Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2020, 07:14:49 pm
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Applying Muon2 scheme for redistricting to Columbia County
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Applying Muon2 scheme for redistricting to Columbia County  (Read 2352 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,406
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2018, 07:24:20 pm »

Well in other news, when a county adopts a charter, the charter dictates the rules of the road for districting, and not the MHRL.  In Ulster County, counsel opined that the charter had not referenced the 110% rule, so it did not apply. So assuming Columbia County were not so foolish as to get anywhere near adopting the silly and undoable 110% rule, one can chop any town one wants. Pity I spent a good part of yesterday reading all the cases on population disparities, but I least I think I know the law on that topic now. The good news is contained in  this document. I screen shot the page setting forth this conclusion. The county also need not exclude the prisoner population, and Ulster County in fact counted them, to avoid delays I think. That lacunae pops up elsewhere in the document.

"He said when the Commission butchers the towns so it can come up with 182,493 Ibs of chopped meat to put into 23 sausages it becomes a counter-democratic, flawed process."

A weakness of "independent" "citizens" redistricting commissions is that they can be (mis)led by legal experts and consultants. In Ulster County, the county attorney bullied the commission into abandoning the use of weighted voting. She warned of possible "legal" challenges. But Ulster County was sued based on whether the redistricting commission could enact its plan, or whether the county legislature had to enact it as a local law. You can be sued for anything.

Ulster County has a 100:1 population disparity between the smallest town and the city of Kingston so there is some justification for combining the smallest towns into a single district. Moreover, about 1/3 of the population is in Kingston and nearby areas of Ulster, Saugerties, and Esopus town. Reducing the size of the legislature from 33 to 23 results in a number of other towns which were about a quota, to be short of that level, which resulted in them being chopped or having random stuff added to them.

The legislature passed the census prison law in August 2010, four months after Census. Ulster County holds elections in odd years, and stupidly provided for redistricting to be performed for the '1' year election. They had to get it done in time to permit filing for the primary. The county charter law is part of the MHR law.

In any case, I think Ulster County would lose an equal protection case based on not adjusting for the prison population (vote dilution for citizens who do not reside in areas that have prisons). Ulster County would be within its prerogatives to exclude students at the SUNY campus in New Paltz. Another county does so, reasoning that they are no different than prisoners.

Keep searching for the lode of pyrite.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,043
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2018, 08:59:17 am »

I am aware of the byzantine procedural rules.

I did draw a map. I don't have a census block map for the county (just a voting district map), so the lines are approximate as to where the chops lie in the town of Kinderhook and Taghkanic.



If I assume a 5% max deviation to get to a 10% range, Ghent is too small to be a district on its own (-6.8%) but Claverack is just barely the right size for a district (+4.97%). I presume that you've compensated for Ghent elsewhere, but why not make Claverack whole instead?

With Claverack whole, the Greenport district would pull about 1000 from Hudson and 600 from Livingston. Ancram, Gallatin and Taghkanic would pull about 1200 from Livingston. That leaves the rest of Livingston with Germantown and Clermont. It's the same chop count in the south but removes the ugly connection (IMO) between Clermont and Gallatin.

In the north you would have to add a chop to bring Ghent up at least 46 people to get the range within 10%. OTOH you could probably make a case of a compelling state interest to accept that extra deviation for a range of 10.79% to keep Ghent whole as a district.

The problem with this analysis I now discern, is that you have exceeded the 10% deviation, where there is another map (mine), that does not, that has the same number of chops. You would have to argue that exceeding 10% is justified, because of the ugly shape of Clermont, and it is worth tri-chopping one town, Livingston, plus go over 10%, in order to get rid of that ugly shape, by smoothing out the lines via the tri-chop. So I see a fair amount of legal risk here.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,043
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2018, 09:20:29 am »
« Edited: January 29, 2018, 03:19:27 pm by Torie »

Here is the chop for Taghkanic that gets the population split exactly right:



And the Kinderhook chops:



And the Hudson chop:

Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,486


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2018, 09:46:24 am »
« Edited: January 29, 2018, 10:32:40 am by muon2 »

I am aware of the byzantine procedural rules.

I did draw a map. I don't have a census block map for the county (just a voting district map), so the lines are approximate as to where the chops lie in the town of Kinderhook and Taghkanic.



If I assume a 5% max deviation to get to a 10% range, Ghent is too small to be a district on its own (-6.8%) but Claverack is just barely the right size for a district (+4.97%). I presume that you've compensated for Ghent elsewhere, but why not make Claverack whole instead?

With Claverack whole, the Greenport district would pull about 1000 from Hudson and 600 from Livingston. Ancram, Gallatin and Taghkanic would pull about 1200 from Livingston. That leaves the rest of Livingston with Germantown and Clermont. It's the same chop count in the south but removes the ugly connection (IMO) between Clermont and Gallatin.

In the north you would have to add a chop to bring Ghent up at least 46 people to get the range within 10%. OTOH you could probably make a case of a compelling state interest to accept that extra deviation for a range of 10.79% to keep Ghent whole as a district.

The problem with this analysis I now discern, is that you have exceeded the 10% deviation, where there is another map (mine), that does not, that has the same number of chops. You would have to argue that exceeding 10% is justified, because of the ugly shape of Clermont, and it is worth tri-chopping one town, Livingston, plus go over 10%, in order to get rid of that ugly shape, by smoothing out the lines via the tri-chop. So I see a fair amount of legal risk here.

Actually my original idea had under 10% range with one more chop than yours but less erosity and without the disconnected Clermont appendage. Since Ghent exceeds the deviation from the quota (on the low side) I chopped it and combined the larger part with Stockport and the remainder with Chatham keeping the Census place together. I only dropped that idea when cases with ranges in excess of 10% were noted.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,406
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2018, 04:37:09 am »

So basically the clerk just changed her roll call sheets?
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,299
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2018, 01:34:41 am »

Isn't weighted voting in a legislature unconstitutional? I know the New Jersey Supreme Court struck it down in the wake of cases like Reynolds v. Sims.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,406
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2018, 07:36:55 am »


No.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

At the time of Reynolds v Sims each county in New Jersey had one senator. The General Assembly was apportioned among the counties on the basis of population, but each county was entitled to one assembly member.

In Jackman v Bodine 43 N.J. 453 (1964) the Supreme Court of New Jersey overturned the apportionment of the Senate - they took a pass on the General Assembly, which was not horribly malapportioned. The smallest counties were collectively entitled to 2.7 members, so they were not remarkably over represented.

The Senate then by a change in its rules provided that each senator would have a weighted vote proportional to the county's population.

The Supreme Court in Jackman v Bodine 43 N.J. 491 (1964) said that one body of the legislature could not overturn the constitution by rule.

The senate rescinded its rule, and the New Jersey constitution was later changed.

So you are off the mark as to what happened in New Jersey.

Ironically, it appears that a similar thing happened in Columbia County. The clerk just started using new weights - there was no formal action. Perhaps Torie knows what has happened?
Logged
Kevinstat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,669


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2018, 01:21:27 pm »
« Edited: March 31, 2018, 01:36:18 pm by Kevinstat »

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

District 1: ~9.90% of Chatham, ~33.47% of Kinderhook and (all of) Stuyvesant, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 2: ~66.53% of Kinderhook, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 3: ~81.10% of Chatham and New Lebanon, adj. pop. ~5,656 (-0.98%)
District 4: Austerlitz, Canaan, ~16.75% of Copake and Hillsdale, adj. pop. ~5,898 (+3.26%)
District 5: ~5.11% of Claverack and Ghent, adj. pop. ~5,716 (+0.07%)
District 6: ~51.26% of Greenport, ~11.27% of Hudson and Stockport OR ~68.54% of Greenport and Stockport, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 7: ~88.73% of Hudson, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 8: ~48.74% of Greenport and Livingston, OR ~31.46% of Greenport, ~11.27% of Hudson and Livingston, adj. pop. ~5,681.33 (-0.53%)
District 9: ~94.89% of Claverack, adj. pop. ~5,716 (+0.07%)
District 10: Clermont, Gallatin and Germantown, adj. pop. 5,589 (-2.15%)
District 11: Ancram, ~83.25% of Copake and Taghkanic, adj. pop. ~5,898 (+3.26%)

Claverack's prisoner-adjusted quota is 1.0547 (rather than 1.0497 without the prisoner adjustment; kind of surprising as Claverack apparently has a small prison, but it has three more people with the prisoner adjustment and the denominator is substantially lower with the prisoner adjustment as there are lots of people from outside Columbia County in the Hudson prison).  I used that >5% deviation on the large side (coupled with neighboring Ghent's >5% deviation on the small side) as justification for splitting it, but unlike Torie's plan I have a district entirely in Claverack.

As far as the split towns that don't have a district entirely in that town go, the ~81.10% of Chatham in with New Lebanon would make up ~59.25% of (the prisoner-adjusted population of) that district (Chatham's (prisoner-adjusted) "quota" would be 0.7234) and the ~83.25% of Copake in with Ancram and Taghkanic would make up ~51.05% of that district (and would be roughly centered within that district; Copake's "quota" would be 0.6333).  Greenport (quota 0.7311) would be less fortunate, making up either ~37.68% or ~50.38% of the district with Stockport and ~35.82% or ~23.12% of the district with Livingston (depending on whether the Hudson remainder was in with Stockport and northern Greenport or in with Livingston and southern Greenport).  Greenport plus the remainder of Hudson (which would be on the "Greenport side" of whichever district it was in), however, would make up ~50.38% of the district with Stockport and ~35.82% of the district with Livingston.  The Hudson remainder would make up only ~12.70% of its district (Hudson's quota would be 1.1210), so it could bolster the Greenport side without overshadowing it.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,406
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2018, 02:03:06 am »

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

Why? What would a county legislature do?

The town supervisors would still be there, as well as the town aldermen.

The board of supervisors only meets about once per month for about 1/2 an hour. Why have 11 supernumeraries?

If you want an efficient county government dissolve the town and city governments, have a 5-member board and a county  manager.
Logged
Kevinstat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,669


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2018, 07:33:51 pm »

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

Why? What would a county legislature do?

Probably the same thing they do in the other New York counties with county legislatures.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do the towns (so excluding Hudson) actually have aldermen (or selectmen)?  I got the sense that the town supervisor performed that role.  If there are aldermen than perhaps the supervisors could be eliminated, but I'd say that would best be left to the voters (and potential petitioners) of the individual town.  I'd definitely say to get rid of the Hudson supervisors, which seems to be what Torie has in mind.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That may be the most efficient system, but having both municipal and county elected boards (in Maine, city/town councils or boards of selectmen and county commissioners) both elected from districts of substantially equal population (or often at-large or a mixture at the municipal level) with each member having one vote is how many places do things.  Many people in Maine criticize the dual system of local government here too) but it is what we have and at least everyone in a county is treated broadly equally (except for the deferral/acceleration phenomenon which I don't think would be an issue in Columbia County as I don't think Torie's plan envisions staggering - is there even staggering now?).

Neither you nor I live in Columbia County and see first-hand how the current process works (or doesn't), while Torie does, and I'm willing to defer to him on what constitutes the best basic structure for his county, while suggesting an alternative that does not greatly deviate from that.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,406
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2018, 02:21:55 am »

Kind of a late bump here, but below is my own 11-member plan (minus specifying how exactly a city or town is divided) that I sent to Torie back in November.  It makes the same assumptions as Torie about it being okay to split towns with less than 110% of an ideal district population and, like Torie's plan, basically says "s---- you" to jimrtex (you know I appreicate your posts jimrtex but on deviation tolerance levels and weighted voting we just don't see eye-to-eye).

Why? What would a county legislature do?

Probably the same thing they do in the other New York counties with county legislatures.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do the towns (so excluding Hudson) actually have aldermen (or selectmen)?  I got the sense that the town supervisor performed that role.  If there are aldermen than perhaps the supervisors could be eliminated, but I'd say that would best be left to the voters (and potential petitioners) of the individual town.  I'd definitely say to get rid of the Hudson supervisors, which seems to be what Torie has in mind.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That may be the most efficient system, but having both municipal and county elected boards (in Maine, city/town councils or boards of selectmen and county commissioners) both elected from districts of substantially equal population (or often at-large or a mixture at the municipal level) with each member having one vote is how many places do things.  Many people in Maine criticize the dual system of local government here too) but it is what we have and at least everyone in a county is treated broadly equally (except for the deferral/acceleration phenomenon which I don't think would be an issue in Columbia County as I don't think Torie's plan envisions staggering - is there even staggering now?).

Neither you nor I live in Columbia County and see first-hand how the current process works (or doesn't), while Torie does, and I'm willing to defer to him on what constitutes the best basic structure for his county, while suggesting an alternative that does not greatly deviate from that.
Each town has a town supervisor and four councilmen(persons). Towns in New York have home rule, but all towns in Columbia County have four councilmen, elected two at a time (at large) for four year, staggered terms. Presumably, this was the pattern set in state law (home rule for municipalities: counties, towns, cities, and villages, is specified in the state constitution as amended in 1963). One councilman is designated the deputy supervisor, but this is a choice of the town board. There may be other town offices, such as town clerk, town justice, town superintendent of roads and highways, town tax collector. Some may be elected or appointed.

Generally a county board of supervisors is made up of the town supervisors of a county's towns, who are serving in a ex officio capacity by virtue of their town office. When the legislature was in charge of local laws, they would provide for additional supervisors from cities, due to their generally larger population. The five wards in Hudson were established by the legislature in the city charter, which has been devolved to the city under the home rule provisions of the constitution. Even though Columbia County does not have a county charter, they are free to structure their board of supervisors in a way that they see fit. They don't have to let Hudson elect five supervisors, or even define districts for what are county offices.

Because a town supervisor is first and foremost a town office, they serve different length terms, and are elected in different years. In Columbia County:

7 supervisors are elected for two-year terms.
7 supervisors are elected for four-year terms in the year after presidential elections (2017, etc.)
4 supervisors are elected for four-year terms in the year after gubernatorial elections (2015, etc.)

This is roughly equivalent to as if governors formed the US Senate (which would probably be called the Council of Governors).

Torie likely has adopted a Hudson-centric viewpoint where the supervisors are solely members of the county legislature (there are other roles specified in the town charter, but they are likely ignored). I doubt that he knows much about the governance of Copake, or Chatham, or even Greenport, and even if he did, they would tell him that he doesn't live there, and his interference would be like someone from Texas or Maine telling him what to do.

The counties that have legislatures are generally in more populous areas or where there is a dominant city (e.g Rochester and Monroe or Orange or Rockland or Nassau counties). Hudson is only about 10% of Columbia County, and it an 18th Century anachronism that it is even designated a city.


Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC