US House Redistricting: New York

[Verily]

Here's an attempt at a 6-5 map of upstate. It's hard.



Higgins, NY-27 (Buffalo): 63% Obama
Lee, NY-26 (Buffalo suburbs, Rochester suburbs, Southern Tier): 53% McCain
Slaughter, NY-25 (Rochester, Rochester suburbs, Geneseo): 59% Obama
Reed, NY-24 (Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain (Buerkle could try running in the primary here, too)
Owens, NY-23 (Syracuse, Ithaca, Northern Tier): 62% Obama (Buerkle lives here but couldn't win it, and Owens might lose a primary)
Hanna, NY-22 (Rome, Utica suburbs, Syracuse suburbs, rural areas): 52% McCain
Tonko, NY-21 (Albany, Schenectady, Utica, random college towns, Hudson): 59% Obama
Gibson, NY-20 (random rural places): 49% McCain, by about 1,500 votes
Hinchey, NY-19 (Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Middletown, Beacon, Binghampton): 58% Obama
Hayworth, NY-18 (New York exurbs): 52% McCain
Lowey, NY-17 (Westchester, Spring Valley, Nyack): 64% Obama

[Verily]

Good heavens. I take it those tentacles are motivated principally by the need to keep your 20th and 22nd from becoming too swingy, rather than a worry about the Dem percentage of the districts themselves?

Exactly. Syracuse and Ithaca have to go somewhere, but they're surrounded by GOP-held seats (and contained in a GOP seat in the case of Syracuse) at the moment. Because there are a bunch of rural counties that are only marginal to lean R, the really Democratic areas have to be isolated to create a 6-5 map. Which means the R to be eliminated has to be Buerkle (who lives in Syracuse) in any such situation).

Alternatively, there could be an agreement to eliminate a different R seat while failing to shore up Buerkle, making the assumption that she will lose in the near future anyway. That allows the map to look much neater.

[Verily]

Someone talked about a possible compromise that eliminates Buerkle while preserving a "Republican" district that Bill Owens represents. Here's a map like that. Owens' seat is 52% Obama, so R+1 (but that's inflated for the Democrats as Republicans are still very strong locally in the the federally D counties in the far north), while a new Syracuse-Ithaca seat is created (60% Obama). The other seats are all safe. Many are unchanged from my previous map; the rural seat around the Syracuse-Ithaca seat is now up to 54% McCain, while the Utica-Hudson Valley seat is now up to 51% McCain. The Albany-Schenectady-Saratoga Springs seat is 58% Obama. Hinchey's seat is mostly unchanged from my previous map, still 59% Obama (actually slightly better for him as it gained Oneonta and lost some more R areas).

[Verily]

There are a couple of other things I might do to make that map a little more favorable to the incumbents, such as stretching the Rochester seat down to Canandaigua and then dropping some of the really R suburban areas to the west in exchange. That could get the Rochester seat up to 59% Obama and the rural seat between Rochester and Syracuse up to 55% McCain. Also, Hamilton (in Madison County) is a very D college town isolated just beyond the Syracuse-Ithaca district that it seems a shame to strand in a heavily R seat, but drawing it into the Syracuse-Ithaca seat makes the border with the rural seat a little ugly.

[Verily]

Wow, looking at a list of New York's most populous cities, it's impressive that many of NYC's neighborhoods would place well into the top 6 (i.e. Flushing, my own Sunset Park) etcetc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York#Cities

And even more would place in the top 7.  I wonder how some high growth neighborhoods in NYC will fair compared to that list of cities once the census information is complete.

None of those neighborhoods could hold up against a similar list of the most populous Californian cities (the other state I have familiarity with).

Even larger when you consider that Sunset Park was until recently (I think around the early 1960's with completion of Gowanus/BQE) considered part of Bay Ridge.

The other cities in New York have been bleeding population for decades. They have more in common with Rust belt than SE part of the state. It is crazy when you think Buffalo was once in the top ten largest cities.

Yup. Buffalo now has the distinction of being one of the few cities that now has less than half the population it once did, a distinction it shares with only Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis.

I did a map of population growth and decline in New York at one point. Outside of Ithaca, it's a sea of red Upstate.

[Verily]

There are a couple of other things I might do to make that map a little more favorable to the incumbents, such as stretching the Rochester seat down to Canandaigua and then dropping some of the really R suburban areas to the west in exchange. That could get the Rochester seat up to 59% Obama and the rural seat between Rochester and Syracuse up to 55% McCain. Also, Hamilton (in Madison County) is a very D college town isolated just beyond the Syracuse-Ithaca district that it seems a shame to strand in a heavily R seat, but drawing it into the Syracuse-Ithaca seat makes the border with the rural seat a little ugly.

If you take Canandaigua, you may as well go over and grab Geneva, as it's still the same county.  Free up the Syracuse seat to take Utica, perhaps?  

The other small problem with the map is that it puts Tonko, Hanna, and Gibson all in the same district (the pink one).  I think Tonko lives in Montgomery County.  That's the easy part to fix, but I think the Pubbies would complain if you crush Buerkle *and* push two of their other incumbents together.  Is there a good way to do the 6D-4R-1 Owens swing with one of the GOP reps tossed in with Owens?  

You're right, but it's easy to fix. Either way, on this design two R incumbents will have to share a district in addition to Buerkle's seat becoming D, however. It's a 6-4-1 map, after all. The choice is whether Hanna goes with Gibson or with Reed.

The point of this map is:

One R seat is eliminated.
Buerkle's seat becomes D. It leans D now anyway, but it becomes more strongly D to shore up the other R seats. This goes with the assumption that the Republicans will assume they will lose Buerkle's seat on the current lines within a couple of cycles anyway, which is probably true.
Owens' seat remains competitive to lean R.
All others are left safe.

Then, downstate, one D seat (likely Ackerman) is eliminated.

The alternative is like the map I posted earlier with the extremely erose lines. Yes, it preserves five Rs, but it would never pass a basic-logic test. NY does not gerrymander that extremely. And any less-gerrymandered map leaves multiple R incumbents vulnerable. Better for them to surrender two seats upstate in exchange for the Ds surrendering one seat downstate and leaving one upstate D vulnerable.



Utica is too far from Syracuse. Same for Geneva from Rochester. Geneva goes with Syracuse because there are other D-leaning towns in between them.

[Verily]

Okay, made some minor modifications to put Amsterdam (Tonko's residence) into his seat in exchange for some R areas of Saratoga County.

Trenton (Hanna's residence) is northeast of Utica, so I'll leave him with Gibson instead of Reed.

[Verily]

[Verily]

I agree with everyone else, it's a great map. Why the east-west split between two GOP districts in Dutchess and Columbia counties?

The eastern bits are very Democratic (Berkshires/Pittsfield influence, I guess). I drew them into Hayworth's district to even out the partisanship of the two seats.

I would have drawn them into Owens' district instead, but I would assume the GOP would not condone making his district any more Democratic on this map.

[Verily]

Here's Long Island (ignore Queens). Pete King's district snakes around to be as R as possible while shoring up the other three incumbents. Ackerman is tossed out.

Bishop: 57% Obama
Israel: 55% Obama (Ackerman is here, too)
King: 56% McCain
McCarthy: 60% Obama

The map contains some water connections without roads, but New York has been perfectly amenable to those in the past, so I am assuming they are fine.

[Verily]

That is one ugly map of LI.   I like how it just magically  jumps across Reynolds channel and scoops up the black/Hispanic area of Long Beach. It  then snakes around to bring in what looks like Elmont, W Valley Stream and Inwood.  Wonderful gerrymander.

Actually, I realized it almost does have full road connections except for that. Central Islip could be connected to the rest of NY-01 by the Bay Shore-Fire Island Ferry with only a little bit of editing (although is the ferry year-round?).

Also, can you drive from Mastic Beach to Fire Island Pines on Fire Island? Google Maps makes it ambiguous.

[Verily]

it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy.

But the Democrats probably get what they want.

Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09

I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. 

Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman.

[Verily]

it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy.

But the Democrats probably get what they want.

Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09

I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties.  

Thing is, it's not really a screw-over since they're eliminating a D district on Long Island at the same time. The only map that would really be a screw over of the LI Republicans would be one that connected all of Nassau to Queens and eliminated King instead of Ackerman.

From what I've read, traditionally, only 1 district crosses from Long Island into New York City. Since Long Island has about 3.9 districts worth of population, you can't drown any of the 4 LI districts into NYC without crossing a second one over.

More importantly, Peter King is the Homeland Security chairman and the most powerful House member New York has now. If you try to stick him with enough of Queens to matter he'll probably run against Steve Israel, and nobody wants that.

As it stands, CD-1 is about perfectly populated. If the Democrats are going to ram through a 7-4 upstate map, they're going to have to throw Skelos a bone somewhere if they want to make this easy for themselves.

Of course, perhaps they don't.

Yes, throwing Skelos a bone is eliminating Ackerman. There is no reason ("tradition" is not one) why multiple districts could not cross into Queens. And no reason why Israel's seat could not also go into Queens (alternatively, no reason to think that King would defeat Israel--he wouldn't in a neutral seat).

[Verily]

Ultimately, I think Muon's map is fairly likely, but I think there will be an attempt to put Glen Cove and environs in Israel's district in exchange for putting a chunk of Smithtown in King's district. There's really no reason why King's district should stretch all the way from the South Shore to the North, so Glen Cove and Smithtown should be exchanged.

[Verily]

Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere

Oh so that's Williamsburg?

No, it's not. Williamsburg is more or less the area around 278 in the northern portion of the district, on the Brooklyn side.

The location you pointed to is Red Hook (the peninsula southwest of 478/278 in the southern area), which would be an odd place for Velasquez to live as it's mostly white except for a very large housing project that's mostly Hispanic (and I doubt she lives in the projects).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The three Hs of Williamsburg: Hipsters, Hispanics and Hasids. Hipsters in the north, Hispanics in the center, Hasids in the south.

[Verily]

Yeah I think she's in Williamsburg somewhere

Oh so that's Williamsburg?

No, it's not. Williamsburg is more or less the area around 278 in the northern portion of the district, on the Brooklyn side.

Look at the precinct map. The northernmost inhabited part in Brooklyn, well set off from anything else, is Greenpoint, which has historically speaking been very very Polish. (No clue how true that still is, I think parts of it have gone Hispanic.) The second, much larger inhabited area, ending where the district ends, is Williamsburg. Williamsburg was one of the 50 largest cities in America when it was annexed by Brooklyn, a generation before Brooklyn was annexed by New York.

10 years ago, Greenpoint was going Hispanic (maybe peaking at around 25-30% Hispanic around 1998), but gentrification hit and cut that off at the pass. It's now more and more like the hipster parts of Williamsburg.

Anyway, large chunks of Manhattan were working-class white as late as 1990, BRTD. Of course, even today Washington Heights and Inwood have working-class prices, albeit occupied by Hispanics, not whites, and Harlem and East Harlem also have a lot of poverty.

[Verily]

It's still ruhlly Polish though if you hop off at Nassau Station at least.

I'm starting to work out a theory that Spanish neighborhoods get gentrified the most: LES, Park Slope, Williamsburg most notably to my untrained eye, but also probably Spanish Harlem. African-American neighborhoods less so: Harlem & Clinton Hill?

Prospect Heights. Your argument is invalid.

Actually, probably sort of true, but only at the fringes. For whatever reason, Hispanic communities have tended to be closer to the forefront of gentrification geographically, but it's not clear that it's not just coincidence. After all, South Harlem (the rectangle from 125th to CPN and Morningside to Lenox) has been gentrifying significantly faster than East Harlem.

Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990.

[Verily]

After all, South Harlem (the rectangle from 125th to CPN and FDB to Lenox) has been gentrifying significantly faster than East Harlem.

True, but that could be Columbia, right?  I've never even been up there.

I think it's more that it's the only part of Harlem without any housing projects. East Harlem is overrun with them.

[Verily]

Also, Park Slope was never Hispanic. It was Italian, then blacks started moving in in the 1960s (but were never more than 20% or so), then gentrification started in the 1970s and it became one of Brooklyn's nicest neighborhoods by 1990.

Well, South Park Slope at least

Oh, you mean "Greenwood Heights"? *snicker*

[Verily]

Clinton Hill?

Is that that little Black enclave in "Clinton Hell's Kitchen goddam!? I've always wondered what that was, figured it might be projects.

Clinton Hill is a rapidly gentrifying formerly black neighborhood in Brooklyn, around Pratt. The blacks in Hells Kitchen are just a relic of low land values and rent control there who are slowly (or, actually, rather quickly) leaving. Unless you mean the projects near Lincoln Center, which are just over the border in the Upper West Side.

[Verily]

Did McCain actually win the white vote in Brooklyn?

*Almost* certain he didn't.

You wouldn't think so. But he got just short of 20%. Brooklyn is about 37% white, 33% black, 9.5% Asian and 20% Hispanic. 20% is more than half of 37%, but when you consider he got a non-negligable percentage of the Asian vote and that the Hispanic turnout isn't as high (though certainly higher than most places as the Hispanics are mostly Puerto Rican I believe and thus all are US citizens.) it does seem unlikely. But the fact that Obama's percentage is just in the 50s itself sounds quite odd.

Of course the white vote in Brooklyn itself is so diverse the fact is only trivial, comparing the white vote in Williamsburg and Park Slope to Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst is completely pointless.

Turnout is dreadful among black voters in Brooklyn, many of whom are in abject poverty or Caribbean immigrants (or both). And a good chunk of Brooklyn Hispanics are not Puerto Ricans. Turnout is also dreadful among Asians in Brooklyn, the majority of whom (at least in the areas of Asian concentration) are recent immigrants.

[Verily]

Tonko lives in Amsterdam, which your NY-21 does not reach.

[Verily]

Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career?

Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go.

Could they stretch NY-4 across the Rockaways, circling NY-6, and into the southern bits of NY-9? It makes sense to me. Give other parts of Brooklyn to NY-10, NY-11, and NY-8 on the one side and divide up Queens with Ackerman taking the lion's share and Crowley helping smooth out lines.

I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population.

[Verily]

I doubt McCarthy would be happy with taking in the Republican parts of southern Brooklyn. Also, the Rockaways are needed to up NY-06's black population.

Do you think it's plausible for NY-13, NY-8, NY-10, and NY-11 to take up that half of NY-9?

I think NY-10 and NY-11 could do it all by themselves, with NY-10 pulling out of Park Slope, etc. and giving it over to NY-8 (which would loop back around NY-12 through Windsor Terrace).

[Verily]

Not a primary challenge, a general election challenge. Hasidim have liked the federal Republicans recently, but they're perfectly willing to swing completely the other way to the Democrats in any given election, provided the Democrat panders to them. Some of those precincts that gave McCain over 90% of the vote also gave Gore over 90% of vote, IIRC. They're represented in the state General Assembly by a Democrat, Dov Hikind (in a district that was like 75% McCain, and Hikind is never seriously challenged).

NY-10, in particular, has a lot of white areas in inner Brooklyn that it can easily drop in favor of southern Brooklyn. NY-11 has become much more black as Canarsie and Flatlands experienced continued demographic transition during the past decade. And both have substantial flexibility anyway--if you packed blacks in, they would be about 53-55% each.

Also, there's no way Staten Island gets split up. If the Democrats controlled redistricting, it might get paired with lower Manhattan to create a ~62% Obama seat, but Staten Island will always be kept whole.