Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[cinyc]

Depends on whether the Republican party can both draw a better map and continue the rebuilding process in the NYC suburbs.  As of right now, my guess is they will lose their majority at some point this decade as the old guard dies or gets indicted.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[cinyc]

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.

How is losing six House seats in one state anything other than horrible?  The last time Democrats lost that many seats in the state was 1946 and that is when the state had far more seats to lose.

Democrats didn't lose any seats they held in 2005. They still hold NY-23.

They lost many seats that they should have been able to hold like NY-13, NY-19 and NY-25.  NY-29 was arguably the only seat that they should have lost based on statewide results.

NY-13, NY-19 and NY-29 are all R+ PVI seats that Republicans should win in anything but a bad year for them.  They are traditionally Republican seats.  2006 and 2008 were the outliers in those districts, not 2010.  Had Fossella not been embroiled in a mistress scandal, NY-13 would have never been lost at all in the first place.

NY-25 is a D+3 district, but was traditionally held by Republicans until 2008.  2010 arguably was a bit of a fluke there - but, on the other hand, if Republicans had their best year since 1894 in New York, they would have picked up NY-01, NY-23 and one or more of NY-02, NY-04, NY-09, NY-22 and NY-27, too.  That they didn't and ended up just winning back traditionally Republican seats tells me that, in New York, 2010 was a regression back to the Republican mean, not the Republicans' best year since 1894.

[cinyc]

What percent of voters care about redistricting?  Most probably don't even know what it is.

We're assuming he has further ambitions -- some large percentage of editorial boards and critics would definitely latch onto him forcing a mid-decade redistricting plan if he were to ever run for VP or P.

Ι doubt it. Mitch Daniels did nothing to prevent his fellow Republicans from gerrymandering Indiana, yet nobody seems to care about that.
And Democrats don't need to go DeLay-crazy. New York is Democratic enough to allow them for example to eliminate King and one upstate Republican without much trouble.

King isn't going anywhere.  If you make King's district too Democratic, King will move to another Long Island district and defeat an incumbent Democrat, probably Bishop, who won by the skin of his teeth in 2010 and whose district can't be Gerrymandered all that much due to simple geography.

[cinyc]

If you make King's district too Democratic, King will move to another Long Island district and defeat an incumbent Democrat, probably Bishop, who won by the skin of his teeth in 2010 and whose district can't be Gerrymandered all that much due to simple geography.

Wouldn't replacing the bulk of Smithtown currently in the 1st CD w/ something a bit further south/southwest do the trick, without even  appearing much of a gerrymander? Of course, Smithtown would have to go somewhere, but it should be possible to suck enough of Queens into LI districts to make the Dem gerrymander work. Or am I missing something serious?

Nassau and Suffolk Counties are entitled to almost exactly 4 districts.  Sure, you could push one or two of the districts into Queens, but any Republicans taken out of NY-01 and NY-03 would ultimately have to go somewhere.  Packing Republicans into Peter King's district makes the other three Long Island Democrats safer. 

I really don't see the legislature messing with King's seat.  I know posters here are acting as if New York Republicans don't matter in the redistricting process - but they still control the New York State Senate.  There's no way they won't fight to keep the seat of the most senior member of the New York Republican Congressional delegation, particularly since he's from the same general area of the state as the Senate Majority Leader.

Regional differences do matter, too.  If Long Island is entitled to 4 seats, they're not going to want to share any more of a district with New York City than they have to.

[cinyc]

Of course, Republicans do control the Senate and do matter for redistricting. But I was addressing a fairly narrow point: purely on geographic (not political) considerations it IS possible to gerrymander Long Island, and, specifically  1st and 3rd districts in a way much friendlier to the Dems.

Just take the Smithtown out of the 1st, replacing it with something around Ronkonkoma  and cut the rest horizontally, rather than vertically, so as to create the big North Shore district, from Smithtown all the way into Queens (taking care to dip a bit south when you get there). Get some 150,000 black and Asian voters from Queens and stick them into LI, while taking a bit of LI back into Queens and  you should be fine. The current 2nd (Israel) and 4th (McCarthy) are reasonably safe D, so it's only the matter of strengthening the 1st while screwing the third. 150 thousand minority Queens voters stuck onto the most Republican parts of the Island should do the trick (and if that's not enough, there are ways of making it 200,000). The districts won't even appear much gerrymandered to a naked eye - certainly, there are many worse gerrymanders elsewhere.

This won't happen, of course,  as long as Republicans control the state Senate, but whenever they lose it, unpacking the huge store of Dem voters in NYC is going to be a priority for any Dem redistricting effort.  This is why, it would make a lot of sense for the Republicans to go for a non-partisan commission now, while they still have something to trade for it. A non-partisan commission will surely keep LI intact this time, and will likely preserve elected Republicans in LI for the foreseeable future. If Dems ever get to do redistricting on their own, that stock of Dem voters in the City will be unleashed on the suburbs

Anything's possible.  But Israel's district isn't as Democratic as you think.  It's as Democratic (D+4) as King's district is Republican (R+4).

I don't think you can take many black residents out of Queens without jeopardizing the ability to draw the current 3 non-Hispanic African-American majority districts in Brooklyn and Queens.  NY-06 isn't even majority non-Hispanic black any more, and NY-11 is trending that way, at only 53.1%.  NY-10 has some excess black population, but not much - it's 58.5% black.  And all three districts are going to need to add population to get up to ideal size.  That stock of Dem voters can't be unleashed on the suburbs.  Nor is there any suburban Republican Congressman anywhere near the city other than Peter King - and even he's not that all that close to it.

[cinyc]

Well, yeah, it's not majority black anymore, so does it really have to become majority black again? I have a hard time believing that in a plurality black district with a diverse population a half-way decent incumbent black congressman will be in that much trouble. Is Meeks THAT pathetic? (I haven't lived in the City since 2000, of course, I might be out of touch on this one).

Three non-Hispanic black majority districts can be drawn in Queens and Brooklyn, so they most likely will be drawn.  Blacks make up about a quarter of New York City's population, which means they should be entitled to about 3 Congressional Districts.  No non-Hispanic black majority district can easily be drawn in Harlem or the Bronx any more, so...

NY-06 is only barely non-Hispanic black majority - 49% non-Hispanic black.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.