City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

The address though was 192 Harry Howard Avenue.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Torie]

Yes, I may be retained to file a lawsuit. I was texted last night about it. You do keep up on things don't you Jim?  

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?

[Torie]

Yes, I may be retained to file a lawsuit. I was texted last night about it. You do keep up on things don't you Jim?  

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?

In Texas, a vote cast in the incorrect precinct is not considered a valid vote, and therefore is not subject to ballot secrecy. In an election contest, lawyers may depose "voters" about the marks they made on a sheet of paper that looks like a ballot.

Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?

No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.

[Torie]

I might add that but 60 votes or so were case in the 4th ward. There are 20 absentees remaining, almost all from the Fireman's Home, all old and often senile people, white and working class. Who controls the Fireman's Home vote controls the 4th ward basically. No wonder team Scalera was so adamant about not fixing the voting rolls. Election outcomes ride upon it. Politics is a contact sport. Who knew?

Has the Common Council ever made any sort of official representation that the current location of the Firemen's Home is not in Ward 4?

No, the Firemen's Home is subject to some dispute as to where it should vote, unlike Crosswinds. It is not clear whether the BOE has discretion to put it in one ward or the other.

Since the city has the sole authority to set ward boundaries, and initial authority to set precinct boundaries, I'd expect them to make the decision. Since it was the building that moved, rather than a new building erected on a line, my inclination would be to keep the Firemen's Home in Ward 4.

No, the BOE has power to determine where voters vote, based on the ward lines set by city ordinance.
A majority of the rooms are in the 5th ward, but whether when a property is bifurcated, the BOE has complete discretion to put it in one ward or the other, rather than where the majority of the residents live, is not clear to me. Initially, I was told it was where a majority of the residents lived, but then Virginia Martin backed off of that. Whether there is an opinion from the state BOE, and whether if there is, it has the force and effect of law, are open questions.

[Torie]

Carole Osterink, Victor Mendolia, and I sat next to each other watching the count. I was ready to sue to get a court order to keep the challenged ballots from being counted, by serving the BOE with a temporary restraining order on Monday if Volo had been ahead after the ballots not challenged were counted. But he slipped to five votes behind, so game over. Victor and I went over the ballots to be challenged carefully. Rick Scalera and Bill Hughes complained about the Crosswinds votes already counted, and I pointed out that they were a separate category of ballots, not absentee ballots, but yes, it raised an interesting legal issue to be adjudicated, but the court would not deem the appropriate remedy to be counting more illegal votes, but rather either hold the milk had been spilt, and too bad, or order a new election, or ala Texas (per Jimtex's remark), maybe depose the crosswinds voters (there were not many of them). Rick said he didn't think that had happened in NY before. I told him there was always a first time.

And there you have it. Oh, Nastke also ruled that despite a police report that someone who had secured an absentee ballot because he was going to be out of the county on election day, was actually in the county, and thus his absentee vote was invalid, would be counted anyway because everybody gets to vote. He didn't care about the law, unless it helps his team, rather than hurts it. The guy challenging the ballot, said, well, my guy is going to win anyway, so we are not going to spend thousands of dollars going to court. So then Virginia Martin allowed the challenged ballot to be counted, after the objection was withdrawn. Volo however was prepared to go to court, with me representing him. I had all my research done, including finding some interesting law on how to handle buildings bisected by district lines (the action was mostly about the Firemen's Home absentee ballots), and that the failure to sue prior to the election to expunge the illegal vote rolls, was not a legally fatal waiver.  I may go to the Board of Supervisors to suggest that Nastke be removed. We shall see.

Law and order will come to Hudson and Columbia County at last, after its long history of being lawless. That is my mission, and I am going to make it happen.

[Torie]

Is it was called the renters' rebellion. I read and asked about it at the Livingston mansion, which is in Clermont actually. The Poet's Walk is on land they cleared.

[Torie]

In the Hudson weighted voting, ward realignment saga, Rick Scalera moves a pawn, resulting in countermoves by others, including myself. Carole asked me for the population data, which I provided to her, and she put up a post on her blog, to which I replied.  Rick is getting rather tired of me I suspect. I keep showing up where I am not wanted.

[Torie]

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.

[Torie]

I agree with some of the above. However:

1. The attorney general has opined that the council without a referendum can redraw the alderman ward lines, so that can be done to equalize population, and then weighted voting goes away. The council must equalize population of the supervisor wards within a 5% variance under the Home Rule Law. Local law says the supervisor districts must match the alderman wards, so between local and state law, there must be population equalization within the 5% variance of the alderman wards without ever reaching federal Constitutional issues.

2. A structured referendum has some appeal but it's complicated. And there is a risk that nothing will get passed as those who favor 3 wards (that seems to be where the Scalera faction is going) will vote against a 5 ward proposal, and those who favor 5 wards will vote against a 3 ward proposal, and nothing will get passed. Maybe it is possible to vote first on whether equal population wards should be adopted, and if that passes, then the proposal with the most votes wins as to the structure, with both questions on the same ballot. That would mitigate that concern admittedly.

3. The proposed referendum drawn by Friendman has language that is in the form of a question, so if it passed (it won't even make the ballot), a question would be inserted into the charter (very odd), and assuming a court interprets that mess as requiring the council to have equal population districts, given that no number is specified, I am not sure that the court would find that the matter is subject to remedy, unless it concludes that in the absence of action the default choice for the court is to keep five wards. So we have an unneeded referendum proposal that is a mess.

4. Hudson does not have more voting strength than Kinderhook. The 11% of whatever the percentage is of Hudson's share of the board of supervisors vote is split between the 5 Hudson supervisors, so each Hudson supervisor has his or her allocable share of the 11% based on the population of the ward (using erroneous numbers admittedly). Kinderhook's lone supervisor has  about 15% of the vote, or however the math plays out based on its population share of the county. It's no accident that he is the chairman of the board of supervisors.

5. Beyond the population counts being wrong, we also have folks voting in the wrong wards. And the Mayor vetoed filing a lawsuit by the city against the Board of Supervisors, so the illegal voting will continue.  

Fun stuff!

PS: The mayor debate was last night, and Hallenbeck said he is against gentrification and wants it to stop (a clear effort to secure the black and poor white vote where there is concern about that). That is the big headline in the news. I feel like such a class enemy.    It's kind of ironic, because the mayor was helpful in securing a variance for me for my project - which was gentrification personified. The political game in Hudson is always about one faction getting the support of a second faction against the third (the three factions being the gentry, old Hudson lower middle class and poor whites (Scalera faction), and blacks and Bangladeshis). The Scalera faction here was making its play for the blacks and Bangladeshis, and it just might work. This still registered Pub (until after the coming election), had dinner after with Hallenbeck's Democratic opponent, her father, husband, sister and one of her
two close advisors. Her Daddy was buying the drinks, so we all had a bit too much to drink. Who would have thought that this was my destiny a couple of years ago?  

[Torie]

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.

I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.

What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it.   I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?

[Torie]

You forgot about voting power and the deviations involved in that, and the assumption that alderpersons elected at the same time from the same ward will vote randomly from each other, and that all of the precedents you cited are with respect to counties, where the rationale for having districts hew to town and city lines is far more compelling, in internal to a city where there are no political subdivisions. There is no public policy reason for weighed voting in a city, other then never needing to change the ward lines. As it is, it so happens, that because the 5th ward is diverse, having it be too big, is now a subtle form of gerrymandering, which is why it is so contentious an issue.

I have provided a simple weighting (0.0% deviation between population and weights), that has a 8.4% deviation between voting power and population; and a plan that has a 10.4% deviation between voting weight and population, and 5.1% deviation between voting power and population.

The 10% safe harbor applies to state and local governments generally.

"As you can see, judge, the deviation between population and voting weights between voting weight and population is well within the norms promulgated by the SCOTUS. The plaintiff Torie has suffered no cognizable injury, and doesn't even have standing."

Summary dismissal would be granted.

What plan is that? I need my "expert" to examine it.   I assume this is assuming one alderperson per ward, right (to nix the business of the random voting of alderpersons from the same ward)?

See 2nd and 3rd plans

I don't see how you are going to convince a court that the calculation of voting power should be calculated in a different manner than it has been.

Did you ever come up with agreed populations for the existing 5 wards (provide numbers based on the Firemen's Home being in Ward 4 and Ward 5).

OK, then you think the court will probably accept the assumption that two alderpersons from the same ward elected at the same time will vote randomly from each other. I think the opposite. That's OK. There really isn't much justification for weighted voting other than not having to move the lines every ten years, and I just don't think that's going to fly. That is particularly given the history of how screwed up the lines are, and the population counts.

Yes, the city clerk and I have some to agreement on the population numbers. The Firemen's Home ward placement is open to dispute, but having found and read some court decisions on it, odds are it's going in the 5th ward, (60% of the rooms are there), particularly if the eating facilities are also there, for those who don't eat in their rooms.

[Torie]

I didn't see any discussion about about the critical point - the assumption for calculating voting power of random voting vis a vis each other by aldermen from the same ward.

Even if the court accepts the random voting assumption, there still is the issue of whether there is any public policy reason at all for weighted voting. The only one out there is that you don't have to move the lines. That's weak. For counties, there is a real rational - that the boundaries of the districts conform to the town and city subdivisions. That is a particularly compelling argument when as is the case the supervisor for towns also sits on the town council, wearing two hats.

[Torie]

I understand what you wrote jimrtex, but I am not persuaded by your assertion that the non random voting assumption is irrelevant. If there were but one alderperson per ward in Hudson, Dr. Papa's mathematics would fall apart, and there would be no way for him to fix it. He could not effect the objection function of getting both population and critical voting within the 10% parameter.  

[Torie]

That is what I am going to do, if it reaches the Constitutional stage. And Benzhaf is not dead. It still tries to address a real issue of fairness. The assumption about two persons elected from the same place at the same time voting randomly has never been litigated before, but the assumption is fundamentally flawed, and there is no real offsetting public policy advantage to weighed voting within a city without subdivisions as there is with counties. Moreover, the current lines are a form of gerrymandering because one faction in the 5th ward consistently outvotes the other, and the two election districts in the ward vote quite differently from one another. It is not homogeneous. If spit in two, the two pieces would elect different kinds of candidates.

[Torie]

That is what I am going to do, if it reaches the Constitutional stage. And Benzhaf is not dead. It still tries to address a real issue of fairness. The assumption about two persons elected from the same place at the same time voting randomly has never been litigated before, but the assumption is fundamentally flawed, and there is no real offsetting public policy advantage to weighed voting within a city without subdivisions as there is with counties. Moreover, the current lines are a form of gerrymandering because one faction in the 5th ward consistently outvotes the other, and the two election districts in the ward vote quite differently from one another. It is not homogeneous. If spit in two, the two pieces would elect different kinds of candidates.

The SCOTUS has agreed that the Banzhaf Power Index is based on hypothetical voting patterns that probably are not realistic at all. Re-read Chavis v Whitcomb, particularly including Justice Harlan's opinion.

Yes, it said that in the context of being a substitute for matching the weighted voting to populations (it certainly should not), and the issue as to whether it should serve as hurdle two was never addressed.

Explain to me why a resident of Ward 2 has standing.

I would be representing a group, but first Ward 2 is undercounted, and second, all the wards but Ward 5 are screwed in voting power absent the assumption of random voting.

Are you claiming an equal protection violation?

Yes, one man, one vote, but I can win as I said based on existing state and local statutes. But I would argue the Constitutional argument, so that it would preclude the remedy being fixing the local statute, and fixing the population counts, and illegal voting.

BTW, on the motion to sue the BOE, weren't several wards split?

[Torie]

The SCOTUS has agreed that the Banzhaf Power Index is based on hypothetical voting patterns that probably are not realistic at all. Re-read Chavis v Whitcomb, particularly including Justice Harlan's opinion.

Yes, it said that in the context of being a substitute for matching the weighted voting to populations (it certainly should not), and the issue as to whether it should serve as hurdle two was never addressed.

Explain to me why a resident of Ward 2 has standing.

I would be representing a group, but first Ward 2 is undercounted, and second, all the wards but Ward 5 are screwed in voting power absent the assumption of random voting.

Are you claiming an equal protection violation?

Yes, one man, one vote, but I can win as I said based on existing state and local statutes. But I would argue the Constitutional argument, so that it would preclude the remedy being fixing the local statute, and fixing the population counts, and illegal voting.

So apparently you are going to sue:
(1) City of Hudson;
(2) Columbia County;
(3) Columbia County Board of Elections; and
(4) Dr. Papayanopoulos. Why on earth would he be sued?

These are going to be your claims:

(a) Board of Elections does not maintain accurate maps.

(b) Board of Elections lets residents of Crosswinds and two houses on Harry Howard vote in Ward 4; and residents of the Columbia triangle vote in Ward 3.

(c) Board of Elections let residents of Firemen's Home vote in Ward 4. Alternatively, the city failed to convey to the Board of Elections where the ward boundary was.

(d) Hudson and Columbia County miscalculated ward populations which they used for computing voting weights, and they failed to document their populations estimates as required by state law.
(i) They misapportioned (grossly malapportioned) the Front Street block.
(ii) They included the Harry Howard notch in Ward 5's population.
(iii) They included Crosswind and the two Harry Howard addresses in Ward 5, while condoning voters voting in Ward 4.
(iv) They included the Columbia triangle in Ward 3's population.

(e) Columbia County failed to provide for equal population election areas for supervisors from Hudson, violating state law.

(f) Columbia County violates the two-cap state law. I don't understand what this means.

(g) Columbia County violates equal protection by adjust voting weights away from simple population-based weights. This ensures that some combinations of supervisors who represent a majority of the population will not carry motions, and some minority combinations will succeed. The injury is directed at an identifiable class of voters, those residing in larger towns such as Kinderhook, Claverack, and Ghent. Don't understand this either. Are you saying that in order to avoid gross disproportions in voting power, sometimes representatives representing a majority of the population need to lose a particular vote? If, so that is kind of an interesting twist of the conundrum.

Arguably this injury is intentional, given that the purpose of adjusting the voting weights is to change the distribution of critical votes which can only be done by permitting the majority of the population to lose, and the minority of the population to succeed.

(h) Columbia County permits Hudson to escape this injury by dividing its representation. Since they pay the salaries of the Hudson supervisors, they incur an unnecessary and irrational expense. How does this effect an escape?

(i) Hudson miscalculated the voting weights, by considering the two aldermen from each ward as being independent actors.

(j) If the voting weights were calculated correctly, it would be too easy for the aldermen to dominate voting (semi-dictator). Is this another way of stating the rationale for the voting power concept?

(k) Voters in parts of Ward 5 are denied equal protection through the device of a multi-member election. This is essentially, the same claim that minorities make. Note to have standing you have to a victim who resides in Ward 5. A claim that the residents of parts of Ward 5 would elect someone more to your liking is too tenuous. This may also be a violation of state law by limiting partisan expression. Is this another iteration of the voting power concept, and the assumption of random voting, in lieu of just one representative, which would then give the 40% vote of Ward 5 the power to sustain mayoral vetoes on its own? Anyway, the courts in NY have embraced the idea of voting power diverging from population weights as a finesse of the unfair domination issue. The clearest example is where one jurisdiction has a majority of the population. The state fix was by law to require two supervisors in such a town, playing the random voting game. I am not sure the federal courts have agreed that such a fix flies. I will have to reread the federal cases on Hempstead.

I think you have a clear win on a, b, d, g, and h.

My comments are in red above.

[Torie]

"Residents of Kinderhook, Claverack, and Ghent are injured because the voting weight share of their supervisors is less than their population share. The same would be true if Hudson had only one supervisor. By splitting among 5 supervisors, they don't suffer this harm."


Assuming Hudson is underrepresented in vote weight vis a vis its population, how does having 5 supervisors change that result?

[Torie]

"Residents of Kinderhook, Claverack, and Ghent are injured because the voting weight share of their supervisors is less than their population share. The same would be true if Hudson had only one supervisor. By splitting among 5 supervisors, they don't suffer this harm."

Assuming Hudson is underrepresented in vote weight vis a vis its population, how does having 5 supervisors change that result?

Hudson is not underrepresented in vote weight vis a vis its population.

Hudson wards have 1.15%, 1.23%, 1.82%, 2.04%, and 3.96% of the county population, and 1.22%, 1.27%, 1.90%, 2.07%, and 4.02% of the total voting weight.

Kinderhook has 13.53% of the population, and 12.50% of the voting weight.

Kinderhook, Claverack, and Ghent are given reduced voting weight, so that when they could have been in the majority they aren't. Greenport and Chatham are about even, and everyone else is advantage.

Have you read Banzhaf's law review article on why supposedly, weighted voting does not work?

I read where he said it had been misused, but no, that he had decided it was a fail, or had a serious flaw to ponder.

[Torie]

I rather like your scheme, and it would eliminate the random voting assumption issue, but of course it is never going to happen. Among other things, the odds are pretty good that the gentry would win a majority of the council votes. They would likely win all three alderpersons from wards 1 and 3, and one each from the other two wards. Well maybe not, since the 5th ward still has more votes.

[Torie]

Having 5 equal population wards essentially divides the 5th ward into two wards. Team Scalera does not want that to happen, because at the moment one half of the ward dominates the other half, which is more evenly divided (we know that based on the election results from the two voting districts in the ward). So a division would end the gerrymander regime that needs to be protected. That is what this fuss is mostly about. If the 5th ward were more homogeneous, there would be far less of a fuss.

My guess is that the white gentry is going to lose the mayoral election next week. Team Scalera has done a good job creating a coalition with the minority community to take down the white gentry. Favors are flying all over the place. In Hudson, the more things change, the more they stay the same. And team Scalera has figured out, that if there are to be equal population wards, what is most favorable to them are 3 wards, which essentially enable the Scalera faction to control one ward, the minority community a second, leaving the gentry with the third, and absent control of the common council president, essentially toothless. Fun stuff! Oh, and I think the Scalera candidate might win the Common Council president too. The Dem candidate dropped out (my pal Victor Mandolin), and the independent candidate has basically hardly campaigned at all, and does not say much. So the Pub might actually win it - a lady I have never met or spoken too, and have never noticed at Council meetings.

More chat about weighed voting and all here, including by yours truly.