City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[jimrtex]

The blog comment is here, with my comment appearing below. I think I have the legal analysis right (weighted voting power based on population will be upheld, and the current system based on voting turnout, would be bounced), but feel free to comment. Hudson is so unique in so many ways, and this is one of them. The ward district lines have been in place for close to 100 years, and have not changed much since the 19th century in fact. And everybody in town knows about the so called 5th ward issue (which has two precincts, one marginal, the other pretty heavily pub, so that one precinct (out of six), effectively has 46% of the voting power, as opposed to 16.6%, on the common council.

If you look at the town charter, the weight given aldermen from the various wards is quite variable.  There are two alderman elected in each ward.

Ward 1   95x2
Ward 2   185x2
Ward 3   180x2
Ward 4   95x2
Ward 5   364x2
President of Common Council (at large)   190
Total 2028

It should be noted that Hudson has a 28% Black, and 16% Hispanic population.  (unlike in the southwest, there may be overlap if they are Puerto Rican or Dominican).  There is also a correctional institution in the town with 500 inmates, in a town just shy of 7000.  Though they aren't counted for voting purposes, they would be counted by the census as being residents.

So the minority population may be quite a bit less than 44%, but not insignificant.   The blogger noted that even though the aldermen from Wards 3 and Wards 5 have a majority of the weighted vote, it is quite unlikely that they would vote together on a divisive issue.  This suggests that race is the underlying factor in Hofstra's interest in the governance of this quite small town.

The weights are slightly different for 2/3 or 3/4 vote.  I think it has something to do with whether an even higher supermajority might be required.   Think of a simple unweighted council, where a 2/3 majority is actually 4, or 80%.  I found [usl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_power_index]Banzhaf power index[/url], but that doesn't really help me.   Maybe Mike can sort us out.

It is not really clear whether the blogger actually understood the issues.  Does "population clean and simple" refer to total population, or a disdain for the mathematics.

Weighting may be unconstitutional when the wards are greatly variable in population.  Imagine if each county in Hawaii, Arizona, or Nevada elected one Senator, but whose vote in the senate was proportional to population.

The senators from Oahu, Maricopa, or Clark could form a Committee of One, and relegate the other senators to shining his shoes, lighting his cigar, or shining his spittoon.  A legal analysis would be quite similar to that against at-large elections of legislators by county.  A majority in the county control all the seats.  In this case a majority in each of the 3 counties controls all the voting weight of the county, and effectively control of the state.

But what if the districts were somewhat similar in size, and the weights were fairly equal.  What if Hudson had 10 wards with weights from 0.7 to 1.3.   While it is theoretically possible that 4 wards of 1.3 would constitute a majority, it is quite unlikely that they would, without gerrymandering all be at the top end of the population, and also vote together.

Take a state legislature.   Do an apportionment of members by county and then create districts within a county using whole cities.   Or voters might be able to switch districts.  If they would prefer to be moved to a different district, let them vote on the matter, as long as it did not create too large of a disparity.

[jimrtex]

Fascinating analysis Jimtex. First, the prisoners are not counted I don't think for census purposes. They are assigned to where they lived before. That is NY State law, and a change from the past, when they were counted.

While you have a point about giving one man too much power in a legislative body, I really don't see a Constitutional issue with weighted voting based on population, absent some evidence of a discriminatory purpose, which would not obtain with Hudson. And only one ward, the second, the one I will be living in, which has within it the public housing high rise, Bliss Towers, i would have close to a majority minority population (substantial Bengali population, along with blacks, a fair number of whom are West Indian). The third ward on the "right" side of town south of Warren Street is more of a limosine liberal ward (that is where my cousin lives), and oddly the first is close to that, given the differential vote turnouts, where the chic blocks have much higher voting turnouts. The 4th ward is the most heterodox, with a bit of everything. The prosperous lower middle and working class tends to live in the 5th ward, by far the most Pub, and where the "old Hudson" folks, who grew up there still control matters in Hudson, but perhaps for not much longer, still hold the power and hold most of the very much sought after government jobs.

I came across these articles, one from Hofstra, one from the local newspaper.

One-of-a-Kind Seminar Offers Hofstra Law Students Insider’s View of Municipal Government

Law students take close look at city charter

Reading between the lines, there are some folks in Hudson who don't like the weighted system.  They couldn't get a legal opinion, and are wary of the cost of a lawsuit (the President of the Common Council would end up being sued, even though he supports equipopulous wards).  So they arranged for a law school to use it as a case study.   Maybe the report of the students is in an electronic form.

I kind of think the Gossips blogger may have gotten confused.  The weights of the Ward 5 aldermen are 364 each.  There are 2028 total votes, but 190 of those are for the President of the Common Council.   (364+364) / (2028-190) = 39.6.  Ward 5 has 36.8% of the population.  But if we exclude the population of the correctional facility (500 based on Wikipedia article on Hudson, NY), it has 39.8% of the non-institutionalized population, almost identical to the voting weight.   I don't understand where the Gossips blogger came up with her 46%.

The Census Bureau counts prison populations where they reside.  It has been suggested that they should be included in the area where they used to live.  In many states, prisons are in rural areas, where they not only provide job, they provide extra representation.  Even if those who had been campaigning for a change for years, they didn't manage to get the media attention until just before the census when it made it appear that they were demanding the census change their census procedures.

In New York, there was a change in the law made in 2010 (after the Census) which required a reallocation of prisoners in New York prisons.  Prisoners in federal institutions were simply excluded as were those (21%) who could not be attributed to another location in New York.  But this was a post-census adjustment made by New York state.

The better change would be to apportion based on voting population, which would automatically exclude felons, aliens, and children.

I think the Wikipedia article overstates the minority population.  It appears to be Hispanic 8.2%, Black 23.8%, and Asian 7.1%.  The corrections institution may have 500 inmates or perhaps less., which if removed, will likely push the numbers down a small bit.  Maybe the Wikipedia numbers are from 2000 when the corrections institution appears to have been larger.

The apportionment method is not in the charter, only the voting weights.  It appears based on the dates of amendment, that the weights were instituted in 1975 following the OMOV decisions.  They were not changed again until after the 2000 census, and again after the 2010 census.  So they made the original change in response to the OMOV ruling, perhaps when the wards were in greater balance.  In 2000, they finally got around to remembering to update the charter, and then did again after the 2010 census, and with the removal of the prison population from Ward 3 were shocked at how dominant Ward 5 had become.


        2000   2010
1,2,4:  3114   2743
3       2005   1498
5       2405   2472

The composite population of Wards 1,2, and 4 declined 11.9%, while Ward 5 increased 2.8%.  Ward 3 dropped a whopping 25.3%, so is probably due to a drop in the prison population.

"The prosperous lower middle and working class tends to live in the 5th ward, by far the most Pub, and where the "old Hudson" folks, who grew up there still control matters in Hudson, but perhaps for not much longer, still hold the power and hold most of the very much sought after government jobs. "

So there is resentment by the newcomers that the oldtimers still control the city.   But the latter see that control because of their longtime civic engagement.  For example, in 2013 turnout in Ward 5 was 67.1% of the 2012 presidential election, while in the other wards it ranged from 54.2% to 65.9%.  That is, the people on the river would tell you that they voted for Obama, while those inland would tell you that they had voted for Mayor Hallenbeck.

Because they are liberal, they are likely to be mathematically challenged.  We have so many aldermen, we should control the city council.

[jimrtex]

I'm in MA this weekend so i don't have access to my usual software tools. What are the 2010 populations of the wards, subtracting the prison pop?

The Census Bureau VTDs appear to consolidate wards:

Wards 1,2, and 4: "130101 130201 130401"
Ward 3: "130301 130302"
Ward 4: "130501 130502"

It is a small enough town that you could probably work it out using census blocks.

I couldn't really identify the VTDs based on a table of Columbia County VTDs by VAP, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic race; but they really stood out when I went to total population.  So besides race, there is the additional factor of minority populations having more children.   Since there are really very few minorities in Columbia County other than the city of Hudson, I'm confident that there is an underlying race issue behind the suggested switch.

[jimrtex]

I sent an email to the blog host asking for the figures. The DRA as noted does not have the data (in 2008 there were only 3 precincts (local elections where the six precincts would be used are held in off years, the last being in Nov 2013). So we have the population which she published for the two wards at the extremes, but not the other three wards.

I would contact the law school professor who conducted the class at Hofstra Ashira Ostrow.  Surely her students would have prepared any report in electronic form, wouldn't they?

Vote totals are available on the Columbia County Board of Elections - Results.

In 2012, it was:

Ward 1: Obama 219, Romney 38
Ward 2: 390/33
Ward 3: 343/115
Ward 4: 274/69
Ward 5-1: 322/115
Ward 5-2: 271/171

A Republican was elected Mayor in 2013, in part because of differential turnout, but also willingness to split their vote.  The President of the Common Council is a Democrat.

A more important reform would be to switch to nonpartisan elections.  It is silly for a town of 6000 persons to be having partisan elections.   The alderman elections are typically two unopposed Democrats, or perhaps one Republican who hopes for ticket splitting nearer the River, and the opposite in Ward 5.

Or better yet, let each voter have two votes for alderman from their ward (they could bullet vote if they wished).  The candidate who receives the most votes in each ward would be elected.  The remaining candidates would then be eliminated one-by-one, and could transfer their votes to another candidate.  The final 10 candidates would be elected as aldermen, and exercise the weight of their electoral support in the council (or perhaps elect 11 aldermen, and dispense with the president of the common council being elected directly; the council could choose one alderman to serve as presiding officer).

This would (1) ensure continued ward representation; (2) encourage minorities, whether political or racial to run, since they could transfer their support to other candidates.  In Ward 5, it is likely that at least 3 would be elected, but would likely be more pluralistic.

[jimrtex]

The blog host came through for me, and emailed to me the chart from the Hofstra report, in all its impenetrable glory (except for Jimtex and Muon2 of course!). The 3rd ward lost a bunch of folks between 2000-2010, due to the change in NY law, that bounced prison populations from being counted where the prisoners sit, rather than where they are from. The population numbers it turns out needed to be inferred (at least for the 2010 census), since the historically venerable ward lines, don't match the current census block lines.

The historically venerable ward boundaries don't follow streets.

Warren ends at Front, but the ward boundary continues westward into the river.  The block that is separated between Wards 1 and 2 is that west of Front Street.

The boundary between Wards 1 and Wards 4 is 3rd Street and 3rd Street extended.  3rd Street stops at the gridded street area a few blocks north of Warren.   There is a really large census block bounded by 2nd (which does reach the northern boundary, and 5th/Henry Howard, and includes the areas facing the outside of the gridded area.  That is the census block that is divided.   

The map on the blog, and the charter don't match as far as the boundary between the 4th and 5th wards.  In the charter, the boundary is 5th Street and 5th Street extended.  The map appears to take a pragmatic approach.

Each state provides VTD definitions to the Census Bureau.  The "T" stands for tabulation, which indicates that the census bureau tabulates population for the VTD, but they are not necessarily voting districts.  VTD must match census block boundaries.  In the case of Hudson, they created one VTD for wards 1,2 and 4 (it is obvious from the name they gave it).   

The census population for the VTD "130101 130201 130401" is the same as that given for your source for the combined populations of Ward 1, 2, and 4.  13 is an ID for Hudson within Columbia County, "0101" is precinct 1-1, etc.

They also created one VTD for Ward 5 even though it has 2 election precincts.  The boundary between the two precincts is not along any street.  The census population for VTD "130501 130502" is the same as your source for Ward 5.

The prison population is included within the census population for VTD "130301 130302" which is the same as your source for Ward 3.  The prison population did decline between 2000 and 2010.  In 2000 it was 696.  In 2010 it was at most 486.  The 2010 Census redefined block boundaries.  Part of this was because the census bureau had upgraded their location data to be based on satellite data, and partly because they wanted to demonstrate their automated data capture.  In 2000, the entire population was in a single census block which had a population of 697.  In 2010, some census blocks are defined using internal prison roads, and include the population of prison buildings within them.  But some buildings are on the outside of the road, and their census blocks extend as far as external street.  For example, one such block extends to Union Street, which appears to have houses along it.

I suspect that the prison population dropped around 300, which would leave a drop of 150 in the non-institutionalized population, which is consistent with the decline for wards 1, 2, and 4 (around 10%).  Notice that even with the large drop in Ward 3, the population share for wards 1, 2, and 4.   Clearly, there is an additional adjustment for the prison population, because the final weight for Ward 3 is now less than that of Ward 2.

The adjustment for prison population was made by New York state, and was applied to the census data.  I'll see if I can locate some data from New York state.

[jimrtex]

The prison population was 363, which appears to be a drop of around 300 from 2000.

After adjustment the VTD populations were:

Wards 1,2,4: 2776 (+33)
Ward 3: 1142 (-356+7)
Ward 5: 2485 (+13)

The adjustment not only removed the population from state and federal prisons, it placed state prisoners at their residence before incarceration if known (this was about 80% successful), and added 53 persons to the Hudson population.

The prisoner population in New York is roughly 30K non-Hispanic black, 13K non-Hispanic white, 13 K Hispanic (10K Hispanic non-black and 3K Hispanic black).

[jimrtex]

I'm looking at the mapquest satellite image to tery to discern how one might guess at the split census blocks.

One block is west of front between ferry and dock. it appears to be dominted by apartments with 5 large buildings south of warren and 8 such buildings north of warren. ideally this should all be in one ward.

You will notice from the allocation, that the larger portion of this population is allocated to Ward 1 to the South.   The 5 large buildings must be higher, or higher density.  Based on the modern structures, this must have been some sort of urban renewal.  Front Street parallel to the river, must have been the location of earliest settlement.  Hudson is very old.  In 1820, it was still the 4th largest city in New York.  There is a quite broad pedestrian plaza which is an extension of Warren and connects to a park overlooking the river.   It would be reasonable to split the census block.  It is a physical visible feature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the large population in this block is the Fireman's Retirement Home on Harry Howard.  The census shows the loop area as having no population, but the newer building is built right across this no longer existent road.

Census geography is problematic.  They trace internal roadways and delineate blocks for no real purpose (the cluster of blocks in the extreme southeast corner has no (living) population.  It is a cemetery.  In areas that are not built up, roads are the unifying feature, not a dividing line.  A country road would not be used as a dividing line between school zones, as the bus routes could not collect students along the road.  The closest neighbor might well be across the road, perhaps 100 yards away, while the next neighbor on the same side of the road could be a 1/2 mile or mile away.   People don't live within areas.  They live at points arrayed along linear features.

Large multi-family buildings could be separately tabulated as points.  This would permit actual land use to be recognized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are also 53 prisoners allocated to their residence prior to incarceration.

Ward 1: 755 (+3)
Ward 2: 1309 (+22)
Ward 3: 1142 (-363+7)
Ward 4: 712 (+8)
Ward 5: 2485 (+13)

There were 3 persons allocated to the block along Front Street.  I imputed 2 to Ward 1, and 1 to Ward 2, making the split 292:73 (W1:W2).  No prisoners were allocated to the large block divided between Ward 2 and Ward 4.

Your adjustments would make these:

Ward 1: 828
Ward 2: 1204
Ward 3: 1142
Ward 4:744
Ward 5: 2485.
Total: 6403 (Ideal 1281).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My proposed maps to follow.

[jimrtex]

This is based on data from New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, which was charged with adjusting the census population for prisoners.   It includes not only data (see 2010 Data) but an explanation of methodology.



Block 1002, Tract 13 (, Columbia County, NY) had 3 additional persons allocated to it.  I divided them 2:1 between Wards 1 and 2, similar to the division of the original census population.  The two blocks split by ward boundaries are shown with a block population in parentheses, and then the portions allocated to the two wards that comprise parts of the block.

Some curiousities.

There were 7 prisoners allocated to the block containing the public housing tower (population 421 in Ward 2).  The block immediately to the north with one person, is totally an allocated prisoner - that is the census population is 0.

The census population for the 4 blocks containing the prison population (southern edge of Ward 3) does not completely disappear:

Block 2007: Census 77, Adjusted 20. 
Block 2009: Census 51, Adjusted 13.

The above two are totally surrounded by internal roads.

Block 2008: Census 126, Adjusted 33.

This block extends outside the prison, but there are only a couple of houses.

Block 2009: Census 232, Adjusted 60.

This block contains houses along the northern edge.

It is pretty inexplicable.  Did some prisoners give the Hudson prison as their previous address?  Are they halfway type facilities, with live-in counselors?   Non-felons?

[jimrtex]

I got the numbers below using this utility.
 

That is 2000 data.

The 2000 blocks had that curved boundary north of the prison, which separated the 89 persons who mostly live along the south side of Union, from the prisoner.

The 2010 census split the prison among 4 census blocks, including two delineated by prison roads, but also included the population along Union.   It is not clear why they abandoned the curved road which is quite visible as a paved road in satellite imagery.

I think I understand what LATFOR did for the prison.

The 4 blocks with their census population and their adjusted population are:

232  60   25.9%
77    20   26.0%
126  33   26.2%
51    13   25.5%

Total

486 126 25.9%

LATFOR could probably not associate prisons with individual buildings within the prison (or perhaps the Department of Corrections was unwilling to do so).  So they simply aggregated the four census blocks into one super-block with 486 persons and removed 362 prisoners, most of which were allocated elsewhere (if a former address in New York was not determined for a prisoner, he simply disappeared from the adjusted population count).

The remaining 126 non-prisoners form 25.9% of the 486 total population.  Applying that 25.9% on a pro rata basis to the four census blocks results in a residual populations of 60, 23, 33, and 13.   It has the side effect of projecting civilians into the prison.

I will consolidate the total residual of 126 persons and show them mostly living along the south side of Union.

There was a larger share of public housing west of Ferry being allocated to Ward 1.  So even though there are fewer buildings south of Warren, they must have higher occupancy.

I think most of the population in the large census block on the north side is in the Fireman's retirement home which is (or was) outside the yellow loop which has 0 population here.  The loop appears to be the old driveway.

There is a tired old building to the west of that.   I think that there has been a general decline in vocation-based retirement facilities over time.  While providing low-cost housing to retirees, it might require a move from their old community.  When retirees need that sort of facility, they may not want or be able to cope with a move.  When they are first retired, they likely prefer to live in their own home, or move to Florida.  When their physical or mental skills decline, they may prefer to live near their family.

Google Earth shows that in 2004 there was another building at the top of the loop.  The orange football-shaped area was inside the loop.  This is likely a memorial area.  It has been moved over by the other building to the west, which is still there.   In 2006, construction of a new building was underway.  That loop road is no longer in existence, and cuts through the new building.  The building at the top of the loop is now gone.

[jimrtex]

The redistribution of prisoners to their residences comes from all prisons, not just Hudson, so there could be people placed in Hudson from other places. I believe the law also provides that if prisoners refuse to give an address or if they are from out of state they are counted at the prison. However, there are certainly a number of individuals at the prison who are not "involuntarily in group housing". Torie's map is close, but I'll trust LATFOR on jimrtex's map.

People who are in prison but can not be placed, disappear from the adjusted redistricting data.  This is true of all persons from federal persons.  IIRC, about 80% of the New York prison population could be placed.  The number added to Hudson is not disproportionate.   Hudson has a significant black population - particularly compared to the remainder of Columbia County, and New York prisons are over 60% Black.   It also has a seedier history.  In 1951, Governor Thomas Dewey oversaw raids of around 40 brothels in the city.  It is not quite the bucolic village that you might expect from its location on the Mid-Hudson.   

A curiosity was that it was started as a whaling port that would be better protected from the British than Nantucket.  I think it is impossible for us to imagine how much easier it was to go by water rather than land 2 centuries ago.

Quoting some of Muon, but interspersing some comments.

Compared to the 2010 Census redistricting data set I have the following changes:

Columbia Census Tract 13

Block 1002: 365 -> 365 (+3) **** You have a typo here.

Block 2003: 232 -> 60 (-172)
Block 2007: 77 -> 20 (-57)
Block 2008: 126 -> 33 (-93)
Block 2009: 51 -> 13 (-38)

The prisoner-redistricting law was passed after the census, and the Department of Corrections may not have been able/willing to split the Hudson prison population among 4 census blocks which are totally silly in the first place.  The residual percentage is an identical 25.9% (rounded to an integer) for all 4 blocks.  For our purposes, we can treat this as one super-block

Block 2003-2007-2008-2009: 476 -> 126(-360).

[jimrtex]

I found some 1990 populations for the wards in the comprehensive report.


Ward      1990         2000         2010
1       859  10.2%   883  11.7%   752  11.2%
2      1764  20.9%  1483  19.8%  1287  19.2%
3      2549  30.3%  1957  26.0%  1498  22.3%
4      1407  16.7%   829  11.0%   704  10.5%
5      1845  21.9%  2372  31.5%  2472  36.8%
Hudson 8424         7524         6713

These are all without a prison-adjustment.   The current imbalance of Ward 5 is relatively new.  In 1975, when the weighted voting was first implemented, the weighting may have been quite modest.  It is unknown what the prison population was in 1970, it might have been much less (there is one older building that looks more like a conventional prison, with several newer dormitory style buildings.)   There was a large drop in the prison population between 2000 and 2010.  Many states went through a massive prisoner increase during this period, followed by a more recent decline as it was realized that it was expensive to house drug users in prison, and the overall decline in crime over the past few decades.  So Ward 3 might not have been near 30% in 1975.

By 2000, Ward 5 had grown relative to the other wards such that a reweighting was required (it does not appear there were adjustments after the 1980 and 1990 census).  The reweighting after the 2010 census made the imbalance more apparent, particularly after the prisoner adjustment pushed Ward 5 to just shy of 40%.

The imbalance may have grown too large to be balanced.  Ward 5 is close to becoming the Oahu-Clark-Maricopa-Cook of Hudson, NY.

[jimrtex]

The Firemen's Home currently has 62 persons.  It was originally founded in 1895 as a more of a poor farm for indigent volunteer firemen.  The overseeing organization was founded when New York City still had volunteer firemen, and currently has around 25,000 members.

Peak population was 1921 in 1940 at the end of the Depression, and the farm continued to operate until 1967.  Currently it is a nursing home, with the new building completed around 2007. 

This smaller population for the firemans home suggest a larger share of the population of the large block is on the northern edge of the gridded portion of the 4th Ward.  There are some large houses along Carroll St (the diagonal street) that may be multi-family residential, but possibly commercial.   

[jimrtex]

This is my proposed 5-ward equal population map.



The objectives were to retain Warren as boundary line, and attempt to retain the core of the existing wards.

Hudson has a prison-adjusted population of 6403, resulting in an ideal population of 1281 (1280.6).

Ward 2 has a population of 1309, 2.1% over the ideal.  It is not changed.

Ward 1 has a population of 755 and is underpopulated by 41%.  With Ward 2 fixed, there is no place to go but east.  Ward 3 used to be in two precincts, with 3-1 extending from 3rd to 6th, with 3-2 the area further east.   The population of Ward 3 is strung out for quite a distance and doesn't really form a single core.  The gridded portion (formerly 3-1) is added to Ward 1, giving a total population of 1300, 1.5% over the ideal.  Ward 1 includes the corrections institution, but not the prisoners.

The remnant of Ward 3 has 597 or 46.6%.  We extend Ward 3 to the north.   I split the large block with 325 persons.  The areas along 6th Street and Glenwood Boulevard is quite distinct from the area to the south which appears to be a mix (hodge podge) of residential, commercial, and (former?) industrial.  I have imputed a population of 702 persons in the area moved from Ward 5 to Ward 3, for a total of 1299, 1,4% over the ideal.

The core of Wards 4 and Wards 5 are in the gridded portion of the city along Warren.  Ward 4 is almost entirely in the core area.  With a population of 712 it is 44.4% underpolpulated.

The core area of Ward 5 is only about 40% of the total population of the Ward, but I would expect that those who live in the area are more likely to think of it as their neighborhood vs. simply a political district.  To keep the cores of Wards 4 and 5 intact, an area to the east of Harry Howard is added to Ward 4.  With 566 persons it brings the total of Ward 4 to 1278, 0.2% below the ideal.  Two blocks are split along Underhill Pond and an associated stream.  Most of the population in the block with 200 persons is in an apartment complex along Harry Howard.  Part of the complex with 5 buildings is within a driveway loop which forms a census block with 59 persons.  The remaining 8 building are within the much larger census block.  The remnant of the block is in a few residences along Clinton.  A downside of this division is that the area along Harry Howard and the core area are somewhat disparate.

This leaves the remainder of Ward 5, including the core area in the gridded portion of the city, along with an extension along 6th Street and Glenwood.  Persons in this area would have a mental picture of "going to town" as traveling down 6th into the core area of Ward 5.  The much trimmed down Ward 5 has 1217 persons, 4.97% of the ideal.

In general, the visualization of the city is of the gridded area of the old city along both sides of Warren, and 3 spines to the east (Columbia and Green); east-northnortheast (6th and Glenwood); and northeast (Harry Howard).

An alternative would be combine the gridded core areas of Wards 4 and 5, and have the other ward being a suburban area to the east and northeast.  This does a poorer job of preserving the cores of existing wards (4 and 5) but may make the two resulting wards more demographically and politically homogeneous.

[jimrtex]

Your split block between Wards 3 and 5 follows the natural boundary of the railroad tracks. I'm surprised the tracks weren't used as census block boundaries as they so often are in other areas of the US. That would have helped separate the prison from the houses as well.

The railroad was a block boundary in 2000, separating the prison from the residential area.  The prison block had 697 persons in 200.  For 2000, the railroad tracks were removed, and the blocks defined by prison roads were added.  Even though there are apparent prison buildings in Block 2004, no population was returned for it.  I was going to suggest that it may have been abandoned, but Google Maps captured a train crossing E Court north of the prison.

The tracks must go down 7th Street between Union and Warren.

The split of Wards 4 and 5 seems too artificial since there is not a well-identified geographic feature to describe it. You could leave 4 with its current boundaries and add the blocks between Warren and Prospect to Ward 4.

The stream is certainly better defined than the  boundary between 1012 and 1017, or that between 1016 and 1017 which goes through the school building.

I doubled down and also split 1009.

I could also give a physical description of the addresses:

Ward 3 includes residences on north side of Clinton, north and west side of 6th Street, north and west side of Glenwood, north and west side of Oakwood, and southwest side of Paddock Place.

The boundary splitting the apartments within 1011 and outside 1011 is reminiscent of what almost happened in Texas.  The census bureau split some apartment complexes into blocks using driveways/parking lots.  They then managed to place some of the blocks in different block groups.  During redistricting a little more population was needed/wanted, and the block group was clicked on, which put parts of the apartment complex in different House districts.  This was caught and amended but it was actually placed in the bill definition.

[jimrtex]

Why does Hudson's population appear to be so strongly concentrated in that center line?

Hudson is on a point of land.   Front Street which is parallel to Hudson River is about 40 feet above the river.  On the north edge of the developed area, this headland turns east, forming North Bay, which is now largely land-filled, but once upon a time served as the harbor for a whaling port.   North Bay is more a widening of the valley that then takes a sharp turn westward at Hudson.

Dock Street runs easterly-westerly along the southern edge of North Bay and roughly parallel to the street grids.  That is, the east-west streets are roughly parallel to the southern edge of North Bay, and north-south streets are roughly parallel to the Hudson.

If you look at areal photos or Google Maps, the northern edge of the developed strip is actually quite irregular as it follows the contours of a 50-foot dropoff down to the level of the river.

On the south edge of town there is a somewhat smaller area known as South Bay, also largely land-filled.  This could have conceivably been developed, but by the time it would have been, the main street grid was well established, and it would be undesirable to live below the rest of the city.

Further inland the contours are less severe, and it was developed in an age of the automobile and modern earthmovers and is more spread out.

[jimrtex]

Getting back to the initial blog post, Hudson weights the votes of its aldermen, as well as the president of the council.  This is based on population but it is not strictly so.

The prison-adjusted populations of the wards are:

1  755  11.8%
2 1309  20.4%
3 1142  17.8%
4  712  11.1%
5 2485  38.8%
T 6403

The voting strength in simple majority decisions is:

1  95 10.3%
2 185 20.1%
3 180 19.6%
4  95 10.3%
5 364 39.6%

If voting strength were proportional to the (prison-adjusted) population:

1 108 11.8%
2 188 20.5%
3 164 17.8%
4 101 11.1%
5 357 38.8%

That is, Wards 3, and 5 are given additional weight, while 1, 2 and 4 have a diminished weight.  This may be particularly noticeable since in this instance, Wards 1 and 4 are the smallest.  Ward 2 is 14.6% larger than Ward 3, but only has 2.8% larger voting strength.

The weights are different for votes requiring 2/3 and 3/4 majorities:

    2/3        3/4
1 108 11.8%  100 11.0%
2 187 20.5%  157 17.2%
3 161 17.6%  153 16.8%
4 105 11.5%   98 10.7%
5 352 38.6%  405 44.4%

In 2000, the population was not prison-adjusted, and the weights were:

1  883 11.7%   94 10.3%
2 1483 19.8%  184 20.2%
3 1957 26.0%  266 29.2%
4  829 11.0%   94 10.3%
5 2372 31.5%  278 30.5%

Because of the prison adjustment's profound effect on Ward 3, all the other wards saw an increase in their proportion of the population.  Yet Ward 2 saw a loss in voting strength (population 19.8% to 20.4% for population, 20.2% to 20.1% for voting strength).

Ward 5's population share increased from 31.5% to 38.8%, but its voting strength increased from 30.5% to 39.6%, as it went from an apparent penalty to a small bonus.

[jimrtex]

This is my proposed 5-ward equal population map.



I calculated the racial composition for my map.  I assumed that the split blocks were demographically homogeneous - which is not a particularly good assumption given that the splits were chosen to maintain distinct residential areas.

The city is not particularly segregated, likely because the multi-family housing is spread out, with the newer building in the east.  The whitest ward, Ward 3, is only 10.6% whiter than the city as a whole.  Ward 2 does have a higher concentration of blacks, but the other wards are all around 1/5 black.  The block along Front Street that is split between Wards and 2, is 48% black, but it it hard to push a district over 50% by adding 48% black areas, unless you can remove some very non-black areas.  A 5-block area just north of Warren, Blocks 2003-2006 and 3006 is only 25.7% black, but exchanging that area still leaves us short of a 50% black district, with the VAP trailing by a few percentage points.  But Ward 2 does have the highest concentration of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

Ward Hisp  NHWh   NHBl   NHAs
1    5.8%  61.4%  22.5%  9.1%
2    8.9%  36.4%  42.6% 10.7%
3    8.2%  67.3%  17.9%  4.5%
4    7.0%  60.8%  24.1%  5.7%
5    8.7%  57.9%  21.9%  9.1%
Tot  7.7%  56.7%  25.9%  7.8%

The VAP numbers

Ward Hisp  NHWh   NHBl   NHAs
1    3.8%  70.1%  17.9%  7.1%
2    6.9%  42.8%  39.4%  9.7%
3    6.9%  72.5%  15.0%  3.6%
4    6.2%  66.8%  20.4%  4.7%
5    7.2%  65.0%  18.2%  6.9%
Tot  6.2%  63.7%  22.0%  6.4%

[jimrtex]

I tried e-mailing the Hofstra law professor, but so far no response.

I've been googling on Banzhaf and Banzhaf Power Index.  What I've read so far indicates that it is a way to determine the effective weight of a vote.

If there are 3 council members with weights of 5:5:1, then the member with only one
vote is just as effective of the other two when forming a majority.   But if a vote requires a 2/3 majority, the member with one vote could be replaced with an empty chair.

Of course 3 members is not a very good number, since even with no weighting, a majority and 2/3 supermajority are identical; as are 3/4 supermajority and unanimous.

A legislature with dozens of members might be more workable, particularly if there were limits,  both minimum and maximum, to the size of districts.

For example, consider a legislature with 100 members, each with a voting strength between 2/3 and 4/3, and a total voting strength of 100.  Conceivably you could have a legislature comprised of 50 members with 4/3 voting strength, and 50 with 2/3 voting strength, and 38 members could have a voting majority.  But if they were from particular area of the state, the population that they represent would be entitled to 50 equal-population districts.

[jimrtex]

This is based on data from New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, which was charged with adjusting the census population for prisoners.   It includes not only data (see 2010 Data) but an explanation of methodology.

Where is the file that shows the population split for block 1002 (365 total population)?  The next task is to get the racial composition of each block. I think I have the data putting aside the prisoner allocations (can't find that either), but not for the block splits, and that is a big block.

You had posted this spread sheet.



The census population of the block along Front Street is 362, so someone in Hudson divided it between Ward 1: 290 and Ward 2: 72.  This would have had to been done after the census was reported in 2001.  They likely paid a law firm a few thousand $$$ to make this adjustment along with calculate the voting weights.  Similarly they divided the population of the large census block on the north side with the population of 289.

I doubt that these splits are based on an actual head count.  They were probably based on the number of housing units, with perhaps some adjustment for number of bedrooms, etc.  Ward 1 has fewer buildings, but 3/4 of the allocated population.

LATFOR is the agency that adjusted New York population for prisoners.  A state law passed in 2010 required that legislative and local redistricting be based on adjusted population, with prisoners removed from the location where they are incarcerated, and located at their last address before imprisonment.  Inmates of federal prisons, and some inmates of state prisons could not relocated - either they were from out of state, or no address could be ascertained.  Those persons simply disappeared from the count.

LATFOR produced files that showed the adjusted population for all census-reported entities, including census blocks.  That is where the data for my map came from.  The LATFOR data showed a population for the block along Front Street of 365, three more than the census.  I simply assumed that it would split in roughly the same proportions as the census population.  So I added two to the Ward 1 population, and one to Ward 2 population.

[jimrtex]

Thanks so much jimtex for your efforts here, and finding the data, and your superb little mappie. You are indeed indefatigable.

I think I'm getting close to understanding the legal issues related to weighted voting.  It may demonstrate that hard cases make bad law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Columbia County board of supervisors uses power-weighted voting, with each ward in Hudson electing one supervisor, and each other town electing one supervisor.  It may be illegal under New York law to do mid-decade redistricting of the board of supervisors, which a change in the number of Hudson wards would require (unless the existing wards would be maintained as county supervisor districts until 2020).  The town of Kinderhook now has a larger population than Hudson, so the idea of 5 supervisors for the county seat may now be outdated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you found the LATFOR numbers.  If you go further right it has the VAP numbers, which might be preferred for a racial breakdown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

I suppose that there could be wards to elect supervisors, and wards to elect alderman if need be. The excuse for the redrawing now of course is that the current system is illegal most probably because there is a 16% variance from population in voting power for the 5th ward from its population share, well over the 10% max that New York courts have embraced. I guess it is possible a court would insist that just the voting weights be adjusted given the proscription against mid decade redistricting in New York that Jimtex thinks may obtain, and overturn a new single member system for the wards if the city choose that fix in a referendum (it takes a referendum to make any change is what has been asserted out there), but I would tend to doubt that would happen is my guess.

The mid-decade redistricting would be for Columbia County board of supervisors.  I don't see how Columbia County could be forced to match changes in Hudson.  The four smallest entities represented on the board of supervisors are now Hudson wards 1, 2, 3, and 4.  Hudson Ward 5 is mid-table, smaller than 8 towns, larger than 10 towns.  Hudson has 10.2% of the county population, so the rest of the county might prefer that Hudson have a single supervisor - unless there is a political advantage to having a split Hudson delegation.

Columbia County uses voting weights which appear to be calculated such that the voting power (Banzhaf power index) of each entity (town or ward) is proportional to its population.  The maximum error is less than 1%.

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

Quite inexplicable, particularly if you take into account the amount of parking.  I kept getting Ward 1 and Ward 2 reversed because it was obvious that the larger share of the population is in the northern part.  The buildings were there by 1994, the roofs have been changed and solar panels added.  It is interesting how much new construction is on the west end of town.  There are the apartments (or townhouses) just west of the public housing tower, with the parking lot inside, and the strip center at Warren and Front.

What is the large building on the north end of the block west of Front?   Until about 10 years ago there were three buildings.  Possibly an old school where they tore down the old building and kept a newer addition.

Incidentally, Columbia County has a different split of Wards 1, 2, and 4.  They appear to have shifted 15 persons from Ward 1 and 13 persons from Ward 4 into Ward 2.   This makes the split of the Front Street block even more lopsided.

[jimrtex]

Having personally eyeballed the structures in that split river block,  to me from the exterior at least, they look identical in design, and I have great difficulty believing that the south of Warren Street portion thereof has the lion's share of either the population or the bedrooms. But maybe exterior appearances are deceiving.

Quite inexplicable, particularly if you take into account the amount of parking.  I kept getting Ward 1 and Ward 2 reversed because it was obvious that the larger share of the population is in the northern part.  The buildings were there by 1994, the roofs have been changed and solar panels added.  It is interesting how much new construction is on the west end of town.  There are the apartments (or townhouses) just west of the public housing tower, with the parking lot inside, and the strip center at Warren and Front.

What is the large building on the north end of the block west of Front?   Until about 10 years ago there were three buildings.  Possibly an old school where they tore down the old building and kept a newer addition.

So does this mean that the split populations on your map for block 13-1002 should be reversed?

We both concluded from the spreadsheet that Torie posted that a population of 362 had been split between Wards 1 and 2, and a population of 289 between Wards 2 and 4.  Since these numbers corresponded to the populations of 13-1002 (the block along Front Street, separated by the walkway of Warren extended; and 12-1000 (the large northern block, divided by 3rd Street extended) we concluded those were the divisions.

Missing from the spreadsheet are the prison adjustments, which I am fairly certain, based on the LATFOR site that Hudson is required to comply with.

I had put the 290 on the larger part of 13-1002, which is to the north and has 8 buildings, 2 of which are larger; and 72 on the southern part of 13-1002, which is smaller and has 5 buildings.   And since 290 was shown in the spreadsheet as being Ward 1, I kept thinking of the northwest ward as being Ward 1.  I also tend to expect numbering to be north to south (top to bottom).  Only after I began to recognize that Ward 2 has about the correct population, and that this was the northwest ward, have I started to associate this with Ward 2.

Looking at Bing maps, which have aerial views rather than satellite views, the buildings appear quite similar.  I would conclude that there were 112 units, 8 per building, but 12 in two of the northern cluster.   359/72 = 3.21 seems reasonable for family housing.  But that would make the split South 231: North 128.

Unless the 5 southern buildings are apartments on separate floors, and the northern are two-story townhomes.   But then the southern buildings lack adequate windows and parking.

Maybe the city messed up.  Maybe the Hofstra students messed up.  Did they take into account the prison adjustment?

I have just found the minutes for the Common Council.  I've started perusing from 2011.  There was a question about the voting method.  The city attorney said that the council could simply pass a law - but that since it modified the powers of elected officials, it had to be put to a referendum.  They were also aware of the need for the prison adjustment, but were waiting for the state.   This was at the May 2011 meeting, so they were probably just getting any sort of numbers.

[jimrtex]

When the Hofstra group recommended 6 wards for the Common Council, did they take into consideration the impact of the Board of Supervisors? It sounds like they did not. If the BoS uses weighted votes anyway and Kinderhook is larger than Hudson, then it is hard to see any rationale to have more than one supervisor from Hudson. If a referendum is needed to change the number of aldermen on the the council, is a county-wide one also required to change the representation on the BoS?

The Gossips blog said:

"Friedman and Barbieri suggested a goal: six election districts of equal population, each represented by only one alderman, with boundaries that would be redrawn after every decennial census. (Reducing the number of aldermen from ten to six would save roughly $25,000, a saving which would be reduced if there had to be a sixth representative from Hudson to the Board of Supervisors.)"

Friedman and Barbieri are the Hofstra students who studied the election system.  Presumably, the estimate of the cost savings was made by them, as was the cost of an additional supervisor - though because it is parenthetical it could be a conclusion by the blogger.  I vote for the students recognizing the problem of representation on the board of supervisors, where currently each of 5 wards is represented.

[jimrtex]

I don't know jimtex what that white roofed building is at the north end of the census block (I strongly doubt it is housing), but have emailed my real estate agent with whom I am speaking anyway in an hour inquiring as its use, and will append this post when I get the answer. And the answer is, is that that white roofed building is not housing, and is "slated to be a school for music."

I wasn't wondering whether it was housing.  Looking at Bing Maps, it appears to be early 19th century industrial (two story brick).  The roof of the main building had collapsed in the Bing aerial shots, and it and another building are now empty space on Google maps.

It is the type of building that historical preservationists anywhere would want to restore and repurpose, and might doubly so in Hudson.

But a brick-wall shell with no support would take bazillions of dollars to build a structurally sound interior and roof; and a wall collapsing on some children exploring would take bazillions to settle the lawsuit.  The history of Hudson was that in the early 20th century when it had twice the population it does now, it had low-value manufacturing such as textiles and match manufacturing that did not survive the depression and World War II.

[jimrtex]

I've been reading over the minutes of the Common Council but haven't found a whole lot.

When the weights were modified in 2004, there was a public hearing, which nobody attended and was adjourned 10 minutes later.  Otherwise, the proposed weights were presented to the alderman at one meeting, and approved at a later meeting.  Going back a little bit more there was a mention that the city attorney was awaiting an opinion for the New York Attorney General.  If the charter is annotated correctly, this was the first re-weighting since 1975 when weighted voting was first adopted. 

A curiosity was that in 2004, the two alderman from Ward 3 had different weights for 2/3 supermajority votes.  In 2013, there was mention of an alternative that would have given different weights to aldermen from Ward 4, which was said to provide better match to the population.

The 2013 public hearing was concurrent with another related to police staffing.  It appears that the city had failed to hold a referendum some years earlier, which put the permitted size of the police force in legal jeopardy.  The police officers were quite concerned, and there were no comments on the weighting change.

Approval of the weighting by the common council was more controversial, with passage om a 1300:700 weighted vote, with Wards 2, 4, and 5, and the President voting aye, and Wards 1 and 3 voting no.  An alderman from Ward 1 declared, "One man, one vote, votes no".

It is possible that the No votes were expressing a preference for the weighting alternative that would have given the Ward 4 aldermen different weights.  The chair of Legal Committee, who is  from Ward 3 seemed to prefer that option.

Earlier discussion appears in the Legal Committee.  In one case it says they were just waiting the report from the city's apportionment expert to stick the numbers in the law.  At the August 22, 2012 committee meeting, their was a discussion about the strength of Ward 5's vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't found anything for 2010 that expressly gives the ward populations, or the manner in which the weights were calculated.  These might be in the report Lee Papayanopoulos prepared for the city.

I did find the following, which I found amusing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.