Citizens Redistricting Committee

TESTIMONY OF SAM MAGAVERN, CO-DIRECTOR OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD AND MEMBER OF COMMON CAUSE

BEFORE LATFOR, BUFFALO, FEBRUARY 16, 2012

Good morning, my name is Sam Magavern. I’m a Buffalo resident. I co-direct the Partnership for the Public Good, which unites 108 community groups interested in good public policy for Buffalo Niagara and New York State, 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.

We at PPG and Common Cause/NY are pleased to see that the LATFOR Assembly draft for the Buffalo region does a generally good job of drawing compact districts based on communities of interest. But there is still room for improvement. As you can see on page six of this testimony, the LATFOR draft divides Buffalo between four districts and divides the small cities of Lackawanna and North Tonawanda in half.

The Common Cause Reform Plan offers an alternative, showing how almost all of Buffalo can be drawn into two districts and how all the small cities of the region can be kept whole. This can be done while keeping the plan very similar to the overall structure of the LATFOR Draft. One district (CC Reform AD 141) can occupy Central Buffalo, while a second district (CC Reform AD 145) can unite the demographically similar communities of North and South Buffalo. This district would also include Buffalo’s entire waterfront and would keep nearly all of the city’s rapidly growing Hispanic community together in a single district.

In the State Senate, we believe that drawing three long narrow districts stretching from Buffalo to Rochester, SD’s 59, 61, and 62– poorly serves the communities of Western New York. Buffalo and Rochester are each the center of a separate regional economy and districts should instead be oriented around each city. The Common Cause Reform Plan, as you can see on page three of this testimony, again offers a concrete alternative of how this could look – one district for Central Buffalo and Tonawanda, one district for the northern suburbs, one district for the southern suburbs, one district for the northern rural areas, and one district for the southern rural areas.

There is also the issue of the proposed District 60 in the LATFOR plan. As you can see on page five of this testimony, this district looks as if it were drawn to protect the incumbent Republican Senator Mark Grisanti. The irony here is that Senator Grisanti is living proof that a strong candidate can win without the advantage of gerrymandering, and can win in a district that may not look politically favorable on paper. But this task force is so accustomed to political gerrymandering that the decision was made to separate Senator Grisanti from his current constituents anyway.

For Congress, we can’t repeat often enough how shameful it is that the public will not have an opportunity to offer input on a Congressional draft. The current Congressional lines are the product of an intensely partisan backroom political process and we fear that without the benefit of public testimony, the new draft will be just as bad. As you can see on pages seven and eight of this testimony, the current districts kidnap half of Buffalo’s population into a district that stretches all the way to Rochester. Instead, separate Congressional districts can be drawn for the Buffalo and Rochester metropolitan areas as shown in the Common Cause Reform Plan.

We look forward to seeing how this task force responds to the many testimonies offered by the public during these last few weeks. Hopefully substantive changes will be made and this series of hearing will not prove to have been simply a “kabuki show.” Thank you for your attention.

The proposed Senate District 60 appears to be drawn to maximize the chance of the Republican incumbent’s re-election. The district now avoids the less conservative voters of Buffalo, instead skirting along the water to combine the City’s northern and southern suburbs.

TESTIMONY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON REDISTRICTING
Richard S. Gilbert – 70 Harper Street – Rochester, NY 14607-3142
Monroe County Office Building – Rochester, NY
February 15, 2012

I’m the Rev. Richard Gilbert, a retired Unitarian Universalist minister, and live at 70 Harper Street in Rochester. I have lived and worked in the city since 1970. I speak on behalf of Common Cause of New York State.

Democracy is the capacity of the people to govern themselves, to elect their representatives, and to engage and advocate with them for the services government can provide. Its function is to have the people choose their representatives, not to have those representatives choose the people they want to represent.

The current proposals of the State Assembly and Senate are, in my opinion, woefully inadequate to measure up to any fair understanding of democracy for two reasons:

First, the process is flawed. To expect elected officials to be objective and disinterested in drawing district lines is to place too great a faith in human nature. Politics is the art of the possible, but to expect individuals to eschew their self-interest for the common good is nearly impossible.

Before the 2010 election, my understanding was that there was a commitment on the part of many candidates who were elected to refer this matter to an independent bi-partisan commission which would propose district lines, receive feedback from the Legislature and ultimately be approved by the Legislature. Why those pledges have not been kept mystifies me as a citizen.

The idea I’ve heard that creating such an independent commission requires changing the Constitution and could not be implemented until 2022, strikes me as ludicrous. Democracy delayed is democracy denied. It is also a shame that the public will not have the opportunity to comment on a Congressional draft.

The State Legislative proposals before us do not measure up to democratic standards. I have seen the power point presentation created by Blair Horner, formerly of New York State Public Interest Group and now of the American Cancer Society. That presentation would have been amusing, if these lines were not so tragically compromised as a gerrymandered political insult to the intelligence of the citizenry.

The current proposals for the Rochester area are tinged with partisanship and rife with bias toward the incumbents. In the Assembly the City remains gerrymandered to protect the three incumbent Democratic Assembly members, as you can see on page six of this testimony.

In the Senate, Rochester continues to be chopped into three districts when the whole City can easily fit in a single district as you can see on page five of this testimony. A single district can also be drawn for most of Rochester’s suburbs.

According to the law, legislative districts should have a common “community of interest.” Looking at the districts proposed by the Assembly, and particularly the Senate, I do not, for example, find that “community of interest” between parts of the City of Rochester, with one of the highest child poverty rates in the country, and the suburb of Amherst, outside Buffalo, one of the richest communities in the country. Our city desperately needs strong representation, and carving the city into quarters and linking them to wealthy suburbs that are not even a part of our own region does not do the job. It gives Amherst suburban voters, already empowered by affluence, still more power at the expense of Rochester voters.

Our two top institutions of higher learning would be in districts represented by senators from the Buffalo area, which has its own colleges and universities. While, Buffalo is slated to receive one billion dollars of special state financial aid, Rochester, which for years has not asked for extra state aid, is once more neglected. This, despite the fact that our city has essentially lost its one-time largest employer, Eastman Kodak. This city needs a stronger voice in the State Senate.

Democracy requires, according to the U. S. Supreme Court, one-person one-vote. District boundaries should reflect the common good and not favor particular parities nor incumbents.

In conclusion, speaking for Common Cause, I strongly oppose the redistricting proposals proposed by the Assembly and the Senate. I applaud the governor’s promise to veto any partisan proposal put forth by this task force. If the legislature fails to put forth a fair non-partisan redistricting plan then the task will fall to a special master appointed by the courts. From what we’ve seen from LATFOR so far, this looks to be the better option for the citizens of New York State.

Democracy is a very imperfect system, as Winston Churchill said, the worst form of government except for every other. E. B. White once defined democracy as the faith than more than half the people will be right more than half the time. He also spoke of democracy as the score at the beginning of the ninth inning. It is not too late to through these proposals out and start over, and move toward fair and objective redistricting to enhance democracy in the Empire State. You only need to look to the Common Cause plans for how this can be done. Thank you for your attention.

In LATFOR’s draft, Senate Districts 59, 61, and 62 stretch from Niagara and Erie all the way into Monroe County.
Rochester and its suburbs are awkwardly broken between six different districts that extend far into surrounding rural counties.

The Common Cause Reform Plan orients separate districts around Buffalo and Rochester, recognizing that each city is the core of its own distinct regional economy.

Looking closer at Rochester, LATFOR continues to break the city between three districts.
This is a partisan gerrymander that disenfranchises Rochester communities. Not a single incumbent Senator actually lives within the City.

Common Cause Reform SD 56 keeps Rochester entirely within a single compact district with Irondequoit and Brighton.
Common Cause Reform SD 59 forms a Rochester suburbs district entirely within Monroe County.
These districts keep communities of interest together and would empower both Rochester and its suburbs with a stronger voice.

Assembly Districts proposed by LATFOR continue to divide local communities and neighborhoods.
These lines seem to be drawn to with the priority to maximize the chances of electing three Democrats.

The City of Rochester is too large to include in a single Assembly district, so the CC Reform Plan divides it as neatly as possible, attempting to keep communities and neighborhoods together as much as practicable.

Current Congressional districts in Western New York divide the region into an awkward jigsaw puzzle.

Rochester is plucked from Monroe County and connected to part of Buffalo by a corridor along Lake Ontario in NY 28 – known as the “earmuffs” district.

The Common Cause Reform Plan for Congress focuses on creating regional districts.

Individual districts can be drawn for the Rochester and Buffalo metro areas to replace the current “earmuffs” district.

Monroe County is currently split between four different Congressional districts which each extend dozens or even hundreds of miles into other regions.

Rochester and its suburbs could instead be contained in a single compact district that would provide a stronger, unified voice for the region in Congress.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN KEEVERT, MEMBER OF COMMON CAUSE/NY

BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 15, 2012, ROCHESTER, NY

My name is John Keevert. I am a resident of Rochester and a member of Common Cause/NY. I am testifying on behalf of the almost 20,000 Common Cause/NY members. Common Cause, in New York and around the country, is a strong supporter of a fair, independent and non-political redistricting process. Unfortunately, neither the redistricting process nor the proposed official maps are up to the appropriate standard this year.

The current district lines in Rochester are one of the examples which Common Cause/NY uses to show the effect of political gerrymandering in its public presentations about redistricting. That’s because the current maps for both the Senate and Assembly divide Rochester into three districts, but to very different effect. The current Assembly districts twist and curve through the City of Rochester in shapes that appear designed to elect three Democrats. The current Senate districts also split the City of Rochester into three, even though Rochester can fit within a single district. The Senate districts match portions of the city with large areas of the surrounding suburbs stretch far into rural areas in order to elect three Republican senators.

The proposed LATFOR maps continue this sorry story. In fact, the proposed Assembly districts for our area, as you can see on page six of this testimony, are almost unchanged from the existing districts. The Common Cause Reform Map offers an alternative for more compact districts that would better keep communities and neighborhoods together.

In the Senate, the proposed LATFOR plans, as you can see on pages four and five of this testimony, are even worse than the existing districts. Rochester remains cut up into three districts. For reasons unknown, SD 61 (Ranzenhofer-R) now extends into the city from the Buffalo region instead of SD 62 (Maziarz-R). Clearly these lines are not about how to best represent Rochester, but are instead designed to carve the city up to best serve the interests of Western New York incumbents. Indeed, no incumbent Senator actually lives within the City of Rochester.

Rochester’s suburbs are equally ill served by these Senate lines. Amazingly, Monroe County is broken between six different Senate districts, with only one district entirely within the county (SD 56). SDs 59, 61 and 62 stretch all the way into Monroe from Erie and Niagara through uniformly rural areas. As the Common Cause Reform Map shows, there is no demographic reason for these contortions. These proposed lines disenfranchise both the City of Rochester and its surrounding suburbs.

In Congress, the way in which our city has been treated in the current districts is a famous gerrymander. As you can see on pages seven and eight of this testimony, Monroe County is split between four different Congressional districts which extend dozens or even hundreds of miles into other regions. In contrast, the Common Cause Reform Plan for Congress focuses on creating regional districts. One district for the Buffalo metropolitan area, one district for the Rochester metropolitan area, and one district for the Finger Lakes. Yes, it can really 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.

It is astounding to me, as a member of the public, that there is no proposed Congressional map yet. Since the official process has not yet been able to generate a proposed Congressional map, I suggest that you adopt the Common Cause Reform Map for Congress.
New York deserves a better set of district maps. I hope that you will take the Common Cause Reform Maps into consideration when revising the proposals.

In LATFOR’s draft, Senate Districts 59, 61, and 62 stretch from Niagara and Erie all the way into Monroe County.
Rochester and its suburbs are awkwardly broken between six different districts that extend far into surrounding rural counties.

The Common Cause Reform Plan orients separate districts around Buffalo and Rochester, recognizing that each city is the core of its own distinct regional economy.

Looking closer at Rochester, LATFOR continues to break the city between three districts.
This is a partisan gerrymander that disenfranchises Rochester communities. Not a single incumbent Senator actually lives within the City.

Common Cause Reform SD 56 keeps Rochester entirely within a single compact district with Irondequoit and Brighton.
Common Cause Reform SD 59 forms a Rochester suburbs district entirely within Monroe County.
These districts keep communities of interest together and would empower both Rochester and its suburbs with a stronger voice.

Assembly Districts proposed by LATFOR continue to divide local communities and neighborhoods.
These lines seem to be drawn to with the priority to maximize the chances of electing three Democrats.

The City of Rochester is too large to include in a single Assembly district, so the CC Reform Plan divides it as neatly as possible, attempting to keep communities and neighborhoods together as much as practicable.

Current Congressional districts in Western New York divide the region into an awkward jigsaw puzzle.

Rochester is plucked from Monroe County and connected to part of Buffalo by a corridor along Lake Ontario in NY 28 – known as the “earmuffs” district.

The Common Cause Reform Plan for Congress focuses on creating regional districts.

Individual districts can be drawn for the Rochester and Buffalo metro areas to replace the current “earmuffs” district.

Monroe County is currently split between four different Congressional districts which each extend dozens or even hundreds of miles into other regions.

Rochester and its suburbs could instead be contained in a single compact district that would provide a stronger, unified voice for the region in Congress.

TESTIMONY OF DONALD GOULET, MEMBER OF COMMON CAUSE/NY
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.

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN PAUL, RESEARCH AND POLICY COORDINATOR OF COMMON CAUSE/NY

BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 9, 2012, SMITHTOWN, NY

My name is Brian Paul and I am the Research and Policy Coordinator at Common Cause NY. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here in Long Island today.

When we at Common Cause decided to draw model redistricting plans for New York State, our goal was to demonstrate what a non-partisan independent process – one that nearly every Legislator pledged to support back in 2010 – would look like in practice while following all the applicable Federal and State Constitutional laws.

There’s no question that redistricting is a complicated task with a complex web of laws that must be followed. But we’ve shown with the Common Cause Reform Plans that these laws are not a barrier to drawing fair districts based on communities of interest. They are not a barrier to following village and school district lines. They are not a barrier to keeping districts reasonably compact and they are not a barrier to maintaining lower population deviations.

It’s been frustrating to see some members of this panel blame politically gerrymandered lines on the Voting Rights Act or block-on-border when interacting with the media and the public. We don’t buy it and the public shouldn’t either. Our experience shows that these laws are no impediment to drawing fair districts.

Now to move on to specific analysis of these Long Island drafts. First, we are glad to see that the Assembly decided to return the 22^nd Assembly District to Long Island. This is the correct apportionment according to the population. But as we’ve testified before, this district should have been moved into Long Island from New York City, not from Upstate New York.

According to the actual population of the state, there should be 64 districts upstate, 64 in New York City, and 22 on Long Island as drawn in the Common Cause Reform Plan, not 63 upstate, 65 New York City, and 22 Long Island as drawn in LATFOR’s draft.

We are also concerned by the Assembly’s partisan gerrymander of Huntington, Babylon, and Oyster Bay, specifically in ADs 9, 10, 12, and 13. In this draft, ADs 9, 10, and 12 have been radically redrawn as you can see on page 9 of this testimony. Districts 9 and 12 now form long slivers running from the Sound to the Bay in shapes that have nothing to do with local communities, villages, or school districts. Looking at party enrollment in the draft districts 9, 10, and 12 as we illustrate on page 10, these new districts appear to be an overt attempt to increase the chance of electing Democratic members.

In Nassau, AD 13 continues to maintain the looping horseshoe shape from Roslyn to Glen Cove to Plainview to Jericho in a game of “follow the Democratic voters.” (See page 10 of this testimony).

The Common Cause Reform Plan, which you can see on page 9 of this testimony, offers a clear alternative of how Long Island’s Assembly Districts could look if drawn based on communities of interest, village, and school district boundaries rather than partisan gamesmanship. These districts would keep distinct local communities together so they can effectively engage in civic life. As public servants this should be your goal in the redistricting process, not this apparent game of wringing out as many Democratic Assembly Members as possible.

Now to turn to the State Senate. We at Common Cause New York are very disappointed that LATFOR decided to completely ignore the testimonies of dozens of Long Islanders last fall and keep these districts almost exactly the same as the current lines.

Here in Suffolk, the lines between SD 3 and SD 4 continue to split the minority community of Brentwood directly in half, and the lines between SD 4 and SD 8 in Babylon continue to separate Wyandanch from North Amityville. Despite the fact that the Hispanic and Black communities in Suffolk grew by almost 49% since the last redistricting, the lines remain the same. Despite the fact that these areas of Suffolk share distinct socio-economic characteristics compared to surrounding areas, the lines remain the same.

The lines do not have to remain the same. The Common Cause Reform Plan, right here on page 5, clearly demonstrates that SD 4 can be redrawn to include these areas together in a reasonably compact district that respects village and school district lines. This district would become almost 48% Black and Hispanic, a near double in minority influence from any Suffolk district in LATFOR’s draft.

In Nassau, the gerrymandering is perhaps even more egregious. The minority community in Hempstead continues to be cracked between four Senate Districts: between SDs 6 and 8 at the Uniondale-Roosevelt border and between SDs 7 and 9 in Elmont. Like in Suffolk, this task force chose to keep those lines in place despite tremendous growth in the minority community, 32% growth.

Again, there’s no excuse. The Common Cause Reform Plan, right here on page 7, again shows that SD 6 can be redrawn to include these areas together in a reasonably compact district that respects village and school district lines. This district would become almost 63% Black and Hispanic, a true majority-minority coalition district with more than double the minority influence of any Nassau district in LATFOR’s draft.

Overall in Long Island the Black and Hispanic population now accounts for 22% of the Voting Age Population. There are 9 Senate Districts on Long Island. Adopting the Common Cause lines would allow minority communities a real opportunity to participate in 2 of the 9 districts. What’s 2 divided by 9? 22%. The demographic math here is undeniable.

On top of all this, the Senate Plan fails to follow the State Constitution’s clear mandate to minimize the division of counties. This plan crosses the Nassau-Suffolk border twice in SDs 5 and 8, while the Common Cause Reform Plan shows it is possible to only cross the county border once.

In fair redistricting, partisan politics is not allowed to trump communities’ interests or the State Constitution, 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 Long Island. I urge you to give New Yorkers the fair, nonpartisan voting districts they want and deserve.

The LATFOR Draft continues to “crack” the growing minority communities in Babylon and Islip between three Senate districts.

The Common Cause Reform Plan shows how these communities can be kept together while improving all the surrounding districts at the same time.

The LATFOR Draft continues to “crack” the growing minority communities in Hempstead between four Senate districts.

The Common Cause Reform Plan shows how these communities can be kept together while improving all the surrounding districts at the same time.

Assembly districts in Huntington, Babylon, and Oyster Bay have been redrawn in an attempt to increase the change of electing Democratic members. Districts 9 and 12 now form long slivers running from the Sound to the Bay in shapes that have nothing to do with local communities, villages, or school districts. District 13 maintains the looping horseshoe shape from Roslyn to Glen Cove to Plainview to Jericho in a game of “follow the Democratic voters.” The Common Cause Reform Plan, (which you can see in previous map), offers a clear alternative of how Long Island’s Assembly Districts could look if drawn based on communities of interest, village, and school district boundaries rather than partisan gamesmanship

LATFOR Senate Draft – Long Island

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
SD01	315,163	7,799	2.5%	79.3%	5.1%	2.0%	12.3%
SD02	315,164	7,800	2.5%	83.5%	3.0%	5.6%	7.0%
SD03	315,163	7,799	2.5%	64.3%	7.7%	2.7%	23.9%
SD04	315,163	7,799	2.5%	70.1%	8.8%	3.0%	16.7%
SD05	315,163	7,799	2.5%	78.3%	3.2%	7.5%	9.9%
SD06	315,163	7,799	2.5%	62.5%	14.5%	5.1%	16.5%
SD07	315,163	7,799	2.5%	64.3%	7.3%	13.7%	12.8%
SD08	315,163	7,799	2.5%	65.5%	14.9%	2.4%	15.9%
SD09	315,164	7,800	2.5%	69.5%	10.7%	5.3%	13.0%

Common Cause Reform Plan Senate 63 – Long Island

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
1	315,137	7,773	2.5%	78.4%	5.6%	1.7%	12.9%
2	315,215	7,851	2.6%	84.2%	2.4%	5.2%	7.2%
3	315,167	7,803	2.5%	80.8%	4.1%	2.5%	11.5%
4	315,318	7,954	2.6%	48.1%	15.9%	2.7%	31.6%
5	315,160	7,796	2.5%	79.4%	3.7%	7.0%	8.8%
6	315,161	7,797	2.5%	29.7%	34.7%	5.4%	28.0%
7	314,916	7,552	2.5%	74.4%	2.5%	12.0%	9.5%
8	315,204	7,840	2.6%	81.1%	2.1%	7.2%	8.5%
9	315,191	7,827	2.5%	80.6%	4.6%	3.5%	10.2%

LATFOR Assembly Draft – Long Island

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
001	128,929	-160	-0.12%	77.9%	3.9%	1.1%	15.5%
002	128,934	-155	-0.12%	84.9%	3.9%	2.0%	8.1%
003	128,931	-158	-0.12%	73.4%	7.4%	2.5%	15.0%
004	128,933	-156	-0.12%	76.2%	6.1%	7.1%	9.3%
005	128,927	-162	-0.13%	83.4%	1.9%	4.5%	9.2%
006	128,933	-156	-0.12%	22.8%	16.3%	2.9%	56.2%
007	128,931	-158	-0.12%	83.3%	3.3%	1.8%	10.5%
008	128,926	-163	-0.13%	89.4%	1.2%	3.8%	4.9%
009	128,929	-160	-0.12%	85.5%	3.3%	3.0%	7.4%
010	128,932	-157	-0.12%	72.3%	6.7%	6.3%	13.3%
011	128,932	-157	-0.12%	55.6%	21.9%	2.2%	18.6%
012	128,932	-157	-0.12%	84.0%	3.0%	3.0%	9.0%
013	128,931	-158	-0.12%	66.1%	8.4%	9.0%	15.3%
014	128,933	-156	-0.12%	84.2%	4.5%	3.4%	7.2%
015	128,927	-162	-0.13%	74.5%	2.2%	12.0%	10.0%
016	128,928	-161	-0.12%	72.2%	2.1%	16.3%	7.6%
017	128,930	-159	-0.12%	83.1%	1.6%	5.8%	8.6%
018	128,929	-160	-0.12%	13.7%	46.6%	1.7%	35.9%
019	128,930	-159	-0.12%	75.9%	2.7%	10.4%	9.6%
020	128,931	-158	-0.12%	80.2%	4.2%	3.0%	11.6%
021	128,930	-159	-0.12%	69.3%	10.7%	3.6%	15.0%
022	128,931	-158	-0.12%	46.9%	23.5%	10.4%	16.7%

Common Cause Reform Plan Assembly – Long Island

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
1	128,931	-158	-0.12%	76.0%	4.5%	1.3%	16.4%
2	128,945	-144	-0.11%	83.7%	4.8%	1.6%	8.7%
3	128,942	-147	-0.11%	71.6%	8.1%	2.1%	16.6%
4	128,964	-125	-0.10%	79.5%	3.9%	7.3%	8.2%
5	128,951	-138	-0.11%	82.5%	2.2%	4.3%	9.9%
6	128,908	-181	-0.14%	20.9%	17.2%	2.9%	57.2%
7	128,934	-155	-0.12%	89.1%	1.3%	3.8%	5.0%
8	128,904	-185	-0.14%	86.6%	2.5%	2.2%	7.8%
9	128,918	-171	-0.13%	83.3%	3.9%	5.9%	5.8%
10	128,940	-149	-0.12%	85.8%	2.4%	2.4%	8.4%
11	128,941	-148	-0.11%	51.6%	23.2%	3.1%	20.2%
12	128,955	-134	-0.10%	89.0%	2.2%	2.3%	5.7%
13	128,915	-174	-0.13%	75.8%	3.5%	7.5%	12.2%
14	128,938	-151	-0.12%	70.7%	9.4%	3.1%	15.5%
15	128,935	-154	-0.12%	77.4%	1.1%	11.0%	9.2%
16	128,908	-181	-0.14%	74.4%	3.8%	8.8%	11.6%
17	128,925	-164	-0.13%	65.1%	10.2%	7.3%	16.0%
18	128,930	-159	-0.12%	8.7%	50.5%	1.6%	37.1%
19	128,868	-221	-0.17%	85.9%	1.3%	4.8%	7.2%
20	128,931	-158	-0.12%	78.6%	4.8%	3.6%	12.0%
21	128,951	-138	-0.11%	47.2%	23.0%	10.8%	16.4%
45	128,935	-154	-0.12%	71.0%	1.8%	17.6%	7.8%

TESTIMONY OF SAM MASSOL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF COMMON CAUSE/NY

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)

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

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
SD26	318,021	10,657	3.5%	56.5%	4.3%	23.0%	14.2%
SD27	318,021	10,657	3.5%	68.3%	4.4%	13.8%	11.2%
SD28	318,021	10,657	3.5%	79.6%	2.4%	10.0%	6.4%
SD29	318,019	10,655	3.5%	22.9%	20.9%	4.5%	50.1%
SD30	318,021	10,657	3.5%	21.4%	42.2%	5.2%	28.8%
SD31	318,021	10,657	3.5%	31.0%	8.9%	4.9%	53.7%

Common Cause Reform Senate 63 Plan — Manhattan

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
26	304,850	-2,514	-0.8%	76.5%	3.3%	11.8%	6.7%
28	305,153	-2,211	-0.7%	18.0%	23.6%	4.0%	52.8%
29	305,670	-1,694	-0.6%	72.3%	4.4%	10.2%	11.0%
30	304,589	-2,775	-0.9%	28.3%	39.1%	6.0%	24.1%
31	304,964	-2,400	-0.8%	26.0%	10.4%	3.3%	58.8%
63	304,900	-2,464	-0.8%	51.2%	5.1%	26.1%	15.5%

LATFOR Assembly Draft — Manhattan

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
065	132,498	3,409	2.64%	35.6%	4.8%	42.6%	15.1%
066	132,495	3,406	2.64%	76.8%	2.8%	10.9%	7.0%
067	132,586	3,497	2.71%	72.1%	4.6%	11.5%	10.0%
068	132,428	3,339	2.59%	20.8%	27.2%	6.5%	43.7%
069	132,446	3,357	2.60%	55.5%	12.3%	9.1%	20.7%
070	132,444	3,355	2.60%	14.3%	51.7%	3.8%	27.7%
071	132,520	3,431	2.66%	17.8%	28.8%	3.2%	48.1%
072	132,545	3,456	2.68%	15.2%	7.0%	1.9%	74.7%
073	132,515	3,426	2.65%	80.4%	2.5%	9.4%	6.4%
074	132,691	3,602	2.79%	57.6%	6.4%	14.8%	18.9%
075	132,465	3,376	2.62%	66.9%	5.0%	13.6%	12.3%

Common Cause Reform Assembly Plan — Manhattan

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
64	130,474	1,385	1.07%	22.9%	7.5%	41.9%	26.0%
65	129,505	416	0.32%	78.6%	3.4%	9.6%	6.5%
66	130,272	1,183	0.92%	75.5%	2.7%	12.8%	6.6%
67	128,978	-111	-0.09%	70.4%	4.6%	11.7%	11.4%
68	130,266	1,177	0.91%	15.5%	26.2%	5.7%	50.7%
69	130,185	1,096	0.85%	64.7%	7.8%	9.5%	15.6%
70	130,358	1,269	0.98%	17.7%	54.0%	3.8%	21.9%
71	129,854	765	0.59%	8.8%	34.7%	2.3%	52.3%
72	130,559	1,470	1.14%	22.3%	8.4%	3.4%	64.4%
73	130,374	1,285	1.00%	81.2%	2.3%	9.0%	6.1%
74	130,006	917	0.71%	68.8%	4.1%	15.1%	9.5%
75	130,345	1,256	0.97%	68.0%	4.6%	14.6%	10.6%
81	130,342	1,253	0.97%	42.5%	8.9%	4.1%	43.0%

TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR MORETTA, BOARD MEMBER OF COMMON CAUSE/NY
BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 1, 2012, BROOKLYN, NY

My name is Eleanor Moretta and I’m a board member of Common Cause NY. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am a long-time resident of Brooklyn and have been an activist in my community for many years.

As Common Cause NY has testified on numerous occasions, we are strong supporters of independent redistricting. When it became clear that members of the legislature were not going to keep their promise to reform this process, we at Common Cause NY took matters into our own hands to draw independent, non-partisan redistricting plans for the entire state.

We are not armchair critics; we know how difficult it is to balance the requirements of Federal law and State Constitution while maintaining low population deviations and keeping counties and political subdivision as intact as possible. With the Common Cause Reform Maps, we have proven that it can indeed be done.

Our experience has re-confirmed our conviction that the redistricting provisions of our state constitution must be re-written not only to provide for an independent redistricting process but also to provide clear criteria for drawing fair, non-partisan maps. However, while we work to properly rewrite the state constitutional provisions, we must insure that the district lines that are adopted this year are not a continuation of the gerrymandering that has been the hallmark of redistricting in this state.

So we have taken the opportunity presented by this Brooklyn hearing to examine the LATFOR drafts for Brooklyn and compare them to the Common Cause Reform Maps.

Let’s start with the Assembly. First, we’d like to recognize and thank you for the clear improvement from the current lines in the Sunset Park area. Instead of continuing to split a distinct neighborhood in two, the draft plan significantly redraws AD 49 to keep most of the growing Asian community in Sunset Park and Bensonhurst together in a near-majority Asian district.

At the north end of Brooklyn however, we have found that opportunities for minority representation can be significantly improved, and neighborhoods better kept together, if the Brooklyn-Queens line is crossed at Ridgewood-Bushwick and Cypress Hills-Woodhaven. We do not take this lightly – counties should only be crossed with significant justification. But in this case, crossing Brooklyn-Queens at these two locations would allow a third majority-Hispanic seat to be created and would keep together these community units that extend uninterrupted across the borough line.

We also believe that numerous other draft Assembly districts, such as ADs 46 and 58, can be improved to be more compact and based in neighborhood geography.

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

The draft plan again divides the distinct neighborhood of Sunset Park into four separate Senate districts, essentially disenfranchising this growing immigrant community. Most objectionable is the mile-long, single-block wide corridor extending into Sunset Park from SD 20, a district based in the faraway, completely different neighborhood of Crown Heights.

Perhaps even worse is the continued damage done to the communities of South Brooklyn by the overt partisan gerrymander of SD 22. In half a dozen neighborhoods in South Brooklyn one can be within District 22 and have their neighbor across the street in another district for no apparent reason. This district is not shaped as it is due to any Federal or State law requirement. The reason for this district, little changed from the current lines, becomes obvious when one looks at the voter enrollment data. LATFOR’s draft SD 22 is carefully constructed to include those pockets of South Brooklyn where Republican or Conservative registration is highest.

The Common Cause Reform Plan offers a clear alternative of what districts based in neighborhood geography and communities of interest, while following the Voting Rights Act, would look like. Our plan draws SD 22 to keep Sunset Park whole and extend to the southeast along the “N” subway line to Bensonhurst. Sunset Park is demographically distinct from other neighborhoods in South Brooklyn – it is a dense mixed use neighborhood of immigrants and industry with large and growing Hispanic and Asian immigrant populations. And it could be kept whole with no adverse effects to the other neighborhoods of South Brooklyn, as the Common Cause Reform Plan demonstrates. This district would be majority-minority at 36.8% Asian voting age population and 25.2% Hispanic voting age population. The LATFOR draft creates no comparable district for minority representation in South Brooklyn.

On the subject of partisan gerrymandering, I’d also like to point out that, although we don’t agree with the premise behind its addition, if a 63rd Senate is to be added in accordance with the actual population distribution in the state, it would land in New York City. Specifically it would land in Lower Manhattan. Because each Brooklyn district would be roughly 5,000 voters smaller, SD 26 (Squadron-D) would move entirely out of Manhattan, opening the space for an entirely new Lower Manhattan district to be drawn.

Clearly these proposed draft lines in Brooklyn 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 opportunity to revisit the recommendations of the Common Cause Reform Plan for Brooklyn.

LATFOR SENATE DRAFT — BROOKLYN

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
SD18	318,022	10,658	3.5%	20.8%	20.0%	5.7%	51.1%
SD19	318,021	10,657	3.5%	20.3%	56.4%	7.0%	14.2%
SD20	318,021	10,657	3.5%	14.6%	54.5%	9.6%	19.2%
SD21	318,021	10,657	3.5%	22.1%	55.8%	6.2%	13.5%
SD22	318,022	10,658	3.5%	64.6%	1.0%	22.1%	11.0%
SD23	318,019	10,655	3.5%	50.8%	15.2%	11.8%	20.4%
SD25	318,021	10,657	3.5%	21.4%	54.8%	4.1%	17.1%
SD26*	318,021	10,657	3.5%	56.5%	4.3%	23.0%	14.2%

*LATFOR Draft SD 26 crosses the East River to Lower Manhattan

COMMON CAUSE REFORM SENATE 63 — BROOKLYN

DIST	POP	DEV	% DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
17*	306,810	-554	-0.2%	20.2%	11.9%	9.7%	55.7%
18	306,713	-651	-0.2%	12.2%	62.9%	3.1%	19.4%
19	307,094	-270	-0.1%	21.9%	57.9%	3.9%	14.2%
20	307,472	108	0.0%	19.7%	57.2%	6.2%	14.3%
21	307,661	297	0.1%	26.8%	58.5%	4.9%	7.7%
22	306,959	-405	-0.1%	34.7%	2.0%	36.8%	25.2%
23	306,651	-713	-0.2%	51.5%	15.2%	10.4%	20.9%
25	306,452	-912	-0.3%	68.0%	7.9%	6.1%	15.7%
27	306,423	-941	-0.3%	73.5%	2.2%	14.1%	8.9%

* CC Reform SD 17 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Bushwick-Ridgewood

CC Reform Plan with 63 Districts does not cross from Brooklyn to Manhattan.

LATFOR ASSEMBLY DRAFT — BROOKLYN

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
038*	124,082	-5,007	-3.88%	25.8%	5.4%	15.4%	47.4%
041	124,239	-4,850	-3.76%	59.0%	20.9%	11.4%	7.1%
042	124,249	-4,840	-3.75%	12.3%	65.9%	3.8%	15.5%
043	124,231	-4,858	-3.76%	15.0%	71.7%	1.7%	9.3%
044	124,235	-4,854	-3.76%	57.9%	7.0%	16.9%	15.6%
045	124,230	-4,859	-3.76%	71.5%	2.1%	15.1%	9.9%
046	124,230	-4,859	-3.76%	68.4%	8.4%	9.2%	12.4%
047	124,223	-4,866	-3.77%	54.1%	1.5%	31.2%	12.0%
048	124,234	-4,855	-3.76%	79.4%	1.7%	9.4%	8.3%
049	124,232	-4,857	-3.76%	35.6%	0.6%	49.7%	13.0%
050	124,234	-4,855	-3.76%	71.3%	4.8%	4.2%	17.8%
051	124,234	-4,855	-3.76%	23.9%	5.9%	18.9%	49.5%
052	124,228	-4,861	-3.77%	68.0%	8.8%	7.0%	13.6%
053	124,234	-4,855	-3.76%	25.5%	8.3%	7.7%	56.7%
054	124,230	-4,859	-3.76%	4.4%	31.4%	6.3%	54.2%
055	124,245	-4,844	-3.75%	1.7%	73.8%	0.9%	21.4%
056	124,236	-4,853	-3.76%	5.0%	75.8%	1.7%	15.3%
057	124,233	-4,856	-3.76%	27.0%	50.8%	5.9%	13.2%
058	124,242	-4,847	-3.75%	2.6%	88.1%	1.4%	5.9%
059	124,235	-4,854	-3.76%	34.3%	52.7%	3.7%	7.5%
060	124,245	-4,844	-3.75%	4.5%	69.2%	1.9%	22.4%

*LATFOR Draft AD 38 entirely in Queens from Woodhaven to Ridgewood.

COMMON CAUSE REFORM ASSEMBLY — BROOKLYN

DIST	POP	DEV	%DEV	%NHWhtVAP	%NHBlkVAP	%NHAsnVAP	%HspVAP
38*	127,065	-2,024	-1.57%	6.1%	28.7%	10.4%	50.0%
40	127,102	-1,987	-1.54%	7.1%	73.3%	2.2%	15.5%
41	127,191	-1,898	-1.47%	29.3%	57.2%	3.8%	7.6%
42	127,243	-1,846	-1.43%	17.9%	57.0%	6.6%	15.8%
43	126,848	-2,241	-1.74%	12.9%	74.6%	1.1%	9.2%
44	126,998	-2,091	-1.62%	69.8%	1.9%	13.7%	13.0%
46	127,144	-1,945	-1.51%	69.8%	8.4%	9.1%	11.3%
47	127,475	-1,614	-1.25%	59.6%	2.4%	25.0%	11.7%
48	127,335	-1,754	-1.36%	29.9%	1.1%	51.0%	16.8%
49	127,408	-1,681	-1.30%	60.9%	1.2%	23.2%	13.2%
50	127,034	-2,055	-1.59%	70.6%	5.6%	4.2%	17.8%
51	127,018	-2,071	-1.60%	32.7%	8.2%	11.8%	45.5%
52	127,165	-1,924	-1.49%	71.4%	7.8%	7.1%	11.2%
53	127,259	-1,830	-1.42%	23.8%	11.8%	6.7%	55.9%
54*	126,979	-2,110	-1.63%	12.5%	29.3%	5.1%	51.3%
55	127,270	-1,819	-1.41%	0.9%	83.7%	0.8%	12.8%
56	126,981	-2,108	-1.63%	6.7%	74.4%	2.2%	14.5%
57	127,197	-1,892	-1.47%	25.5%	52.6%	5.6%	13.2%
58	127,237	-1,852	-1.43%	27.3%	54.2%	7.0%	9.1%
59	127,177	-1,912	-1.48%	72.8%	4.3%	14.6%	6.9%

* CC Reform AD 38 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Woodhaven-Cypress Hills

* CC Reform AD 54 crosses Brooklyn-Queens border at Bushwick-Ridgewood

TESTIMONY OF SEAN COFFEY, BOARD MEMBER OF COMMON CAUSE/NY AND CHAIR OF CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE
BEFORE LATFOR, JANUARY 31, 2012, BRONX, NY

My name is Sean Coffey. I currently serve as a member of the board of Common Cause New York. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about a matter that goes to the core of how a representative democracy should operate: drawing districts that best serve the collective interest of our citizens and not the self-interest of politicians. I am here today because the district maps drawn by the LATFOR fall shockingly short of what the people of New York deserve – and represent a brazen broken promise by a majority of the Assembly and Senate.

I would like to begin by going back two years, to when I ran as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General. Like many candidates for office in 2010, I was asked to sign the ReShape New York pledge that would commit me to support an independent redistricting process after the 2010 census. I had previously put out a detailed reform agenda that included that very point, so on one level agreeing to sign the pledge was a foregone conclusion. But I remember thinking long and hard about whether to put my signature on a written pledge that would create a solemn contract between me and the voters, a commitment that I, if elected, would be honor-bound to fulfill. I signed the pledge, as did the vast majority of other candidates eager to assure the voters that they understood the need to end the insidious practice of gerrymandering. I came up short in my campaign, so I never got the opportunity to fulfill my promise to the voters. But a healthy majority of those elected to each house of the Legislature had signed the pledge, and like other private citizens I looked forward to those majorities fulfilling their pledge to the voters.It was not to be. The failure of this Legislature to keep its members’ sworn promise to refer the drawing of district lines to an independent, non-partisan committee was a cynical breach of trust , even by the low standards that News Yorkers have come to expect of Albany politicians. Having ignored their commitment to an independent commission and opted, yet again, to draw the lines themselves, one would have hoped that this Task Force would have mitigated the harm by drawing the new lines in a manner that at least approximated what an independent commission would have done. Unfortunately, the draft maps produced by this Task Force pour salt in the wound, because the lines are clearly the product of highly partisan gerrymandering of the worst degree.

Common Cause NY has been a strong advocate of establishing an independent redistricting commission in this state.When it became clear that members of the Legislature were intent on breaking this promise to the public, we at Common Cause NY decided to take matters into our own hands and draw independent, non-partisan redistricting plans for the entire state. Working with an advisory panel of distinguished academics and engaged citizens, and soliciting input from communities and organizations throughout New York, we have produced the Common Cause Reform Maps that clearly illustrate kind of non-partisan plan that the voters support, and that the Legislature promised to deliver when members signed that pledge.

We are not armchair critics; we know it can be difficult to balance the requirements of Federal law and State Constitution while maintaining low population deviations and keeping counties and political subdivision as intact as possible. With the Common Cause Reform Maps, we have proven that it can indeed be done.

The contrast with the incumbent and majority protection plans issued by LATFOR could not be clearer. On Long Island, our plan keeps communities of interest and minority communities that have been cracked and splintered for decades intact, while closely following village and school district boundaries that are largely ignored by the LATFOR plans. In New York City, the Common Cause Reform Plan keeps neighborhoods together while enhancing opportunities for minority representation in every borough. Upstate, the plan keeps regions, counties, and cities together – in stark contrast to the LATFOR drafts which appear to divide them whenever politically expedient. And looking at the state as a whole, the Common Cause Reform Plan corrects the regional mal-apportionment between New York City and Upstate that each majority party manipulates for partisan advantage.

This is the kind of fair, non-partisan plan that the citizens of this state envisioned when the majority of both the Senate and the Assembly pledged to support independent redistricting, and it is the plan that New Yorkers deserve.

I’d also like to remind this panel that Common Cause NY also drew a complete reform plan for Congress that we urge you to take into consideration. If LATFOR has not drawn a Congressional plan at this late hour, why not adopt the Common Cause Reform Plan? When LATFOR’s Congressional plan is finally published, it is imperative that the public have an opportunity to offer input.

This hearing in the Bronx also offers an opportunity to compare and contrast the LATFOR drafts with the Common Cause Reform Plan at a more local level. And since the task force felt no need to schedule a public hearing in Westchester or the Hudson Valley, despite it being the fastest growing region of the state, this hearing is the best chance to discuss those issues as well.

First let’s take a look at the Assembly. In both the Bronx and Southern Westchester, there has been hardly any change in these draft lines when compared to the existing districts. Common Cause NY is on record from the first round of LATFOR hearings recommending that AD 80 should not cut across Bronx Park to divide the Norwood neighborhood. That line has been left largely in place, despite testimony from that community last fall that pointed out this issue.

Another issue we’ve found in the Assembly is that the opportunities for minority representation can be significantly improved if the Bronx-Westchester county line is crossed. We do not take this lightly – counties should only be crossed with significant justification. But crossing the Bronx-Westchester line in the Mount Vernon-Wakefield area allows two majority Non-Hispanic Black Assembly districts to be drawn where currently only one exists. Like Ridgewood-Bushwick in Brooklyn-Queens, this is an area where a compact community of interest extends uninterrupted over the county line. Drawing AD 87 to cross the Bronx-Westchester line also allows the South Yonkers area to be wholly included within a single AD which would be majority-minority at 39.3% Hispanic and 19.2% non-Hispanic Black voting age population.

Now to turn to the State Senate. We at Common Cause NY never thought that we would see a redistricting plan that makes the current lines look good in comparison. But in the Bronx and Southern Westchester, LATFOR has accomplished just that.

In the LATFOR Draft, 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. In the Common Cause Reform Plan we provided a clear written justification for each district we drew. LATFOR did not do the same. What could possibly be the justification for this new SD 29 or SD 32, which extends four twisted appendages across the South Bronx with no regard for neighborhoods or communities?

Similarly the draft SD 34, a district which currently loops into Southern Westchester in a donut around SD 36, now instead jumps across Bronx Park to Riverdale in a narrow corridor, while still extending into Southern Westchester including a narrow panhandle into Northern Mount Vernon.

Let me offer as a comparison, the Common Cause Reform Maps. These districts are compact and based in neighborhood geography and communities of interest, while also recognizing the 23% growth in the Bronx Hispanic community that has taken place since 2000. Indeed, drawing a compact district wholly within the East Bronx – the Common Cause Reform SD 34 – creates a near-5th majority Hispanic district at 47.4% Hispanic voting-age population. This contrasts with the LATFOR Draft SD 34 which only reaches 35.4% Hispanic voting-age population. Moreover, the East Bronx is a clear community of interest, distinct from either the South Bronx, Central Bronx, or Riverdale in terms of median household income, educational attainment, homeownership, percentage of households with children, and immigrant population. Again, this is a fact we at Common Cause pointed out at the first LATFOR hearing in the Bronx last fall when we provided detailed maps of the socio-economic data for the borough.

\Also, in recognition of the State Constitution’s provision for Senate districts to avoid dividing counties whenever possible, the Common Cause Reform Plan’s Senate Districts only cross the Bronx-Westchester line with one district, SD 36.

Across the county line in Westchester, the Senate draft as currently proposed is also a major step backwards compared with either the Common Cause Reform Plan or the existing districts. Both divide Southern Westchester roughly down the middle, with SD 35 as a compact Hudson River district, and SD 37 as a compact Long Island Sound district. As a resident of Westchester with knowledge of the communities there, this arrangement makes sense.

There is no objective rationale for the overt partisan gerrymander of Southern Westchester in LATFOR’s current State Senate draft. As proposed, SD 35 will now contain only half of Yonkers and instead add Scarsdale and, most egregiously, a twisted appendage extending into New Rochelle. These lines are proof positive of a partisan gerrymander – we’ve looked at the Voter Enrollment, and these new Westchester lines are clearly designed to split the county politically, with nearly every possible conservative voter carved into the new SD 37 which will be an open seat this November with Senator Oppenheimer’s retirement.

Clearly these lines in Southern Westchester 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 opportunity to revisit the recommendations of the Common Cause Reform Plan for the Bronx and Southern Westchester, a plan which offers a clear vision of what non-partisan districts would look like for this region.

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN LERNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMON CAUSE/NY

BEFORE LATFOR, ALBANY, January 30, 2012

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am Susan Lerner, the Executive Director of Common Cause/New York, a nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization. As an organization whose core mission is to help advance policies that allow citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest, Common Cause works on redistricting in virtually all of the 38 states in which we are active. I am proud that California Common Cause was instrumental in passing Prop 11 in 2008, the initiative which established an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission which is currently engaged in an open, collaborative process to draw new district lines in California.  Our experience there shows that citizens can and will participate in a redistricting process if given the opportunity.

First, I would like to express our appreciation for the fact that both image files and shape files of the draft maps were simultaneously released last week,  which has assisted the public, as well as Common Cause/NY in analyzing the proposed lines.  The image files are immediately accessible through the website and are sufficiently detailed with street names and other identifying landmarks provided to allow a member of the public to understand the proposed boundaries of the district and accompanied by useful population figures.  Nevertheless, we thought the suspense, speculation and waiting for the release of the maps counter-productive.

We are disappointed in the maps.  We believe that they should undergo substantial revision and were pleased to hear from both Senator Nozzolio and Assembly Member McEneny that these are preliminary draft which they expect to revise.

First, and very importantly, we note that the congressional district lines have not yet been released to the public.  Your public comments indicate that the maps have not yet been drawn or agreed on by LATFOR. With the recent court order setting the congressional primary for June, the need to finalize congressional districts takes on an even-greater urgency. Nevertheless, these public hearings have commenced, raising the alarming possibility that the Legislature will be asked to approve congressional district lines which the public has not been given an opportunity to comment upon.  We have drawn a set of congressional district lines for the entire state and urge you to use them to speed the process and release draft congressional maps for public comment

As we have consistently stated, Common Cause/NY believes that district lines should be fairly drawn pursuant to a set of clear criteria and  be non-political. We have drawn a set of reform maps to illustrate how applying fair, non-politicized criteria would play out in reality. Our maps show that there is no practical impediment to drawing a set of fair, non-politicized maps that do not favor incumbents, only a political one.  We appreciate the candor of Assembly Member McEneny’s comments to reporters and in television appearances, in readily admitting that the maps drawn by LATFOR are not non-partisan and reflect the fact that they are drawn consciously by those most knowledgeable about politics. His statements clearly outline for the public the difference between the approach taken by LATFOR in suggesting district lines and the approach taken by Common Cause/NY in drawing the reform maps.  Polls consistently show that New Yorkers want district lines that are dawn independently and that are not drawn to protect incumbents and advantage any political party. Assembly Member McEneny is forthright in saying that he rejects that approach and has a different philosophy. Examination of the LATFOR maps show that they are indeed drawn to a political rubric.

Measured against three criteria, the official draft maps should be changed. LATFOR’s maps are not drawn to provide  minority communities with every possible opportunity to elect representatives of their own choice, do not meet the federally mandated principle of ‘one person one vote’, and violate the constitutional provision to avoid dividing counties whenever possible.

Numerical Analysis

Minority Communities: LATFOR vs. Common Cause Reform Maps

Compared to Common Cause’s reform alternative, LATFOR’s claim that the proposed maps advantage minority communities doesn’t stack up to the potential reality.

State Senate

Non-Hispanic Black:

LATFOR: 7 majority, 6 influence

Common Cause Reform: 7 majority, 8 influence

Hispanic:

LATFOR: 6 majority, 8 influence

Common Cause Reform: 6 majority, 1 near-majority (47.4%), 10 influence

Non-Hispanic Asian:

LATFOR: 1 majority, 3 influence

Common Cause Reform: 1 majority, 5 influence

State Assembly

Non-Hispanic Black:

LATFOR: 15 majority, 17 influence

Common Cause Reform: 17 majority, 17 influence

Hispanic:

LATFOR: 14 majority, 21 influence

Common Cause Reform: 16 majority, 18 influence

Non-Hispanic Asian:

LATFOR: 3 majority, 8 influence

Common Cause Reform: 3 majority, 10 influence

Similarly, LATFOR’s proposal creates large disparities in population between districts, upsetting the proportionality of the state.

Population Deviation: LATFOR vs. Common Cause Reform Maps

State Senate

In LATFOR’s maps, the population deviations range from -4.97% to + 3.83%, with an absolute mean deviation of 3.67%. The biggest difference in district size is 27,035 people.

• There are 26 upstate districts, with a mean deviation of -4.5%

• There are 28 NYC/Westchester districts, with a mean deviation of + 3.3%

In the Common Cause Reform Maps, the population deviation ranges from -2.9% to +2.59%, with a mean deviation of 1.4%. The biggest difference in district size is 16,864 people.

• 25 upstate districts, with a mean deviation of -0.49%

• 29 NYC/Westchester districts, with a mean deviation of -0.43%

State Assembly

In LATFOR’s maps, the population deviations range from -3.88% to + 4.06%, which is a mean deviation of 2.56%. The biggest difference in district size is 10,259 people.

• 63 districts upstate, with a mean deviation of +2.44%

• 65 NYC districts, with a mean deviation of -2.32%

In the Common Cause Reform Plan, the population deviations range from -1.79% to +2.96%, with a mean deviation of 1.06%. The biggest difference in district size is 6,121 people.

• 64 Upstate, with a mean deviation of +0.65%

• 64 NYC, with a mean deviation of -0.61%

County Crossings

The LATFOR plan for the Senate crosses 18 small upstate counties:

• Putnam

• Rockland

• Dutchess

• Delaware

• Albany

• Saratoga

• Washington

• Chenango

• Herkimer

• Oneida

• Ontario

• Livingston

• St. Lawrence

• Cayuga

• Ulster

• Tompkins

• Rensselaer

• Schenectady

In so doing, LATFOR divides three small upstate counties (St. Lawrence, Cayuga, and Tompkins) between three senate districts, and divides Ulster County between four senate districts

In contrast, the Common Cause Reform Plan crosses only nine small upstate counties:

• Putnam

• Ulster

• Dutchess

• Rensselaer

• Saratoga

• Broome

• Oswego

• Niagara

• Herkimer

The reform maps do not divide any small counties into more than two districts.

In December, Common Cause New York provided LATFOR and the public with a set of proposed Congressional and State maps drawn according to good government principles,.

The Common Cause reform maps are drawn according to the following criteria:

• Respect one-person, one-vote by drawing state legislative districts with a population deviation of no more than +/- 3% from the ideal value, with a mean deviation for the whole plan within 1%.

• Compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act.

• Respect communities of interest by drawing districts that reflect the social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of the area. A community of interest is 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.

• Traditional redistricting factors, like contiguity, compactness and respect for county, city, town, village, and school district lines whenever possible.

Applying these criteria to the districts that have been proposed for the Capitol Region indicates that the lines should be changes in both houses.  When we testified last August, we suggested that the Task Force look at ways to keep the cities of the Capitol Region within districts and not split them up.  Yet the assembly map continues to split the City of Albany, dividing it between ADs 109 and 108, while the City of Schenectady remains divided, split between ADs 110 and 111.  We previously recommended keeping the cities of Troy and Schnectedy whole and in the same senate district, acknowledging that such a scheme may not be feasible because of the state constitution’s requirement that counties not be divided. We noted that Albany County comes very close to be the ideal size for a single senate district.  Indeed, it has been a single senate district for many cycles.  The new district proposed for the Capitol Region, SD 44, bisects Albany County in order to keep Troy, Rensselaer and Albany City together, which would hold those communities of interest together in the same district.  However, it clearly flaunts the constitutional requirement.  It is a good example of why he constitutional requirement should be changed.  But until it is, we must, as Senator Nozzolio points out, strive to follow it where possible. It’s application here does particular violence to the constitutional requirement and needlessly cuts Albany County.

We recommend revising the lines for the Capitol Region and look forward to working with you to rewriting the constitutional provision governing redistricting so that it sets forth clear, workable criteria for setting political boundary lines.