Will Republicans in New York lose their State Senate majority

[Dan the Roman]

Cuomo has been hinting for several months he will veto any plan that is based on "political considerations" if the GOP in the Senate continue to refuse to accept his independent redistricting plan. Its not clear if he will, but its perfectly possible he will veto the legislative maps as well.

I know this sounds odd, but the recent behavior of Bob McDonnell and the Republicans in the MS senate makes this more likely. Redistricting is a linked process, the same law firms tend to represent Democrats in a number of states, and I know for a fact that there has been talk in MA of all places of retaliating against recent GOP behavior in VA, or in Wisconsin by going after republicans in the legislature. The same firm works for the MA legislative Democrats and the VA ones, so there is a constituency with an interest in riling things up.

And Cuomo needs to strengthen his partisan credentials a bit, given his performance so far, especially if he wants liberal interest groups to back him in 2016. He needs to get Gay Marriage through the legislature, and that won't happen without not only a Democratic majority in the senate, but one of the size a neutral or democratic gerrymander will produce.

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

And most likely, Skelos blinks and agrees to deal.

[Dan the Roman]

How exactly can the Massachusetts Democrats screw over the GOP? I suppose they could make the current MA-10 (new MA-9) more unwinnable but that's not exactly an epic screw. And even if they can squeeze out an additional legislative seat or two, what's the point?

Its in the legislature. Up through March the process had been fairly bipartisan. There are a lot of scared Democrats. The Democrats lost 15 seats, about 12 of them with incumbents. No Democratic incumbent had lost to a Republican since 2002, and in that year only one did(Jeff Perry was the lucky winner). That was a sea change, and the Senate President only held her own seat 52-48. There were also about 20 or so Democrats who pulled in under 53% in the house.

As a consequence, the Democrats were more or less inclined to recognize a "new normal" of GOP strength of between 25 and 30 in the house, in exchange for creating a firewall above it. Given MA law, low population change outside of Boston and the Berkshires, and a general desire to avoid trouble, it was going to be a soft-firewall.

But the combination of a newly assertive GOP caucus, and a number of concerned Democrats means the firewall has been drifting from soft to hard. There are Democrats who won by 15-20 points who are collecting lists of precincts they would like to jettison.

[Dan the Roman]

There will be a whole lot of pressure on Democrats in New York to run with court-drawn maps in 2012, and then to do a mid-decade redistricting in 2013. Really, there are few drawbacks. The worst that happens is that its struck down and there is a court plan that is still more pro-democratic than the status quo. Best case, everyone wins, except, well for the GOP, but under such a scenario they can greet the Texas legislative dems in the forever irreverent line.

Sorry, but I think this is where you're a bit wrong -- you're right in principle but perhaps less so in assuming that the Democrats are rational and thinking collectively here.

A court-drawn map, even if more Democratic overall, could destroy many districts gerrymandered to protect Democratic incumbents and their power bases (even forcing a few primaries while leaving other districts open).  At least a few Democratic State Senators would prefer a GOP majority to having to take the roll of the dice with their own districts.

In fact, one could argue that at least a few Democratic State Senators prefer being in the minority as it frees them from actually having to govern.

If the court drawn map were to be for the decade you would have a point. But thats not whats on table. Or more accurately, its not acceptable to Silver and the Assembly Democrats for exactly the reasons you stated.

What they are supposedly willing to do(the assembly leadership at least), is run under a court drawn map in 2012.

A mid-decade redrawing seems to be Shelly Silver's price for going with court drawn maps this year. Democrats are at a low enough base they can't possibly lose anything else with Presidential turnout, even in the Assembly, but a lot of them want to avoid running in Obama's second midterm year. I have no idea if such a redrawing would also extend to the congressional maps, but given that the DCCC is sending staff to hang around the MA State house telling everyone that Democrats are being so screwed by GOP states in redistricting that no one can afford to be merciful, only Cuomo's Presidential ambitions would likely stand in the way of it.

Really I have never seen a redistricting process like this. The DCCC and NRCC have staff everywhere, and are intimately working with their state counterparts. I don't know whether the Democrats will force a showdown in NY, but anyone expecting a GOP gerrymander to pass the Assembly is missing how much times have changed since 2001. Look at Virginia, look at what happened to the Mississippi legislative maps. These bargains and traditions don't count for anything anymore.

[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.

[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.