaValle (R-Port Jefferson). She echoed calls for an independent commission and opposed expanding the number of senators. She also discussed the large population growth of the 1st Senate District and the likelihood that 20,000 of its residents will be mapped into another district.
In the spirit of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, someone might have thought to beat a drum and chant, "This is what demography looks like."
There's an obvious and a less obvious lesson to be learned from NY-9 about independent, non-partisan redistrict. And it's worth learning.
Of course the obvious lesson is that the politics of legislature controlled redistricting leads to stupid gamesmanship. I still don't think Weprin was a bad candidate on paper, but I also tend to agree that Rory Lancman would have been a better candidate. Lancman never had a chance though, because Joe Crowley and New York Democrats in general needed a sacrifical lamb who could compete in the district and then ride into the night as NY-9 was dismantled by the map makers. Weprin fit the bill.
This is only a problem when politicians draw the districts. Independent, non-partisan redistricting doesn't take into account factors like seniority or which district is easier to cut. Independent redistricting would draw 27 districts on the basis of geography, continguity, compactness, VRA concerns, and a host of other factors other than cushiness for incumbents. And so if we had independent redistricting in the first place, the entire paradigm would have been different.
The less obvious lesson is just as, if not more important. I couldn't help but notice a lot of bloggers commenting on the string of special election losses by members of the Assembly. Weprin, Corwin, Scozzafava, and Tedisco. This led some to conclude that people who go to Albany and work in the Assembly can't win Congressional races. Let's forget that a whole heck of a lot of current and former Congressional members are former members of the Assembly. The fact that these four recent losers were all members of the Assembly isn't causation but it is correlation.
The better response about these four is that none of them had ever won a competitive campaign before. Their experience at real campaigning necessary to win tough special elections was non-existent. Weprin may have run for City Comptroller, but he did so poorly and unsuccessfully. All four of them simply weren't equipped for the rigors of a time-crunch competitive campaign.
And part of the reason is because their districts are gerrymandered to be uncompetitive, like almost every district in the state.
If we had real competitive districts, which we're more likely to get from independent redistricting, then candidates would actually earn their victories from the voters. That would give us politicians who understand how to talk to voters and better represent themselves and their constituents. And for our purposes, it would give us better candidates equipped to run for higher office, as opposed to people like David Weprin (i.e. nice guys and decent legislators but ill-equipped to run and win a serious, competitive campaign).
Mark down another notch in the belt of independent redistricting; better candidates, better legislators, heck, it's just better democracy.
Are you tired of the disgusting Albany practice of legislators choosing their voters, instead fo the other way around?
Are you tired of an anti-democratic political system where despite having among the lowest approval ratings in the country, our legislature is rewarded with one of the highest incumbent re-election rates?
Are you tired of a scenario where because legislators don't have to answer to voters, all they have to answer to are their conference leaders, lobbyists, special interests, and large fundraisers?
If you are tired of these things, you have the chance to make your voice heard, and soon. The LATFOR (legislative task force on redistricting), although is really shouldn't exist, just posted the details of the next 4 public hearings:
Tuesday
September 20, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Brooklyn Borough hall
Community Room
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, New York
Thursday
September 22, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Joan & Allen Bernikow Jewish
Community Center
1466 Manor Road
Staten Island, New York
Wednesday
September 21, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Assembly Hearing Room
250 Broadway
Room 1923, 19th Floor
Manhattan, New York
Wednesday
October 5, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Farmingdale State College
Little Theater, Roosevelt Hall
2350 Broadhollow Road
Farmingdale, New York
In order to attend and speak, you need to sign up via instructions at the link, and I strongly recommend everybody submit their testimony beforehand.
As I mentioned, LATFOR isn't just part of the problem- it is the problem. It is the unholy alliance of Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats to disenfranchise the voters of New York. Under any fair system, LATFOR's duties would be carried out by an uninterested party. And I plan on letting them know that. Very bluntly.
New York State legislators have spent at least the past few decades gerrymandering, allowing the Assembly majority to draw district lines for the Assembly, while the Senate majority draws lines for the Senate. Unsurprisingly, we end up with legislative lines badly tilted toward the parties that drew them.
County Legislator Michael Lane was the voice of sanity at that forum, and I'm delighted to see that he's continued to press the issue as LATFOR - the joint legislative committee managing the deals, I mean districting - is holding hearings. In his closing, he even used the accurate word that legislators least like to hear: corrupt.
I would conclude by saying that the current process is undemocratic. Let's do it the right way. If this Task Force, or the Legislature as a whole, recommends districts in the old corrupt fashion, then I hope the Governor will keep his word and veto them. It would not be pretty and court actions might have to come into play. Whatever occurs, it is definitely time that self-serving partisan gerrymandering come to an end. Make it happen.
I've posted his whole statement below the fold, which includes notes on Tompkins County's own redistricting as well as the way the county is treated for congressional and state legislative redistricting.
Once the NY-26 election is done, the real big fight in NY is over nonpartisan redistricting, which is why next Wednesday June 1 is Lobby Day to End Gerrymandering:
Please join ACT NOW and our coalition partner ReShapeNY as we head to Albany on Wednesday, June 1st to lobby on behalf of non-partisan redistricting, an essential reform that will end rampant gerrymandering in New York State.
(snip)
LOBBY DAY FOR NON-PARTISAN REDISTRICTING
Where : Albany
Free buses leave from Manhattan
Time/Place TBA
When : Wednesday, 2011/06/01 through 2011/06/01
It's not every day that you get to personally meet with legislators and try to convince them of a policy idea you believe in, so this is a great opportunity. RSVP at the link and I hope to see you there!
Now that the redistricting fight is shifting into high gear, I just wanted to let you know how you can help, even if it's just an hour or two per week.
Common Cause is holding phonebanks every tuesday and wednesday to call voters in districts of wavering Senators to ask them to apply pressure on those senators. The details are:
Every Tuesday and Wednesday, 6:00 pm to 8:00 ish
74 Trinity Place, Suite 901
Subway: R to Rector, or 4, 5 to Wall
Running into June, until the issue comes to a vote in Albany
With the redrawing of district maps for 2012 New York will lose 2 congressional seats.
While the process that will be used for redrawing is currently being battled out and the final results of that battle completely unknown the odds are that an incumbency protection plan will be agreed upon by the Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats and signed by the Democratic Governor. This plan will likely be one in which one upstate republican held district and one downstate democratic held district will be dismantled.
Given that assumption, what is the impact of the NY-26 special election on redistricting?
Some have speculated that NY-26 will "go away" with redistricting. This is not the case. NY-26, in some shape, form and number, will continue to exist after redistricting.
1. the population of western New York is such that it will continue to be home to four districts as is currently the case.
2. due to the larger size of districts (717,707 rather than the current 654,360) these districts will expand more towards the central part of the state.
3. based on the predominantly democratic populations of Buffalo and Rochester, at least two of those districts will be democratic-friendly.
4. two of those districts, based in the rural areas of Erie and Monroe Counties and the rest of the rural counties of western New York, can easily be drawn as republican-friendly districts.
5. every angle I can imagine points at central New York's NY-25 district currently held by Ann Marie Buerkle being the one dismantled. She is the weakest republican rep. She was not really supported by the Republican Party in 2010. She is in the strongest democratic district held by a Republican. Her fund raising is non-existent. She barely won... 567 votes... in 2010. Dan Maffei is already preparing for a rematch. If the Republicans are going to have to give up a seat they may as well give up the one they will probably lose anyhow and work instead to preserve and strengthen the districts they are likely to hold.
6. it is entirely possible to draw western New York with three democratic-friendly districts and only one republican-friendly district.
Remember this? Yeah, that's a signed pledge by the esteemed State Senator (then-candidate) Greg Ball wherein he promises to support an "independent nonpartisan redistricting commission." He may be crazy, but he had enough rational self-interest to know that the voters in his district thought this was important, and with a 2010 victory margin of only a few hundred votes, he doesn't exactly have the wiggle-room to go about breaking promises and showing his voters he is willing to lie to their faces if it gets him elected.
So being a Republican and all, of course that promise is being broken and he is revealing he has lied to the voters in his district last year and is no longer supporting an independent nonpartisan redistricting commission.
RALLY AND CANVASS TO END GERRYMANDERING -- GREG BALL EDITION
Where : Pugsley Park in Peekskill, Main Street btw N. Division St. and N. James St. 12PM
Free buses from W. 33rd Street, between 7th and 8th Avenues at 10AM
When : Saturday, 2011/05/14 through 2011/05/14
You can RSVP at the link and ride up to Westchester on a comfy, New Roosevelt Institute-chartered bus to let the crazy person now that people are indeed paying attention to his actions when they fail to live up to his own words.
I'm sure I don't need to recap the evils of partisan gerrymandering for all you reform-minded TAPers, but there is a huge battle going on right now in Albany as reforms essentially are trying to force the Senate Republicans to honor their pre-election public statements in support of a nonpartisan redistricting panel. Reformers are trying to raise all the awareness and pressure we can, and in that vein, I am inviting you all to see a documentary filmon Redistricting in New York this Saturday:
Please join ACT NOW and our friends at Living Liberally and Tribeca for Change on Saturday, April 23rd, for a FREE screening of the informative and entertaining documentary, Gerrymandering: The Movie. If you have ever wondered why politicians get to draw their own electoral districts, and what we can do to stop this corrupt practice, you must see this film!
The film will be followed by Q&A with filmmaker, Jeff Reichert.
GERRYMANDERING: THE MOVIE (SPECIAL EVENT)
Where : The Tank
354 W. 45th Street
When : Saturday, 2:30PM
They provide a nice map tool that unfortunately is not compatible with DailyKos. Fortunately, they also provide 2 map pictures. This one shows the percentage of change by county:
With deep green being largest gains and deep purple being counties with largest losses.
With Governor Cuomo and the Assembly Democrats on board for an ostensibly non-partisan redistricting reform law, the fight is now in the State Senate. The Republican hypocrites, many of whom went on the record before the election in support of a non-partisan, anti-gerrymandering redistricting law are now blocking the law from debate in the Senate and using a pathetic delay tactic to say that they are trying to end gerrymandering with a constitutional amendment. That sounds great, but remember that a constitutional amendment needs to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions and then put to a referendum, aka no change until the 2020 census. So this Saturday is the time to call out the Senate Republicans for their obvious delay tactics and breaking of a campaign promise:
This Saturday's event will be held in Nassau County, where New York State Senator Jack Martins, a Republican who ran as a "Hero of Reform" in support of non-partisan redistricting, has since gone back on his campaign promises. We'll be talking to his constituents and to local media about the Senator's pledge and about the importance of redistricting reform to democracy in New York State. Join us and make your voice heard!
As you may remember, Jack Martins barely defeated Craig Johnson in 2010, by only a few hundred votes. I bet at least a few hundred of the voters in his district took his campaign promises at his word and didn't expect them to be bald-faced lies. So this Saturday there is going to be a press event led by the New Roosevelt Institute and co-sponsored by several groups, including Act Now NY, (full disclosure: I am on the Organizing Committee for Act Now NY), who will help arrange transportation from NYC to Nassau this Saturday via buses from Madison Square Garden. You can RSVP at the link- hope to see you there and we can't let the Senate GOP get away with this!
Last year, Skelos signed my organization's pledge, promising to be part of the effort to redraw district lines in a fair and rational way - to once and for all end the pernicious partisan gerrymandering that reinforces all of Albany's worst habits.
When I met with Skelos in Albany on Tuesday to follow up on his promise, he told me he was withdrawing his support from the effort of my organization, New York Uprising, Then hours later, he released a statement proclaiming that he "wishes to pursue a redistricting reform measure that will meet the Uprising pledge."
What was going on? Does the majority leader support this initiative or not?
According to Skelos, his withdrawal from the Uprising pledge was based on his belief that independent redistricting through legislation is unconstitutional. And so in our meeting, as in his statement, he advocated a state constitutional amendment instead.
Unfortunately, that's merely a diversion on his part. A red herring. Sand in your eyes. It's also a surprising argument from him, since he never raised it during the several times we spoke when he signed the pledge to fight for independent redistricting. Neither did any of his colleagues when I stood with them on the campaign trail.
Indeed, last year Skelos sent a letter accompanying his pledge (available at nyuprising.org). It stated: "Our Republican conference supports . . . independent redistricting in line with what your organization is calling for." The pledge is very specific in its requirements for independence. And the pledge is very specific in calling for legislation to pass this year.
Here's the problem with a constitutional amendment: It's too late. To pass one in New York, it first would have to pass both houses of the Legislature this year. Then, the same amendment would have to pass both houses again sometime after the next legislature is seated in 2013. Then, it would be put to a popular vote as a statewide referendum.
That means any constitutional amendment is probably five years away. The same old, same old system would apply until the next redistricting in 2022, and New Yorkers would have to endure another 10 years of a government that gets away with being unresponsive to their interests. We can't wait that long. New York is a mess now.
...
So even if Skelos truly differs on this major point, if he truly supports the principle of independent redistricting, and if he intends to uphold the promise he made, then he should work to pass the governor's bill. Let the courts decide whether it's constitutional.
Legislators who wish to pursue redistricting reform that will meet the Uprising pledge must support legislation that would produce independent redistricting in time for the election next year. Any legislator who supports a constitutional amendment - to the exclusion of the governor's bill - is simply seeking to run out the clock, and will be described by me as an Enemy of Reform in a message to be brought to his or her constituents.
Looks like Koch just upped the ante and essentially called Skelos (rightly) a liar.
Will such pressure from the outside from groups like New York Uprising and Citizens Union be sufficient to force Skelos and his crew to honor the pledges they made last year when they were trying to portray themselves as "heroes of reform?" I have my doubts. But, the rather blatant manner in which they are thumbing their noses at the entire state would seem to demand that such pressure be applied relentlessly and with gusto.
There have to be consequences for just flat out lying to us.
Every now and then, I feel quite comfortable calling Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver a liar. He's usually pretty cautious, but every now and then he trips up with nonsense like:
He denied that redistricting in its current form - which by tradition has given the Democrats in control of the Assembly carte blanche to draw their own districts - has ever created districts that favor Democrats.
"You only stretch so many democrats one way or so many Republicans one way, or the other. you can't change the makeup of the state of New York," Silver said. "Strengthen my hand? No. We can't strengthen our hand. Whatever is stronger in one district is weaker in another district. Let's remember that. There are only so many voters."
Right... and the way you draw the lines would have nothing to do with the party breakdown in the Assembly or the Senate, or the veto-proof majority Silver cherishes.
Let's roll the tape, from Assemblyman Bill Parment, who ran the Assembly's gerrymandering option last time, while Silver was Speaker:
...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....
There is a notion in all of this that somehow incumbents advantage themselves. To the extent that they're able - that they do - that they do and will - they will and do....
I know it's not a perfect system, and there's a lot of self-serving elements being a legislator and making this type of judgment....
Now, you bring up the fact that we allow the Senate to draw the Senate line and the Assembly to draw the Assembly line - this is true.
Though a lot of Parment's talk felt like running out the clock, he didn't make obviously false blanket denials like Speaker Silver.
We need to take the drawing of election districts out of the hands of those who stand most directly to gain by tweaking the lines in their favor.
Can someone get Malcolm Smith to shut up for about a decade or so? I know he's enthusiastic, but tripping over your own tongue every election cycle seems like something Democrats would want to discourage:
"With the Democrats in control of the State Senate, we are going to draw the lines so that Republicans will be in oblivion in the state of New York for the next 20 years," Smith said, as applause whipped up through the proudly partisan crowd at the Crowne Plaza in Niagara Falls.
There was, of course, more recklessness in the rest of the speech - citing specific seats likely to flip in redistricting, a great way to convince people that you're not stacking the deck. Plus a denial that redistricting had actually created problems for the state. He preferred to blame dysfunction on the Republicans, which I guess allowed him to ignore any minor unpleasantness surrounding his colleagues in the Assembly.
Well after much tweaking, I was finally able to play with the online redistricting tool made by Dave Bradlee of Dave's Redistricting.
This map was constructed on the assumption of New York losing two congressional districts. Personally I'm hoping for just one, but we'll see.
I will make three disclaimers before I show you this map. One is that I have no idea of the partisan breakdown for these districts. That data wasn't available in the redistricting tool.
Second is that I didn't bother getting into the weeds of redistricting downstate, just the 11 CDs covering the state north of Yonkers. Let the downstaters who know the area deal with that.
Third is what I took into consideration making the map--or rather, what I didn't. I didn't take into consideration where the incumbents live, what the partisan makeup is, or what balances would be useful to be struck. As the "throw a dart at the wall" comment implies, this map is based almost entirely on instinct and geography, trying to group by regions. And when that was impossible, mostly with cities, attempting to fairly and logically divide up the turf. It should be taken as a start for discussion.
There has been a lot of speculation about New York and redistricting come 2012. Some believe that my home congressional district, the 26th congressional district, could be a target. Others have discussed the possibility of some of the separate, gerrymandered districts.
Now comes word today that the 3rd congressional district might be a target during the redistricting process, which would be one way for Democrats to get rid of Republican Peter King.
A source close to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith confirmed "serious discussions" between Democrats in New York and Washington are underway about King's district.
"It's an obvious choice because of the population of the area," he said.
Long Island was once a Republican stronghold, but it has been trending Democratic since the last census.
The GOP still has a 46,072-voter enrollment edge in King's 3rd Congressional District, which includes parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties.
The number of Democrats has grown faster since the last redistricting, with 16,843 voters added to their ranks since 2001, compared with the Republicans' 1,336.
King isn't concerned about being on the Democratic hit list.
"This is dream talk," he said. "It's three years from now. I don't know if I'll even be alive."
It will be interesting to see what approach the Democrats take when it comes to redistricting. King is probably the most safe of the three Republicans that are still serving in the House of Representatives from New York. Targeting him makes sense, but how you would split up his district is a tougher question.
Update 2: Totals where districts consist of whole counties added.
Update 3: Partial County numbers by % split of the vote and CD totals added.
Last night I started reviewing the US Census Bureau's estimations and projections for New York with a thought towards redistricting.
New York is projected to have over 19million citizens in 2010. Only a few thousand more than today and since southern and southwestern states are growing at a far more rapid pace it is expected that New York will lose 2 seats from 29 down to 27.
So I divided the estimated 2007 total by 27 to derive an average district size. I then dervised a range from +.05 to -.05% to give some leeway. I believe the current rule is .1 +/- but that creates to large a range in my opinion.
