Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[Brittain33]

Republicans aren't likely to have a chance to draw their own gerrymander, I thought.

[cinyc]

Republicans aren't likely to have a chance to draw their own gerrymander, I thought.

Republicans control the New York State Senate.  Traditionally, the New York State Senate and Assembly have drawn their own lines, which is one of the reasons why the Assembly remains overwhelmingly Democratic and Senate mildly Republican.

[BigSkyBob]

"Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in
the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken
decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants
in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment
of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate
and assembly districts next occurring, in so far as such census and the
tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor."

The New York Constitution is clear. The New York Constitution cannot be amended by statute, and the census bureau simply did not make any adjustments for where prisoners have their legal residency, as opposed to where they "sleep most of the time."

So, again, whom is going to amend the official census figures under what legal authority?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Republicans aren't likely to have a chance to draw their own gerrymander, I thought.

Republicans control the New York State Senate.  Traditionally, the New York State Senate and Assembly have drawn their own lines, which is one of the reasons why the Assembly remains overwhelmingly Democratic and Senate mildly Republican.

It would be comical if Cuomo did the same thing as McDonnell and vetoed the new maps on the grounds that the Senate one was too gerrymandered.

[krazen1211]

Republicans control the New York State Senate.  Traditionally, the New York State Senate and Assembly have drawn their own lines, which is one of the reasons why the Assembly remains overwhelmingly Democratic and Senate mildly Republican.

Is it possible to gerrymander a 3rd NYC district? Looks like the GOP only has the 2 in Staten Island and South Brooklyn/Bay Ridge.

I guess it would overlap with Wiener's Congressional district, minus its most Democratic parts in Queens.

[Napoleon]

The only way would be to build up in Westchester but Oppenheimer isn't going anywhere and that county has shifted so much to the Democrats that its probably impossible. They could try dicing up Albany but that would likely just cause a dummymander situation. Grisanti could side with the Democrats on redistricting, unless he feels loyalty to the Republicans. The four IDs also hurt the Democrats in the Senate now, but no way that'll last.

Oppenheimer almost lost her last election and is in her 70s.  She could be out of office soon, by the ballot box or retirement.

It is possible to create a more Republican-friendly State Senate district in central/southern Westchester if Republicans dared to.  It would have to take up Eastchester, Mount Pleasant and perhaps part Harrison while minimizing territory in more Democratic-leaning areas like Scarsdale, Greenburgh and White Plains on the way to consolidating those two or three towns in one district.  In the 2000 redistricting, Republicans put Eastchester and Mount Pleasant in two districts to keep two Republican incumbents in power.  Both seats are currently represented by Democrats, so that's no longer necessary.

She held on in 2010, the worst year for Democrats since 1994. She isn't going anywhere.

I agree though that there's room for a more Republican friendly seat in Westchester. The GOP has less incumbents to protect this time around, but also less voters and gerrymandering tricks to do so with.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Republicans control the New York State Senate.  Traditionally, the New York State Senate and Assembly have drawn their own lines, which is one of the reasons why the Assembly remains overwhelmingly Democratic and Senate mildly Republican.

Is it possible to gerrymander a 3rd NYC district? Looks like the GOP only has the 2 in Staten Island and South Brooklyn/Bay Ridge.

I guess it would overlap with Wiener's Congressional district, minus its most Democratic parts in Queens.

On paper, this:

http://www.nysenate.gov/district/27

would go Republican (it voted McCain by 10 points), but local Democratic strength there is pretty high (they control all the Assembly and City Council seats that overlap the district, for example).

[Napoleon]

Kruger represents a very conservative Jewish area.

[Smash255]

Republicans aren't likely to have a chance to draw their own gerrymander, I thought.

Republicans control the New York State Senate.  Traditionally, the New York State Senate and Assembly have drawn their own lines, which is one of the reasons why the Assembly remains overwhelmingly Democratic and Senate mildly Republican.

It would be comical if Cuomo did the same thing as McDonnell and vetoed the new maps on the grounds that the Senate one was too gerrymandered.

Cuomo has already state he will veto any gerrymanders.   Both sides were in talks about redistricting reform prior to the Election, the State Senate decided to vote on it and kicked it down the curb a bit, by having it take effect in 2013, meaning for the next round of redistricting.  That whole thing pissed off Cuomo a bit.

[Brittain33]

Cuomo can and should veto any mutual gerrymanders because it would have the double benefit of yielding a Democratic Senate more representative of the state's electorate AND undermining Sheldon Silver's power in the Assembly without jeapordizing the majority.

[Mr.Phips]

The only way would be to build up in Westchester but Oppenheimer isn't going anywhere and that county has shifted so much to the Democrats that its probably impossible. They could try dicing up Albany but that would likely just cause a dummymander situation. Grisanti could side with the Democrats on redistricting, unless he feels loyalty to the Republicans. The four IDs also hurt the Democrats in the Senate now, but no way that'll last.

Oppenheimer almost lost her last election and is in her 70s.  She could be out of office soon, by the ballot box or retirement.

It is possible to create a more Republican-friendly State Senate district in central/southern Westchester if Republicans dared to.  It would have to take up Eastchester, Mount Pleasant and perhaps part Harrison while minimizing territory in more Democratic-leaning areas like Scarsdale, Greenburgh and White Plains on the way to consolidating those two or three towns in one district.  In the 2000 redistricting, Republicans put Eastchester and Mount Pleasant in two districts to keep two Republican incumbents in power.  Both seats are currently represented by Democrats, so that's no longer necessary.

Oppenheimer survived the worst year for Democrats since 1894.  Cuomo will veto any redistricting plan that tries to hurt her.  Obama took 64% in that district, making it D+11.  She wont lose and will probably be strengthened further in redistricting(trading some Westchester territory with Ball). 

You are the same person who said that Andrea Stewart-Cousins was vulnerable and she won by double digits in what will probably be the worst Democratic year in our lifetimes. 

[cinyc]

The only way would be to build up in Westchester but Oppenheimer isn't going anywhere and that county has shifted so much to the Democrats that its probably impossible. They could try dicing up Albany but that would likely just cause a dummymander situation. Grisanti could side with the Democrats on redistricting, unless he feels loyalty to the Republicans. The four IDs also hurt the Democrats in the Senate now, but no way that'll last.

Oppenheimer almost lost her last election and is in her 70s.  She could be out of office soon, by the ballot box or retirement.

It is possible to create a more Republican-friendly State Senate district in central/southern Westchester if Republicans dared to.  It would have to take up Eastchester, Mount Pleasant and perhaps part Harrison while minimizing territory in more Democratic-leaning areas like Scarsdale, Greenburgh and White Plains on the way to consolidating those two or three towns in one district.  In the 2000 redistricting, Republicans put Eastchester and Mount Pleasant in two districts to keep two Republican incumbents in power.  Both seats are currently represented by Democrats, so that's no longer necessary.

Oppenheimer survived the worst year for Democrats since 1894.  Cuomo will veto any redistricting plan that tries to hurt her.  Obama took 64% in that district, making it D+11.  She wont lose and will probably be strengthened further in redistricting(trading some Westchester territory with Ball). 

You are the same person who said that Andrea Stewart-Cousins was vulnerable and she won by double digits in what will probably be the worst Democratic year in our lifetimes. 

And you are the same person who said that neither Stewart-Cousins nor Oppenheimer were vulnerable and would win in cakewalks.  Oppenheimer barely won.  Stewart-Cousins is vulnerable with the right candidate.  Her seat was held by a Republican 2006.

Please reread what I wrote.  Oppenheimer is also old, which means that, like many Republican State Senators from Long Island, there's a chance she could decide to retire rather than run for reelection or die in office.

Ball doesn't need more territory in Westchester.  If anything, assuming Senate Republicans draw the map properly, if they really wanted to shore up Oppenheimer, they would give her Democrats out of whatever district they want to make competitive for a Republican.  Though if I were drawing the maps, it would be her district that I'd be making more competitive in the first place.

Worst year for Democrats since 1894?  Unfortunately, not in New York.  The Democratic gubernatorial candidate and two Senate candidates won in cakewalks.  If anything, in other races, 2010 was more of a movement back toward the status quo in New York, not the worst year for New York Democrats ever.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Gillibrand, Schumer, and Cuomo may have romped at the top of the ticket, but they had zero coattails.

[cinyc]

"Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in
the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken
decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants
in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment
of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate
and assembly districts next occurring, in so far as such census and the
tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor."

The New York Constitution is clear. The New York Constitution cannot be amended by statute, and the census bureau simply did not make any adjustments for where prisoners have their legal residency, as opposed to where they "sleep most of the time."

So, again, whom is going to amend the official census figures under what legal authority?

For the first time (not sure if in a while or ever), Census gave states the option to receive 2010 census figures with the prison population treated as residents of the prison or residents of their old city or town.  The NYS Constitution doesn't appear to bar the state from using the new 2010 Census numbers treating prisoners as living from whence they came before they got sent up the river.

[BigSkyBob]

Who is the say that the 2008 election was the electorate in the heartland saying they were sick of Obama, while the folks on the coasts weren't sick of him yet?  Maybe, by 2012 the folks on the two coasts will be equally sick of him.

I read in 2008 about how Republicans had survived the Democratic surge of 2006. Guess what, an equal number of them lost in 2008. So much for that conventional wisdom!

[BigSkyBob]

"For the first time (not sure if in a while or ever), Census gave states the option to receive 2010 census figures with the prison population treated as residents of the prison or residents of their old city or town."

This, simply, is a lie. The census bureau already sent the official figures counting prisoners where they "sleep most of the time." The census doesn't, won't, and can't send states adjusted figures placing prisoners because, they do count people "where they sleep most of the time;" they won't adjust for other factors for reasons including they don't want to have to adjust for illegal aliens, foreign residents, felons, or whatever fudge some state legislature wishes to concoct; and, they can't adjust the figures since they never collected the official residencies of prisoners on April 1,2010.


They did agree to give the location of prisons--something the states knew already-- so that the states could fudge the numbers as they pleased.


That the census bureau gave its permission to fudge the official census numbers doesn't alter the fact that the New York Constitution does not.

[cinyc]

"For the first time (not sure if in a while or ever), Census gave states the option to receive 2010 census figures with the prison population treated as residents of the prison or residents of their old city or town."

This, simply, is a lie. The census bureau already sent the official figures counting prisoners where they "sleep most of the time." The census doesn't, won't, and can't send states adjusted figures placing prisoners because, they do count people "where they sleep most of the time;" they won't adjust for other factors for reasons including they don't want to have to adjust for illegal aliens, foreign residents, felons, or whatever fudge some state legislature wishes to concoct; and, they can't adjust the figures since they never collected the official residencies of prisoners on April 1,2010.


They did agree to give the location of prisons--something the states knew already-- so that the states could fudge the numbers as they pleased.


That the census bureau gave its permission to fudge the official census numbers doesn't alter the fact that the New York Constitution does not.

You are partially correct.  The census bureau agreed to release group quarters data next month, earlier than usual, to allow states to apportion without prisoners.  That's more than "the location of prisons" - it's census data for the actual prison, which is important in cases where the census block data includes more than just the prison.  The policy change by the Obama administration was too late to allow Census to seek data on where the prisoners used to live, so there technically is no separate count.  That might make your constitutional argument more salient.

[BigSkyBob]

"For the first time (not sure if in a while or ever), Census gave states the option to receive 2010 census figures with the prison population treated as residents of the prison or residents of their old city or town."

This, simply, is a lie. The census bureau already sent the official figures counting prisoners where they "sleep most of the time." The census doesn't, won't, and can't send states adjusted figures placing prisoners because, they do count people "where they sleep most of the time;" they won't adjust for other factors for reasons including they don't want to have to adjust for illegal aliens, foreign residents, felons, or whatever fudge some state legislature wishes to concoct; and, they can't adjust the figures since they never collected the official residencies of prisoners on April 1,2010.


They did agree to give the location of prisons--something the states knew already-- so that the states could fudge the numbers as they pleased.


That the census bureau gave its permission to fudge the official census numbers doesn't alter the fact that the New York Constitution does not.

You are partially correct.  The census bureau [hp://censusprojectblog.org/2010/03/09/prison-populations-a-big-issue-for-census/]agreed to release group quarters data next mont], earlier than usual, to allow states to apportion without prisoners.  That's more than "the location of prisons" - it's census data for the actual prison, which is important in cases where the census block data includes more than just the prison.  The policy change by the Obama administration was too late to allow Census to seek data on where the prisoners used to live, so there technically is no separate count.  That might make your constitutional argument more salient.

Now, you have used English correctly. The states never "received" adjusted census data. The census bureau gave the states data that "allowed" them to fudge their numbers.


The point is that  there is what the Census bureau facilitates, and there is what the New York Constitution allows.

So, again, I ask, whom is going to adjust the official census count, how, when, where, why, and under what authority?

[BigSkyBob]

Its pretty blatant that doing so violates the spirit of one man one vote.

The "spirit of 'one man one vote,'" definitely calls for the elimination of aliens from the official count. The New York Constitution actually calls for the elimination of aliens from the official count. There is no movement to follow the New York Constitution concerning aliens [I would hazard to guess that there are a lot more aliens in NYC than Prisoners upstate] because this whole matter isn't about "fairness," or "justice," it is about liberal Democrats changing the rules to elect more Democrats.

[feeblepizza]

Yes. This question doesn't even need to be asked.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

"Aliens"? What is this, the 18th century?

[BigSkyBob]

"Aliens"? What is this, the 18th century?

Well, it is the New York state Constitution from, apperently, the 1940's.

The logic is clear enough: citizens are entitled to vote, aliens are not. "One man, one vote," is properly "One citizen, one vote." That is, districts ought to have an equal number of citizens, not residents.

[Landslide Lyndon]

"Aliens"? What is this, the 18th century?

Imagine being in the voting booth next to that guy.

[Mr.Phips]

The only way would be to build up in Westchester but Oppenheimer isn't going anywhere and that county has shifted so much to the Democrats that its probably impossible. They could try dicing up Albany but that would likely just cause a dummymander situation. Grisanti could side with the Democrats on redistricting, unless he feels loyalty to the Republicans. The four IDs also hurt the Democrats in the Senate now, but no way that'll last.

Oppenheimer almost lost her last election and is in her 70s.  She could be out of office soon, by the ballot box or retirement.

It is possible to create a more Republican-friendly State Senate district in central/southern Westchester if Republicans dared to.  It would have to take up Eastchester, Mount Pleasant and perhaps part Harrison while minimizing territory in more Democratic-leaning areas like Scarsdale, Greenburgh and White Plains on the way to consolidating those two or three towns in one district.  In the 2000 redistricting, Republicans put Eastchester and Mount Pleasant in two districts to keep two Republican incumbents in power.  Both seats are currently represented by Democrats, so that's no longer necessary.

Oppenheimer survived the worst year for Democrats since 1894.  Cuomo will veto any redistricting plan that tries to hurt her.  Obama took 64% in that district, making it D+11.  She wont lose and will probably be strengthened further in redistricting(trading some Westchester territory with Ball). 

You are the same person who said that Andrea Stewart-Cousins was vulnerable and she won by double digits in what will probably be the worst Democratic year in our lifetimes. 

And you are the same person who said that neither Stewart-Cousins nor Oppenheimer were vulnerable and would win in cakewalks.  Oppenheimer barely won.  Stewart-Cousins is vulnerable with the right candidate.  Her seat was held by a Republican 2006.

Please reread what I wrote.  Oppenheimer is also old, which means that, like many Republican State Senators from Long Island, there's a chance she could decide to retire rather than run for reelection or die in office.

Ball doesn't need more territory in Westchester.  If anything, assuming Senate Republicans draw the map properly, if they really wanted to shore up Oppenheimer, they would give her Democrats out of whatever district they want to make competitive for a Republican.  Though if I were drawing the maps, it would be her district that I'd be making more competitive in the first place.

Worst year for Democrats since 1894?  Unfortunately, not in New York.  The Democratic gubernatorial candidate and two Senate candidates won in cakewalks.  If anything, in other races, 2010 was more of a movement back toward the status quo in New York, not the worst year for New York Democrats ever.

This was a horrible year in New York for Democrats.  They lost six House seats, control of the state Senate and 12 Assembly seats.  A Republican cant win anymore statewide in New York no matter how bad the year is for Democrats.

Stewart-Cousins' district was held by a Republican until 2006.  So what.  Many districts in Tennessee and Alabama were held by Democrats until 2010, but those days are over.

And Cuomo will veto any map that tries to endanger more Democrats.  Oppenheimer may retire, but will bet you a million dollars that another Democrat easily holds that seat in 2012. 

[Napoleon]

Sorry to burst your bubble but cinyc's last sentence nailed it. It doesn't hurt that's Republicans had three sacrificial lambs for Governor and Senate.