Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[Dgov]

well, depending on how you draw it, you can add some of the black voters in the current 4th (Don't know what the area is called, but its the biggest conglomeration of blacks in Nassau County) to the 3rd to at least make it an Obama district, and recoup that dem percentage somewhere in New York city.  It would probably at least look nicer than something connecting King's district to NYC.

[Smash255]

well, depending on how you draw it, you can add some of the black voters in the current 4th (Don't know what the area is called, but its the biggest conglomeration of blacks in Nassau County) to the 3rd to at least make it an Obama district, and recoup that dem percentage somewhere in New York city.  It would probably at least look nicer than something connecting King's district to NYC.

Freeport (which is a bit more Hispanic) is very close to King's district.  In fact small portions of Freeport (the whiter areas right along the water) are currently in King's district.  You also have Roosevelt, Uniondale, and Hempstead which are majority black, Baldwin is nearby as well (just west of Freeport) and is very diverse.

[cinyc]

Is there any reason why Cuomo wouldn't play hardball with the state senate like McDonnell is doing in reverse in VA?

1. Veto the maps and send 2011-12 redistricting to a court
2. State court draws maps for 2012 elections
3. Retake NY state senate by a substantial margin in the 2012 elections and hold the Assembly (both are very likely in a presidential year under a non-partisan map)
4. Redraw the maps in 2013, putting >60% of each chamber of the state house in 60%+ Obama 2008 districts and make a new congressional map with 24-25 60%+ Obama districts and 2-3 very strong McCain districts

Andrew Cuomo's presidential ambitions are literally the only thing standing in the way of this right now, right?
 

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too.  The Assembly map is as Gerrymandered as the Senate map.  And Sheldon Silver is far too short-sighted to care about anything much but himself and his Assembly delegation.  See Lunar's comments.

Plus, New York doesn't really have a history of redrawing maps.

[Brittain33]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

[Nichlemn]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

[Brittain33]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

I'm still not getting this one. New York is a majority Democratic state. A non-gerrymandered map still produces a large Democratic majority in the Assembly, especially when elected in a Presidential year. The speaker of the Assembly will still be speaker. And they get to gerrymander away any Pubbies who sneak into office in a court-drawn map for 2014. More to the point, there's only one vote in the Assembly that matters, and it's not that of a Dem in a marginal district that is threatened by a court-drawn map.

I agree with Lunar that they may not calculate their long-term political interest this way, but it is how the incentives align.

[Dan the Roman]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

But what if they are only up in 2012. This is why I suspect the price of Silver going along with it will be a promise to revisit the issue in 2013.

That said, as long as the Senate Democrats don't vote for the map, its impossible to override a Cuomo veto regardless of what Silver does. While a compromise may eventually be reached, I would not be surprised if the initial plan is vetoed. Especially after what McDonnell pulled off in VA. The Senate Dems in NY have the same lawyers as the Virginia Senate Dems.

[BigSkyBob]

I still haven't read an answer. How do you Democrats propose to move prisoner from where they "reside" ["sleep most of the time"] according the census, to where they "reside[d]" [prior to incarceration?]

The New York Constitution is clear that reapportionment must be based on the census. It is also clear that the New York Constitution cannot be amended by statute. Where is your authority? Who is going to do that adjust, how, where, and when?

Somebody made some noise about how the Census Bureau has released the exact locations of "special places," including "prisons" to New York. It has been suggested that New York could simply delete them.

I seem to remember certain Democrats claiming righteously that the New York Constitution states that New Yorkers do not lose their residency due to incarceration. How then do you propose to make them disappear entirely from the roles of New Yorkers?

[Dan the Roman]

I still haven't read an answer. How do you Democrats propose to move prisoner from where they "reside" ["sleep most of the time"] according the census, to where they "reside[d]" [prior to incarceration?]

The New York Constitution is clear that reapportionment must be based on the census. It is also clear that the New York Constitution cannot be amended by statute. Where is your authority? Who is going to do that adjust, how, where, and when?

Somebody made some noise about how the Census Bureau has released the exact locations of "special places," including "prisons" to New York. It has been suggested that New York could simply delete them.

I seem to remember certain Democrats claiming righteously that the New York Constitution states that New Yorkers do not lose their residency due to incarceration. How then do you propose to make them disappear entirely from the roles of New Yorkers?

One-man, one-vote is more mutable for legislative districts, which is why they are allowed 5% population deviations. My assumption is that the bill will be challenged on exactly the lines you have laid out and the response will be that the state is exercising its power to add additional requirements to the federal 5%, VRA, etc ones. Whether that will work is questionable.

It will work most likely in federal court, because anything non-VRA, non-5% related tends to lead to deference to the state courts. The state courts however are a different beast and would likely be a bit more skeptical. Especially if the case was tried in the areas effected.

[krazen1211]

well, depending on how you draw it, you can add some of the black voters in the current 4th (Don't know what the area is called, but its the biggest conglomeration of blacks in Nassau County) to the 3rd to at least make it an Obama district, and recoup that dem percentage somewhere in New York city.  It would probably at least look nicer than something connecting King's district to NYC.

Peter King is the homeland security chairman, and that means money. I would wager that they won't crosscross multiple districts from Long Island to NYC. You might get 2 since Meeks might need some LI blacks, but not 3.

[cinyc]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

I'm still not getting this one. New York is a majority Democratic state. A non-gerrymandered map still produces a large Democratic majority in the Assembly, especially when elected in a Presidential year. The speaker of the Assembly will still be speaker. And they get to gerrymander away any Pubbies who sneak into office in a court-drawn map for 2014. More to the point, there's only one vote in the Assembly that matters, and it's not that of a Dem in a marginal district that is threatened by a court-drawn map.

I agree with Lunar that they may not calculate their long-term political interest this way, but it is how the incentives align.

Regardless of how the incentives align, the New York State Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a second redistricting plan once one has been established:

Article III, Section 4:
Such districts shall be so  readjusted  or  altered  that each  senate  district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of  inhabitants,  excluding  aliens,  and  be  in  as  compact  form  as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined....

[BigSkyBob]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

I'm still not getting this one. New York is a majority Democratic state. A non-gerrymandered map still produces a large Democratic majority in the Assembly, especially when elected in a Presidential year. The speaker of the Assembly will still be speaker. And they get to gerrymander away any Pubbies who sneak into office in a court-drawn map for 2014. More to the point, there's only one vote in the Assembly that matters, and it's not that of a Dem in a marginal district that is threatened by a court-drawn map.

I agree with Lunar that they may not calculate their long-term political interest this way, but it is how the incentives align.

Regardless of how the incentives align, the New York State Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a second redistricting plan once one has been established:

Article III, Section 4:
Such districts shall be so  readjusted  or  altered  that each  senate  district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of  inhabitants,  excluding  aliens,  and  be  in  as  compact  form  as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined....

Always these pesky details like a state Constitution.

[cinyc]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

I'm still not getting this one. New York is a majority Democratic state. A non-gerrymandered map still produces a large Democratic majority in the Assembly, especially when elected in a Presidential year. The speaker of the Assembly will still be speaker. And they get to gerrymander away any Pubbies who sneak into office in a court-drawn map for 2014. More to the point, there's only one vote in the Assembly that matters, and it's not that of a Dem in a marginal district that is threatened by a court-drawn map.

I agree with Lunar that they may not calculate their long-term political interest this way, but it is how the incentives align.

Regardless of how the incentives align, the New York State Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a second redistricting plan once one has been established:

Article III, Section 4:
Such districts shall be so  readjusted  or  altered  that each  senate  district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of  inhabitants,  excluding  aliens,  and  be  in  as  compact  form  as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined....

Always these pesky details like a state Constitution.

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

[Brittain33]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

[BigSkyBob]

The problem is that Assembly Democrats would likely lose seats in a court-drawn map, too. 

They would go from an enormous veto-proof majority to an enormous non-veto-proof majority, which doesn't matter because they have a Dem governor and a closely tied Senate, with the promise of restoring gerrymandering after 2012.

Republicans just aren't in control on this one.

It does matter for the Democrats who have an increased chance of losing. It's in the caucus' narrow self-interest to preserve the gerrymander.

I'm still not getting this one. New York is a majority Democratic state. A non-gerrymandered map still produces a large Democratic majority in the Assembly, especially when elected in a Presidential year. The speaker of the Assembly will still be speaker. And they get to gerrymander away any Pubbies who sneak into office in a court-drawn map for 2014. More to the point, there's only one vote in the Assembly that matters, and it's not that of a Dem in a marginal district that is threatened by a court-drawn map.

I agree with Lunar that they may not calculate their long-term political interest this way, but it is how the incentives align.

Regardless of how the incentives align, the New York State Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a second redistricting plan once one has been established:

Article III, Section 4:
Such districts shall be so  readjusted  or  altered  that each  senate  district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of  inhabitants,  excluding  aliens,  and  be  in  as  compact  form  as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined....

Always these pesky details like a state Constitution.

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

It is a near mathematical certainty that the federal courts will force a redistricting before 2012. Surely, someone with standing will file. Such a litigant will win.

[cinyc]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

I am not aware of any Senate or Assembly court-drawn maps.  They have usually taken care of their own - and I doubt there would have been any successful federal challenges before the 1960s.  The Congressional map is another story, though there is no state constitutional provision regarding how it should be drawn.

One other thing that you are missing is that Senate Democrats are far from united.  Three have broken off from the main caucus, creating their own.  And other votes for any override can be bought with better districts for incumbents.  New York Republicans have more power than you think.

[Verily]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

I am not aware of any Senate or Assembly court-drawn maps.  They have usually taken care of their own - and I doubt there would have been any successful federal challenges before the 1960s.  The Congressional map is another story, though there is no state constitutional provision regarding how it should be drawn.

One other thing that you are missing is that Senate Democrats are far from united.  Three have broken off from the main caucus, creating their own.  And other votes for any override can be bought with better districts for incumbents.  New York Republicans have more power than you think.

Klein and Valesky would be safer on a fair map than they are now. Savino would be put with Golden, but her district would easily reelect her. And Carlucci's district is unlikely to be changed much if at all on a fair map. (It's possibly the most reasonable district on the entire map.)

[Lunar]

Klein and Valesky would be safer on a fair map than they are now. Savino would be put with Golden, but her district would easily reelect her. And Carlucci's district is unlikely to be changed much if at all on a fair map. (It's possibly the most reasonable district on the entire map.)

Of course, that didn't stop the IDC from backing the GOP's "redistricting" plan, so clearly there are ulterior motives at work as well.


edit:

Also, you don't need the IDC to back an incumbent-protection plan, you just need Democrats who would be cut from their political power bases under a fair redistricting system.  You and I both know that a court-drawn plan could easily cut out a white Democratic Senator from Queens due to Asian growth

[Verily]

Maybe. TBH, I don't think a court would draw an Asian-majority seat, though, since it necessitates a Queens-Bronx link to get rid of the extra whites in Whitestone etc. who are trapped north of the hypothetical Asian seat. I think a court would like to have the borough splits be SI-Brooklyn, Queens-Brooklyn, Brooklyn-Manhattan and Manhattan-Bronx.

[Lunar]

Maybe. TBH, I don't think a court would draw an Asian-majority seat, though, since it necessitates a Queens-Bronx link to get rid of the extra whites in Whitestone etc. who are trapped north of the hypothetical Asian seat. I think a court would like to have the borough splits be SI-Brooklyn, Queens-Brooklyn, Brooklyn-Manhattan and Manhattan-Bronx.

Yeah, but you're playing a guessing game here -- that's not really solid enough information for a white Queens Democrat to hypothetically get excited about.  And that's only one of a hundred examples of anxieties certain state senators could have about a court-drawn map.

[BigSkyBob]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

I am not aware of any Senate or Assembly court-drawn maps.  They have usually taken care of their own - and I doubt there would have been any successful federal challenges before the 1960s.  The Congressional map is another story, though there is no state constitutional provision regarding how it should be drawn.

One other thing that you are missing is that Senate Democrats are far from united.  Three have broken off from the main caucus, creating their own.  And other votes for any override can be bought with better districts for incumbents.  New York Republicans have more power than you think.

Klein and Valesky would be safer on a fair map than they are now. Savino would be put with Golden, but her district would easily reelect her. And Carlucci's district is unlikely to be changed much if at all on a fair map. (It's possibly the most reasonable district on the entire map.)

Unless the fix is in, you simply can't know these things.

[Lunar]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

I am not aware of any Senate or Assembly court-drawn maps.  They have usually taken care of their own - and I doubt there would have been any successful federal challenges before the 1960s.  The Congressional map is another story, though there is no state constitutional provision regarding how it should be drawn.

One other thing that you are missing is that Senate Democrats are far from united.  Three have broken off from the main caucus, creating their own.  And other votes for any override can be bought with better districts for incumbents.  New York Republicans have more power than you think.

Klein and Valesky would be safer on a fair map than they are now. Savino would be put with Golden, but her district would easily reelect her. And Carlucci's district is unlikely to be changed much if at all on a fair map. (It's possibly the most reasonable district on the entire map.)

Unless the fix is in, you simply can't know these things.

Which prediction of his do you find most objectionable? Because if it's the Savino/Golden bit, I've gots some maps to prove it would be reasonably probable.

[BigSkyBob]

As I read the Constitution, Democrats or Republicans might be able to delay the adoption of a plan until 2016, but can't adopt a new plan once one has been adopted.  That is, of course, if the feds don't force the state to adopt a plan before the 2012 election on one-person-one-vote principles anyway.

Also, it's not clear that if a map is drawn by a court and not enacted into law by the legislature that it is governed by the restriction. Although perhaps there's a court case binding on it--I doubt it, because how often would NY have done a Delay-mander after a court redistricting since the early 1930s?

I am not aware of any Senate or Assembly court-drawn maps.  They have usually taken care of their own - and I doubt there would have been any successful federal challenges before the 1960s.  The Congressional map is another story, though there is no state constitutional provision regarding how it should be drawn.

One other thing that you are missing is that Senate Democrats are far from united.  Three have broken off from the main caucus, creating their own.  And other votes for any override can be bought with better districts for incumbents.  New York Republicans have more power than you think.

Klein and Valesky would be safer on a fair map than they are now. Savino would be put with Golden, but her district would easily reelect her. And Carlucci's district is unlikely to be changed much if at all on a fair map. (It's possibly the most reasonable district on the entire map.)

Unless the fix is in, you simply can't know these things.

Which prediction of his do you find most objectionable? Because if it's the Savino/Golden bit, I've gots some maps to prove it would be reasonably probable.

No, you have maps in which these events occur. Such examples don't constitute "proof" of anything.

That a Savino/Golden pairing would necessarily happen, and favor Golden is speculative. What happens in the Northern suburbs is not easy to say given the Bronx/Westchester district could collapse into the Bronx and upstate districts will expand southward. An entirely "fair" map could split Carlucci's district in half. That Valesky's district won't be eliminated. [Of couse, he could probably move to Syracuse and win a general, but, maybe the IDC won't be such a good idea in a Syracuse district, or for Klein for that matter in the Bronx.]

[Lunar]

Hah, well, my expertise (if there is such a thing) is Brooklyn, so that's the only aspect of it which I will opine upon. I didn't mean to indicate that I could definitively "prove" anything, hence I couched my rhetoric with modifiers like "probably".

But if you look at where Golden lives in Bay Ridge (the very western part), it's easy to see that a court ordered map that doesn't decide Savino needs the minorities in Sunset Park or Coney Island in her district could result in the geographically proximate Golden included.

[BigSkyBob]

Hah, well, my expertise (if there is such a thing) is Brooklyn, so that's the only aspect of it which I will opine upon. I didn't mean to indicate that I could definitively "prove" anything, hence I couched my rhetoric with modifiers like "probably".

Whether your definition of "reasonably probable" is 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, or 99%, either your maps prove the probablity is at least that great, or they prove nothing.

As a bonus question, when does risk adversion kick in for a politician? A 30% chance of loss? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? When during redistricting have you heard of an incumbent from the majority party voluntering to accept a 50-50 district for the sake of the party? Risk aversion seems to be the norm for politicians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps she wants them in her district, and would not wish to part with them for folks in Bay Ridge.