Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[Torie]

Here is what happens to NY-18 if the NYC metro area for the remaining 5.75 years of the decade grows at a rate of 0.74% per year, rather than 0.69% per year,  ending the incumbent's career in what is now NY-19, assuming NY faithfully follows its new redistricting law. Greenburgh town is chopped, and NY-18 has a Dem PVI of 1.3%, while NY-17 has a Dem PVI of 0.5%, circa 2008. Columbia County really is on the cusp as to where it ends up. If growth slows down  a tad, rather than speeds up a tad, a Muon2 metric map would chop Geeene County, but is what is more likely to happen, is that Ulster County would be chopped, with Columbia County still in NY-18.

In other words, Columbia County goes to NY-22 only in the narrow window of current population growth rates in the NYC metro area. Outside the metro area, the population is almost precisely stagnant, with a very slight population loss, and that is unlikely to change. Upstate NY overall is very stagnant and stable, and likely to remain that way, without much change. On the other hand, the NYC metro area is much more unpredictable, with the health of Wall Street having much to do with what happens to its growth rate. Given the shape of NY, and its respective regional growth rates, one can predict what happens to one CD, mine, with a pretty high degree on certainty. In that sense, the situation I think is rather unique out there on the Fruited Plain.

I wouldn't leave out the possibility that Columbia goes with Albany after 2020. The Albany metro has to be chopped, and assuming that NY doesn't necessarily hew to the UCC pack rule the chop could give the Capital district a major role in two CDs.

True, but that would be politically toxic. I strongly doubt that will happen. Swallowing Rensselear (sp) is enough. Reaching down to Columbia, which has nothing to do with Albany, and everything to do with the rural Hudson Valley, is something else entirely. And I don't know how such a scheme would affect the chop count, and under the new law, chops matter - all of them, and if the legislature goes rogue, the highest NY court should bounce it.

[jimrtex]

The Home Rule Law does not allow the weights to be corrected except by referendum. The county can for supervisors, but the city cannot for aldermen. It's a gap in the law, because the law was not written contemplating cities having weighted voting. So the weighed votes cannot be changed by a mere Council vote. When they did that in 2013, it was illegal. Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

MHR § 10.1.a.(13)(c) applies generally.

A change in weighting does not count under the once-in-a-decade rule.

The change to the board of supervisors will count since it remove several of the supervisors from Hudson.

Correct as to your first sentence, but it still needs a referendum. That's the rub. The supervisor thing has its own dynamic.

I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from.

When Mayor Hallenback vetoed the proposed referendum on changing the ward boundaries, he suggested that a more thorough investigation of possible reforms would be in order. The new mayor should appoint such a committee and name Moore and Hallenback as co-chairs. Ideally, the county would appoint a similar committee to act concurrently.

[jimrtex]

Much of what Hudson does is illegal. That era is now coming to an end. That's what happens when pushy lawyers with too much time on their hands come to town.

The ghost of Thomas Dewey?

[Torie]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

[muon2]

True, but that would be politically toxic. I strongly doubt that will happen. Swallowing Rensselear (sp) is enough. Reaching down to Columbia, which has nothing to do with Albany, and everything to do with the rural Hudson Valley, is something else entirely. And I don't know how such a scheme would affect the chop count, and under the new law, chops matter - all of them, and if the legislature goes rogue, the highest NY court should bounce it.

Some rural counties will invariably be appended to UCCs. Can Columbia make a case that is different from any other county adjacent to the Albany UCC?

As I read the redistricting language, I don't see that chops have that high of precedence. Compactness gets its own line as a principle (who defines it?), but chops are buried with political considerations and CoI.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

True, but that would be politically toxic. I strongly doubt that will happen. Swallowing Rensselear (sp) is enough. Reaching down to Columbia, which has nothing to do with Albany, and everything to do with the rural Hudson Valley, is something else entirely. And I don't know how such a scheme would affect the chop count, and under the new law, chops matter - all of them, and if the legislature goes rogue, the highest NY court should bounce it.

Some rural counties will invariably be appended to UCCs. Can Columbia make a case that is different from any other county adjacent to the Albany UCC?

As I read the redistricting language, I don't see that chops have that high of precedence. Compactness gets its own line as a principle (who defines it?), but chops are buried with political considerations and CoI.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I understand, but I think my maps stand despite that. Your metrics have actually something to do with COI, absent the BS. Who knew? But in my neck of the woods, it is well understood what the COI's are, more than in most places. The hood goes back generations, and their issue are still here, without much change, absent weirdos like myself moving in.

[muon2]

It is also interesting to note that one could construe principle 2 to be INEQUALITY, principle 4 to be EROSITY and principle 5 to include my other 3 scores: COMPETITIVENESS, SKEW, and CHOP (with UCC factors). Perhaps my idea to adjust CHOP by adding SKEW and maybe COMPETITIVENESS isn't so far fetched. It would be consistent with treating them as a single related principle.

[jimrtex]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

They are city officers who also have a county capacity. In their county capacity they represent their ward, and their voting weight is set accordingly. It makes no sense for Hudson to have five supervisors, and the larger Kinderhook to have but one.

[Torie]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

They are city officers who also have a county capacity. In their county capacity they represent their ward, and their voting weight is set accordingly. It makes no sense for Hudson to have five supervisors, and the larger Kinderhook to have but one.

Now it doesn't, but inasmuch for doing next to no work, the pay is more than 3 times that of an alderperson, that means 4 extra sinecures for Hudson politicians, and so we love it.

One thing I am wondering about, is if County approval is needed to change the number of supervisors in Hudson. I called the county counsel, and he did not know. I do know the county code says there are 23 supervisors, implying that County approval is needed. The county laws are not codified in any organized manner other than chronologically as to when adopted, in a stack sitting in the office of the county clerk, so it's basically chaos. There is a plot afoot to cut the number of wards down to three.

[jimrtex]

"I just realized that MHR § 10.1.a.(1) forbids a city from changing the duties of city officials acting in their capacity as county officers (eg supervisors elected from Hudson).

Hudson can not change the districts from which supervisors are elected from."

Not sure why one follows from the other. In any event, assuming that the supervisors number remains at five from Hudson, as opposed to some other number, are you saying that the now illegal supervisor lines cannot be changed with County approval?

They are city officers who also have a county capacity. In their county capacity they represent their ward, and their voting weight is set accordingly. It makes no sense for Hudson to have five supervisors, and the larger Kinderhook to have but one.

Now it doesn't, but inasmuch for doing next to no work, the pay is more than 3 times that of an alderperson, that means 4 extra sinecures for Hudson politicians, and so we love it.

One thing I am wondering about, is if County approval is needed to change the number of supervisors in Hudson. I called the county counsel, and he did not know. I do know the county code says there are 23 supervisors, implying that County approval is needed. The county laws are not codified in any organized manner other than chronologically as to when adopted, in a stack sitting in the office of the county clerk, so it's basically chaos. There is a plot afoot to cut the number of wards down to three.

It is possible that the board of supervisors is organized under state law for county government, and not a "county legislative body".

Historically, the board of supervisors consisted of the town supervisors and supervisors elected from each city ward. The city charter was granted by the state legislature, and any changes to the city charter were made by the legislature. The current ward boundaries were set by the legislature, and the legislature controlled the organization of the board of supervisors. When the 5th ward was added, that in effect was a decision by the legislature to also expand the board of supervisors.

Since then, the city charter has been repatriated to cities.

But home rule authority has been granted to counties, even though they might not have charters. Counties may adopt charters, but are not required to do so. Many counties have switched to legislatures in which legislators are elected from districts. Clearly they are responsible for defining the size of the legislature and the districts.

And Columbia County has used local laws when changing voting weights, that to me look a lot like when other counties change their legislative district boundaries as far as form.

There is also the two hat provision of the MHR law. In one of the state court decisions, before Abate v Mundt switched over to federal court, Rockland County was required to elect legislators independently of their town duties, but could elect persons who were town supervisors as legislatures (ie a person could run for and be elected to two offices). The SCOTUS seemed to think that this meant that town supervisors were automatically legislators from the towns.

OK, I just read through some of the initial sections of the County Law (CNT).

There is some language about counties being able to supersede provisions of County Law, but it doesn't appear that this is required. There is also a statement that when a county adopts an alternative form of government such as county legislature, that references in the County Law that refer to the Board of Supervisors, also apply to the alternative governmental body. And it also defines the form of a board of supervisors as being the supervisors from the cities and towns of the county.

So maybe Columbia County is operating under County Law, with only the adjustment in voting weights. Some town supervisors in Columbia are elected to four-year terms, which also means that they are members of the board of supervisors for four year terms.

It just seems inverted for the city to be dictating the form of county government.

[Torie]

It is a mess, but I strongly suspect changing the number of supervisors from Hudson would require County approval. The city can change ward lines and supervisor lines without a referendum, but due to a lacunae in the Home Rule Law, cannot change weights except through a referendum. That leaves open the question that if the city changes the supervisor lines, is county approval required to change the supervisor weights of each supervisor for the division of the total voting weight allocated to Hudson.

[jimrtex]

It is a mess, but I strongly suspect changing the number of supervisors from Hudson would require County approval. The city can change ward lines and supervisor lines without a referendum, but due to a lacunae in the Home Rule Law, cannot change weights except through a referendum. That leaves open the question that if the city changes the supervisor lines, is county approval required to change the supervisor weights of each supervisor for the division of the total voting weight allocated to Hudson.

Where is the gap in the MHR law?

BTW, it appears that Columbia County is on the cusp of being captured by the Albany metropolitan area, but not the UCC.

2.6K commute to Albany County and 1.3K to Rennselaer County, and small numbers to Saratoga and Schenectady county.

2.6K also commute to Dutchess County and about 900 to New York County (Manhattan borough). There are just handfuls to the other buroughs. But Dutchess County is not a central county of the NY MSA, so commuting to Dutchess doesn't county.

There is also notable commuting to Berkshire and Litchfield counties.

[Torie]

The MHR law allows for counties to shift weights per the census without a referendum, but not cities (there is only one city in the US that has weighed voting, so presumably it was just overlooked). Folks get it confused, because it is not subject to to the once in 10 year rule, but that does not mean that it can be done without a referendum. They are two different laws.

[jimrtex]

The MHR law allows for counties to shift weights per the census without a referendum, but not cities (there is only one city in the US that has weighed voting, so presumably it was just overlooked). Folks get it confused, because it is not subject to to the once in 10 year rule, but that does not mean that it can be done without a referendum. They are two different laws.

MHR § 23.2.b

It may be referring to some other weighting - for example if there were 5 wards, with one alderman each, and the mayor had 2 votes, so there were an odd number of votes. But I think it would also apply to Hudson. But is this true if Hudson is violating the US Constitution? Can Hudson by popular vote deny equal protection?

Take notice of MHR § 23.2.h

So the law does anticipate a city changing ward boundaries from which supervisors are elected. Hudson doesn't have to elect aldermen and supervisors from the same districts.

But since adjusted weighted voting violates equal protection, Columbia County should reduce the number of supervisors from Hudson as part of a more comprehensive reform.