BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 7, 2012, QUEENS, NY
My name is Sam Massol and I am the Associate Director of Common Cause/NY. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here in Queens.
At each LATFOR hearing thus far, Common Cause has provided testimony comparing the LATFOR Drafts to the Common Cause Reform Plan. Today, I’d like to begin with a discussion of the criteria that guide the Common Cause Reform Plan and inform our criticism of the LATFOR draft lines. Although discussion of our criteria has been available on our website for many months, we realize that we have not detailed these criteria in testimony to LATFOR and we apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
First, we seek to follow all the applicable Federal and State Constitutional laws. On the Federal side, this includes compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the principle of “one-person, one-vote.” On the State side, this includes binding rules like block-on-border and town-on-border as well as the guidelines to minimize the division of counties, maintain strict contiguity, and draw districts as compact as practicable.
We take these Federal and State guidelines very seriously. The Federal principle of “one person, one vote” is reinforced in the State Constitution by the words “each district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants as practicable.” In the Common Cause Reform Plans, we follow strict numeric standards. No district may deviate by more than +/- 3% from the ideal value and the mean absolute deviation for the entire plan must be less than 1.5%.
These rules prevent the kind of regional malapportionment between Upstate and New York City that LATFOR has drawn to advantage the majority party in both the Senate and Assembly, while allowing enough flexibility to keep counties and towns intact Upstate. Indeed, we take the State Constitution’s guidelines to respect county and town boundaries a step further. The Common Cause Reform Plan also maintains respect for city, village, and school district boundaries whenever possible.
Respecting these important local jurisdictions is part of our overarching emphasis on communities of interest. The Common Cause Reform Plan seeks to respect communities of interest by drawing districts that reflect the social, cultural, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of an area. We define a community of interest as a local population with common social and economic interests that would benefit from the unified political representation provided by inclusion within a single political district.
Within New York City, this principle often translates into respect for neighborhood boundaries, keeping distinct local communities together in one district so they can effectively engage in civic life.
In public meetings, we have heard the members of this panel voice support for all of these criteria in principle. But what we see in practice is very different and the proof is in the plans. LATFOR’s methodology appears to ignore and manipulate these principles whenever politically advantageous for the controlling majority party.
This is the key difference between the plans produced by this panel and the Common Cause Reform Maps. The Common Cause plans don’t let partisanship or incumbent protection get in the way of keeping neighborhoods together and ensuring that every New Yorker across the state gets a chance at fair representation and participation. We followed a rigorously incumbent blind process and did not use any political data whatsoever in drawing our lines.
Only after completing the plans did we examine the effect on incumbents. In light of last week’s testimony in Manhattan, we would like to make it clear for the record that the Common Cause Reform Plan does not “target” specific incumbents of any race, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Incumbent pairings are spread across all regions of the state and do not follow any pattern.
Let me now turn to analysis of the LATFOR Queens drafts, starting with the Assembly.
First we’d like to recognize the improvements to ADs 24 and 25 in Eastern Queens. Re-orienting these districts to run east-west instead of north-south leads to a significant improvement in Asian-American representation and better reflects how these communities live and associate.
But there are still numerous areas of Queens in which this draft stands for improvement. Last fall, this panel received testimony from numerous community representatives from Bellerose and Richmond Hill asking that their neighborhoods be kept together in a single district. In Bellerose, this draft plan shows no improvement from the current plan in this regard. In Richmond Hill there is some improvement but the area is still sliced into four districts. We know how difficult it can be to balance populations and while keeping neighborhoods together and we urge you to look at the Common Cause Reform Plan for reference in how these neighborhoods can be better served.
Moving to Central Queens, we believe that opportunities for minority representation can be improved by crossing the borough line into Brooklyn. Crossing two Assembly districts into Brooklyn – one between Woodhaven and Cypress Hills and one between Ridgewood and Bushwick – allows for the creation of three Hispanic majority districts in this area instead of two. More important than the numbers, doing so keeps communities of interest together. The Hispanic community in Ridgewood-Bushwick is currently chopped up between four districts (37, 38, 53, 58) when it can be compacting contained within two if the borough border is crossed.
The proposed Assembly districts in Central Queens are also concerning to us because they appear to continue the partisan gerrymander of the Middle Village area. Middle Village, Maspeth, and Glendale – communities that are distinct within Central Queens for their more suburban character – are chopped between four districts in what appears to be a partisan gerrymander.
Why not draw a single compact district for this community of interest as in the Common Cause Reform Plan? It appears that this is not done because this part of Queens stands out for its more conservative voter enrollment and the data suggests that keeping it together might risk the election of a Republican Assembly Member. This is a great example of why political data should be excluded from the redistricting process.
We would also like to point to our district map for the Astoria, Long Island City, Woodside, and Elmhurst areas as evidence of what a more neighborhood-based plan would look like.
Moving on to the State Senate, we at Common Cause NY are very concerned that the contorted lines of the LATFOR Senate Draft are the direct outcome of overt partisan gerrymandering. Looking at the voter enrollment for the borough, we have found that draft SD 11 and SD 15 appear to be drawn to maximize voters registered in the Republican and Conservative parties.
The partisan gerrymandering of SD 11 and 15 then has a domino effect on the rest of the Queens Senate districts, causing SDs 12, 14, and 16 to also twist and turn in contorted jigsaw shapes. The long tail of SD 12 that stretches all the way into Woodhaven from Astoria looks drawn to extract a more Democratic leaning voting bloc from SD 15, and the northern tentacle of SD 16 into Bay Terrace is clearly drawn to allow SD 11 to lean more conservative. Neighborhoods across the borough from Richmond Hill to Forest Hills to Astoria are awkwardly chopped up and disenfranchised in order to maximize the Senate majority party’s chances of regaining a seat in Queens.
In SD 16, the LATFOR Senate draft has produced the first majority Asian Senate district in New York State, an important step forward in recognizing the rapid growth of this community. But this is not the seat the community asked for. An Asian majority seat could also be drawn to include all of Flushing and extend east to Bayside, as drawn in both the Common Cause Reform Plan and the UNITY Plan.
Drawing this district would keep neighborhoods together and better empower communities to engage in state politics. As drawn, SD 16 continues to divide both the Flushing and Elmhurst neighborhoods and dividing neighborhoods hurt the community’s ability to effective organize and engage.
In fair redistricting, partisan politics is not allowed to trump communities’ interests, and this is the key difference between these LATFOR proposals and the Common Cause Reform Plan.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and hope that you take the time to revisit the recommendations of the Common Cause Reform Plan for Queens. I urge you to give New Yorkers the fair, nonpartisan voting districts they want and deserve.
LATFOR Senate Draft — Queens
| DIST | POP | DEV | % DEV | %NHWhtVAP | %NHBlkVAP | %NHAsnVAP | %HspVAP |
| SD10 | 319,116 | 11,752 | 3.8% | 9.3% | 51.5% | 11.0% | 18.4% |
| SD11 | 319,112 | 11,748 | 3.8% | 43.1% | 4.9% | 33.1% | 15.7% |
| SD12 | 319,113 | 11,749 | 3.8% | 39.5% | 4.7% | 19.0% | 34.0% |
| SD13 | 319,114 | 11,750 | 3.8% | 16.3% | 6.8% | 16.6% | 58.5% |
| SD14 | 319,114 | 11,750 | 3.8% | 11.5% | 51.1% | 13.3% | 18.3% |
| SD15 | 319,113 | 11,749 | 3.8% | 58.6% | 2.8% | 14.2% | 21.8% |
| SD16 | 319,114 | 11,750 | 3.8% | 27.9% | 3.1% | 51.5% | 15.3% |
| SD18* | 318,022 | 10,658 | 3.5% | 20.8% | 20.0% | 5.7% | 51.1% |
*SD 18 entirely in Brooklyn
Common Cause Reform Senate 63 — Queens
| DIST | POP | DEV | % DEV | %NHWhtVAP | %NHBlkVAP | %NHAsnVAP | %HspVAP |
| 10 | 306,690 | -674 | -0.2% | 5.5% | 49.0% | 13.8% | 22.6% |
| 11 | 306,394 | -970 | -0.3% | 43.0% | 10.4% | 27.3% | 14.2% |
| 12 | 306,492 | -872 | -0.3% | 43.2% | 4.4% | 22.5% | 27.2% |
| 13 | 306,787 | -577 | -0.2% | 8.7% | 6.7% | 23.7% | 59.2% |
| 14 | 306,706 | -658 | -0.2% | 18.7% | 52.6% | 6.1% | 16.7% |
| 15 | 306,811 | -553 | -0.2% | 58.2% | 2.7% | 15.5% | 21.4% |
| 16 | 306,521 | -843 | -0.3% | 26.8% | 4.0% | 52.2% | 15.1% |
| 17* | 306,810 | -554 | -0.2% | 20.2% | 11.9% | 9.7% | 55.7% |
*SD 17 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Bushwick-Ridgewood
LATFOR Assembly Draft
| DIST | POP | DEV | %DEV | %NHWhtVAP | %NHBlkVAP | %NHAsnVAP | %HspVAP |
| 023 | 124,137 | -4,952 | -3.84% | 55.5% | 15.5% | 6.3% | 19.8% |
| 024 | 124,110 | -4,979 | -3.86% | 25.7% | 13.5% | 32.8% | 18.8% |
| 025 | 124,086 | -5,003 | -3.88% | 30.4% | 4.3% | 51.9% | 11.4% |
| 026 | 124,074 | -5,015 | -3.88% | 60.3% | 1.5% | 27.2% | 9.7% |
| 027 | 124,085 | -5,004 | -3.88% | 45.8% | 7.5% | 21.5% | 22.1% |
| 028 | 124,081 | -5,008 | -3.88% | 60.2% | 2.4% | 19.4% | 16.1% |
| 029 | 124,132 | -4,957 | -3.84% | 3.4% | 66.0% | 10.1% | 13.8% |
| 030 | 124,085 | -5,004 | -3.88% | 48.4% | 2.2% | 22.3% | 25.0% |
| 031 | 124,134 | -4,955 | -3.84% | 6.8% | 50.4% | 10.9% | 20.5% |
| 032 | 124,131 | -4,958 | -3.84% | 1.7% | 65.9% | 7.5% | 18.1% |
| 033 | 124,141 | -4,948 | -3.83% | 10.6% | 57.1% | 14.1% | 12.2% |
| 034 | 124,078 | -5,011 | -3.88% | 14.5% | 1.9% | 25.0% | 56.7% |
| 035 | 124,108 | -4,981 | -3.86% | 10.9% | 14.2% | 22.7% | 50.0% |
| 036 | 124,077 | -5,012 | -3.88% | 60.3% | 1.9% | 13.7% | 21.3% |
| 037 | 124,087 | -5,002 | -3.87% | 39.4% | 8.1% | 14.6% | 35.8% |
| 038 | 124,082 | -5,007 | -3.88% | 25.8% | 5.4% | 15.4% | 47.4% |
| 039 | 124,089 | -5,000 | -3.87% | 8.6% | 1.4% | 31.7% | 56.5% |
| 040 | 124,079 | -5,010 | -3.88% | 17.8% | 2.6% | 62.8% | 14.9% |
NH Black: 4 majority
NH Asian: 2 majority (both in Flushing), 7 influence
Hispanic: 3 majority (all drawn in Corona), 6 influence
CC Reform Assembly
| DIST | POP | DEV | %DEV | %NHWhtVAP | %NHBlkVAP | %NHAsnVAP | %HspVAP |
| 22 | 127,211 | -1,878 | -1.45% | 12.1% | 3.2% | 67.8% | 14.9% |
| 23 | 127,279 | -1,810 | -1.40% | 49.6% | 6.5% | 11.5% | 28.0% |
| 24 | 127,289 | -1,800 | -1.39% | 46.2% | 9.7% | 28.7% | 12.0% |
| 25 | 127,358 | -1,731 | -1.34% | 36.9% | 5.0% | 43.9% | 12.6% |
| 26 | 127,264 | -1,825 | -1.41% | 58.8% | 1.2% | 24.6% | 14.2% |
| 27 | 127,154 | -1,935 | -1.50% | 15.3% | 14.0% | 30.2% | 28.7% |
| 28 | 127,379 | -1,710 | -1.32% | 56.2% | 2.9% | 24.4% | 14.2% |
| 29 | 127,230 | -1,859 | -1.44% | 2.5% | 66.5% | 9.0% | 15.4% |
| 30 | 127,178 | -1,911 | -1.48% | 67.4% | 0.9% | 7.0% | 23.6% |
| 31 | 127,283 | -1,806 | -1.40% | 15.0% | 61.1% | 2.4% | 18.5% |
| 32 | 127,340 | -1,749 | -1.35% | 5.2% | 54.7% | 12.0% | 15.3% |
| 33 | 127,232 | -1,857 | -1.44% | 7.7% | 59.9% | 13.0% | 12.6% |
| 34 | 127,214 | -1,875 | -1.45% | 16.5% | 2.4% | 21.4% | 57.8% |
| 35 | 127,125 | -1,964 | -1.52% | 5.6% | 13.7% | 8.7% | 70.5% |
| 36 | 127,245 | -1,844 | -1.43% | 58.0% | 3.6% | 13.3% | 22.3% |
| 37 | 127,244 | -1,845 | -1.43% | 35.5% | 6.7% | 22.6% | 32.3% |
| 38* | 127,065 | -2,024 | -1.57% | 6.1% | 28.7% | 10.4% | 50.0% |
| 39 | 127,240 | -1,849 | -1.43% | 11.7% | 1.3% | 50.0% | 34.9% |
| 54* | 126,979 | -2,110 | -1.63% | 12.5% | 29.3% | 5.1% | 51.3% |
*AD 38 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Cypress Hills-Woodhaven
*AD 54 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Bushwick-Ridgewood
NH Black: 4 majority, 2 influence
NH Asian: 2 majority (1 Flushing, 1 Elmhurst), 7 influence
Hispanic: 4 majority (2 Corona, 1 Ridgewood-Bushwick, 1 Woodhaven-Cypress Hills)
