Unlike in red states, where Republicans have largely been able to gerrymander their congressional maps with impunity, New York Democrats were stopped by the highest court in the state. The task of drawing the state’s districts was then assigned to an independent expert.
That’s Brad Hoylman, not Boylman.
And there’s more trouble upstate, where Antonio Delgado, representing NY-19, has become Lt. Governor, leaving that district more vulnerable to a stronger R candidate than he had in 2020.
These are not good developments.
I seriously hate this hopeless feeling Im getting about the midterms. The only thing that could possibly save the House for us is a massive outcry over abortion rights being struck down. But if that doesn’t work, then the Republicans will go All In on outlawing abortion everywhere because it would prove that there are no electoral consequences for banning abortion.
Unlike in other states like Ohio — where Republicans ran out the clock and were able to use gerrymandered congressional districts despite a legal challenge — New York’s redistricting laws allow a court to intervene on voters’ behalf. And that’s just what happened: New York’s highest court found Democrats’ map to be unconstitutional, and a lower court assigned an expert to redraw it.
Can’t be emphasized enough - Republican-led states get to implement their unconstitutional gerrymandered maps for 2022, but Democrats cannot.
NY Dems should appeal this to the SCOTUS under the Kavanaugh standard that this is too close to the election to implement such a change.
The Courts either need to apply the same standard when encountering Democratic vs Republican gerrymanders or it can show itself as blatantly applying a double-standard that politically disadvantages Democrats.
does not automatically mean “objectively drawn”, “impartially drawn”, “neutrally drawn”
there is no “Hippocratic Oath” … no vow to “First, do no harm” … that is taken by an " independent expert"
Does anybody know what prevailing philosophical perspective on structuring voting districts “Independent expert” & Carnegie Mellon postdoctoral fellow Jonathan Cervas, leans toward?
Does he favor highly competitive districts? likely to produce turnover … or stable and consistent districts that are more predictable & lead to long term incumbents.
Should ethic groups be - to the extent possible - spread out across several districts - or should some consolidation be encouraged so those groups have a chance to elect one of their own.
Should redistricting be a sort of the shuffling of the cards tho level the playing field and reduce the power of incumbency? what are the inclinations of Jonathan Cervas?
As a Carnegie Mellon postdoctoral fellow he has to have some opinions, has to have written some papers, has to present his philosophy on how the periodic redistricting process should be carried out and how it should relate to creating effective representation.
This is completely infuriating at every level.
Dems honorably and nobly ‘played nice’ and ‘led by example’, w/ the unfortunate and unrewarded (here, I’m mainly referring to the so-called liberal media (SCLM) and ‘good government (“goo-goo”)’ types) result that they unilaterally disarmed themselves, to the nation’s detriment.
My quick thought is that where Dems have the Trifecta (governor + both legislative chambers (unicameral, Republican’t NE does not apply)), including at least NY and CA, they should quickly create, pass, and sign new legislation to kill their independent redistricting commissions, then gerrymander their states in Dems’ favor for all they’re worth.
When Republican’ts complain, insist on nationwide independent commission redistricting plan(s) legislation from Congress, to apply to all States. Until then, at least we can fight fire w/ fire.
While I sympathize, the goal shouldn’t be gerrymander away. It should be for the courts to apply consistent rules regarding how to handle gerrymanders between the states.
My desired outcome would be for Courts to also redraw the gerrymandered maps in GOP-controlled states like Ohio. If they aren’t willing to do that right now, then they should allow the Dem-drawn map in NY to be used for the 2022 election.
Allowing GOP gerrymanders to go into effect while Dem gerrymanders get thrown out is a slap in the face for equal application of the law.
There is no equal application of law between Republicans and Democrats. The Supreme Court will enable Republicans and block Democrats. Given that is the case, Democratic-controlled state legislatures need to exercise their Constitutional prerogatives.
If this paper is representative of his approach (which it seems to be), it’s none of those things. Rather, the goal per this paper would be to base districts around “communities of interest” – probably regardless of the damage done or chaos created by instantaneously switching over to this quasi-statistical methodology.
(I was interested enough in similar questions to go look this up because I too was, like, WTF???)
Its not like Dems are going to lose any of those safe districts, so the sky is not falling.
Going from expecting to add multiple seats in NY - to the point of significantly increasing the chance of holding the house - to a plan that not only takes that away but threatens a progressive like Bowman (a far finer Dem than any of the other elected names mentioned in this write up)… It’s terrible.
I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say gerrymandering should be illegal and actively prevented. But until we can apply that to the whole country, it’s insanity to apply it to Blue states only.
Aside from the seats this won’t add, there’s literally no political advantage in playing fair here.
If such a time ever existed, we’re decades past the point where Dems playing by the rules would pay any dividend at all. Hell, the right, if they have reason to mention this specific topic at all, will lie and claim the map is still gerrymandered for Dems (or whatever lie they think is advantageous). And no one is changing their vote over this in either direction anyway.
And then there’s the targeting of black districts mentioned in the article. Another dilution of black political power. Completely unsurprising, but no less dreadful for that.
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that de Blasio will have as much success campaigning for Congress as he did running for President.
Delgado’s district will be deeply in play, it has gone back and forth in recent years. It is basically a Bush republican district.
The original map had a district drawn to includ Alessandra Biaggi’s home, butthat’s gone in the new map. The Suozzi district is not a shoe in, but maybe he will reconsider running for governor.
postdoctoral fellow
In other words, another otherwise-unemployable dumbass from Acadamania who couldn’t make the cut to be a real perfesserator.
I’ll bet he drives a Volvo and wears Earth shoes.
If this was Republicans they’d tell the court to pound sand and tie the whole thing up in Federal court until after the redistricting. I don’t get why Democrats always roll over.
Here’s his report. http://jonathancervas.com/2022/NY/CERVAS-SM-NY-2022.pdf
Note the following: “In my map making I avoided fragmenting existing political subunits
such as counties and cities and I sought to draw districts that were
reasonably compact. I was also instructed by the Court to draw proposed maps
in a fashion that was blind to the location of incumbents and I followed that
injunction. The predominant motive of these proposed maps was to fully comply
with federal and state law. (his bold) Race-based districting is strictly prohibited by
the U.S. constitution, and therefore I did not use race as a preponderant
criterion. Later in this Report, I discuss in more detail how I dealt with
each of the many relevant provisions in the New York Constitution, including
the one dealing with communities of interest.”
Thank you, Justice Roberts, for your Day of Jubilee. Because we know that de facto, if not de jure, race-based districting is the practice, for better or worse. (Lately worse; packing and cracking, etc.) If only we lived in a more perfect union than we do.
Well, too bad for Elise, now she has to move again. And seriously, she lived in Essex before? No way. There is no easy way to travel to anywhere from Essex.
Prescient article from 2018
Who cares about women voters anyway? Right? Are they not owned by the state bodily anyway? I mean a uterus is connected to the rest of the body innit?
Sumthin wrong with bein a perfesserator?
(I drive a 26 yr old Tacoma pick-up).