Citizens Redistricting Committee

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN RUBINSTEIN,BOARD CHAIR OF COMMON CAUSE/NY

BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012, MANHATTAN, NY

My name is Susan Rubinstein.  I currently serve as Board Chair of Common Cause New York.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about an issue that affects two principles on which our representative democracy is based: first, the ability of citizens to elect people who will represent their collective interests in government and second, their right to hold those officials accountable at the ballot box. The drawing of legislative districts in a manner that protects these fundamental principles is integral to the proper functioning of our democratic system.

Our New York State legislators have consistently failed to live up to these precepts and the latest set of LATFOR maps is no exception. In fact, in some ways they are even more self-serving than the maps they are intended to replace. For years, New York State’s legislators have carved up their districts and chosen their constituents to protect their own and their party’s interests, rather than the other way around. It’s time for our representatives to be re-elected because they have served the public well (which I’m sure a number have), and not because they have gerrymandered their districts. New Yorkers hoped this would finally happen when the vast majority signed a pledge to establish an independent redistricting commission when they were candidates for office. But it was not to be. The pledge was promptly ignored once the election was over.

I, too, am incensed at the blatant disregard that was shown for that pledge. Sadly, however, I wasn’t surprised. Many signed a similar pledge issued by Common Cause in the 2008 election, vowing to support independent redistricting, campaign finance and ethics reform. That pledge was subsequently ignored as well. When I attended the first meeting of the group that ultimately became Reshape New York, the strategy of asking candidates to sign a pledge to establish an independent redistricting commission was proposed. I immediately insisted it was a waste of time. Common Cause had been there and done that.

The public is justifiably angry and distrustful of government. One need only look at the two most recent gubernatorial elections in New York State to see that the public wants meaningful reform. Governor Cuomo and former Governor Spitzer ran on strong reform platforms and garnered roughly 70% of the vote. New Yorkers deserve to be heard and respected. A fair, nonpartisan redistricting plan that actually enables the public to choose its representatives would be a very good start.

Since the legislature failed to take action, we at Common Cause NY took matters into our own hands and drew independent, nonpartisan redistricting plans for the entire state. I want to take the opportunity presented by this Manhattan hearing to examine the LATFOR drafts for this borough and compare them to the Common Cause Reform Maps.

Let’s start with the Assembly. First, we’d like to recognize that compared to the current maps, the LATFOR Assembly draft for Manhattan does appear to be an improvement. The districts seem to be more compact and based on neighborhood geography. However, there is certainly room for further improvement in both minority representation and in keeping communities of interest and neighborhoods together.

As is the case with the other boroughs we’ve looked at, we believe that opportunities for minority representation can be improved by crossing borough lines, in this case from Manhattan to the Bronx. AD 68 in East Harlem, drawn to 43.7% Hispanic VAP in the LATFOR draft, could instead become majority Hispanic if extended to the South Bronx in a similar fashion to the current City Council district in that area. In Washington Heights and West Harlem, ADs 71 and 72 could be drawn to create two Hispanic majority seats instead of one. You can refer to the Common Cause Reform Maps included in this testimony to see how this would look in practice.

In the Lower East Side, on the other hand, the lines between AD 65 and 74 continue to split the neighborhood and community of interest in half. Looking at the demographics, the Lower East Side remains very distinct from the surrounding neighborhoods of Manhattan. Most households in Chinatown and the Lower East Side have annual incomes of less than $40,000, the majority of residents do not hold college degrees, are employed in either blue-collar work (industry, construction, transportation) or the service sector (retail, hospitality, etc.) and share Community Board 3. Conversely, the vast majority of residents in surrounding Manhattan neighborhoods have “white collar” management or professional jobs, significantly higher incomes, hold college degrees, and are much more likely to own their homes. The LATFORT Assembly draft also continues to split the Hispanic population almost directly in half between AD 65 and 74. This district could be redrawn to include all of Chinatown and the Lower East Side without adversely affecting any of the surrounding neighborhoods, as you can see in the Common Cause Reform Maps.

Now let’s move on to the Senate. As was the case with the Bronx and Brooklyn, we never thought that we’d see a redistricting plan that could make the current lines look good by comparison. But LATFOR has done it again.

In our Manhattan testimony for the first round of LATFOR hearings, Common Cause NY pointed out the injustice done to the communities of the Upper West Side, where three Senate districts, 29, 30, and 31, currently converge and divide the neighborhood. We suggested that it would not be difficult to resolve this issue and keep the neighborhood in a single senate district. Now, LATFOR has done the exact opposite and made the fragmentation of this community even worse.

In the proposed LATFOR plan, SD 29 now runs from the South Bronx through East Harlem in a jagged shape that then extends across Central Park into the Upper West Side. SD 31 is now even more elongated and in addition to dividing the Upper West Side, it extends a curving block wide corridor all the way into Chelsea. The proposed SD 28 also now extends a block-wide appendage for an entire mile south from the Upper East Side into Kips Bay and Gramercy.

These proposed Senate lines are egregiously insulting to the communities of Manhattan. But we are not here just to criticize. The Common Cause Maps offer a clear alternative for the way in which Manhattan Senate lines can be drawn to keep communities and neighborhoods whole while following all the Federal and State Constitutional rules.
Finally, although we disagree with the premise behind the addition of a 63^rd Senate District, if one is to be added, it should be done in accordance with the actual population distribution in the state. This would place it in New York City, rather than upstate. Adding an additional 63^rd Senate District upstate would make the existing mal-apportionment between upstate and New York City even worse. The LATFOR Draft plan draws 26 upstate districts with a mean deviation of -4.5% and 28 New York City-Southern Westchester districts at a mean deviation of +3.3%. This essentially gives the upstate voter nearly 8% more voting power in the Senate than the downstate voter. In contrast, drawing the 63^rd District in New York City would create 25 upstate districts and 28 downstate districts with virtually equal population deviations in the true spirit of “one person, one vote.”

Specifically, the 63^rd District should be placed in Lower Manhattan. Since each Brooklyn district would have roughly 5,000 fewer voters, SD 26 (Squadron-D) would move entirely out of Manhattan, opening the space for a completely new Lower Manhattan district to be drawn. This district would be highly compact and include all of the Lower East Side, the Financial District, Tribeca, and the East Village.

For Manhattan, the difference between a non-partisan, independently drawn map and LATFOR’s draft is striking. Clearly these proposed draft Senate lines in Manhattan are a prime example of why Governor Cuomo has promised to veto this overtly partisan 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 Manhattan. I urge you to give New Yorkers the fair, nonpartisan voting districts they want and deserve.

LATFOR Senate Draft — Manhattan

Common Cause Reform Senate 63 Plan — Manhattan

LATFOR Assembly Draft — Manhattan

Common Cause Reform Assembly Plan — Manhattan