• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Appellate Court upholds striking down state map

Doug64

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 13, 2022
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
545
Political Leaning
Conservative
It looks like House elections may get even worse for Democrats, with a New York appellate court mostly upholding a lower court's decision striking down the legislature's gerrymandered House map. The decision makes for interesting reading. Apparently, the lower court actually made three rulings--that the petitioners had standing to sue, that the process by which the legislature adopted the map was unconstitutional, and that the map itself violates the state constitution's recently adopted (214) prohibition against gerrymandering. The appellate court disagreed with the lower court on the issue of the constitutionality of the process, but agreed with it on both the standing of the petitioners and the constitutionality of the map itself.

One thing I found particularly interesting is the expert witness used by the petitioners, Sean Trende. I've followed his articles at RealClearPolitics with great interest. The respondents tried to object to his testimony, of course, but it didn't go well for them:

During the trial, it was undisputed that Trende’s computer simulation and resulting statistical analyses were only as reliable as the computer model he used, and the inputs and controls he incorporated therein. Yet in response to respondents’ criticism that he did not run a sufficient number of simulated district maps [5.000], Trende generated 10,000 additional maps, which confirmed his prior results. And in response to respondents’ criticism that he did not take into account certain criteria that the legislature was required to consider under article III, § 4 (c), he reran the simulations to use additional constraints, which also confirmed his prior results. In fact, the only criteria respondents now identify that Trende did not take into account was “communities of interest,” which he explained were notoriously difficult to account for because of their vague definition, a fact conceded by one of respondents’ experts. It is implausible that the failure to account for this one criterion in the simulated maps coincidentally resulted in showing that the enacted map had all four republican-leaning districts being more republican-leaning, all the next nine most competitive districts being more democrat-leaning, and the “safest” democrat-leaning districts falling within the range of the simulated maps.

Respondents also questioned whether Trende’s simulation for the congressional map had relied on redundant, i.e., repeated or partially repeated maps. Further, it was undisputed that Trende did not review, and did not submit for review, the simulated maps, and instead based his analysis on the aggregate data generated from those maps. We note, however, that respondents failed to object to the alleged redundancies or to the absence of the simulated maps, and that none of respondents’ experts presented their own competing simulation reflecting how the results might have changed had Trende conducted his model in a manner that they opined to be more appropriate. Moreover, none of respondents’ evidence contradicted the overwhelmingly consistent pattern Trende’s model produced. Respondents seem to argue that no computer simulation could ever account for all of the constitutional criteria, and thus petitioners would need to show proof of a “smoking gun” to prove partisan gerrymandering, such as an admission by the map drawers that they intended to favor a certain political party. Such direct evidence is rare and certainly not required for petitioners to meet their burden. Rather, petitioners may rely on circumstantial evidence (see League of Women Voters of Ohio, — NE3d at —), which, as established in this case, is just as probative to establish that the redistricting plan was drawn with partisan intent.
 
And now it's official, in very good news for Republicans, the highest state court in New York has ruled that the New York legislature's House map is an unconstitutional gerrymander. In fact, they rejected the appellate court's ruling that the method the legislature used to create the map was constitutional even if the final result wasn't:

Article III, § 4 is permeated with language that, when given its full effect, permits the legislature to undertake the drawing of district lines only after two redistricting plans composed by the IRC have been duly considered and rejected. Moreover, the text of section 4 contemplates that any redistricting act ultimately adopted must be founded upon a plan submitted by the IRC; in the event the IRC plan is rejected, the Constitution authorizes “amendments” to such plan, not the wholesale drawing of entirely new maps (NY Const, art III, § 4 ; see NY Assembly Debate on Assembly Bill A9557 Mar. 15, 2012 at 39 [“The Constitutional amendment allows the (l)egislature to amend the plan submitted by the independent redistricting commission if the (l)egislature has twice rejected submitted plans” (emphasis added)]).


Here's the full opinions, if anyone is interested:

 
Back
Top Bottom