City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

Jimtex do you have any idea if there is some law in Columbia county, or the Home Rule law, that requires supervisor districts in a city to be the same as aldermanic districts?

[jimrtex]

Jimtex do you have any idea if there is some law in Columbia county, or the Home Rule law, that requires supervisor districts in a city to be the same as aldermanic districts?

If you start here, and pull down Laws of New York, and then select "MHR", Article "2", Section "10", you will get a version that is presented in a reasonable outline form.

New York State Legislature

The latest version of the weighting of the board of supervisors says that it is based on

MHR 10(1)(a)(13)

The preamble of that paragraph may be saying that only certain provisions are generally applicable.  Boards of supervisors and their composition are defined under the County Law.  The County Law also permits the replacement of the board of supervisor with a county legislature.  But if a county has a board of supervisors, then County Law supersedes all but two provisions of MHR MHR 10(1)(a)(13).

The general provisions are:

MHR 10(1)(a)(13)(a)(1)

Voters must be equally weighted.

MHR 10(1)(a)(13)(c)

Population may be resident, citizens, or registered voters.  The provision about not including prisoners as residents is new. New York added that in 2010. I do not think that either Hudson or Columbia County are in compliance with this requirement: "Such a plan may allocate, by extrapolation or any other  rational  method,  such  latest  statistical  information  to  representation  areas  or  units  of  local government,  provided that any plan containing such an allocation shall have  annexed thereto as an appendix, a detailed explanation of the allocation."

The method that was used is not rational with respect to the allocation of the Front Street block, and the assignment of population to a representation area that was not part of the representation area, nor (apparently) was a detailed explanation of the allocation annexed to the public law.

The errors are of such magnitude that equal protection is violated, regardless of whether weighted voting does so in general.

So I think it is saying that a county may maintain a board of supervisors, and use the MHR to change weightings, but not be subject to:

MHR 10(1)(a)(13)(b) or
MHR 10(1)(a)(13)(a)(ii)

=====

But see also:

MHR 10(1)(a)(1)

To me this says that a city may not change the number of supervisors since they only act only in the capacity as county officers.

This might be helpful.

Local Government Handbook

It is a mess since

(1) Town Supervisors are primarily town officials who serve as ex officio members of the Board of Supervisors.  
(2) County Supervisors from cities are specified under city charters, but have no city duties.
(3) Counties don't have to have boards of supervisors.  If they have a legislature, the town supervisors would continue in their town function, but supervisors from cities would have no role, except they could become a county legislator and function in a similar fashion.

Towns may change the term of their supervisors to four years, cities may not.  Not all supervisors will be elected in 2015.

=====
Here are the counties with boards of supervisors, and how they treat cities.  It is not a consistent one city ward, one supervisor, but I don't how the relationships were defined.  When Hudson went from two wards to four wards, they continued for a while to elect only two wards.  It is possible that such relationships were frozen.  Some towns allocate additional supervisors to larger towns.  It might be the case that some of this happened under court order - 14th Amendment supersedes any state law.

Chenango: Norwich, 6 wards, two supervisors, each elected from a trio of wards.

Columbia: Hudson, 5 wards, 5 supervisors, one per ward.

Delaware: (no cities)

Essex: (no cities)

Fulton: Gloversville, 6 wards, one supervisor per ward; Johnstown, 5 wards, one supervisor per ward.

Hamilton: (no cities)

Livingston: (no cities)

Madison: Oneida, 6 wards, four supervisors, two elected from a trio of wards.

Ontario: Canandaigua, 4 wards, two supervisors, each elected from a pair of wards; Geneva, 6 wards, 3 supervisors, each elected from a "supervisory district". The city charter defines the three supervisory districts as being the same as pairs of wards. So instead of electing a supervisor from Ward 1 and Ward 2, like Canandaigua; Geneva elects a supervisor from District 1 which consists of Ward 1 and Ward 2.

Saratoga: Mechanicville, commission form of government, one supervisor; Saratoga Springs, commission form of government, two supervisors elected at large (Vote for 2); Clifton Park town, two supervisors, one is the town/county supervisor, and the other is the county supervisor.  Saratoga County apportions extra supervisors to the larger cities and towns (more than 25,000 persons), this permits it to use simple weighting and have the voting power remain reasonably proportional to population. In 2010, Halfmoon town surpassed the old threshold of 20,000. Rather than giving it two supervisors, the threshold was increased.

Schoharie (no cities)

Seneca (no cities), Seneca Falls and Waterloo towns each have three supervisors.

Warren: Glen Falls, five wards each electing one supervisor; Queensbury Town, five supervisors: one town/county and four county (vote for four).

Washington: (no cities)

Wayne: (no cities)

Wyoming: (no cities)

[Torie]

I called the county attorney, and to make a long story short, as to the number of supervisors Hudson has, it's entirely up to Hudson. So that leaves what the Home Rule law says about the population of supervisor districts, and the 5% population variance rule. Other than that, under state and local law, Hudson can do what it wants.

[jimrtex]

2. Hallenbeck's proposal has zero chance of getting put on the ballot (unless perhaps Delaney supports it, which is unlikely).  If it does somehow get passed, the historical provenance defense to the weighted voting system in Hudson will be substantially degraded beyond the degradation already in play due to ignoring in practice the historical boundaries.  In that regard, it appears that there is an apartment building there on the east side of Harry Howard in addition to Crosswinds that has been voting in the wrong ward. I wonder when it was built, and how long that has been going on for.



This came up because a voter signed a petition for a 4th ward candidate that is being challenged (192 Harry Howard Avenue, Apt 35). I think it is 192. The penmanship is a bit hard to read.

The apartments are the two large buildings in the rear.  The houses at 188 and 190 are owned by the same company that owns the apartment building, Hudson Gardens LLC. There appear to be 46 apartments (it is configured for 48, but a couple of numbers are missing). That would match the parking area.

According to the tax rolls, the paving was done in 1970, and the physical appearance is consistent with that.  They show up on a 1981 topo sheet, with a magenta coloring indicating a revision.

There are 12 single family and one two-family house on Harry Howard (past 100 which is Westwind).  120 is kind of isolated, but from 168 northward, every house has a Harry Howard address.  Tax rolls show all as being in the 5th Ward.

I had missed how large the population for that block is since it is so irregular, with no streets cutting through, but the apartments contribute a large share.  It would be more except household sizes in rented housing units is about 1.5.

I think you can get the voter registration roll in address order for free in an electronic format.

[Torie]

The address though was 192 Harry Howard Avenue.

[jimrtex]

I called the county attorney, and to make a long story short, as to the number of supervisors Hudson has, it's entirely up to Hudson. So that leaves what the Home Rule law says about the population of supervisor districts, and the 5% population variance rule. Other than that, under state and local law, Hudson can do what it wants.

MHR §  10.1(a)(13)(a)(ii) Applies to a plan adopted by a county.  The county attorney seems to be saying that setting the number of supervisors from a city is not part of a plan adopted by a county.

Could Hudson elect 100 supervisors?   Would the county be obligated to pay them a salary of $19,000 per year?   IIUC, Columbia County pays the salary of the city supervisors, while the towns pay the salary of their respective supervisors.

This is the case dealing with two hats, disregard the parts dealing with apportionment.

Abate v Mundt 25 N.Y.2d 309 (1969)

But see also:

Spencer v Cristo 2010 NY Slip Op 20025 [27 Misc 3d 334]

[jimrtex]

The address though was 192 Harry Howard Avenue.

Columbia County Real Property Tax Service Agency

Click on "Assessments" (left side) and then "2015 Final Assessment & Parcel Inventory"

Enter "Hudson" and street number of 188, 190, or 192 (there is only a single property in the city with these street addresses).  Once you get the property report, click on "Pin Property on GIS Map"

The parcel with the apartments is 192-194 Harry Howard.  They might only use 192 as part of the mailing address.

The apartments were last sold in 2007.  The two houses at 188 and 190 were sold last November.  While the owners are the same, the street addresses of the owners are different.  The 2007 address is in Ulster Park, a zip code south of Kingston.  The 2014 address is in Brooklyn, and matches the corporation registration.  The LLC was formed in 2007, concurrent with the purchase of the apartments.

[jimrtex]

I called the county attorney, and to make a long story short, as to the number of supervisors Hudson has, it's entirely up to Hudson. So that leaves what the Home Rule law says about the population of supervisor districts, and the 5% population variance rule. Other than that, under state and local law, Hudson can do what it wants.

He might be right.  Of the 10 cities that are in counties with a board of supervisors, all define the office of supervisor in their respective city charters. Some do it in a desultory fashion, since the supervisor has no city capacity. This is in contrast to the town supervisors, whose primary role is in town government. A more symmetric system would have a city mayor serve on the board of supervisors, or have the common council choose the supervisor.

One exception is Saratoga Springs, which has two supervisors on the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors. Saratoga Springs has a commission form of government, where commissioners are elected on a functional basis:

Mayor
Commissioner of Finance
Commissioner of Public Works
Commissioner of Public Safety
Commissioner of Accounts

The five also form the city council.

The two supervisors attend city council meetings, and the mayor is required to solicit them for agenda items, just as he does the other commissioners.  I assume they sit at the council table, but do not vote, and may not make motions, etc. City officials may be elected as supervisor. Since neither the commissioners nor supervisors represent geographic areas, their may be less jealousy and conflict.

The 10 cities are Canandaigua, Geneva, Glen Falls, Gloversville, Hudson, Johnstown, Mechanicville, Norwich, Oneida, and Saratoga Falls.

[jimrtex]

MHR §  10.1(a)(1)

"a. A county, city, town or village:
    (1) The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection  and
  removal,  terms  of  office,  compensation,  hours  of work, protection,
  welfare and safety of its officers and employees, except that cities and
  towns shall  not  have  such  power  with  respect  to  members  of  the
  legislative  body  of the county in their capacities as county officers. ..."

Hudson is a city. But supervisors only function is to serve in the legislative body of the county.

MHR §  10.1(a)(13)(a)(ii)

"(ii.)  In  such plan adopted by a county, no town except a town having
  more than one hundred and  ten  per  cent  of  a  full  ratio  for  each
  representative,  shall  be  divided  in  the formation of representation
  areas. Adjacent representation areas in the same town or city shall  not
  contain  a  greater  excess  in  population than five per cent of a full
  ratio for each representative."

Columbia County did not create the adjacent representation areas in Hudson.

[jimrtex]

Saratoga County uses simple weighting for its board of supervisors, where each member has the same number of votes as the population he represents.

If each town and city had one member this would result in excess deviation.

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Clifton Park     36723  533233  16.74%  18.61%  11.18%
Saratoga Springs 26608  350067  12.13%  12.22%   0.73%
Halfmoon         21550  279337   9.82%   9.75%  -0.75%
Milton           18599  238697   8.48%   8.33%  -1.74%
Wilton           16177  206359   7.38%   7.20%  -2.33%
Malta            14776  187857   6.74%   6.56%  -2.66%
Moreau           14294  181623   6.52%   6.34%  -2.71%
Ballston          9780  123371   4.46%   4.31%  -3.41%
Waterford         8441  106227   3.85%   3.71%  -3.64%
Stillwater        8298  104397   3.78%   3.64%  -3.67%
Greenfield        7781   97971   3.55%   3.42%  -3.59%
Corinth           6537   82079   2.98%   2.87%  -3.86%
Saratoga          5682   71365   2.59%   2.49%  -3.83%
Mechanicville     5205   65299   2.37%   2.28%  -3.94%
Northumberland    5090   63849   2.32%   2.23%  -3.96%
Charlton          4135   51821   1.89%   1.81%  -4.04%
Galway            3548   44647   1.62%   1.56%  -3.65%
Hadley            2051   25685   0.94%   0.90%  -4.11%
Providence        1996   24937   0.91%   0.87%  -4.34%
Edinburg          1217   15259   0.55%   0.53%  -4.00%
Day                856   10677   0.39%   0.37%  -4.50%

As is typical, the largest entities have too much power, at least as measured by the Banzhaff Power Index.  But if the largest town, Clifton Park had two supervisors, the relative deviation range would be reduced from 15.68% to 8.60%.

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Clifton Park     18362  533252  16.74%  16.81%   0.38%
                 18361  533214
Saratoga Springs 26608  810818  12.13%  12.78%   5.33%
Halfmoon         21550  634894   9.82%  10.00%   1.83%
Milton           18599  540736   8.48%   8.52%   0.49%
Wilton           16177  466072   7.38%   7.34%  -0.42%
Malta            14776  423710   6.74%   6.68%  -0.88%
Moreau           14294  409522   6.52%   6.45%  -0.97%
Ballston          9780  277538   4.46%   4.37%  -1.91%
Waterford         8441  238726   3.85%   3.76%  -2.25%
Stillwater        8298  234614   3.78%   3.70%  -2.27%
Greenfield        7781  220086   3.55%   3.47%  -2.23%
Corinth           6537  184454   2.98%   2.91%  -2.47%
Saratoga          5682  160296   2.59%   2.53%  -2.49%
Mechanicville     5205  146532   2.37%   2.31%  -2.69%
Northumberland    5090  143332   2.32%   2.26%  -2.67%
Charlton          4135  116368   1.89%   1.83%  -2.73%
Galway            3548   99892   1.62%   1.57%  -2.69%
Hadley            2051   57614   0.94%   0.91%  -2.91%
Providence        1996   56042   0.91%   0.88%  -2.95%
Edinburg          1217   34290   0.55%   0.54%  -2.61%
Day                856   23956   0.39%   0.38%  -3.27%

If we gave two supervisors to the city of Saratoga Springs, there would be further improvement.

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Clifton Park     18362 1141458  16.74%  16.98%   1.40%
                 18361 1141396
Saratoga Springs 13304  810818  12.13%  12.06%  -0.59%
                 13304  810818
Halfmoon         21550 1363916   9.82%  10.14%   3.24%
Milton           18599 1157334   8.48%   8.61%   1.50%
Wilton           16177  996042   7.38%   7.41%   0.44%
Malta            14776  905376   6.74%   6.73%  -0.05%
Moreau           14294  874188   6.52%   6.50%  -0.24%
Ballston          9780  590676   4.46%   4.39%  -1.48%
Waterford         8441  508720   3.85%   3.78%  -1.69%
Stillwater        8298  500120   3.78%   3.72%  -1.69%
Greenfield        7781  468220   3.55%   3.48%  -1.84%
Corinth           6537  392812   2.98%   2.92%  -1.98%
Saratoga          5682  340886   2.59%   2.54%  -2.14%
Mechanicville     5205  312302   2.37%   2.32%  -2.13%
Northumberland    5090  305394   2.32%   2.27%  -2.13%
Charlton          4135  247886   1.89%   1.84%  -2.21%
Galway            3548  212326   1.62%   1.58%  -2.38%
Hadley            2051  122700   0.94%   0.91%  -2.41%
Providence        1996  119380   0.91%   0.89%  -2.44%
Edinburg          1217   72604   0.55%   0.54%  -2.68%
Day                856   51310   0.39%   0.38%  -2.22%

This reduced the relative deviation from 15.68% (no extra supervisors), 8.60% (one extra), to 5.93% (two extra).

In Saratoga County, this process was automatic, with towns or cities with more than 20,000 persons being divided automatically.  Following the 2010 Census, the town of Halfmoon had surpassed 20,000 in population and would have been accorded an additional supervisor.

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Clifton Park     18361 2392893  16.74%  17.09%   2.06%
                 18361 2392893
Saratoga Springs 13304 1695667  12.13%  12.11%  -0.19%
                 13304 1695667
Halfmoon         10775 1363921   9.82%   9.74%  -0.87%
                 10775 1363921
Milton           18599 2427469   8.48%   8.67%   2.21%
Wilton           16177 2085411   7.38%   7.45%   0.95%
Malta            14776 1894515   6.74%   6.76%   0.41%
Moreau           14294 1829037   6.52%   6.53%   0.21%
Ballston          9780 1234289   4.46%   4.41%  -1.16%
Waterford         8441 1062849   3.85%   3.79%  -1.39%
Stillwater        8298 1044403   3.78%   3.73%  -1.43%
Greenfield        7781  978171   3.55%   3.49%  -1.55%
Corinth           6537  820541   2.98%   2.93%  -1.70%
Saratoga          5682  711815   2.59%   2.54%  -1.89%
Mechanicville     5205  652757   2.37%   2.33%  -1.79%
Northumberland    5090  638027   2.32%   2.28%  -1.84%
Charlton          4135  517413   1.89%   1.85%  -2.01%
Galway            3548  443293   1.62%   1.58%  -2.15%
Hadley            2051  256223   0.94%   0.91%  -2.17%
Providence        1996  248963   0.91%   0.89%  -2.32%
Edinburg          1217  151241   0.55%   0.54%  -2.68%
Day                856  107257   0.39%   0.38%  -1.87%

This would have reduced the deviation range to 4.89%, but increased the size of the board to 24.   So instead, Saratoga County changed the threshold to 25,000.  In the resolution, they mention the analysis of voting power that had been performed.

[jimrtex]

We could do the same for the Columbia Board of Supervisors.  If each town and city had one supervisor who voted their population, the deviation between voting power and population would be as follows:

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Kinderhook        8501  113724  13.53%  14.58%   7.73%
Hudson            6403   81080  10.19%  10.39%   1.98%
Claverack         6024   75612   9.59%   9.69%   1.08%
Ghent             5408   66764   8.61%   8.56%  -0.58%
Greenport         4176   51084   6.65%   6.55%  -1.49%
Chatham           4132   50592   6.58%   6.48%  -1.40%
Livingston        3646   44384   5.80%   5.69%  -1.97%
Copake            3617   44068   5.76%   5.65%  -1.88%
Stockport         2819   34728   4.49%   4.45%  -0.79%
New Lebanon       2305   28096   3.67%   3.60%  -1.84%
Stuyvesant        2030   24500   3.23%   3.14%  -2.81%
Clermont          1966   23768   3.13%   3.05%  -2.64%
Germantown        1955   23664   3.11%   3.03%  -2.52%
Hillsdale         1928   23324   3.07%   2.99%  -2.58%
Canaan            1710   20524   2.72%   2.63%  -3.34%
Gallatin          1668   19988   2.65%   2.56%  -3.50%
Austerlitz        1654   19860   2.63%   2.55%  -3.30%
Ancram            1574   18948   2.51%   2.43%  -3.05%
Taghkanic         1313   15468   2.09%   1.98%  -5.13%

With a deviation range of 12.86%, it is just outside a 10% safe harbor (measured as voting weight vs population, the deviation is of course zero).

As in Saratoga County we can give an extra supervisor to the largest town, Kinderhook:

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Kinderhook        4251  113744  13.53%  13.54%   0.10%
                  4250  113704
Hudson            6403  177872  10.19%  10.59%   3.93%
Claverack         6024  165548   9.59%   9.86%   2.82%
Ghent             5408  146008   8.61%   8.69%   1.01%
Greenport         4176  111480   6.65%   6.64%  -0.12%
Chatham           4132  110272   6.58%   6.57%  -0.15%
Livingston        3646   96612   5.80%   5.75%  -0.86%
Copake            3617   95688   5.76%   5.70%  -1.02%
Stockport         2819   75864   4.49%   4.52%   0.69%
New Lebanon       2305   60776   3.67%   3.62%  -1.35%
Stuyvesant        2030   53224   3.23%   3.17%  -1.91%
Clermont          1966   51476   3.13%   3.07%  -2.04%
Germantown        1955   51172   3.11%   3.05%  -2.07%
Hillsdale         1928   50380   3.07%   3.00%  -2.24%
Canaan            1710   44596   2.72%   2.66%  -2.43%
Gallatin          1668   43428   2.65%   2.59%  -2.59%
Austerlitz        1654   43064   2.63%   2.56%  -2.59%
Ancram            1574   40904   2.51%   2.44%  -2.77%
Taghkanic         1313   33500   2.09%   1.99%  -4.54%

And the deviation range is reduced to 8.48%.  We can add a 2nd supervisor for Hudson.

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Kinderhook        4251  238730  13.53%  13.60%   0.48%
                  4250  238674
Hudson            3202  177890  10.19%  10.13%  -0.59%
                  3201  177854
Claverack         6024  349242   9.59%   9.95%   3.73%
Ghent             5408  309494   8.61%   8.81%   2.40%
Greenport         4176  234034   6.65%   6.66%   0.27%
Chatham           4132  231378   6.58%   6.59%   0.19%
Livingston        3646  203442   5.80%   5.79%  -0.16%
Copake            3617  201534   5.76%   5.74%  -0.31%
Stockport         2819  154342   4.49%   4.40%  -2.04%
New Lebanon       2305  126870   3.67%   3.61%  -1.52%
Stuyvesant        2030  111862   3.23%   3.19%  -1.40%
Clermont          1966  108066   3.13%   3.08%  -1.65%
Germantown        1955  107462   3.11%   3.06%  -1.65%
Hillsdale         1928  105866   3.07%   3.01%  -1.75%
Canaan            1710   94002   2.72%   2.68%  -1.64%
Gallatin          1668   91530   2.65%   2.61%  -1.82%
Austerlitz        1654   90734   2.63%   2.58%  -1.85%
Ancram            1574   86190   2.51%   2.45%  -2.02%
Taghkanic         1313   72262   2.09%   2.06%  -1.53%

And the deviation range is reduced to 5.77%.  Give a 2nd supervisor to Claverack:

Town or City     Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Kinderhook        4251  500690  13.53%  13.66%   0.96%
                  4250  500602
Hudson            3202  372530  10.19%  10.16%  -0.27%
                  3201  372462
Claverack         3012  349242   9.59%   9.53%  -0.61%
                  3012  349242
Ghent             5408  651886   8.61%   8.89%   3.32%
Greenport         4176  491706   6.65%   6.71%   0.93%
Chatham           4132  485826   6.58%   6.63%   0.78%
Livingston        3646  425970   5.80%   5.81%   0.14%
Copake            3617  422286   5.76%   5.76%   0.07%
Stockport         2819  326830   4.49%   4.46%  -0.62%
New Lebanon       2305  265638   3.67%   3.62%  -1.22%
Stuyvesant        2030  233542   3.23%   3.19%  -1.39%
Clermont          1966  226354   3.13%   3.09%  -1.31%
Germantown        1955  225006   3.11%   3.07%  -1.35%
Hillsdale         1928  221746   3.07%   3.03%  -1.41%
Canaan            1710  196402   2.72%   2.68%  -1.55%
Gallatin          1668  191338   2.65%   2.61%  -1.67%
Austerlitz        1654  189582   2.63%   2.59%  -1.75%
Ancram            1574  180470   2.51%   2.46%  -1.72%
Taghkanic         1313  150542   2.09%   2.05%  -1.72%

And the deviation is reduced to 5.08%.  As in Saratoga County it might be determined that the small improvement is not worth the increased size of the board of supervisors.

If there are two supervisors from Kinderhook and Hudson, the board of supervisors is reduced from 23 to 21 members, saving Columbia County $38,000 in salaries.  The weighting is simple and understandable with each supervisor having the same number of votes as the population they represent.   Every town and city continues to be represented, and the 18 town supervisors continue their primary responsibility as a town officer.  If Columbia County needs more centralized administration, then they figure out a way to have a county manager.

There would be no need to pass a new local law after every census.  An informal review could be done as in Saratoga County.

Kinderhook could elect a Town/County Supervisor as they do now, and a County Supervisor.  That is the same pattern as is used in Clifton Park.

Hudson could change its city charter, to elect the two supervisors at large, and provide them a formal, but non-voting role, with the Common Council.  If they wanted to get fancy, the two supervisors could be elected by cumulative voting, in which each voter casts two votes, which may be for two separate candidates, or may bullet vote for just one.

Legal issues:  The home rule statutes are to be liberally construed.  The job of the county and city attorneys is not to explain why something can't be done, but to find a way for it to be done.

[jimrtex]

The Saratoga system could be applied to the city of Hudson as well. Here the council president has been assigned a voting weight equal to the population of Hudson divided by 10.  That is he has a voting weight equal to that of an average aldermen.  Note, population of the wards has been adjusted to reflect charter boundaries, to correct the population of the Front Street block, and place the Firemen's Home in the 5th Ward.

Alderman         Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Ward 1             297      84   9.26%   7.86% -15.16%
Ward 1             296      84
Ward 2             734     252  22.91%  23.14%   1.00%
Ward 2             733     252
Ward 3             538     172  16.80%  15.90%  -5.40%
Ward 3             538     172
Ward 4             379     124  11.84%  11.44%  -3.40%
Ward 4             379     124
Ward 5            1255     456  39.18%  41.67%   6.34%
Ward 5            1254     456
President          640     212

The relative deviation range of 21.50% is too large.  So we move one of the Ward 1 aldermen to Ward 4.

Alderman         Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Ward 1             593     236   9.26%   9.80%   5.77%
Ward 2             734     268  22.91%  22.42%  -2.14%
Ward 2             733     268
Ward 3             538     200  16.80%  16.70%  -0.59%
Ward 3             538     200
Ward 4             379     132  11.84%  11.09%  -6.29%
Ward 4             379     132
Ward 5             837     320  39.18%  39.99%   2.04%
Ward 5             836     320
Ward 5             836     320
President          640     244

The relative deviation range is reduced to 12.05%.  We can move an alderman from Ward 4 to Ward 5.

Alderman         Votes   Swing  Pop Sh  Pow Sh Rel.Dev
Ward 1             593     252   9.26%   9.93%   7.25%
Ward 2             734     252  22.91%  20.26% -11.55%
Ward 2             733     252
Ward 3             538     252  16.80%  19.71%  17.29%
Ward 3             538     252
Ward 4             758     252  11.84%  10.17% -14.12%
Ward 5             628     252  39.18%  39.93%   1.89%
Ward 5             627     252
Ward 5             627     252
Ward 5             627     252
President          640     252

That didn't work so well.

Well let's make some lemonade.  

Weighted voting doesn't work when there are a small number of members, nor when there is less diversity in voting weights.

The reason that the number of critical votes (swing) for all aldermen is the same is that any winning coalition must have 6 members.  That is, any coalition of five members always loses, and any coalition of six members always loses.  The votes of the five heaviest members represent 49.6% of the total, just short of a majority, while the votes of the six lightest members represent 50.4% of the total, a slim majority.

Even though the two aldermen from Ward 3 have 7.6% of the total vote, and the alderman from Ward 4 has 10.8% of the total vote, there is not enough overall diversity of weights.  In particular, since aldermen from the same ward have the same weight, there are only six different weights.

If there were 11 distinct voting weights, there would be up to 2048 different vote totals.  Under Hudsons 5x2+1 plan, there are only 486 different vote totals.  The 2 aldermen from each ward can both vote for a motion, vote opposite each other, or both vote against each other.  Thus they can only produce 3 different vote totals, as opposed to the 4 they could produce if they had different weights.  With 5 wards, there are 3⁵, or 243 vote totals.  Multiply by the two vote totals for the president and you have 486.

When we switched to a 4, 2, 2, 1, 1 + 1 plan by moving two aldermen from Ward 1 and Ward 4 to Ward 5, we reduce the possible vote totals to 5 x 3 x 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 360.

If the vote weights are similar, the vote totals will tend to cluster.  For example, if four Ward 4 aldermen had 627 votes, and the president had 640 votes, there is little difference between 3 alderman and the president voting aye for a total of 2521, and 4 aldermen voting ayes for a total of 2508.  Expressed as a share of the total vote, the difference is 35.8% vs 33.9%.   Since in a 11-member council, an average member has 9.1% of the total vote, a difference of 1.9% is quite small.

It is pretense to treat Hudson as having 11 independent aldermen, when five pairs are elected from the same areas on a partisan ballot.  Under the Banzhaf Power Index calculation, a voter in a ward might have more power if his two aldermen voted opposite each other, than if they voted together in the way the voter preferred.

This example also illustrates the problem with any adjustment of voting weights, whether based on the Banzhaf Power Index, or any other method:

To change the outcome, we have to make it possible for some coalitions that represent a minority of the population to be successful; and some coalitions that represent a majority of the population to be unsuccessful.  

This is clearly unconstitutional.

[Torie]

"It is pretense to treat Hudson as having 11 independent aldermen, when five pairs are elected from the same areas on a partisan ballot."

Yes, I know, I know. But I think I found a way to overturn it all, without going to the Constitution. But it requires patience. Not now. The game is here is not only about knowing where to move the pawns, but when. Anyway, for the moment, the next move is up to team Hallenbeck.

[jimrtex]

"It is pretense to treat Hudson as having 11 independent aldermen, when five pairs are elected from the same areas on a partisan ballot."

Yes, I know, I know. But I think I found a way to overturn it all, without going to the Constitution. But it requires patience. Not now. The game is here is not only about knowing where to move the pawns, but when. Anyway, for the moment, the next move is up to team Hallenbeck.

Does Hudson comply with the following articles in its own charter?

C2-4, C3-2, C8-7, C12-8, C17-1, C17-3, C18-2, C34-14

Why doesn't the Common Council pass a resolution with the correct ward populations, and then correct the weighted votes?

[Torie]

Don't have time to look up all of those now, but I do know of one violation. The reason the boundaries are not corrected, is because there is enough support in the Council to uphold a mayoral veto of any changes in the status quo. The mayor proposes moving the ward boundaries to reflect where voters are now voting. That conceivably might pass, in which event, that is another pawn move. Maybe that is what you are suggesting.

[jimrtex]

Don't have time to look up all of those now, but I do know of one violation. The reason the boundaries are not corrected, is because there is enough support in the Council to uphold a mayoral veto of any changes in the status quo. The mayor proposes moving the ward boundaries to reflect where voters are now voting. That conceivably might pass, in which event, that is another pawn move. Maybe that is what you are suggesting.

There is such a huge mismatch between population and voting weights that any vote in the council that is based on weighted voting is legally suspect.

Let's assume that weighted voting as theoretically practiced in Hudson is 100% constitutional.

That is, if you took the population of each ward, and gave five numbers to Dr. Papayanopoulos and he returned 3 sets of voting weights (1/2; 2/3; and 3/4), use of those weights would be be constitutional.

But what if the five numbers supplied to Dr. Papayanopoulos were wrong. 

What if they did not reflect the ward boundaries in the city charter; what if they did not reflect the electorates voting for the various aldermen; and what if they did not reflect the erroneous map supplied by the board of elections to the city clerk?

Then the numbers calculated by Dr. Papayanopoulos would be wrong.  In his report he showed the deviation between voting power and population.  But if the actual population is used, regardless whether the actual population is based on the charter or on board of elections practice, the error will be outside the safe harbor.

Weighted voting is not constitutional if the weights are not based on population.

The burden is then on the city to justify such a large deviation.  They won't be able to do it.

The city can not continue to use the current weights.

[jimrtex]

Another flaw with adjusted weights.

Imagine that the following votes were cast on a measure:

Ward 5: 364
Ward 5: 364
Ward 3: 180
Ward 3: 180
Ward 2: 185
Ward 4:  95
Total = 1368 / 2028 = 67.5% which is more than a majority, indeed it more than 2/3.

The Mayor vetoes the measure.  Nobody is budging and they know they have a 2/3 majority, so they simply vote to override the veto.

Ward 5: 352
Ward 5: 352
Ward 3: 161
Ward 3: 161
Ward 2: 187
Ward 4: 105
Total = 1318 / 2025 = 65.1% veto override fails.

[Torie]

Of course if the weights are not corrected, it's all unconstitutional. But the weights could be corrected based on an accurate ward count, either with the current lines, or the lines the Mayor wants that comport with current voting practices. The issue then is whether it is still unconstitutional, either because there is no justification for weighted voting, with no internal subdivisions period, or because of the variation of critical vote percentages in an amount which exceeds 5%, assuming alderpersons from the same ward vote in lockstep.

[jimrtex]

If you go to New York Enrollment Statistics you will find a link to enrollment by election district.  These are quite interesting.  The 2nd column is the corrected population (did you and the city clerk ever come to agreed numbers)?  The 3rd column is the number of active registered voters.  The 4th column is the ratio of the two.

Ward 1   593   405   68.3%
Ward 2   1467   716   48.8%
Ward 3   1076   686   63.8%
Ward 4   758   504   66.5%
Ward 5   2509   1307   52.1%

The 48.8% for Ward 2 could be evidence in a VRA action, unless there are other explanations such as differences between the CVAP/population among the wards.  The low percentage for Ward 5 may be due to BOE registering Ward 5 voters in Wards 3 and 4.

Alternatively, Hudson has the same disparities as indicated in Evenwel v Abbott, which the SCOTUS will hear next session.

Everyone Wins

An alternative system would base voting weights on actual voters supporting candidates.

In a direct democracy, voters vote on measures.  One could imagine all the voters of Hudson gathering at a central location.  They might be grouped by address, and the votes could be tallied like at a political convention.  Or perhaps there could be voting machines that use iris or fingerprint scanners.  There could be a tote board configured like a map of the city, with a green, red, or yellow light showing at each address based on the vote.  There would be an app that shows the same information.

But this might be inconvenient, particularly for procedural matters.

But there could be a system where when a voter votes, it is equivalent to giving a proxy to a representative.

For simplicity, voting could continue to be by ward, but a voter would only vote for one candidate.  All candidates would be elected, and have a voting weight equal to the number of votes received.

There could be a executive council formed from the candidate from each ward that received the most votes, plus the top 5 among the remaining candidates.  The council president would continue to be elected citywide, and have 1/10 of the total aldermanic vote.

The other aldermen would attend council meetings, and vote.  They might not be paid, or paid only a minimal stipend.  They could also have committee assignments.

Procedural matters could be handled by the executive council, and any confidential sessions could be limited to members of the executive council.  But all council members could vote on substantive motions.

Such a system would give voice to political and other minorities.  Currently, most alderman races go uncontested, even though Hudson is competitive politically at the citywide level.  In 2001, there were 21 alderman candidates (at least 4 in every ward). Turnout was about twice as high as recent elections.

There would be a reason for a Republican to run in Ward 2, or independents could find it easier to rum. Voters would not have to calculate that they like a certain candidate, but that they have no chance to win, and so vote for a less well liked, but more likely to win candidate.

There might be a threshold, perhaps 1% of the total vote, to eliminate candidates who only have their own vote. These candidates could transfer any support they did have to other elected candidates.  There might also be a maximum support level such that a candidate who received more than a certain level, say 15% or 20%, could transfer the excess to other candidates.

There might be an opportunity to switch areas between wards which would subject to a plebiscite of the voters in an area.  So for example, if the residents of Westwind or the Columbia triangle, or the southern part of the Front Street block wanted to switch wards, they could.

[jimrtex]

I finally received a voter registration list for Hudson (I e-mailed the request, and received it back three minutes later).

The houses and apartments on Harry Howard from Michael Court northward are in Ward 5 on the registration list.  There is a person registered at the address you mentioned. If he signed a 4th Ward petition, it is invalid. It is possible (perhaps likely) that registration is not required to sign a petition.

I checked for mismatches between the city charter and voter registration.

Columbia triangle (in 5th Ward in charter, registered in 3rd Ward):

25 Columbia Street (900 block, odd addresses, south side of street).
14 Columbia Turnpike
5 Paul Avenue
===========
44 total persons.

Harry Howard east side (in 5th Ward in charter, registered in 4th Ward)

61 Westwind Apartments (addresses on Edmonds Lane, Evans Court, Hoysradt Lane, and Rogers Lane)
2   106 Harry Howard
0   120 Harry Howard (nobody registered at this address currently)
===========
63 total persons.

The two houses registered in Ward 4 on Harry Howard do not appear to be older than those further out, perhaps newer.  The tax records typically don't show the age of the main structure, but rather improvements such as a covered porch or garage, which might or might not have been built as part of the original structure.

106 Harry Howard was not present in the 1956 aerial photo.  Riverledge was not present in 1952, but was present in 1956, and Joslen Place had been extend northward by 1956.  Michael Court had not been added by 1956.  The houses further out existed earlier, and are clearly on Harry Howard.

The house at 24 Riverledge (corner of Riverledge and Harry Howard) existed before Riverledge, and faces Harry Howard, with the short side facing Riverledge.  It had a driveway from Harry Howard.  It appears that it may have been reoriented so that the main entry is on what might have originally been the back door.  In the 1950s, it might still have been without a street address.  In any case, registration is in the 5th Ward.

There is a slight bend in Harry Howard at Michael Court.  If you extend that backwards, it sort of matches 5th Street.

106 is pretty close numerically to 98, which is the last house north of Harry Howard, so it is possible that there was just a mistake made when the house was built (after most of the houses further out).  Westwind didn't exist 10 years ago, so the dispute is over two houses, one of which doesn't have any registered voters.

The Home Rule statuted MHR § 10.1(a)(13)(e) appears to permit options on the referendum ballot, and allows a different outcome if parts are rejected. As a sweetener, a switch of the Columbia triangle to Ward 3 could made an option under the equal population redistricting commission proposal.

This of requires acknowledgement that the charter boundary is on Columbia Turnpike.  Any change would have effect from the 2017 election.  If both measures are approved the equal population/redistricting commission could take precedence, and it is almost certain that the Columbia triangle would be moved into the 3rd Ward, since the 1st Ward will have to be extended eastward.

I checked the split blocks:

Front Street:

67   15 South Front Street
=============
67 1st Ward total

100  15 North Front Street
=============
100 2nd Ward total

There are several registrants whose apartment number indicates they have the wrong street address.  Since both parts have a street number of "15" it would be an easy mistake to make.   The mail probably gets delivered quite reliably, and they may have the correct address for mail.  When they go to vote, if they are asked if that is still their address, they may say "Yes", since they will perceive that will let them vote.  And "That should really be 15 N Front Street, etc." may cause them to cast a provisional ballot or not be allowed to vote.

In Texas, voters can in some instances vote at a new address in the same county that is different than that which they are registered at.  I've heard that a universities, student who likely move every year, will return to the old polling place and say they still live at the previous address, because they don't realize the question is not asking if they are eligible to vote; but just where they live.

The voting clerk is unlikely to realize that building 4 is in the north section (15 North Street) and will simply give someone who is registered at 15 South Street, apartment 4Z, a ballot for Ward 1.

The North/South breakdown of 100:67 suggests a possibility that an allocation based on number of units might not be accurate. But it appears that a larger share of registrations in the south are inactive. Note "inactive registration" is a federal term. It does not mean that the voter has not voted in recent elections. It means that they have moved and there is no forwarding address, etc. They can't be removed from the voting rolls, until they confirm that they no longer live in the county, and the election officials typically won't spend any effort trying to track them down. If they show up to vote they can still vote, but I suspect that turnout among inactive voters is below 5%.

Great Northern Block

18  Mill Street 200 block
 6  N Second St, east side (even addresses), north of Strawberry Alley
 0  Strawberry Alley
 0 N Third St, west side, north of Robinson
============
24 total Ward 2

14 N Third St, east side, north of State
25 State St, 300 block, north side (even addresses)
20 Carroll St, 400 block, north side (even addressed)
6  Short Street, #85 and #91
2  Washington St, 400 block (this is a stub west of Short St)
4  Harry Howard, west side (odd addresses), between Washington and Lucille.
15 Lucille Drive
============
86 total Ward 4

How does 24:86 match our previous allocation?

There are 55 persons registered at the Firemen's Home (125 Harry Howard), but that allocation is better handled using the group quarter population from the census.

Underhill Pond Block

37 Harry Howard, east side (even numbers), Washington to just before Westwind (through #98)
 0  Washington St, north side, Harry Howard to 5th Street.
11 North 5th St, west side (odd addresses) Washington to Clinton
 4  Clinton Street, 400 block, north side (even addresses) Just to west of end of 5th Street.
===========
52 Total Ward 4

22 Clinton 500 block, north side (even addresses).
  5 North 6th street, west side (odd addresses), Clinton to where 6th becomes Glenwood at goat trail.
===========
27 Total Ward 5

There is also a portion of Westwind in this census block, but it is better to allocate this based on the number of units inside the loop (in its own census block) and outside the loop.

How does 52:27 compare to our previous allocation.

[jimrtex]

I found the Common Council minutes from the 1970s when weighted voting was adopted.

January 2, 1974, the mayor encouraged the common council to reapportion the seven election precincts, or to adopt weighted voting. This was a bit after Columbia County had adopted weighted voting. This would have been right after the newly elected aldermen took office.

May 1, 1974, the mayor reminded them about reapportionment. At that time (pehaps now), Hudson had a April fiscal year, and the council minutes run from May to April. So this would have been the start of the fiscal year.

July 16, 1974 the council president said that they were working on it.

September 17, 1974, the council authorized a contract with Lee Papayanopoulos for $1500 to come up with a weighted voting plan.

August 19, 1975, Local Law #4 was introduced with the charter changes for weighted voting.

September 16, 1975, public hearing on weighted voting. The minutes emphasize that public comments were requested three times, with none given.

Later that night, the Common Council adopted weighted voting on a 10-0 vote (one excused).

November 10, 1975, weighted voting went into effect. They minutes made a big deal about the quorum being achieved in weighted votes, but otherwise the unanimous votes were not tabulated.

I did find a mention of conducting a city census in the early 1970s - but the voiced concern was that the population had dropped a lot. It was estimated that a census would cost $500.

They might not have had any data to reapportion by. Typically in the 1940s, there were 2 or 3 enumeration districts per ward, so they would be too coarse for adjustment, and I don't think that the procedures had been modified that much by 1970.

PL 94-171 was passed in the 1970s (94 refers to the 94th Congress (1975-1976)). In 1980, the census bureau introduced census blocks for larger cities (more than 10,000), plus cities that wanted to pay for it. They also introduced the concept of VTDs in 1980, but New York did not participate.

When Columbia County reweighted in 1990, they used the VTDs, which of course do not follow the ward boundaries.

Presumably, there is a report from Dr. Papayanopoulos from 1974 or 1975 sitting in a filing cabinet in city hall. The initial weights did have a variation between the two alderman from a ward. Papayanopoulos may have been the one who devised the system of treating the two aldermen from a ward as being independent, since he used the trick of giving them different weights.

BTW, the 1970s was when urban renewal got into swing, as the streets west of Front Street were discontinued. Chapel Street would also have disappeared during this period.

Are the primaries for Ward 4 and Ward 5 going to be based on the ward boundaries in the charter?

Have you seen the redistricting proposal by Friedman?

[Torie]

Friedman wants a referendum to appoint a commission to draw lines for 5 equal population wards. It's going nowhere. The city needs to be sued.

The Pub BOE member for Columbia County refused to correct who votes in which ward. The Council voted to sue. The mayor vetoed it. The veto was sustained. The minority community and the old guard like the illegal status quo. (It's often a battle between the liberal white gentry/gays/artists versus the minority community and the white working and lower middle class born and raised in the area old guard.) The Mayor wants the ward lines changed to comport where people are voting. So in the primary and general this year, folks will be voting in the wrong ward. The city needs to be sued about that too.

[jimrtex]

Friedman wants a referendum to appoint a commission to draw lines for 5 equal population wards. It's going nowhere. The city needs to be sued.

The Pub BOE member for Columbia County refused to correct who votes in which ward. The Council voted to sue. The mayor vetoed it. The veto was sustained. The minority community and the old guard like the illegal status quo. (It's often a battle between the liberal white gentry/gays/artists versus the minority community and the white working and lower middle class born and raised in the area old guard.) The Mayor wants the ward lines changed to comport where people are voting. So in the primary and general this year, folks will be voting in the wrong ward. The city needs to be sued about that too.

I figured you'd be challenging voters tomorrow. I wonder how many people from Westwind actually vote in an election like a primary.

Other than the mayor, all the "old guard" are Johnny-come-lately from the 19th Century.

Is Charles Hallenbeck directly related to the mayor, and where did he live in the early 1970s when he was a 3rd Ward alderman?

[Torie]

Friedman wants a referendum to appoint a commission to draw lines for 5 equal population wards. It's going nowhere. The city needs to be sued.

The Pub BOE member for Columbia County refused to correct who votes in which ward. The Council voted to sue. The mayor vetoed it. The veto was sustained. The minority community and the old guard like the illegal status quo. (It's often a battle between the liberal white gentry/gays/artists versus the minority community and the white working and lower middle class born and raised in the area old guard.) The Mayor wants the ward lines changed to comport where people are voting. So in the primary and general this year, folks will be voting in the wrong ward. The city needs to be sued about that too.

I figured you'd be challenging voters tomorrow. I wonder how many people from Westwind actually vote in an election like a primary.

Other than the mayor, all the "old guard" are Johnny-come-lately from the 19th Century.

Is Charles Hallenbeck directly related to the mayor, and where did he live in the early 1970s when he was a 3rd Ward alderman?

I don't know where he lived, but he's running in the 5th ward as a disheveled hippie liberal Democrat type. The other Dem running, Goldman, or some name like that, is in banking, and quite educated and polished, although not informed about local issues much. He's cute though (pity he's straight with kids).

Oh yes, Charles Hallenbeck is the cousin of the Mayor Hallenbeck. Maybe the divergence is the Charles did pot, and Bill did beer, I don't know. Both are well, not rocket scientists.

[jimrtex]

Friedman wants a referendum to appoint a commission to draw lines for 5 equal population wards. It's going nowhere. The city needs to be sued.

The Pub BOE member for Columbia County refused to correct who votes in which ward. The Council voted to sue. The mayor vetoed it. The veto was sustained. The minority community and the old guard like the illegal status quo. (It's often a battle between the liberal white gentry/gays/artists versus the minority community and the white working and lower middle class born and raised in the area old guard.) The Mayor wants the ward lines changed to comport where people are voting. So in the primary and general this year, folks will be voting in the wrong ward. The city needs to be sued about that too.

I figured you'd be challenging voters tomorrow. I wonder how many people from Westwind actually vote in an election like a primary.

Other than the mayor, all the "old guard" are Johnny-come-lately from the 19th Century.

Is Charles Hallenbeck directly related to the mayor, and where did he live in the early 1970s when he was a 3rd Ward alderman?

I don't know where he lived, but he's running in the 5th ward as a disheveled hippie liberal Democrat type. The other Dem running, Goldman, or some name like that, is in banking, and quite educated and polished, although not informed about local issues much. He's cute though (pity he's straight with kids).

Oh yes, Charles Hallenbeck is the cousin of the Mayor Hallenbeck. Maybe the divergence is the Charles did pot, and Bill did beer, I don't know. Both are well, not rocket scientists.

I wasn't referring to Ken Hollenbeck, but Charles Hallenbeck. They may be related. There were Hallenbeck's at Claverack Landing to greet the proprietors ("hallo pelgrim") back in '85.

Charles Hallenbeck was an alderman for Ward 3 in the early 1970s. I was trying to figure out if there was an actual history of the switch of the Columbia Triangle. But I see that mayor William is William, Jr., so the relationship might be an uncle. And it doesn't appear that the mayor lived where he does now before 2002, based on property records. His conflict is likely that he was elected supervisor from Ward 3.

BTW, Rick Scalera voted for weighted voting as a very young alderman in 1975. It would be interesting to see Dr. Papayanopoulos report from 1974-1975, since he must have been the one who devised the counting of the two aldermen as being independent.