BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 13, 2012, SYRACUSE, NY
Good morning, my name is Donald Goulet and I am a member of Common Cause. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I want to take the opportunity presented by this hearing to compare and contrast the LATFOR State Legislature drafts with the Common Cause Reform Plan.
First, the State Senate. As you can see on page four of this testimony, the proposed LATFOR lines divide the Syracuse and Central New York regions into an awkward jigsaw puzzle. The proposed SD 51, which stretches almost 150 miles from Cayuga all the way to Ulster County, is especially egregious. By itself, the proposed SD 51 contributes to the division of six counties that could otherwise fit entirely in a single district. This would seem to be in direct contradiction with our State Constitution’s guidelines to minimize the division of counties.
In contrast, the Common Cause Reform Plan proposes compact regional Senate districts. As you can see on page five of this testimony, the Common Cause Plan keeps the entire City of Syracuse and its surrounding suburbs within a single district. This is quite a contrast to the Legislature’s proposed plan which carves out a narrow corridor that looks to be custom drawn for the District 50 incumbent John DeFrancisco, a Republican, which just happens to live within this corridor. Districts like this are why LATFOR’s plan is often referred to in the press as the “incumbent protection plan.”
In the State Assembly, the partisan gerrymandering looks just as bad. As you can see on page six of this testimony, the proposed ADs 128 and 129 are exactly the same as the current districts ADs 119 and 120. These districts continue to divide the City of Syracuse into a jagged twisting shape that breaks up neighborhoods and communities. These districts appear to have been designed to maximize the chance of electing two Democrats to the Assembly.
Again we see that LATFOR places partisan advantage and incumbent protection above all else. And again the Common Cause Reform Plan shows us what Syracuse Assembly districts would look like if drawn by a non-partisan, independent process. Almost the whole City could fit in a single district, with compact districts drawn for the surrounding suburbs. Keeping Syracuse almost entirely within a single Assembly district also allows for increased influence among the city’s minority communities that are currently broken up. As drawn, Common Cause Reform AD 119 would be 26% Black and 7% Hispanic. This district allows the minority community of Syracuse almost 30% more voting influence than in the districts proposed by LATFOR.
Now for Congress. It is really a shame that the public will not have the opportunity to comment on a draft Congressional plan. But Common Cause has had a Congressional plan available to the public for over two months now. As you can see on page seven of this testimony, the current Congressional districts zig and zag all across the Central New York region.
In contrast, the Common Cause Reform Plan for Congress focuses on creating regional districts. One district for the North County. One district for Syracuse and the Mohawk Valley. One district for the Southern Tier, and one district for the Finger Lakes. Yes, it can be that simple if the lines are drawn with the public interest in mind, rather than tailored to the desires of the parties and their incumbents.
I urge you to take another look at the recommendations of the Common Cause Reform Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
LATFOR’s draft Senate districts divide the Syracuse and Central New York regions into an awkward jigsaw puzzle.
The Common Cause Reform Plan respects county and city borders, drawing SD 50 as a compact district for Syracuse and its suburbs.
CC Reform SD 49 is a compact regional district for rural Central New York.
CC Reform SD 54 is a “Finger Lakes East” district including outer Onondaga with all of Cayuga, Seneca, Yates, and Schuyler Counties.
Looking closer at Syracuse, the LATFOR plan keeps most of the city within SD 53 but carves a narrow twisting corridor for SD 50. This corridor is drawn purely to reach the home of incumbent Senator John DeFrancisco (R)
The Common Cause Reform Plan keeps the entire City of Syracuse and all of its surrounding suburbs within a single compact Senate district.
LATFOR’s draft Assembly districts are almost exactly identical to the existing ones and continue to divide Syracuse into a gnarled spiraling shape.
These districts break up neighborhoods and communities and appear to have been designed to maximize the chance of electing two Democrats.
Although Syracuse is a bit too large to fit into a single Assembly District, CC Reform AD 119 keeps as much of the city in a single district as possible.
CC Reform AD 120 forms a compact district consisting of the northern suburbs of Onondaga County
CC Reform AD 121 includes the Syracuse neighborhoods in the far east of the City that are most demographically similar to the adjoining suburbs, and combines them to form a compact eastern Syracuse suburbs district
Current Congressional districts in Central New York divide the region into an awkward jigsaw puzzle.
Syracuse and Onondaga County are included in a district that extends far to the west through Wayne County all the way to the Rochester suburbs.
The Common Cause Reform Plan for Congress focuses on creating regional districts.
Syracuse is part of a Mohawk Valley district connected by the Mohawk River, Erie Canal, and NY State Thuway.
In demographics and economics, Syracuse has more in common with the Mohawk Valley and cities like Rome and Utica than with rural Wayne County and the suburbs of Rochester.
