Nassau Republicans rushing through redistricting for Legislature

[BigSkyBob]

Your interpretation of the Nassau County Charter is simply incorrect.  Section 112 requires a reapportionment before the 2011 election - which, arguably, is also required under federal OMOV principles, anyway.  That the Nassau Democrats supposedly shirked this responsibility in 2001 is wholly irrelevant, especially if nobody could have sued in federal court because the districts were within permitted population variance even after the 2000 census.  That simply isn't the case now - one district has far too much excess population, which needs to go into another district.

Section 113 & 114 make clear that it must start eighteen months prior to the election.  With the maps released ten months prior to the election.  Have input from a bi-partisan panel.  Its quite clear that the first redistricting would occur in 2003 and then every ten years thereafter.  

Again, please read the charter.  It's not quite clear, as you claim, that the first redistricting occurs in 2003 and every 10 years after.  You simply cannot read Section 112 out of the charter just because you don't like the results.  That section REQUIRES that the county legislature redraw the maps within 6 months after getting Census data:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

County Legislature SHALL within 6 months after the public announcement of EACH census commencing (i.e. BEGINNING) with the 2000 Census.  County legislature - not the redistricting commission.  6 months, not 2.5 years.  Each census, not just the 2000 census.

From what I understand, the Nassau Legislature DID pass a local law in 2001, readopting the pre-2001 lines.  That would be permissible if those lines didn't violate OMOV principles at the time.  And, from what I understand, the current lines DO violate OMOV principles and, thus, need to be redrawn.  The legislature clearly has to adopt a plan before the 2011 election under Section 112.

It does NOT state that, it mentions 6 months, but has no mention of that election, the 6 months would be a mere 5 or 6 weeks prior to the actual election.   It is required to have a bi-partisan commission, it is required to start at least 18 months prior to the next election, it is required to be given at least ten months notice for the maps to be made public, it is required for the approval to be made at least 8 months prior, it is required that the first redistricting to be completed for the 2003 elections and then every ten years after.  NONE of those things are being followed.

Again, you evade the federal one man, one vote issue. Why is that?

[cinyc]

Again, please read the charter.  It's not quite clear, as you claim, that the first redistricting occurs in 2003 and every 10 years after.  You simply cannot read Section 112 out of the charter just because you don't like the results.  That section REQUIRES that the county legislature redraw the maps within 6 months after getting Census data:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

County Legislature SHALL within 6 months after the public announcement of EACH census commencing (i.e. BEGINNING) with the 2000 Census.  County legislature - not the redistricting commission.  6 months, not 2.5 years.  Each census, not just the 2000 census.

From what I understand, the Nassau Legislature DID pass a local law in 2001, readopting the pre-2001 lines.  That would be permissible if those lines didn't violate OMOV principles at the time.  And, from what I understand, the current lines DO violate OMOV principles and, thus, need to be redrawn.  The legislature clearly has to adopt a plan before the 2011 election under Section 112.

It does NOT state that, it mentions 6 months, but has no mention of that election, the 6 months would be a mere 5 or 6 weeks prior to the actual election.   It is required to have a bi-partisan commission, it is required to start at least 18 months prior to the next election, it is required to be given at least ten months notice for the maps to be made public, it is required for the approval to be made at least 8 months prior, it is required that the first redistricting to be completed for the 2003 elections and then every ten years after.  NONE of those things are being followed.

Except it does state that.  Section 112(1) states "The nineteen county legislative districts shall be set forth in the map attached hereto as Annex A, bounded and described in said Annex A."

So Annex A - the map - dictates which districts each representative represents.

As previously stated, Section 112(2) requires that the County Legislature reapportion WITHIN six months after Nassau's census data is published, specifically by adopting a local law that AMENDS Annex A.  Given that Census released its New York results around March 24, the County Legislature MUST amend Annex A by September 24.  That's before election day.  And the elections are held based on the districts shown on the Annex A maps.

Section 112(3) then basically says that if a legislator doesn't live in the new district in which he or she ran after redistricting, he or she has a year to move into the new district.

Sections 113 and 114 say that the temporary redistricting commission will be appointed 16-18 months before the 2013 election, not the 2011 election.  That commission will present a plan or plans to redistrict the maps.  The legislature may adopt one of their maps or one of their own maps.  NONE of that is being followed right now because the time for following those things hasn't yet occurred - and won't until next year.  But, in the interim, the COUNTY LEGISLATURE is REQUIRED to draw a new map under Section 112 by adopting a local law amending Annex A.  Again, Section 112 says SHALL, not MAY.  The County Legislature can be sued if they do not pass a local law adopting a map that adheres to OMOV principles by late September.

[Smash255]

Again, please read the charter.  It's not quite clear, as you claim, that the first redistricting occurs in 2003 and every 10 years after.  You simply cannot read Section 112 out of the charter just because you don't like the results.  That section REQUIRES that the county legislature redraw the maps within 6 months after getting Census data:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

County Legislature SHALL within 6 months after the public announcement of EACH census commencing (i.e. BEGINNING) with the 2000 Census.  County legislature - not the redistricting commission.  6 months, not 2.5 years.  Each census, not just the 2000 census.

From what I understand, the Nassau Legislature DID pass a local law in 2001, readopting the pre-2001 lines.  That would be permissible if those lines didn't violate OMOV principles at the time.  And, from what I understand, the current lines DO violate OMOV principles and, thus, need to be redrawn.  The legislature clearly has to adopt a plan before the 2011 election under Section 112.

It does NOT state that, it mentions 6 months, but has no mention of that election, the 6 months would be a mere 5 or 6 weeks prior to the actual election.   It is required to have a bi-partisan commission, it is required to start at least 18 months prior to the next election, it is required to be given at least ten months notice for the maps to be made public, it is required for the approval to be made at least 8 months prior, it is required that the first redistricting to be completed for the 2003 elections and then every ten years after.  NONE of those things are being followed.

Except it does state that.  Section 112(1) states "The nineteen county legislative districts shall be set forth in the map attached hereto as Annex A, bounded and described in said Annex A."

So Annex A - the map - dictates which districts each representative represents.

As previously stated, Section 112(2) requires that the County Legislature reapportion WITHIN six months after Nassau's census data is published, specifically by adopting a local law that AMENDS Annex A.  Given that Census released its New York results around March 24, the County Legislature MUST amend Annex A by September 24.  That's before election day.  And the elections are held based on the districts shown on the Annex A maps.

Section 112(3) then basically says that if a legislator doesn't live in the new district in which he or she ran after redistricting, he or she has a year to move into the new district.

Sections 113 and 114 say that the temporary redistricting commission will be appointed 16-18 months before the 2013 election, not the 2011 election.  That commission will present a plan or plans to redistrict the maps.  The legislature may adopt one of their maps or one of their own maps.  NONE of that is being followed right now because the time for following those things hasn't yet occurred - and won't until next year.  But, in the interim, the COUNTY LEGISLATURE is REQUIRED to draw a new map under Section 112 by adopting a local law amending Annex A.  Again, Section 112 says SHALL, not MAY.  The County Legislature can be sued if they do not pass a local law adopting a map that adheres to OMOV principles by late September.

Of course it doesn't say 18 months prior to the 2011 election because they aren't suppose to redistrict for the 2011 election.  Redistricting is suppose to be done once every ten years, starting in 2003, followed by 2013, and so on.  This is simply Peter Schmitt realizing that Mangano and the GOP Legislature are quite unpopular so they will do whatever they can to keep the GOP in power and in charge of the actual redistricting.  Its a joke, the new lines are a train wreck.  Splitting Hempstead into three districts?? 

[cinyc]

Of course it doesn't say 18 months prior to the 2011 election because they aren't suppose to redistrict for the 2011 election.  Redistricting is suppose to be done once every ten years, starting in 2003, followed by 2013, and so on.  This is simply Peter Schmitt realizing that Mangano and the GOP Legislature are quite unpopular so they will do whatever they can to keep the GOP in power and in charge of the actual redistricting.  Its a joke, the new lines are a train wreck.  Splitting Hempstead into three districts??  

You keep on repeating the same thing as if it is true because you say so while ignoring Section 112.  You can't ignore Section 112, nor will any court unless the judge is an incompetent hack.  As I read it, Nassau redistricting is supposed to be done twice - in the year census results are released, by the County Legislature, and from the year ending in 2 to the year ending in 3, by the committee with the County Legislature having final say.  And federal OMOV principles might require a 2011 reapportionment regardless of what the county charter says, anyway.

As the County Attorney said, for whatever reason, New York law doesn't require villages or even cities be kept together during redistricting (at least at the State Senate level, though I believe another law that applies to municipal offices says something similar) - just towns and city blocks, except to balance population.  The village of Hempstead can be split up into as many districts as the mappers think relevant.  The town of Hempstead cannot.  Mappers in Westchester split the city of Peekskill and village of Briarcliff Manor to shore up a Democratic incumbent, while drawing a potential Republican challenger to a vulnerable Democrat into a Republican incumbent's district.  Redistricting is what it is - partisan gerrymandering to keep incumbents in power.

[Smash255]

Of course it doesn't say 18 months prior to the 2011 election because they aren't suppose to redistrict for the 2011 election.  Redistricting is suppose to be done once every ten years, starting in 2003, followed by 2013, and so on.  This is simply Peter Schmitt realizing that Mangano and the GOP Legislature are quite unpopular so they will do whatever they can to keep the GOP in power and in charge of the actual redistricting.  Its a joke, the new lines are a train wreck.  Splitting Hempstead into three districts??  

You keep on repeating the same thing as if it is true because you say so while ignoring Section 112.  You can't ignore Section 112, nor will any court unless the judge is an incompetent hack.  As I read it, Nassau redistricting is supposed to be done twice - in the year census results are released, by the County Legislature, and from the year ending in 2 to the year ending in 3, by the committee with the County Legislature having final say.  And federal OMOV principles might require a 2011 reapportionment regardless of what the county charter says, anyway.

As the County Attorney said, for whatever reason, New York law doesn't require villages or even cities be kept together during redistricting (at least at the State Senate level, though I believe another law that applies to municipal offices says something similar) - just towns and city blocks, except to balance population.  The village of Hempstead can be split up into as many districts as the mappers think relevant.  The town of Hempstead cannot.  Mappers in Westchester split the city of Peekskill and village of Briarcliff Manor to shore up a Democratic incumbent, while drawing a potential Republican challenger to a vulnerable Democrat into a Republican incumbent's district.  Redistricting is what it is - partisan gerrymandering to keep incumbents in power.

There is no mention of the redistricting being for the 2011 election, there is specific mention of redistricting and the process for the 2013 election.  No mention of redistricting twice, just mention of redistricting once every ten years starting with 2003.   It puts forth a very specific process of how the lines are suppose to be drawn, who is involved, etc, a county attorney (who happens to be a former election attorney) fits no where in that either.

[cinyc]

Well, the Nassau Legislature voted to approve a slightly modified redistricting plan this afternoon.

The lower court judge's injunction was overruled on appeal.  The parties will go back to court on Thursday.

[Smash255]

Both the Democrats and Republicans held their nominating conventions, and both sides did so using the current lines.

http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=628BCAAC98A99D040241.3102?site=newsday&view=longisland_item&feed:a=newsday_5min&feed:c=longisland&feed:i=1.2897771&nopaging=1

[cinyc]

Both the Democrats and Republicans held their nominating conventions, and both sides did so using the current lines.

Which says little, especially since anyone elected has a year or so to move to the new districts under the county charter.

I really don't get asking a judge to tell the executive branch not to sign a law.  Doing so or not the County Executive's prerogative.  A judge should have no power to stop a member of a co-equal branch from signing or passing a law.  The court fight should be over whether the law is constitutional once signed.