US House Redistricting: New York

[minionofmidas]

There's a census data set of "Hispanic; and not Hispanic by race". Dave just seems to have used that. Obviously you could include layers of information about what different races Hispanics and mixed-race people checked... but I guess nobody's pointed the issue out to Dave in time, and it would be a fair bit of work to implement now.

[NY Jew]

if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th

Yeah, there's a funny six-precinct or so enclave of 90%+ Hasidic precincts ... that's split in two by the city line. I always thought that detail hilarious.

Orthodox most of it is not Hasidic.

[minionofmidas]

if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th

Yeah, there's a funny six-precinct or so enclave of 90%+ Hasidic precincts ... that's split in two by the city line. I always thought that detail hilarious.

Orthodox most of it is not Hasidic.

Meh, I always figure that when they vote en bloc. 

[krazen1211]

if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th

Yeah, there's a funny six-precinct or so enclave of 90%+ Hasidic precincts ... that's split in two by the city line. I always thought that detail hilarious.

So half of them have to pay the city tax, and half of them don't. Interesting.

The other option I tried mapping is placing Maloney in a wholly Manhattan district that stretches from Midtown up to Washington Heights. But half that territory would be Rangel's and I imagine she would pitch a fit, and anyone that high on Financial Services will likely get what they want.

I still would have liked to place Maloney entirely in Manhattan, Rangel almost entirely in the Bronx, and Crowley entirely in Queens. Alas it is unlikely to be.

[minionofmidas]

Whatever became of Charlie's ethic troubles btw?

[NY Jew]

That would not explain why the DRA calls Hispanics who checked "black" Hispanic rather than black. Or visa versa. The only problem with the the DRA is that it is not subtle enough to call black Hispanics in existing black opportunity CD's "black," while calling the very same black Hispanic folks in Hispanic opportunity CD's "Hispanic." In any event, the DRA could have had a subcategory of black Hispanics separate from just Hispanic or black alone, and that way the map makers could add the two-fer category to either the Hispanic or black group as appropriate.

Make sense?

how about the fact that it's used as an excuse to divide up the only area in the country where there could be a majority Jewish district in to 6 parts even though it would be just as compact a district as Jose Serrano's?

[NY Jew]

if you want to make this fair move (jewish) Far Rockway to the 4th

Yeah, there's a funny six-precinct or so enclave of 90%+ Hasidic precincts ... that's split in two by the city line. I always thought that detail hilarious.

Orthodox most of it is not Hasidic.

Meh, I always figure that when they vote en bloc. 

the Hasidic vote, votes in block in more unpredictable manners due to deal making (with the exception of Borough Park which is though majority hasidic has a vary large non hasidic population and no hasidic group has a real majority of even all the Hasidim in any area)

[krazen1211]

Whatever became of Charlie's ethic troubles btw?

He was censured and I think it ended there. Of course if they push that district into the Bronx he will get primaried.

[DrScholl]

I assume that most of the Hispanics that also identify as black are in the Bronx, as you have large blocs of mixed Black-Hispanic precincts there.

[Sam Spade]

I know this is rather aesthetic, but in your gerrymander, can you please put Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens back together.  It's an annoyance I have with the present gerrymander and it doesn't change much of anything (makes Velasquez a bit less Hispanic and Clarke/Meeks more minority, but I doubt anyone cares).  Basically, you make the boundary of Velasquez's district Court Street/Cadman Plaza West (two blocks to the east) instead of Henry St. east of 278.

[minionofmidas]

I assume that most of the Hispanics that also identify as black are in the Bronx, as you have large blocs of mixed Black-Hispanic precincts there.

Yes. As in, even more of them than in the areas discussed so far.

Bronx
53.5% Hispanic incl. 21.6% Puerto Rican, 17.4% Dominican, 5.1% Mexican (easily the largest three groups anywhere except in Queens)
36.5% Black alone, 39.1% Black alone or in combination
30.1% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 30.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination

Manhattan
25.4% Hispanic incl. 9.8% Dominican, 6.8% Puerto Rican, 2.6% Mexican
15.6% Black alone, 17.2% Black alone or in combination
13.0% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 13.7% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination

Brooklyn
19.8% Hispanic incl. 7.0% Puerto Rican, 3.8% Mexican, 3.5% Dominican
34.3% Black alone, 35.8% Black alone or in combination
31.9% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 32.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination

Queens
27.5% Hispanic incl. 4.6% Puerto Rican, 4.2% Mexican, 3.9% Dominican... 4.4% Ecuadorian, 3.2% Colombian. This (along with the age of the Hispanic communities' existence, but that is related) explains why there's Hispanic representatives from Brooklyn and the Bronx but not from Queens, of course.
19.1% Black alone, 20.7% Black alone or in combination
17.7% Non-Hispanic Black alone, 18.8% Non-Hispanic Black alone or in combination

Now let's have a look by (current) district...
Ackerman's
25.6% Hispanic incl. 5.2% Mexican, 5.2% Ecuadorian, 3.9% Dominican
4.8 / 5.5 / 4.1 / 4.3 (Black alone, Black alone or in combination, nhb alone, nhb alone or in combination)

Meeks'
19.0% Hispanic incl. 4.6% Puerto Rican, 3.2% Dominican, rest is sort of scattered with Ecuadorian and Did Not State tied for third at 1.6%
51.8 / 54.8 / 49.5 / 51.9
The sizable non-Hispanic part-Black population here is also Caribbean I think. Haitian maybe - I know many of them check "Black" and "Other" in Florida? (Yet another source of non-Hispanic Other Races in South Queens are the Arabs.)

Crowley's
44.4% Hispanic incl. 15.8% Puerto Rican, 7.0% Dominican, 5.7% Mexican, 4.5% Ecuadorian
19.8 / 21.5 / 16.3 / 17.0

Towns'
17.2% Hispanic incl. 7.8% Puerto Rican, 3.7% Dominican
62.1 / 64.0 / 58.4 / 59.6

Clarke's
13.2% Hispanic incl. 4.1% Puerto Rican, 2.6% Mexican, 1.8% Dominican
56.1 / 58.0 / 53.1 / 54.4. Clarke herself is the daughter of Jamaican parents rather than from the Southern US like Towns (born in NC) or her predecessor Owens (born in TN) or Charlie Rangel (born in Harlem, mother born in VA). No idea where Meeks' (also born in Harlem) people came to NY from.

Velazquez'
44.6% Hispanic incl. 15.5% Puerto Rican, 9.2% Dominican, 7.8% Mexican, 4.5% Ecuadorian
10.9 / 12.4 / 8.2 / 8.8

Rangel's
46.1% Hispanic incl. 21.9% Dominican, 9.9% Puerto Rican, 4.9% Mexican
31.8 / 34.6 / 26.4 / 27.4

Serrano's
66.5% Hispanic incl. 24.9% Dominican, 23.3% Puerto Rican, 6.9% Mexican
35.9 / 39.0 / 27.9 / 28.6
Almost 30% of South Bronx Blacks are Hispanic Blacks! And that, of course, is assuming full reporting.

Engel's
25.6% Hispanic incl. 8.6% Puerto Rican, 6.8% Dominican, 3.1% Mexican
32.7 / 34.6 / 30.0 / 31.0

[Joe Republic]

I haven't been following closely enough to know if this news is already out of date, but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

I told you Lewis that McCarthy's CD was the one to go. You see, I am right once in awhile.

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

[Sbane]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

[Torie]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive!

It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence.  I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise.

[minionofmidas]

Ho hum. Totally pointless to chop McCarthy's district. As pointless as McCarthy's very existence.

[Sbane]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive!

Yes, I would expect something like that to occur and that is of course just fine by me.

[Mr.Phips]

I am also pleased the Pubs are playing with the idea of having the courts draw the map, which is what I want.

How does that help Republicans exactly? I have tried to draw a fair map before and all I got was about the same partisan balance. Though there are more swing seats if that is done, but you seem to be assuming that Republicans will be better at winning the swing seats. That is hilarious considering the state of your party.

I am less interested in winning seats per se, than just whom the incumbent has to cater to. I tend to like moderate Dems, and think they are useful, so if they represent swing or tilt GOP CD's, that is fine with me. I drew what I think a court might draw, and found it pretty favorable to the GOP overall, but sure there are swing CD's. And maybe such marginal CD's will result in a few more moderate Torie wing Pubs serving in the House. Keep hope alive!

It occurs to me that what might be a good compromise, since Hinchey is retiring, and has a ludicrous CD that any court would flush to boot, is to chop McCarthy of course, and then turn NY-29 (which a Dem holds due to unusual circumstances, and is a GOP district), into a Dem CD. So while two Dems get the ax, in fact on the ground, one upstate GOP CD will be gone in essence.  I don't think the incumbent Dem in NY-29 can hold it for long as currently drawn, and as a court would likely draw it. So thus the compromise.

I think you m ean NY-26, not NY-29.  NY-26 was a gerrymander to help Tom Reynolds hold the seat and vote like a Southern conservative.  Any reasonable court drawn map would confine that district to Buffalo.  A court drawn map would also likely end the career of Michael Grimm and possibly Richard Hanna and Nan Hayworth if those districts pick up parts of NY-22. 

[Torie]

If NY-26 is the CD that a Dem nabbed in a special election, then yes, that CD could be converted to a Dem one. It might get a bit ugly however to get it over to Ithaca.  NY-29 is more convenient for that task. I suppose it could dip into Buffalo, and the Buffalo CD could take Ithaca to keep it safe for the Dems.

[Brittain33]

I don't think Buffalo to Ithaca is tenable without an unusually gerrymandered map. It's also an awkward combination of Dems.

[Torie]

I don't think Buffalo to Ithaca is tenable without an unusually gerrymandered map. It's also an awkward combination of Dems.

I certainly cannot gainsay what you said, but that has not slowed down the partisan hacks in NY before, when they cut their deal. This map needs some work still, and maybe Syracuse and Rochester could be combined, but there is but one option if one wants to make Dem safe two Buffalo based CD's. As I said, NY just begs for a non partisan court to draw the map. Granted, I am skeptical such a beast exists in NY. Everything is partisan in NY, including the courts, is my impression.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You don't need Ithaca to boost NY-26. You just have to end the earmuffs, which is probably happening no matter what, since the main purpose of it wasn't to prop up Slaughter who was never in danger but that Quinn guy in Buffalo. So you can give the black part of Buffalo to Hochul (or Higgins and let Hochul take some white parts of Buffalo) and end up with two ~54-55% Obama districts, which is fine for that part of the state.

[Napoleon]

Love the sig BRTD.

[Brittain33]

An Ithaca-Binghamton-Syracuse district would have at least 40,000 undergraduates from Syracuse, Cornell, SUNY-Binghamton, and Ithaca College.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Love the sig BRTD.

It was Phil's idea actually.