2022 New York Elections Update

The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering is a political question in Rucho v Common Cause. This leaves open state challenges and other gerrymander claims (particularly racial). Some state courts have pushed back. This approach is harder to take when Shelby v. Holder is factored in, which inserted the Supreme Court constitutionally into the electoral process in an anti-voting rights sort of way.

New York recently passed a redistricting map, which appears to be a partisan gerrymander, if helping Democrats. Realistically, until electoral reform truly arrives, this is acceptable. An ACLU guy (briefly citing Prof. Dorf) pushed back, but such unilateral disarmament is big picture not the only "principled" way to go. 

Looking, the proposed redistricting map will notably affect the Bronx, including attaching part of it to Long Island (which bothers some residents).  It looks like my own district will still be the same for me personally while the district lines will change.  It looks like the key line is the other side of Pelham Parkway (less than a mile away) with three districts intersecting not that far away.  

One notable development is that the new district lines has led my state senator (Alessandra Biaggi) to decide to run for Congress.  She is in her second term and it would be unfortunate for me personally for her to go.  The race is crowded so it is far from clear she will even win the primary.  

Meanwhile, "The district is currently represented by moderate Democrat Tom Suozzi, who is stepping down to run for governor."  Good luck with that Mr. Suozzi.  Also running, now the liberal candidate with James staying as AG, is Jumaane Williams.  

He's also the Working Family Party candidate and the current NYC public advocate.  I should be for him, I guess, but not really too gung ho.  I appreciate that we moved on from Cuomo and have not really had much reason to complain about his replacement.  A primary is also a time to push from the left (or right), so there's that.  Seems logical to vote for him there.

===

I emailed Sen. Biaggi about something referenced here over the years, if not exactly seen as a compelling matter for many people.  Namely, her support for a bill that "Designates lay individuals as one-day marriage officiants in order to solemnize marriages."  This reflects how many people self-ordain ("lay" is a bit question begging) to be able to preside.

I am not really a big fan of this special one-off though maybe it would be helpful given the reality that a bigger change is not likely.  Note, for instance, the existing law singles out certain ethical societies to be treated like traditional religious figures allowed to preside over weddings.  I find that rank discrimination.  It also singles out "Quakers" for special notice.

If you just read the bill, with an excerpt of the marriage law being amended, the religious officiant class seems open-ended.  A Universal Life Church minister might be seen as a joke, but it is still a "clergyman," and multiple courts over the years (including one lower court in New York at least) so recognized.  

Nonetheless, there has been divided judgment in lower New York courts, without a firm conclusion by the highest court, on what the term means in reference to a separate provision that spells out exactly what it means for New York law.  And, the ethical society favorites underlines the problem rather clearly.  

A special one time one-off if anything seems to not only reaffirm this but imply the ULC Church minister is not really a minister.  The common belief, though I would argue otherwise (the effect of "ordination" here depends on the individual), is that such a minister is really a "lay" individual.  State law separately provides some limits for the clear purpose of drawing some lines here.  

Again, it doesn't look like they is a big desire to change things significantly.  So, a one-off (without clearly doing anything else so arguably the ULC Church minister is in the same position) might be the best shot.  It would remove any fear that such a marriage would years later not be deemed unofficial.  And, a person does not only have the ability to do this once.  They just have to re-up each time.  

There is a fee, which doesn't seem to be the case in other cases. Again, that seems discriminatory, but so it goes.  

I myself years ago registered (life time) as a Universal Life Church minister for purposes of getting a wedding officiant certificate in New York City.  The city provided this for religious figures and the church was one option.  I would think that I am not a "lay" officiant.  I am not totally sure of that.  Again, it would be best just to clear it up.  

And, if the state is wary if someone not part of religious institution has the ability to continuously marry people without more, they can provide a duty to study the current marriage law and maybe answer a few questions.  They can do this via an online tutorial or something.  I think that would be useful.  After all, various government officials have the right to officiate without probably knowing the rules that well.  

Anyway, at this rate, someone else will be pushing for this thing.