City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[Torie]

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.

[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.

[Torie]

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, 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, holding the power and most of the very much sought after government jobs.

[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.

[muon2]

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?

[traininthedistance]

I had actually forgotten that NY now counts prisoners as residents of their old locale rather than at the prison; good for us!  Every state should do that, unless of course they let prisoners vote (and even then you could probably do it as absentee ballots from their previous addresses).

I have no reason to doubt your legal analysis Torie; though I would still obviously prefer that they switch to normal equal-population wards.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[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).

[muon2]

From what i can tell wards 1, 2 and 4 are lumped together by the census because the census cannot allocate blocks thatare shared between two wards. As jimrtex noted the boundary between wards 1 and 2 involves the westward extension of Warren to the river. That splits a census block with 362 people. Similarly the boundary between wards 2 and 4 involves the nothward extension of 3rd which splits a block of 289 people. i can get a block-based ward count by allocating those blocks entirely to one ward or another.

The prison population in ward 3 is 363 according to the census. I'm surprised that there would be so much upward adjustment in other wards, since i would have expected virtually none of the prisoners to have Hudson residences.

[muon2]

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.

the other block is the large area generally bounded by 2nd st, strawberry aly, robinson st, 3rd st, state st, carroll st, and harry howard ave. the great majority of the houses would seem to be in ward 4, with a few homes on mill st being the exception.

if i were to place all the apts west of front in ward 1 and all the other split block in ward 4, then subtract the 363 prisoners from ward 3 i get the following populations:

ward 1: 824
ward 2: 1183
ward 3: 1498 - 363 = 1135
ward 4: 736
ward 5: 2472
total: 6713 - 363 = 6350.

if the total is divided into 5 even wards there would be a quota of 1270 and a permissible range of 1207 to 1333 per ward. none of the current wards complies with the equal population requirement even with the 5% variance for local districts. quite a bit of block shifting is needed to get compliant wards.

the hofstra suggestion of 6 wards would create a quota of 1058 and a permissible range of 1005 to 1111 per ward. none of the current wards meets this range either, so it doesnt provide a very useful alternative. it wwould require less block swapping to make compliant wards assuming the split of the 5th that was part of the suggestion.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Reminds me of that town in New York that allows you to vote for the same candidate six times.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

the other block is the large area generally bounded by 2nd st, strawberry aly, robinson st, 3rd st, state st, carroll st, and harry howard ave. the great majority of the houses would seem to be in ward 4, with a few homes on mill st being the exception.

if i were to place all the apts west of front in ward 1 and all the other split block in ward 4, then subtract the 363 prisoners from ward 3 i get the following populations:

ward 1: 824
ward 2: 1183
ward 3: 1498 - 363 = 1135
ward 4: 736
ward 5: 2472
total: 6713 - 363 = 6350.

if the total is divided into 5 even wards there would be a quota of 1270 and a permissible range of 1207 to 1333 per ward. none of the current wards complies with the equal population requirement even with the 5% variance for local districts. quite a bit of block shifting is needed to get compliant wards.

the hofstra suggestion of 6 wards would create a quota of 1058 and a permissible range of 1005 to 1111 per ward. none of the current wards meets this range either, so it doesnt provide a very useful alternative. it wwould require less block swapping to make compliant wards assuming the split of the 5th that was part of the suggestion.

The problem is that with but 5 districts, there would be six  votes on the common council, with the common council president elected at large being the sixth vote (his extra power is that he gets to appoint the chairman of common council committees), so that would entail the possibility of 3-3 deadlock votes.

[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?

[Torie]

I got the numbers below using this utility.
 

[muon2]

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?

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

Columbia Census Tract 12
Block 2001: 0 -> 1 (+1)
Block 2002: 414 -> 421 (+7)
Block 2006: 109 -> 111 (+2)
Block 3000: 53 -> 55 (+2)
Block 3001: 91 -> 93 (+2)
Block 3003: 49 -> 50 (+1)
Block 3005: 66 -> 70 (+4)
Block 3006: 53 -> 55 (+2)
Block 3010: 70 -> 74 (+4)
Block 4003: 27 -> 28 (+1)
Block 4004: 57 -> 59 (+2)
Block 4005: 62 -> 63 (+1)
Block 4010: 70 -> 71 (+1)
Block 4012: 116 -> 118 (+2)
Block 4015: 17-> 18 (+1)
Block 4017: 61 -> 64 (+3)
Block 4019: 40 -> 41 (+1)

Columbia Census Tract 13
Block 1002: 362 -> 365 (+3)
Block 1008: 33 -> 34 (+1)
Block 2003: 232 -> 60 (-172)
Block 2007: 77 -> 20 (-57)
Block 2008: 126 -> 33 (-93)
Block 2009: 51 -> 13 (-38)
Block 2013: 140 -> 141 (+1)
Block 4001: 96 -> 98 (+2)
Block 4011: 82 -> 83 (+1)
Block 4012: 42 -> 43 (+1)
Block 5007: 30 -> 31 (+1)
Block 5013: 75 -> 76 (+1)
Block 5014: 118 -> 119 (+1)
Block 5018: 55 -> 56 (+1)

There is a net outflow of 360 prisoners and a net inflow of 50, for an adjusted population of 6713 - 360 + 50 = 6403, so jimrtex and I match. With six districts the quota is 1067 and the range is from 1014 to 1120. To look at six wards I've split ward 5 between the part in Tract 12 and the part in Tract 13 (which I will call Ward 6). This split follows the line of North 6th and Glenwood.

Ward 1: 755
Ward 2: 1309
Ward 3: 1142
Ward 4: 712
Ward 5: 1564
Ward 6: 921

None of the six wards is within the required range, but there are adjacent pairs that are nearly within range (2028 to 2240).

Wards 1+2: 2064
Wards 4+5: 2276
Wards 3+6: 2063

That implies a shift from Ward 2 to Ward 1, from Ward 3 to Ward 6 and from Ward 5 to Ward 4 and a bit to Ward 6 would make a balanced 6-ward map.

[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.