Citizens Redistricting Committee

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

BEFORE LATFOR, FEBRUARY 2, 2012, MANHATTAN, NY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Manhattan, the difference between a non-partisan, independently drawn map and LATFOR’s draft is striking. Clearly these proposed draft Senate lines in Manhattan are a prime example of why Governor Cuomo has promised to veto this overtly partisan plan.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and hope that you take the time to revisit the recommendations of the Common Cause Reform Plan for Manhattan. I urge you to give New Yorkers the fair, nonpartisan voting districts they want and deserve.

LATFOR Senate Draft — Manhattan

Common Cause Reform Senate 63 Plan — Manhattan

LATFOR Assembly Draft — Manhattan

Common Cause Reform Assembly Plan — Manhattan

New York State Legislative Task Force On Demographic Research and Reapportionment

September 21, 2011

Testimony of Michael McKee, Treasurer, Tenants Political Action Committee

Historically, the process by which New York State redraws legislative and congressional districts every ten years is a prime reason why the public is more and more cynical about the State Legislature.

This process is controlled by the leaders of the majority party in each house. In the thirty years that I have observed it, the lines have been drawn to protect incumbent legislators, and occasionally to punish other incumbents.

During the last go-round, Lorraine Coyle Koppell was gerrymandered out of the 34th State Senate District, and now-Assembly Member Hakeem Jeffries was removed from the 57th State Assembly District, for overtly partisan purposes. LATFOR jiggered the lines to remove their homes from those two districts, as a favor to then-Senator Guy Velella and then-Assembly Member Roger Green. These are only two examples of a process that has been fundamentally tainted.

There is an old saying: “The true business of Albany is incumbency protection.” But the preferences of incumbent legislators should be removed from this process. If there is to be any integrity in the new districts, they should ignore the residences of sitting legislators. The lines should be drawn in a rational, fair way, as if there were no incumbents and as if the districts were being established for the first time.

A larger issue is the historical use of reapportionment by the majority parties in each house to draw lines to dilute the opposition and thus keep the majority, in the case of the State Senate, or expand the majority, in the case of the State Assembly.

There is little doubt that, if the majority parties believe that they can get away with it one more time, that kind of stacking of the deck is exactly where this process, and this commission, are headed – again.

Recent articles about the possible creation of a 63rd Senate District in order to preserve the narrow Republican majority, and the possible protection by Majority

Leader Dean Skelos of the Kleiniacs who belong to the so-called Independent Democratic Caucus, are no doubt only tips of the iceberg of what is already going down behind closed doors.

The Assembly is not blame-free. Witness the gerrymandering of Bay Ridge, one of the few neighborhoods in New York City where a Republican candidate could be elected. Instead, Bay Ridge is divided up into separate Assembly districts, each one represented by a Democrat. This is similar to the usual treatment of upstate cities in the Senate, where municipal and county lines are disregarded in order to prevent the election of Democrats.

Protection of incumbents. Protection of majority control. Two things that should be disregarded, but which the leaders, and you, will no doubt try to pull off.

But things are different this time:

First, in large part thanks to the spotlight that Governor Cuomo has trained on this process, the public is more aware than in the past of the games that the majority parties will once again try to play. As you go forward, the public will be watching.

Second, Governor Cuomo has pledged to veto lines drawn for partisan purposes. We are grateful to the Governor for this principled stand.

While we favor establishment of an independent, non-partisan commission to handle reapportionment, we are more concerned about the lines themselves than who draws them. After all, an “independent” commission might quietly carry out the wishes of the majority parties while providing a veneer of integrity. It would not be the first time a “reform” ribbon was wrapped around the same old package.

We support the principles promoted by Common Cause and others:

►  Districts must be contiguous and compact.

►  Lines must respect municipal and county borders.

►  Districts in cities should respect traditional neighborhoods.

►  Communities of interest should be kept together, defined by racial, ethnic and socioeconomic data.

►  Party registration and voting patterns should be eliminated from consideration.

►  Districts should not vary from the average by more than one percent, unless a slightly higher variation is necessary to keep communities of interest together.

►  The location of residences of incumbent legislators should not be considered.

We will be watching your work with close attention in the next few months. And we will be adding our voices to the call for honest, fair reapportionment.

On Wednesday September 21^st, LATFOR’s redistricting roadshow will arrive at 250 Broadway across the street from City Hall Park in downtown Manhattan.

While Manhattan is the political and economic center of New York City, it is actually only the third most populous borough behind Brooklyn and Queens, with a population of roughly 1.58 million.

Although Manhattan is composed of dozens of unique neighborhoods, the island can be generally divided into three distinct demographic zones: Chinatown-Lower East Side, the “Manhattan core” (below 96^th Street, not including Chinatown-LES), and North Manhattan beyond 96^th Street.

The population of the Manhattan core is overwhelmingly high-income and college-educated. In contrast, most households in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan have annual incomes of less than $40,000 and the majority of residents do not hold college degrees.

The effects of this disparity in education are revealed in the employment data. While the vast majority of Manhattan core residents have “white collar” management or professional jobs, the majority of residents in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are employed in either blue-collar work (industry, construction, transportation) or the service sector (retail, hospitality, etc.).

The “three Manhattans” are also distinct in homeownership patterns.

While many core residents own their homes as condos and co-ops, renters form the vast majority in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan. This pattern is distinct from the outer boroughs where homeownership usually indicates low-density areas of single family homes. In Manhattan, the concentration of homeownership in the very high-density core is a sign of affluence.

Another contrast between the Manhattan core and the other two areas is the percentage of children in the population. There are more children in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES than in the core, where the vast majority of households are composed of singles, couples without children, and unrelated roommates.

There are also many more immigrants in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan when compared to the core.

Concentrations of immigrants indicate the Chinese community in Chinatown and the Dominican population in the northernmost part of Manhattan; Washington Heights and Inwood.

Taken together, these socio-economic indicators suggest that Northern Manhattan and Chinatown-LES form communities of interest that are very distinct from the Manhattan core. In key policy areas like housing, education, economic development, and immigration, residents outside the Manhattan core have very distinct interests and priorities.

There are also sharp contrasts in race/ethnicity, and as we’ve seen in North Brooklyn, major changes occurring due to gentrification in Chinatown/LES and the neighborhoods of North Manhattan.

Comparing data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 allows us to measure the actual objective impact of the gentrification that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration and uncover the reality behind the perceptions of demographic change. The demographics suggest that North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES are slowly but surely becoming more like the Manhattan core.

Beginning by looking at total population change, the overall population of Manhattan grew by 3.2%

But looking at this growth in the context of the “three Manhattans” reveals that almost all of it took place within the Manhattan core.

Overall, North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES both declined in population while the Manhattan core grew by 8%, buoyed by new residential construction and conversion in the financial district and far west side.

The decline of population in North Manhattan and Chinatown-LES is due to a major drop in the population of children under eighteen years of age. The number of children declined by a shocking 21.5% in Northern Manhattan and 22.7% in Chinatown-LES. This indicates that family households with children are being replaced by singles and couples. In contrast, the number of children within the Manhattan core actually grew.

Changes in race/ethnicity also show the effects of gentrification.

Overall in Manhattan, the non-Hispanic white voting-age population grew by 6.8%, but this growth took place primarily in Chinatown-LES and North Manhattan where the white voting-age population grew by 23.1% and 34.9% respectively.

On the other hand, there has actually been some white population decline in the most affluent areas of the Manhattan core – the Upper East Side and the West Village – as the affluent population of these areas is becoming somewhat more diverse.

The map of Census 2010 non-Hispanic white population indicates just how dramatic these changes are. Lines of Manhattan segregation that have been in place for many decades are rapidly breaking down.

But it isn’t only a story of whites moving into these neighborhoods. Longtime minority residents are also moving out.

Overall, the non-Hispanic black voting-age population of Manhattan declined by more than 7%, and this decline was centered in the historically black neighborhoods of Harlem. More than 10,000 black voters have left North Manhattan during the past decade.

While the breakdown of neighborhood segregation may be a positive in and of itself, the flight of black residents and children from Northern Manhattan indicates that the area may be becoming less hospitable for lower-income family households. And while the core of Harlem is becoming more diverse, other areas like the northern Upper West Side are actually becoming less diverse.

Trends in the Hispanic population are also suggestive of gentrification.

The overall Hispanic voting-age population of Manhattan grew by 3.2% during the past decade. As in Brooklyn, this growth must be seen in the context of 21% Hispanic growth overall in New York City. Areas of Manhattan where the Hispanic population declined are located on the borders of gentrification in East Harlem and the Upper West Side, as well as Washington Heights and the Lower East Side.

Hispanic growth in Manhattan is strongest in Central Harlem, another indicator of its growing diversity.

Hispanic voters continue to form significant majorities in East Harlem (also known as Spanish Harlem or El Barrio), the easternmost section of the Lower East Side (also known as Loisaida), and in Washington Heights.

As we’ve seen all across New York City, growth in the Asian voting-age population in Manhattan was strong, with a 27.2% increase taking place mostly in the core-area.

In Chinatown however, the Asian voting-age population declined by roughly 3,300 or 6.6%, with extremely heavy losses the two census tracts closest to the gentrified SoHo neighborhood.

Outside of the dense immigrant enclave of Chinatown, the Asian population is spread throughout the Manhattan core.

Now let’s examine the current districts.

Manhattan is currently split between four Congressional districts: District 15 (Rangel-D), 14 (Maloney-D), 12 (Velasquez-D), and 8 (Nadler-D).

As we’ve discussed before for Brooklyn, the options for drawing Congressional Districts in New York City are constrained by the Voting Rights Act. District 10 (Towns-D) and District 11 (Clarke-D) in Brooklyn are majority-black and have to remain so to avoid a reduction in minority voting rights.

District 12 is a Hispanic-influence district (not quite a majority) that combines the Hispanic areas of Ridgewood, Bushwick, and Williamsburg with those in the Lower East Side and further south to Sunset Park. The district also serves the purpose of uniting the two Chinatowns in Manhattan and Sunset Park. This district cannot be redrawn in any way that causes a regression in the ability of either group to elect a representative of their choice.

To the north, District 15 in Upper Manhattan is a traditionally black-influenced district even though the population of non-Hispanic blacks in the district form a minority (Hispanics form the plurality). District 16 (Serrano-D) in the Bronx is a Hispanic-majority district.

With the Manhattan core surrounded by Voting Rights districts, the options are limited. The only ways to extend districts from the Manhattan core are south through the brownstone Brooklyn area (e.g. the current District8) or east through Queens or perhaps part of Williamsburg (e.g. the current District 14).

The future of Congressional districts in Upper Manhattan will be a major question addressed at the LATFOR hearing. As we’ve seen in the above maps, the area of North Manhattan covered by the current District 15 forms a clear socio-economic community of interest within Manhattan.

But many Hispanic groups are demanding that a second Hispanic-majority Congressional seat be drawn to reflect the strong growth in the citywide Hispanic population, and they have the force of the Voting Rights Act behind them.. But how can you do this without also “retrogressing” the rights of the black community in Harlem and unnecessarily dividing neighborhoods?

Drawing new Congressional districts for Manhattan while attempting to balance these competing interests will be a considerable challenge.

The situation in the Manhattan State Senate is much less complicated than Congress. Manhattan is currently divided between six districts: District 25 (Squadron-D), District 26 (Krueger-D), District 28 (Serrano-D), District 29 (Duane-D), District 30 (Perkins-D), and District 31 (Espaillat-D).

District 25 straddles the East River and unites Chinatown-LES and the Financial District with the brownstone Brooklyn area and a small piece of Williamsburg. Within Lower Manhattan, Chinatown-LES is an island of working-class minority populations and is under considerable pressure from gentrification, so it makes sense for it to be in the same district as neighborhoods in Brooklyn undergoing similar pressures.

The major issue for the current State Senate districts is in the Upper West Side, where three Senate districts converge and divide the neighborhood.

District 31 extends all the way from Riverdale in the Bronx through Washington Heights down into the Upper West Side along the Hudson River in a shape that cuts out many individual blocks from their surrounding neighborhoods.

These lines were drawn ten years ago as a blatant political gerrymander and must be repaired in the new cycle. One can walk five blocks along Amsterdam Avenue from 85^th St to 90^th St and cross three districts.

District 31 can remain a Hispanic-majority district based in Washington Heights if it is joined with neighborhoods across the Harlem River in the Bronx where the Dominican population has been growing.

If a few of the other Manhattan district lines were adjusted, a new State Senate district based in the Upper West Side could be drawn.

In the Assembly, Manhattan is currently divided into a dozen districts.

One suggestion for improving the Assembly district in Manhattan is to draw them closer to the existing boundaries of Community Boards.

In North Manhattan, for instance, districts could be drawn to almost exactly match the boundaries of Community Board 11 in East Harlem and Community Board 10 in Central Harlem. The strange gerrymander of Washington Heights and Inwood in which District 71 (Farrell-D) wraps around both sides of District 72 (Linares-D) and divides communities from block to block should also be corrected.

In Lower Manhattan, it is possible to draw an Assembly district that contains all of Chinatown-Lower East Side as defined in the “Three Manhattans” map above. The current Districts 64 (Silver-D) and 74 (Kavanaugh-D) currently divide this clear community of interest right in two.

As we’ve seen also in Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, drawing districts in New York City is very complex and difficult work. But if districts are drawn with fair, non-partisan criteria rather than strategic political motives, the map and the quality of our representative democracy could be significantly improved.