US House Redistricting: New York

[BigSkyBob]

Your map was quite similar to mine.  Mine gives Republicans 25% of NYC/LI/Westchester seats, which is still below our vote total for the area.

So much for claims that a second Republican seat can't be drawn without hideous gerrymandering. Your 13th is compact, and your 7th, 10th, and 11th are where they need to be to comply with the VRA. Your 12th is practically what's left.

Nice map!

[BigSkyBob]

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  

His map speaks for itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

I would shoot that Upper Manhattan district into Riverdale (NW Bronx) before combining Rangel and Velasquez. I also don't like the way you split up the Hispanic vote around Corona--surely it would be neater and more reasonable to put all of Forest Hills in the NE Queens seat and all of Corona in the central/NW Queens seat.

As for the idiots arguing about the Hasidic Jewish vote... Sue Kelly would like a word with you on them being reliable Republicans. As a group, they're way too fickle in their voting patterns for any Republican to want them in their district.

Given the choice between "fickle" swing voters, and reliably Democratic voters, the Republicans would prefer the swing voters every time.

[BigSkyBob]

It's pretty easy to draw 2 Republican NYC seats, that why Dems draw such hideously scrambled lines around Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens, to disperse the strongly Republican south Brooklyn area

Sorry, but do you know what you're talking about?  The last round of redistricting had a Republican Governor and a Republican State Senate.

If the Dems could draw the Congressional map like they drew the Assembly map that year, the Congressional map could easily have zero Republican NYC seats by connecting Staten Island to Manhattan instead of Brooklyn.

NYC is a convoluted mess at the Congressional level, like all of New York State, due to incumbent protection gerrymandering mixing with VRA majority-minority districts, and the negative space created by those districts.

VRA is racially divisive, and I don't agree with that.  That's why I paid no attention to racial communities when I drew my NYC map.  One man, one vote.  Period

LOL. A brief look at the Long Island districts clearly disproves that.

Would you care to explain why you believe race rather than partisan result drove the map? Or, more to your point, how the map "proves" race was the primary factor?

[BigSkyBob]

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

[BigSkyBob]

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.

1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.

[BigSkyBob]

The only reason 2 is a Republican district is because of the appendage from 1 to remove a Hispanic area, and 4 is because of the black area being removed by 11.

No doubt 2 and 4 would not be Republican if Democratic areas were added to them.

Again, why are the lines self-evident proof that race, not partisan results, were the primary factor in drawing them?

So if they were drawn on a partisan basis, they're a gerrymander, despite his claim that a non-gerrymandered map would give the Republicans 4 seats.

1) "Gerrymandered seats" are a reference to what Gerry did. It was the egregiousness of what Gerry did that resulted in the phrase "Gerrymandering." The map he drew did not make any egregious choices so comparing it to Gerry's drawing of the district that looked like a Salamander is completely unjust.


2) His basic claim is correct. Long Island has nine state Senate seats all held by Republicans. Gerrymandering can't explain it since no Democratic "dumping" districts were created. Every district has about the same partisan performance, and that is good enough for the Republicans to win them all. 2-2 on Long Island seems entirely natural unless unnatural steps are taken to create a Republican "dumping" district. Staten Island is connected to Bay Ridge by bridge, and is therefore, and natural Republican district.  With VRA districts bounding the West and North, the remaining areas in South Brooklyn create a natural slightly Republican district there, as his map indicates.

Having a little wing to take the heaviest Democratic and minority areas out of NY-2 (N Amityville to Wyandanch) and then shove NY-4 down into SE Nassau, but decide to leave out the more mixed and Democratic precincts of East Massapequa is surely a gerrymander.  Especially when the NY-3 you created would still be a Democratic seat without those areas. 

Extending the underpopulated VRA seat in Queens into the surrounding area with minorities is not "gerrymandering." It is taking the VRA seriously.

[BigSkyBob]

I didn't see the time deadline for public submissions to the court. Does anyone know if there is a time other than midnight eastern time?

The order just says "by Friday, March 2, 2012", so I guess it's Midnight.

The Assembly plan wasn't immediately posted in the docket, so I guess it's also possible that any public plans wouldn't immediately post, too.

Is the judge drawing the lines really a Dem hack?

The judge referred the case to a magistrate who hired a Columbia professor as a special master.  So even if the judge is a Democratic hack, she's really not the person immediately deciding the case.  The court asked LATFOR to give the special master relevant redistricting data in a format for a particular computer program, specifying it be absent any partisan data and information about the location of incumbents' homes.  So the special master may be drawing his own map.

I'm fairly sure that a lot of the people here could draw a pretty effective gerrymanders without any "partisan data" entered into the program. It is probably the case that including partisan data has become a crutch. Real gerrymandering artists wouldn't need it. Look at what happened in Illinois. The amateurs here started with packs, and evened out the Democratic areas. The pros shuffled every Republican's district in the process. They didn't chase the gradient, they placed an equal emphasis on shuffling. The partisan data just allowed them to fine tune their map. Noone drew a map like the final product.

[BigSkyBob]

Could be a done deal. If the Republicans in the State Senate are self-interested as stated, they have every reason to pass the court map altered to created the "super Jewish" seat in South Brooklyn. The changes wouldn't go through the State House, but, it would put both parties on record going into the special election.

[BigSkyBob]

Israel, King and McCarthy should all be safe, unless you get wave years, where they could all lose with this map.  Not to mention that it makes Bishop ever so slightly more Republican - I doubt he would have won there in 2010.  

If there's one Long Island Democrat who should be unhappy, it'd be Bishop. (And if you want to make a bipartisan deal for King, give him all of Smithtown and find Bishop some more marginal places in the south instead.)

The Democrats have about 15 or so long term influential incumbents to yell at Sheldon Silver to cut a deal.

The GOP has 1. An important one of course.

I don't see any possible way this map stands.

The meme has been that Republicans in the Senate are so desperate to pass their own map they will sell out Congressional Republicans. Perhaps, we will see  15 long term influential Democratic Congressional incumbents pressuring the Democrats in the state House to go along with the Republican Senate gerrymander for what is at best a balanced Congressional map.

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120306/NEWS01/303060016/Congress-district-Monroe-County

LOL! Slaughterhouse is unhappy about losing the earmuff district now.

I guess when you realize that you might have to campaign once in a while you don't want the 'Rochester based district' anymore.



Slaughter expressed dissatisfaction with the plan. “We are not happy with it,” she said. “They cut the district up pretty much from what we asked for. We were looking for Democratic performance. Frankly, I would have liked to go down to Ithaca.”

She knows that with a determined opponent, she will probably run substantially below the Dem baseline. As it were, I "knew" she would be unhappy, and noted at the time I drew her district in my map, which is what she got, that she would have some issues, and may have to tack a bit, and not be so provocative and embarrassing.

Why is she saying this publically?  Is she agitating for another bi-partisan gerrymander? Sure honey, we will shore you up, if Buerkle is shored up in exchange. Maybe we will give you the part of Syracuse that you would love best.  How about that? 

Because she wants Shelly Silver to redraw the map.


Dean Skelos is calling their bluff.

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Wednesday-GOP-Likes-Redistricting-Plan-141789963.html

New York Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says Republicans could pick up four Congressional seats under the new district lines proposed by a judge this week.
   
Skelos says he likes the proposed congressional lines and there may be little if any change to the federal magistrate's redistricting plan.

Which districts?  If Republicans couldnt pick up NY-01, NY-02, NY-04, and NY-23 in 2010 when indepdendents were more Republican than they will ever be again in our lifetimes and Democratic turnout fell through the floor, they wont be picking them up in 2012. 

The Republican candidate in NY-01 was undermined by the NY GOP establishment (almost as good as the NY TP in throwing sure wins). Otherwise the GOP would have most certainly won there. NY-02 was gerrymandered in 2002 to be beyond reach for the GOP. NY-04 had a weak candidate, and in NY-23 the Tea Party screwed things up by splitting the vote up.

The GOP did have some infighting in NY-01, but keep in mind they still had a $$$ advantage.  Altschuler dumped $3 million of his own funds into the race and still lost.   Opponents very rarely have a $1.5 million spending advantage.

NY-03 actually had more of a GOP gerrymander in 02 than NY-02 did  (the 4th and 5th also became more Democratic at the expense of the 3rd).  King is in more danger than Israel with the current map.

NY-04 is still too Democratic for the GOP to take no matter what the candidate

Um, the GOP holds all nine state Senate seats in suburban Long Island. The new 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are more Republican than suburban Long Island as a whole. Tell us again how a Republican can't win in those districts?

[BigSkyBob]

I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying.

So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk?

That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map.

The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like.

Decent enough call.

[BigSkyBob]

I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying.

So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk?

That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map.

The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like.

I doubt the GOP will try that.  Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander.  If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines.

Very bad call.

[BigSkyBob]

Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson?  Why didn't that happen in 2001?  

Torie, New York is about many different moving gears.  In 2001, you had Assembly Democrats, Senate Republicans, and a Republican Governor.  They were free to strike a deal that would disadvantage the other gears on the board.

In 2010, there's enough of a redistricting reform force at work that nothing outrageously crazy gerrymander-wise is going to be passed (outside of what already exists).  The New York Republicans don't have very solid control over the Senate either, so their own piece on the board is weak.

Bad call.

[BigSkyBob]

Torie, the scenario you describe happened in 2002 when there was a split legislature and a Republican governor. The congressional maps went to a judge or special master and the results were so disruptive to Republican incumbents that both sides freaked out and worked out an incumbent protection compromise that froze a Republican advantage in western NY and a Democratic advantage on LI. Republicans have more to lose than Democrats if it goes to the courts.

I also don't think there's much discipline of any type, party or moral, in the New York State Senate to count on. I wouldn't expect them to save the national GOP's bacon on this map any more than the Virginia Senate Democrats are going to use their leverage to upend the table in that state and force the Republicans to unpack the old gerrymander, or that Jan Schakowsky is going to torpedo a Dem gerrymander in Illinois because she would fight tooth and nail any watering down her district. It's a pipe dream.

Very bad call.

[BigSkyBob]

I suspect the Republicans have the advantage in New York. They can say, look if you don't suck up the loss of both seats, we will just let the courts draw the map, wrecking havoc with all of your sordid little NYC district deals, and your favorite boy Hinchey Mr. Silver, is going to be gone anyway, and we want him gone, because he is just so annoying.

So, just draw an octopus connecting inner city Rochester to Syracuse to Ithaca to some more Dem territory up there in the far Northeast, or maybe Rome, put all of Buffalo in one CD (maybe Buffalo could go grab Ithaca, but it is a long way, and get rid of Engel down in Westchester and environs. We really don't have that much to lose anyway. If we lose an extra seat per the court map, but render chaos and animus in your ranks, the schadenfreude will more than make up for it. So go ahead, and just say no, and make our day when you see what the court map does to you. Do you really want to take that risk?

That is the approach I would take. I would give the Dems as it pertains to protecting the incumbent Pubbies, a close to a take it or leave it map.

The flex by the way, is that the Buffalo district was drawn by the Pubbies to protect their incumbent Quinn back in 2001, but he retired, and a Dem holds the seat now, so cede it to him. That sucks up a lot of upstate Dems, and allows the Rochester CD to get out of Buffalo, and into Syracuse and Ithaca and the like.

I doubt the GOP will try that.  Keep in mind the GOP has the State Senate by the skin of their teeth and that is GOP Gerrymander.  If the GOP goes the court route it will likely backfire big time on them with the State Senate lines.

Good point I guess, but then the court will draw the Assembly districts too. Are the Dems going to put the legislative seats on the table to save one Dem Congressperson?  Why didn't that happen in 2001? 

The Dems have a massive advantage in the Assembly, even if the Assembly districts are drawn by the courts they will still have a massive advantage.  The GOP would have more to lose by bringing it to the courts, it would result in a Permanent Dem Majority in the Senate and a diminished but still massive Dem majority in the Assembly.

Due to the GOP's minimal advantage in the State Senate which is heavily gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, they really have no leverage to take it to the courts.  My guess is each side loses a Congressional seat, the rest is something similar to the Incumbent Protection, GOP gets to draw the Senate, Dems the Assembly.  That is probably the best the GOP can hope for

Wrong about the weakness. Correct about the outcome.

[BigSkyBob]

I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman.

People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings

I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race!

Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally.

Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year.

[BigSkyBob]

I'd say the biggest problem for the Monroe County Executive woman is that she can get elected in a low-turnout off-year election, but she's going to have an extra 200,000 Presidential-year voters who have never voted for or against her. Torie's acting more like redcommander with the irrational exuberance over this woman.

People who live in glass houses ought not throw stones:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/31/1031958/-2011-Virginia-General-Assembly-Final-Race-Rankings

I don't see how partisan optimism has altered his judgment any more than partisan optimism altered your judgment about Virginia. The generic ballots were pointing to a GOP blowout in the House yet you only listed one Democratic incumbent as being in less than a toss-up race!

Brooks is in a good position. If Obama carries Slaughter home, Slaughter will have to face the six-year itch. If she retires after another term, Brooks has the name-recognition advantage and organization advantages in the open seat race. If Obama losses, Brooks could beat her this election. Slaughter might thread the needle of beating Brooks, with Obama losing nationally.

Frankly, if I were a Democrat I'd want her to retire this year.

Democrats already had their six year itch and more in 2010.  With Republicans in control of the House and possibly the Senate and the economy likely being pretty good, 2014 should be a pretty neutral year. 

If Obama is reelected, and the economy weakens again, we could see a result similiar to 1958 in the Senate.