Re-Districting Hits Me

New York’s highest court tossed out both congressional and state Senate district maps on Wednesday, ruling that they were both drawn in violation of the constitution.

The New York Court of Appeals (4-3) did provide a small, if perhaps short lived victory for Democrats.  It held that the litigation did not directly attack the assembly districts.  On the other hand, a pending lawsuit is in place for that.  Maybe, it would be sensible just to have ALL state legislative elections in the second primary.  

Various people on my side are pissed off at the whole thing, in part because there seems to be a double standard that allows Republicans in other states to get away with partisan gerrymanders.  I still have not seen a full analysis that provides a fifty state map that shows this.  I have seen various articles and such that point to various states like Florida.  But, Republicans control over half of the states these days, state legislative-wise.  

The basic problem is that this shows a need for a national check on certain states getting away with partisan gerrymandering since they play the partisan game in a more no apologies fashion. Like no national minimum wage or regulation encouraging a race to the bottom, this is the road to abuse. But, in part thanks to two Democrats and a united Republican caucus, the road to national election reform is blocked. And, the Supreme Court a few years ago washed their hands of partisan gerrymandering. 

This is just one analysis, but it seems like a reasonable take on how the whole thing is coming down.  We have a commission to district, but it is evenly split with Democrats and Republicans. A tie means the legislature gets involved.  This is not a great system.  The way to go is probably to make sure one or two of the members are at least somewhat independent, like a conservative Democrat or the like.  It's maybe possible.

A basic thing is that many of the people upset to me realize that the map was ... ahem ... illegal.  They just would argue that unilateral disarmament is bad this year in particular.  The problem is that you are left wanting the judges, who are appointed (if not for life) akin to federal judges, to recognize that and in effect look the other way.  An iffy solution.

There are other issues.  The late overruling of the maps (state and federal) means that a bunch of late in the day stuff has to happen. First, after we streamlined things to have one primary instead of two, we are back to two.  And, candidates have to deal with the new lines, multiple incumbents (sometimes now going after each other) and challengers changing where they will run or having significantly different districts to defend. 

Non-presidential years (even though the governor is running, I doubt the incumbent is that much at risk to drive up voting in the primary) already have less turnout.  This is so even though we have some important races, including a half-way (he still parroted some b.s.) sane secretary of state winning in Georgia.  Two primaries will cut down turnout even more.  And, without instant run-off voting, winners can have a small fraction of the vote.

(The bad thing out of Georgia is Marjorie Taylor-Greene won her primary, by a large amount, even with multiple other options in the Republican primary.  She apparently -- perhaps for not talking out of school about Republican insider talk -- isn't a lost cause like Madison Cawthorn.) 

I am inclined to think that the court of appeals ruled correctly (4-3 makes me a bit unsure), but the end of the day confusion is bothersome. This includes have a special master now having the power to draw lines, which does happen in cases like this.  It still is bothersome, since you want a more representative means of drawing district lines. 

The commentary I cited noted that the lines are basically fair, perhaps slightly more Democratic friendly than might be expected.  The basic issue here is that the old map was a partisan gerrymander. Of course, the map would be less friendly to the Democrats.  It would be a matter of if you could somehow maybe get one or two more seats anyway.

There is complaints that the district lines do not properly respect racial diversity.  The commentary I cited doesn't really think so though others disagree (my current senator, Alessandra Biaggi, linked a critic).  There is an upheaval regarding incumbents.  But, is that really a bad thing? A "blatant" case is two members there for thirty years who might now have to run against each other.  People do not have some sinecure for life here.

AOC had a constituent session online.  By surprise, when she talked about the new lines, Morris Park (my neighborhood) came up.  And, damn, I have been redistricted and will lose her!  I also lost Biaggi, who is another young upstart, but since she is running for Congress (now in a different district), I was going to anyways.  You cannot run for state and federal office in this state.  The assembly map is the same, so no change there, though my current assembly-woman is less exciting (she's fine).

Looking at the map, it turns out that Morris Park Avenue itself is the new line, splitting my neighborhood between AOC and another person.  I find this a bit asinine since it is simply not a natural line population-wise.  It should have been not that hard (a district has hundreds of thousands of people; even if a thousand people was involved, you could do it) to unite my immediate neighborhood. I would say Sackett Ave (a few blocks away) and Williambridge Road (a short walk the other direction) would be logical.   

As is, the new line is -- not kidding here -- a fraction of a block away from me.  Like Sarah Palin, I can will be able to see AOC's district from my house.  I'm sure Ritchie Torres (who I suppose will represent me) is a fine person; he is in his thirties and a newcomer.   Like the new blood.  And, with a new senate district, figure, I'll have less to worry about in that race, since there will be a logical incumbent to support.  But, I felt nice being in AOC's district.  And, now I'll be in it when I go the supermarket (if that side of Morris Park is her district) or something.  Oh well.  

We will see if anything changes, including regarding the assembly. As of now, the first primary will be at the end of June.  

==

ETA: We also have a new lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, which means for a short period there will be one less Democrat in the House of Representatives.  I am reminded about this by a reference in a pro forma session, which also noted that the current membership is 428.  That means there are seven vacancies, a significant number with the thin majority.  

Delgado is now the first Latino to hold state-wide office.  To some degree of dissent, there was a vote passed that allows the LG that resigned to be off the ballot, some grumbling about the special means to do it.  Maybe so, but it seems reasonable to dispel confusion, the alternative having the old LG on the ballot.  The old LG now worrying about federal campaign finance charges, running for re-election is not his concern.