Democrats Gerrymandered Map Would Give Them 22 of the 26 Districts In NY State
It’s gerrymandering. Obvious gerrymandering to keep Democrats in power.
Remember! Only Republicans gerrymander and cheat to get more representatives in the House.
Democrats never gerrymander. They’re always fair and square. Look at the proposed New York map, especially Nadler’s 10th District.
BREAKING: here is NY Dems' full congressional proposal, courtesy of @zach_solomon1. This is a 22D-4R gerrymander – and a pretty effective one. https://t.co/QleEKPMJy8 pic.twitter.com/yd7Iqx6DPh
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) January 30, 2022
The new map gives Democrats 22 out of the 26 districts. It basically eliminates Republican Reps. Nicole Malliotakis and Claudia Tenney:
The proposed map is designed to maximize the prospects for Democrats ahead of the November election, when that party could lose its five-seat majority in the U.S. House. New York is one of the most strongly Democratic states, with supermajority control of the legislature and a Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, getting final say over the maps.
The configuration put together by legislative Democrats would give their party an edge in as many of 22 of the 26 new districts and reduce the number of GOP-friendly seats to four from the current eight.
State Republican Party Chairman Nick Langworthy missed [sic] a written statement calling the maps “the most brazen and outrageous attempt at rigging the election to keep Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.”
“For all of their phony protestations about transparency and fairness in elections, what they’re doing is textbook filthy, partisan gerrymandering that is clearly in violation of the New York State Constitution,” Langworthy said. “We are reviewing all of our legal options to protect the voices of millions of New Yorkers.”
Malliotakis is the only Republican who represents New York City. She won the 11th District against Democrat Max Rose in 2020. He plans to challenge her this year.
But the district absorbs precincts in Brooklyn, which would make it a Biden favorite. It also means Rose has a chance to beat Malliotakis in November.
How do you end up ridiculous w/ shapes like this?
– #NY07 Velazquez wants both Bushwick and Red Hook
– #NY10 Nadler wants both the Upper West Side and Borough Park
– Dems want to attach Park Slope to Staten Island #NY11No real other way to achieve it. https://t.co/Pfhl9bXCcz
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) January 31, 2022
Fact: 52% of the Biden voters in the Dem-proposed #NY11 still live on Staten Island, just 48% Brooklyn. Not bad primary math for Max Rose (D). https://t.co/4VGWS9e21y
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) January 31, 2022
The headlines about this topic are ridiculous. They all basically say, “Republicans in danger of losing seats!” or “Democrats could gain three more seats in the new map!”
You know if it was the other way around the MSM would say, “Republicans gerrymander map to disenfranchise the minors and poors” or “Republicans gerrymander their way to control the House.”
Disgusting. Both parties do this, but I am sick of the double standards. It’s wrong to gerrymander and cheat no matter the party.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How about a return to using ‘compactness’ as a key criteria to overturn these monstrosities? IOW if a proposed CD looks bizarre then the burden is on the designers to show why that particular CD must be drawn that way.
Personally I would love to see something along the lines of mandatory use of political boundaries and grant a certain number of deviations. So a district must have no more than six or even eight sides/borders but a State or County or City border or a geological feature such as river wouldn’t count against the number of sides allowed. That would eliminate much of the current shenanigans by default.
That only works for Democrats. Every time Texas Republicans try it, somebody sues them . Hold your breath until Garland takes any offense at New York’s plans, though.
Hmmm. That was supposed to be a reply to Milhouse. The comment feature of this board continues to work in mysterious ways.
That’s what I wrote. When Reps started doing it, it became a crime against humanity.
I was supplementing, not disagreeing.
You guys don’t get it… when conservatives do it it IS a crime against humanity because they are maintaining white cos-racist power structures like capitalism. When democrats cheat it’s okay because the are “elevating black voices” of the racist patriarchy. Sheesh did you guys even read Kendi?
garfinkle
Wish I could edit to fix typos. But that probably makes it more accurate satire…
Nadler’s district isn’t really contiguous, either, except underwater. And I mean under extensive stretches of DEEP water.
This is way beyond gerrymandering. This is jiggering wiggering, upscrewing catpooing, map-farking dog-barking, vote harvesting, election stealing, panhandling philandering.
Impressive.
Gerrymandering is the American way. Everyone’s been doing it since the days of Governor Gerry, which is before there were any Republicans or Democrats. In the South the Democrats did it for a century and Republicans’ complaints were ignored; then in the ’90s the Republicans found themselves in a position to do the same, and suddenly it became a terrible crime against humanity. I’ve got a proposal for the Dems: once the Reps have had a century or so to draw districts as they like, then we can agree on a neutral system. Until them f— off.
(BTW it looks like they’ve moved me from Yvette Clark’s 9th district to Nicole Malliotakis’s 11th, in order to turn that district Democrat.)
It might be that there is a long history of gerrymandering but the extent to which it’s been carried out has increased over the years. It’s much more data driven now which is why you get the weird looking maps. It’s only really possible to gerrymander to the extent it’s been done in recent decades.
“once the Reps have had a century or so to draw districts as they like, then we can agree on a neutral system. Until them f— off.”
Not sure compounding a democratic deficit is a good idea. Some steps in some states have been taken like independent commissions. Indeed that would have been the case in New York but the commission was beset with partisan infighting.
This could literally be done with an AI algorithm that balances geography, population and compactness that creates common sense maps, but it will never happen.
Who would write it?
Already a dozen or more existing programs.
Not the point. The point is that all “neutral” redistricting systems are subject to being suborned. The party in charge would naturally adopt a system that favors it, or that it can influence.
That, or the various pressure groups would want assurance that a handicapped amputee transgender BIPOC wrote the code.
…a handicapped, amputee, transgender BIPOC, H1B visa-holder wrote the code
yet one liberal loses a district and the demands for it all districts to be computer-generated never stops.
There’s a push for “expert” “bipartisan” commissions to draw the Districts. Full of Vermont type republicans and AOC Democrats. Like the “Missouri Plan” judicial nominating commission that gave the people of IOWA, of all places, the State Supreme Court that decreed same sex marriage about 5 to 10 years before Obergefell
Yes, exactly. That’s why Rs must resist such proposals. They always work out helping the Ds.
Are there any other New Yorkers out there more plugged-in than I am that might know the ratio of Dems to Repubs in the State?
I know it’s significantly unbalanced state-wide, but a ratio of 22 to 4 seems very unlikely. (Thats 85%!)
It seems a court might be interested in potential redress, right? Many of us who choose to live in upstate suburbs or small cities or rural areas would be denied even a potential opportunity for sympathetic federal representation.
“ It seems a court might be interested in potential redress, right?”
I’ve had a somewhat painful day with a thrown back. Thank you for that line; I needed a good laugh. The courts? Ha ha Ha.
That was my thought exactly. Some judges are partisans or activists, DC comes to mind. Others are afraid to take action according to the Constitution. Looking at you SCOTUS.
SCOTUS: I say again: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah Hah gasp Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha…
Especially in and around NYC.
Huh. When my back is thrown, I can get real testy with people who make me laugh.
No, the courts have explicitly ruled that there are no grounds for “potential redress”. The partisan ratio of representatives elected is not supposed to reflect the ratio of the parties’ support in the state. If you want that, campaign for proportional representation (within each state).
Yeah, that’s discouraging to hear, but not a complete surprise. 😕 Thanks for that new knowledge.
As unlikely the various recent realignment-of-states concepts might occur (peacefully) in my lifetime, I’m sure we here in Central N.Y. could get along fine with the many other Deplorable-types throughout Central Pennsylvania.
NY is a one-party state; Judiciary (including Federal), Legislative and Executive. That train left the station a long time ago, and it’s way too late to protest.
The NY Republicans are largely a very sorry group (see, e.g., Rep. John Katko). With Reps like that on your side, you don’t need too many enemies.
I think we can stick a fork in that one.
As with all of the Dems’ other new rules and ‘norms’ changes, they may soon learn it works both ways. That is, if the GOP grows a spine.
Let’s Go Brandon — To a Senate impeachment trial! 50% polled already say yea. The articles of impeachment may soon be as long as St George Floyd’s rap sheet.
It’s impossible to impeach him until there’s a R majority in the house. And it’s impossible to convict him no matter what, since there is no possibility of Rs getting 67 senators before his term is over. It doesn’t matter what he does; to paraphrase someone famous, he could shoot someone in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue and the senate still wouldn’t convict him.
Not sure how common it is, I’m a registered NY Democrat, but I changed— or they did. The thing is, while I don’t vote Dem, I haven’t changed my registration since it’s public info. Frankly, I’m afraid of the “tolerant progressives.”
Also, the D primary is the election, so if there is a real choice between D candidates, and you actually care who wins, you need to be registered D.
For decades I was registered R because I didn’t see the point in voting in a D primary; no matter who you vote for you always get a Democrat. But I switched a few years ago because there was a DINO candidate trying to unseat my local communist. I haven’t decided whether to switch back yet. I’ll probably do so in time to vote in the 2024 R presidential primary.
My location does not require party registration. In a primary, a voter may only vote for candidates of one party (D or R). County seats are always won by Ds, so that’s the only real race. In many primaries, I choose to vote in the D primary, as that gives me a voice in selecting the less insane D candidates.
Where I am the Dem candidates used to be conservative, not so anymore. Now it’s a matter of keeping out the far left moonbats and anti Zionist activists.
It’s not working. Maybe I’ll switch just to try something new.
It’s a truly broken system when you’re basically forced to vote against your interests in order to maybe get the one that sucks less.
In the general election I still get to vote Conservative. The question is only which primary to vote in, which depends on which party one is registered with.
Is there any actual analysis of whether the proposal ls actually are in breach of legislation or the state constitution?
Gee, isn’t all this just Jim Crow, Yankee style? Wonder how all those bad people down South feel about this.
I’m a Southerner. Just guess.
.
This is turning already overwhelmingly New York into a one party state. where the results of a legislature with so called “bail reform” are evident on the streets of New York City and a hopefully interim governor refuses to consider allowing for judicial discretion on bail, and acts more woke by the day.. A Republican could win on a state wide level by putting together a coalition of suburban voters in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, upstate conservatives and urban middle class voters who have had it with high taxes , lockdowns, riots , Soros funded prosecutors acting like public defenders and increasing violent crime
Nadler’s district has always been gerrymandered to include the uber liberal Upper West Side and the Orthodox Jewish community of Boro Park.
Can any of the gerrymandering be challenged in court?
No, it can’t. So long as it isn’t deliberately designed to deprive minorities of the ability to elect a representative of their own, state legislatures are entitled to gerrymander as they please.
Their avowed purpose is to protect incumbents, and the courts have recognized that as a legitimate motive. (Obviously they only want to protect incumbents of their own party….)
(Note: Borough Park tends to vote Republican at general elections, so you’d think Nadler wouldn’t want it in his district, but in Dem primaries he is usually the least insane option, so the neighborhood generally votes for him. That’s why he wants it. If his district were more compact it would be solidly Democrat, but he’d lose the next primary to some woke youngster with more melanin than he has.)
Milhouse wrote in relevant part:
“Borough Park tends to vote Republican at general elections, so you’d think Nadler wouldn’t want it in his district, but in Dem primaries he is usually the least insane option, so the neighborhood generally votes for him.”
This is quite correct-and I recall when during a gerrymander the voting power of the Chasidic community was dispersed from one district into a few districts and SCOTUS in a terrible decision stated that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated because the 14th and 15th Amendments, despite their explicit language to the contrary, were passed only to protect African Americans
The 14th certainly hasn’t been necessarily interpreted that way in non-voting-rights cases.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2968500296906052166&q=williamsburg+hasidic+community&hl=en&as_sdt=3,33 This is the link to that horrible SCOTUS decision from 1977 that I mentioned.
There’s a push for “expert” “bipartisan” commissions to draw the Districts. Full of Vermont type republicans and AOC Democrats. Like the “Missouri Plan” judicial nominating commission that gave the people of IOWA, of all places, the State Supreme Court that decreed same sex marriage about 5 to 10 years before Obergefell