Citizens Redistricting Committee

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.

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

We strongly support redistricting reform and independent redistricting.  However, we believe that there are larger issues than simply who draws the maps.  The ultimate issue is where the boundary lines for political districts will be placed, irrespective of who draws them.

There is no one perfect district map.  But there are a lot of good possibilities for creating maps that are more fair, less politicized, and more reflective of the communities of interest in which New Yorkers actually live than the current gerrymandered district maps.

Fair Criteria for Drawing Districts
Fair criteria ensure the process of drawing districts will be more transparent to the public, the media and courts.  We recommend that any line-drawing body abide by the following principles in drawing district lines:

• Respecting one-person, one-vote, by drawing districts that reflect a total population deviation of no more than 5% between the smallest and largest districts
• Compliance with the Voting Rights Act
• Respecting communities of interest, by drawing districts that reflect the social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic interests common to the population of the area by grouping individuals who are likely to have similar legislative concerns and are therefore likely to benefit from cohesive representation.

• Traditional redistricting factors, like contiguity, compactness and respect for county and city lines when feasible
• Following an “incumbent blind” process
• Re-enumerating incarcerated persons back to their districts of last residence.

We want to thank the Task Force for conducting this series of hearings. We believe that transparency and public input is key to a successful redistricting process. To that end, we believe that the line-drawing body should institute the following procedures:

• All maps and data which are used should be available quickly and for free to the public.
• There should be public sites for the public to see maps, submit comments and proposals, both electronically and otherwise.
• All communications, discussions and meeting should be on-the-record and web-cast.
• Before a vote on any proposed map, the line-drawing body should display the maps and receive public comment.

Common Cause/NY has examined some of the issues that we believe should be considered in trying to draw fair district maps that reflect the communities of interest found in the Capitol Region. We have prepared maps that reflect some of the factors which we have examined and which we believe that the line-drawing body should consider in setting political boundaries for Assembly and Senate for this region. The maps are attached to my testimony and also appear on Common Cause/NY’s redistricting blog, Mapping Democracy, found at www.citizensredistrictny.org.  It is our intention to prepare similar maps for each of the regions in which the Task Force will be conducting public hearings.

In looking at the demographic changes that took place in the Capitol Region as reflected in the 2010 census, it is important to note that in contrast to the general perception of upstate population trends, the Capital Region and each of the three cities within it all grew in population from 2000 to 2010. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady collectively grew 3.6% while the region as a whole (defined as all cities and towns within 15 miles of Albany) grew over 5%.

	Pop_2000	Pop_2010	Pop_Change	%_Change
Albany	95,679	97,856	2,177	2.27
Troy	49,170	50,129	959	1.95
Schenectady	61,824	66,135	4,311	6.97

POP CHANGE 2000 TO 2010 BY CITY

This growth marks a historic reversal from four decades of population decline from 1960 to 2000 and was driven by growth among minority communities. While the white population of the region continued to decline, this decline was outweighed by a near 30% increase in the black population and a Hispanic community that almost doubled in size.

While minority populations grew throughout the region, black and Hispanic communities remain clearly concentrated in Albany, Troy, and Schenectady, as illustrated by the maps attached.

In our analysis of factors which can reflect communities of interest, we have been struck by the repeated patterns that show greater commonality within urban populations than between urban and suburban areas.

In addition to having higher numbers of minority residents, the city populations share other commonalities compared to the surrounding region. Residents of Albany, Troy, and Schenectady have lower incomes than residents of the surrounding towns, are less likely to own their homes, are less likely to be employed in white collar jobs, and are more dependent on public transit.

All of these factors are important in determining where to place legislative district lines that would serve the best interests of these communities. These factors can help identify groups of individuals who are likely to have similar legislative concerns, and who might therefore benefit from cohesive representation in the legislature.

For the State Senate, it would be ideal if at least two of the three cities could share a district but because the state constitution emphasizes maintaining the unity of counties, it is challenging to do so. Nevertheless, we suggest that the possibility of creating a senate district that encompasses both Schnectady and Troy should be explored, as there are valid reasons for the resulting county division. Albany County, with a population of 304,204, is within 2.6% of the ideal population of a State Senate district in the current 62 member format and thus must form its own district. Troy in Rensselaer County and Schenectady in Schenectady County are separated by Saratoga County and could only be combined by dividing the counties.  One impact of the state constitutional guidelines on keeping counties intact also militates against dividing the individual cities in the manner that Rochester and Syracuse are currently divided. The imperative to keep counties united makes the geography of state senate districts in the Capitol Region less flexible than in other regions of New York.

However, the State Assembly districts are another story entirely. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady are each currently split between two Assembly districts (each city’s population could easily fit within a single 128,000 person Assembly district).

In Albany, this results in the black community being carved almost exactly in two, with an estimated 9,820 black voting age individuals in District 104 (McEneny-D) and 8,428 in District 106 (Canestrari-D). We have been unable to identify current characteristics of the local community which supports this division of the City of Albany between two Assembly districts.

We are similarly unable to identify current community characteristics that provide a strong rationale for dividing what appears to be the distinct and cohesive community of interest of Schenectady between District 110 (Tedisco-R) and 105 (Amedore Jr-R).

The fact that the New York State Constitution does not prohibit the unnecessary division of cities as it does for counties and towns should not lead to the arbitrary division of cities between various districts. In the Capitol Region, the urban minority communities responsible for the region’s newfound growth should be respected and allowed the opportunity to benefit from unified political representation in the Assembly.

Albany is the venue for LATFOR’s third public hearing, taking place on Thursday, August 4^th, 2011. Since this hearing will be held at the state capital in the legislature’s own office building, we expect it to attract a wide variety of interest groups and politicians from all over the state.

However, as with Syracuse and Rochester, Common Cause/NY’s analysis will focus on the state legislative districts in the region in which the hearing is taking place, in this case the “Capital Region” of Albany-Troy-Schenectady.

It is first important to point out that in contrast to the general perception of upstate population trends, the Capital Region and each of the three cities all grew in population from 2000 to 2010. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady collectively grew 3.6% while the region as a whole (defined as all cities and towns within 15 miles of Albany) grew over 5%.

	Pop_2000	Pop_2010	Pop_Change	%_Change
Albany	95,679	97,856	2,177	2.27
Troy	49,170	50,129	959	1.95
Schenectady	61,824	66,135	4,311	6.97

This growth marks a historic reversal from four decades of population decline from 1960 to 2000 and was driven by growth among minority communities. While the white population of the region continued to decline, this decline was outweighed by a near 30% increase in the black population and a Hispanic community that almost doubled in size.

While minority populations grew throughout the region, black and Hispanic communities remain clearly concentrated in Albany, Troy, and Schenectady.

In addition to having higher numbers of minority residents, the city populations share other commonalities compared to the surrounding region. Residents of Albany, Troy, and Schenectady have lower incomes than residents of the surrounding towns, are less likely to own their homes, are less likely to be employed in white collar jobs, and are more dependent on public transit.

All of these factors are important in determining the legislative decisions that would serve the best interests of these communities.

For the State Senate, it would be ideal if at least two of the three cities could share a district but because the state constitution emphasizes maintaining the unity of counties, it is difficult to do so. Albany County, with a population of 304,204, is within 2.6% of the ideal population of a State Senate district in the current 62 member format and thus must form its own district. Troy in Rensselaer County and Schenectady in Schenectady County are separated by Saratoga County and could only be combined by dividing the counties multiple times.

The State Constitutional guidelines on keeping counties intact also prevents the individual cities from being divided in the manner of Rochester and Syracuse. The imperative to keep counties united makes the geography of State Senate districts in the Capitol Region less flexible than in other regions of New York.

However, the State Assembly districts are another story entirely. Albany, Troy, and Schenectady are each unnecessarily split between two Assembly districts (each city’s population could easily fit within a single 128,000 person Assembly district).

This cracking is most egregious in Albany where the black community is carved almost exactly in two, with an estimated 9,820 black voting age individuals in District 104 (McEneny-D) and 8,428 in District 106 (Canestrari-D). This division of the City of Albany between two Assembly districts has no relationship whatsoever with the characteristics of the local community.

The division of Schenectady between District 110 (Tedisco-R) and 105 (Amedore Jr-R) similarly cracks a distinct community of interest with no valid rationale.

The fact that the New York State Constitution does not prohibit the unnecessary division of cities as it does for counties and towns should not give the legislature a free hand to arbitrarily divide cities for political reasons. In the Capitol Region, the urban minority communities responsible for the region’s newfound growth should be respected and allowed the opportunity to benefit from unified political representation in the Assembly.