Is the State Senate gerrymander unconstitutional?
The Albany Project has a brilliant run of the numbers from November's election for the state Senate. Bottom line: Democratic candidates got 51.1% of the votes, republicans 47.7%. However, the resultant distribution of seats in the legislature is 45.2% Democrats, 54.8% republicans, at 28 to 34 seats respectively. The average population size for a Democratic district is 310,339; for a republican district, the number is 302,558. The over-representation of republicans in the legislature amounts to 7.1%, based on the discrepancy between their total of the popular vote and their number of seats, or, read differently, gives them a representation that is 26% higher than they would have been entitled to if the popular vote were the controlling factor.
Theodore Roosevelt once quipped that the state Senate is constitutionally republican, and so it has been since almost beyond living memory. The question should be whether that is a sufficient legal shield for Joe Bruno's well-crafted majority-protection scheme. There appear to be two legal bases for challenging the districts of the state Senate: one man, one vote and the 14th amendment's guarantees as spelled out in the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to overturn political gerrymanders except as they affect the rights of minorities. For example, the court upheld DeLay's Texas redistricting, with the exception of a single district in West Texas that it held diluted minority voting strength. Similar rulings have come down for North Carolina and Georgia.
The Voting Rights Act also covers three jurisdictions in New York State: New York, Kings and Bronx counties. Arguably, Bruno's gerrymander dilutes the representation of minority voters in these counties at the state level. There is a tool here, waiting to be used.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blogs | Civil Rights | Election Monitoring | Ethnicity | Law | Politics | New York | Bronx | Brooklyn | Manhattan
I AGREE...........
Submitted by ROCK HACKSHAW (not verified) on 22 December 2006 - 9:41am.
NICE POST. Mike, I agree with Dan in that the time has come for an independent commission to deal with drawing up district lines. However, as much as I favor that I am leery as to who will make up the panel; how will the mebers be selected? Will it be Dems and Republicans and business as usual?
Me too
Submitted by Bouldin on 22 December 2006 - 10:59am.
I've said it before that what we need is an independent commission like Iowa's, for example. There's nothing to be gained, other than power, by replacing a republican gerrymander with a Democratic one. Just look at the Assembly.
Problem is that if we're looking at the constitutional implications of Bruno's scheme, the remedy isn't prescribed. I wouldn't disagree with Dan's call to show restraint and responsibility, but if I'm right and the senate gerrymander is a constitutional and equal-protection issue, then we also shouldn't let our own virtue hinder addressing the issue.
I'll grant that that's a convenient piece of logic, but at the same time, this may be a case where partisan advantage is equivalent to doing what's right.
Prisoners count upstate but don't vote.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 25 December 2006 - 6:22am.
One point needs to be stressed: many upstate Republican Senate districts have inflated their populations by including prisoners, mostly minorities from New York City, who do not vote and don't get representation.
Remove these from the count and you'll have fewer Republican Senate districts.
Re-Gerrymandering
On the one hand, two points:
1. I actually created a graph that shows the under-representation of minorities in the state Senate. It exists. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that de facto under-representation is sufficient to challenge district lines; one need not demonstrate actual bias.
2. The New Mexico state legislature is considering redrawing their district lines now. They're taking that idiotic Texas redistricting decision to heart. (By the way, the one district in which the Supremes forced a change is now in Democratic hands!)
Put those two points together, and yes, we could redistrict now. On the other hand, the question is, should we?
We now have the Governor's mansion and maintain a huge majority (two-thirds) in the Assembly. We're going to take the Senate, even without redistricting. Pushing a mid-decade change smacks of the same smug arrogance that the Republicans are guilty of -- and that cost them the majority in Congress.
Democrats are slowly emerging from a quarter century of darkness. We need to solidify a foundation on which we can build a long-term majority. Pushing the limits, just because we can, is the sure road to defeat.
I say, leave the districts alone ... for now. Meanwhile, push a bill for an independent districting commission, like they had in Arizona, to do the job after the next census.