Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/90220550/Testimony-of-Todd-Breitbart-Size-of-the-Senate-22-September-2011
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 02:59:15
Document Index: 175595477

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§83', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§83', '§83', '§ 4']

Testimony of Todd Breitbart - Size of the Senate - 22 September 2011 | Apportionment (Politics) | Hudson River
Testimony of Todd Breitbart - Size of the Senate - 22 September 2011Uploaded by Laura NahmiasRelated InterestsApportionment (Politics)Hudson RiverPublic SphereSocietySocial InstitutionsRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentNumber of New York State Senate Districts Todd A. Breitbart∗ September 22, 2011 “The Constitution is an inconvenient truth.” - Sen. Michael F. Nozzolio, September 21, 2011 My epigraph is a statement made by Sen. Michael F. Nozzolio, the Co-Chairman of the NYS Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), at yesterday’s LATFOR hearing in Manhattan. He was explaining that, absent an amendment to the NYS Constitution, the Legislature cannot divest itself of the authority to redistrict the Senate and Assembly. Later in the same hearing, asked whether LATFOR intended to propose the creation of 62 Senate districts or some other number, Sen. Nozzolio said that no decision had yet been made. I urge Sen. Nozzolio to heed something that someone said yesterday when addressing a different question: “The Constitution is an inconvenient truth.” At the July 19, 2011 public hearing, in Syracuse, Sen. Nozzolio, expressed the belief that LATFOR should postpone determining and announcing the number of Senate districts to be created, but “should be asking the public for their view as opposed to determining any kind of dictation of a number,” and should find out “what the public wants in terms of a number of representatives.”1 At the July 20, 2011 hearing in Rochester, anticipating that Sen. Dilan would repeat his earlier request that LATFOR settle the size of the Senate, so that persons recommending redistricting plans to LATFOR would know how many districts to create, Sen. Nozzolio said: The Senate is currently at a number, the New York State Senate is currently at a number of 62 members, and that Senator Dilan raising a very thought-provoking question as to what will the number of the Senate be? The Constitution and the laws of the state provide for the ability for that number to grow or shrink depending on particular policy questions, and Senator Dilan has raised that question now twice. I think that it's important to put out that we certainly would welcome, and I frankly don't believe
I directed the staff work on redistricting for the Minority (Democratic) Leaders of the New York State Senate from 1980 through my retirement at the end of 2005. I have offered advice to the redistricting staff of the Democratic Senate Conference during the current redistricting process, and exchanged information with them, but I do not now work for or represent the Minority Leader. I consulted with the Committee on Election Law of the Bar Association of the City of New York during the preparation of their 2007 report on reform of the redistricting process, and was the principal drafter of the text, but I do not, and never did, represent or speak for the Committee or the Association. (I am not a lawyer.) The opinions I express are solely my own. New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, Public Hearing, Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting, Syracuse, New York, Tuesday, July 19, 2011, at 88:1221; available at: http://latfor.state.ny.us/hearings/docs/20110719trans.pdf.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 2
any decision should be made, Senator, until at such time as the public has an opportunity to review that process and provide us with input. Let the public tell us whether the State Senate, which is now at 62 should be changed to another number.2 These statements are disturbing for the following reasons: 1. There is no constitutional basis for creating any other number than 62 districts in the pending redistricting. 2. The New York State Constitution does not give the Legislature discretion to create a convenient number of Senate districts, whatever considerations may be thought to determine convenience, and it does not “provide for the ability for that number to grow or shrink depending on particular policy questions.” 3. NYS CONST. art. III, §4, par. 3, contains a rule, which must be followed, for determining the number of Senate districts on the basis of the growth of certain county populations since 1894, relative to the state as a whole, and on no other factors whatever. The Legislature has no more discretion to vary the number of Senate districts on the supposed basis of “what the public wants in terms of a number of representatives” or “particular policy questions,” than to create some number other than 150 Assembly districts. The county population figures from the 2010 census, which have been available since March, provide all the information that is necessary to determine the number of Senate districts to be created, and there is no valid reason for delaying that determination. 4. The correct interpretation of some aspects of the rule has been subject to dispute, and the ambiguities have provided an opportunity for the Legislature to manipulate the rule for the political convenience of the Senate Majority; but such a history hardly constitutes a constitutional grant of discretion to the Legislature.3 The interpretation upheld by the NYS Court of Appeals in 1972, and followed by the Legislature in redistricting the Senate in 1972, 1982, and 1992, and the new interpretation followed in 2002, would both yield a Senate of 62 districts when applied to the 2010 census counts. The subtraction and reallocation of prison populations required by Legislative Law §83-m(13) cannot change the relevant county populations sufficiently to affect the number of Senate districts. 5. As of this date, September 14, 2011, the ‘FAQ’ page of the LATFOR website still shows a link, “Click here to view technical determination of the size of the Senate,” which leads to the March 7, 2002 memorandum by the Senate Majority’s
New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, Public Hearing, Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting, Rochester, New York, Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 9:23 - 10:16; available at: http://latfor.state.ny.us/hearings/docs/20110720trans.pdf
See the Appendix, Determining the Number of New York State Senate Districts, 1972-2012, for a detailed discussion of the rule, the development of its interpretation in a series of rulings by the NYS Court of Appeals, the variant interpretations of several elements of the formula, and the application of those interpretations to past and current census data.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 3
outside counsel, Michael A. Carvin, advocating the interpretation of art. III, §4, par. 3, that was used to justify the creation of 62 districts in 2002.4 The Senate Majority recently entered into a new $3 million contract with Mr. Carvin’s firm, Jones Day, for legal consulting on redistricting through March 2014.5 Sen. Nozzolio’s remarks in Syracuse and Rochester can only mean that either a) he has not read Mr. Carvin’s memorandum; or b) he and his colleagues in the Senate Majority are preparing a further self-serving manipulation of the constitutional rule. This will presumably be followed by the discovery that a wholly novel constitutional interpretation is, in Mr. Carvin’s words from 2002, “the best way to implement the New York and federal requirements governing apportionment,” and the “methodology ... most consistent with the intent underlying the New York Constitution.” NYS CONST. art. III, §4, par. 3: the Constitutional History There have been varying interpretations of the rule, arising from the fact that two populous counties – Bronx and Nassau – were erected after the adoption of art. III, §4, in 1894, and from the fact that in 1894 art. III, §4, established Richmond and Suffolk Counties, combined, as a single Senate district. In Matter of Dowling, 219 N.Y. 44 (1916), and Matter of Fay, 291 N.Y. 198 (1943), the NYS Court of Appeals determined that the rule must be based on the counties as they existed in 1894 (treating the Richmond/Suffolk combination as a single county). After the US Supreme Court ruled, in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964), that the population deviations of New York State legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Court of Appeals considered, in Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339 (1965), the degree to which the rules established in NYS CONST. art. III, §§4-5, were still to be followed. The Court determined that although the rule for determining the number of Senate districts could no longer affect the apportionment of districts, it must still operate to determine the total number of Senate districts. The proper interpretation of the rule was last litigated in Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420 (1972). The interpretation upheld in Schneider was followed without question or controversy in the redistrictings of 1982 and 1992, and followed also by the Special Master appointed by the US District Court to prepare a plan that the Court itself might have imposed in Flateau v. Anderson (1982).6 In 2002 the Legislature created 62 Senate districts, adopting the interpretation that had been advocated by the unsuccessful Schwartz group of plaintiffs in Schneider. This is the
http://latfor.state.ny.us/docs/20020308/
See a press report at: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/07/senate-and-assemblylawyering-up-for-redistricting-updated; and the listing on the NYS Comptroller’s web site at: http://wwe1.osc.state.ny.us/transparency/contracts/contracttransactions.cfm?Contract=C150024&Agency= 04000&entitytype=Agency
See Appendix II to Report of the Special Master: New York State Senate Plan, June 7, 1982 and Appendix B to Report of the Special Master: Report of Ketron, Inc., June 7, 1982. The Special Master proposed to create 61 Senate districts, in place of the 60 districts then existing, not from considerations of policy, convenience, or public opinion, but because the constitutional interpretation that was followed by the Legislature in 1972, and upheld in Schneider, yielded 61 districts when applied to the 1980 census data. The plan eventually enacted into law also created 61 districts, for the same reason.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 4
interpretation presented in Mr. Carvin’s March 7, 2002 memorandum. A more complete account of this history, with tables showing how the rule applied to the census counts of each decade, may be found in the Appendix. The Manipulation of the Size-of-the-Senate Rule in 2001 - 2002 The Senate Majority announced on the LATFOR website, beginning in the spring of 2001, that the Senate would have 61 districts, and solicited proposals from the public on that basis. The website continued to indicate that there would be 61 districts until February 2002 (at least as late as February 13, the day before the Senate Majority first announced its 62-district proposal). But the decision to create 62 districts was made long before it was disclosed to the public, and for reasons having nothing to do with the proper interpretation of NYS CONST. art. III, §4, par. 3. The story is told in three memoranda written by the staff member who performed most of the technical work of drafting redistricting plans for the Senate Majority, addressed to the principal policy-makers, and divulged in 2003 during the discovery phase of Rodriguez v. Pataki (2004).7 The May 4, 2001 Memorandum: “Reapportionment Areas” An internal memorandum titled “Reapportionment Areas,” dated May 4, 2001, shows that the Senate Majority had decided by that date that they would probably create 62 districts, and discusses the parts of the state where “wiggle room” could be found to create a Senate of either 61 or 62 districts.8 The July 20, 2001 Memorandum: “Size of the Senate” A second internal memorandum, “Size of the Senate,” dated July 20, 2001, shows that the decision to create 62 districts had been settled by that date, although there had been many internal discussions of the possibility of creating 63 districts.9 The memorandum makes it clear that:
The author’s name has been redacted from the copies of the memoranda accompanying this statement. The documents are not otherwise altered, and the originals can be provided when necessary. The important issue is not the conduct of a staff member, but the decisions made by the policy-makers to whom the memoranda are addressed. The memoranda, originally confidential, provide authoritative testimony about the decisions the policy-makers and the author had made together, and the reasons for those decisions. The policy-makers to whom the memoranda were addressed are: Sen. Dean Skelos, then the Co-Chairman of LATFOR (since elected Majority Leader); Steve Boggess, then the Secretary of the Senate (since retired); and the late Vinnie Bruy, then the public member of LATFOR appointed by Majority Leader Bruno, and an expert analyst of political data for the Nassau County Republican Party.
Memorandum titled “Reapportionment Areas,” May 4, 2001, Rodriguez v. Pataki SDNY 02 Civ. 618. For “wiggle room,” see p. 1, par. 2, ninth line. Memorandum titled “Size of the Senate,” July 20, 2001, Rodriguez v. Pataki SDNY 02 Civ. 618. (PDF file name: “Not63.”
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 5
a. The decision to create 62 districts involved no discussion whatever of the proper interpretation of NYS CONST. art. III, §4, par. 3. b. The decision to create 62 districts, and not 61 or 63, was purely a calculation of partisan advantage (p. 1, par. 1-2): While the ultimate decision will be made with political numbers for proposed districts at each size in hand, I believe that the decision basically comes down to the raw census numbers. I have previously stated my contention that the only reason to go to 63 is to strengthen the Long Island delegation by combining politically undesirable areas in the extra district. There are no areas elsewhere in the state where we have the opportunity to pick up a district, or strengthen surrounding districts solely on the basis of adding another district to an area. [Emphasis in original.] c. The size of the Senate was increased to facilitate the manipulation of district population deviations, so as to skew the apportionment of districts in favor of the upstate region, to the disadvantage of the downstate region – thus preventing population trends revealed in the 2000 census from leading to the reapportionment of one district from upstate to downstate (p. 1, par. 2, last two sentences): In fact, as you will recall, our proposed redistricting areas upstate are already configured in such a manner as to draw districts light, to avoid migration downstate. Adding another district anywhere upstate would exacerbate that situation. [Emphasis in original.] The author uses “migration” in this passage to refer to the “migration” of a district, i.e., reapportionment, not to the migration of persons. The LATFOR computer system was programmed at that time to produce a “Migration Report,” showing how much of the population of each newly drawn district would come from each previously existing district. The “exacerbat[ion]” of “that situation” would have been the creation of a total population deviation of more than 10% between the largest and smallest districts, making the plan especially vulnerable to a complaint based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, the Senate was increased from 61 to 62 districts, and not to 63, to elect the maximal number of Republicans, and to permit the greatest skewing of the regional apportionment that could be achieved while keeping the total deviation below 10% – and for no other reason whatever.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 6
The December 18, 2001 Memorandum: “The 135” A third internal memorandum, “The 135,” dated December 18, 2001 explains the number of persons from Westchester who will be included in Bronx/Westchester bicounty districts (approximately 135,000).10 It is significant because: a. There was no longer any discussion of a number of Senate districts other than 62, although the website still indicated at that date that there would be 61 districts, and proposals were still being solicited from the public on the basis of 61 districts. b. The memorandum shows how assiduously the state constitutional rules were manipulated to underpopulate the upstate districts and overpopulate the downstate districts, within a total deviation of 10% (p. 2. par. 1-2, table omitted): In order to craft districts whose population falls within the acceptable overall deviation of 10%, 23 Senate districts, stretching from Brooklyn to Columbia County, are drawn at a population of 310,493. Because of manipulation of town combinations in Dutchess and Westchester, I was able to take advantage of the NYS Constitution’s “town on border” rule and draw the Saland and Leibell districts a little bit “lite” at 301,541 and 303,359 respectively. … Dividing this remaining total by 21 gives us a district size of 311,259 for the remaining 21 SD’s in this R/A [reapportionment area]. Because of the NYS Constitution’s “block on border” rule, the size of the districts within the city and lower Westchester will each be within one or two of this 311,259 size, simply because you will almost always be able to find a block with small enough populations to equalize the districts. After secretly deciding in the summer of 2001 that they would create 62 districts, while still encouraging and accepting public proposals for 61-district plans, the Senate Majority announced publicly only in February 2002 that they intended to create 62 districts. The screen-shot of the ‘Fequently Asked Questions’ page of the LATFOR web site was made on February 13, 2002 – the day before the Senate Majority first announced its proposal for 62 Senate Districts. It shows that there are to be 61 districts with an average population of 311,089. It can hardly be claimed that use of the present tense in one sentence (“currently at 61”) means that the FAQ page was not deceptive. The same paragraph gives the population to which the average Senate district “will increase,” and – more significantly – the average population of the 29 congressional districts that were to be created, not of the 31 districts then existing. There should be no room for quibbles. An outsider looking at a list of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ reasonably expects to see basic information clearly presented in a form
Memorandum titled “The 135,” December 18, 2001, Rodriguez v. Pataki SDNY 02 Civ. 618.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 7
that an outsider can understand. The answers to the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ are not understood to mean, “If you read carefully between the lines, and if you are alert to subtle nuances and linguistic hedges, here are some clues from which you may be able to guess at the truth.” In any case, as shown above, the decision to create 62 districts had actually been made seven months before. Then in March 2002 the Senate Majority produced Mr. Carvin’s legal memorandum arguing that art. III, §4, par. 3, required 62 districts, rejecting the constitutional interpretation that was upheld by the Court of Appeals in 1972, and that had been followed without controversy in 1982 and 1992. The Senate Majority maintained that they could not seriously consider the public proposals of 61-district plans, since these were for the wrong number of districts. When the Voting Rights Act complaints in Rodriguez v. Pataki alleged that the Legislature should have created the additional majority-minority district that was possible under a 62-district plan, the Senate Majority replied that there had been no proposal from the public for such additional district. But that, of course, was because the plans submitted by the public were based on a 61-district Senate. The legal argument in Mr. Carvin’s March 7, 2002 memorandum is reasonable, and it entails no intrinsic partisan bias. The Schwartz group of plaintiffs who unsuccessfully advocated precisely the same argument in Schneider v. Rockefeller (1972) were Democrats. But it is obvious that the decision to create 62 districts in 2002 was not based on Mr. Carvin’s reasoning, and that his memorandum was only supplied in retrospect, to provide a legal rationale for a decision that had been made previously and for other reasons entirely. The Manipulation of the Size-of-the-Senate Rule in 2011 – 2012 Either of the two interpretations of art. III, §4, par. 3, that have been followed previously – the only interpretations that anyone has advocated during the one-personone-vote era – would yield a Senate of 62 districts when applied to the 2010 census counts. The arithmetic is shown in the tables in the Appendix. Moreover, as the tables show, if LATFOR complies with its legally mandatory duty to create a redistricting database free of prison-based gerrymandering, that will have no effect on the formula for determining the size of the Senate; none of the relevant county populations are close enough to a tipping point. The adoption of a number of Senate districts other than 62 would not only entail the adoption of a completely unprecedented constitutional interpretation. It would be a repudiation of the constitutional interpretation advocated in 2002 by the Senate Majority’s former and current legal advisor, Mr. Carvin. LATFOR should decide now, publicly, that there are to be 62 Senate districts in 2012, because that is the only constitutionally correct decision. And if the Senate Majority intends to create some other number, necessarily using an unprecedented reading of the NYS Constitution, they should at least announce now what that number is to be. The county population totals – the only constitutional basis for
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 8
computing the number of Senate districts – have been available for five months.11 As the internal memoranda show, in 2001 the Senate Majority had made their secret decision to change the size of the Senate by July 20. Surely they have had enough time by now to make this decade’s calculations of partisan advantage and regional malapportionment. Indeed, LATFOR is currently soliciting Senate redistricting proposals from the public on the basis of 62 districts. The second screen shot of the LATFOR ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ page was made yesterday, September 21, 2011. (Unfortunately the frame and the text have been separated in the copying, but the content is not otherwise altered.) It offers a link, “Click here to view technical determination of the size of the Senate.” Clicking the link leads to Mr. Carvin’s March 7, 2002 memorandum. As noted above, and shown in the technical appendix to this statement, applying Mr. Carvin’s constitutional interpretation to the 2010 census counts yields a Senate of 62 members.12 To keep the number of Senate districts secret until the end of the process, as in 2001-02, under the guise of waiting to hear from the public, as if there were no binding constitutional rule, would actually deprive the public of any meaningful participation in the process of State Senate redistricting. When discussing Governor Cuomo’s pledge to veto certain types of redistricting plans, members of LATFOR have argued emphatically that the Governor should not veto a redistricting bill merely because it is the product of LATFOR, but should base his decision on the substantive merits of the redistricting plans. They are right. If the redistricting bill ignores the NYS Constitution, and all the relevant precedents, in determining the number of Senate districts – if there is any number but 62 – then the bill ought to be vetoed on its merits. If the number of Senate districts is changed, ignoring the Constitution, so as to maintain or increase the regional malapportionment of Senate districts, or to facilitate a partisan gerrymander, or as an excuse for ignoring, in particular places, the countyintegrity rule of the NYS Constitution, that will be an even stronger reason for a veto on the merits. And if the decision to change the number of Senate districts, and to adopt an unprecedented interpretation of the constitutional rule, is kept secret until the end of the process, as was done in 2002, that would be a yet stronger reason for a veto on the merits.
The block-level counts, needed to determine the populations in Bronx County, respectively east and west of the Bronx River, have also been available since March. Both the county-level and block-level counts were released by the Census Bureau as part of the PL94-171 redistricting data set.
Mr. Carvin’s statement, in the next to last sentence, that his interpretation will yield 62 districts, is not what matters now. The point is that the interpretation also yields 62 districts when applied to the 2010 census counts.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 9
Appendix: Determining the Number of New York State Senate Districts, 1972-2012 The formula for determining the number of Senate districts is based on Article III, §4, par. 3, of the New York State Constitution, originally adopted in 1894:
The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants . . . by fifty, and the senate shall always be composed of fifty members, except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment, shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent.
Art. III, § 4, was adopted at a time when New York County (then including much of what is now Bronx County) held nearly a quarter of the population of the state. Politicians representing upstate and rural areas feared that New York and Brooklyn would continue to grow until they entirely dominated state government. That outcome was to be prevented by a constitutional provision that effectively gave an extra Senate seat to the less populous counties, each time one of the more populous counties qualified for an additional seat on the basis of population growth. The provision was one of several that operated, over the following decades, to produce a gross malapportionment of Senate districts. By 1964, when the U.S. Supreme Court applied the equal representation principle to the New York State Legislature in WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, the most populous Senate district had four times the population of the least populous. In the equal representation era, art. III, § 4, should no longer operate to produce a malapportionment. Paragraph 3 just determines the total number of seats, and the state should then be divided into that number of districts, all of approximately equal population, according to the equal representation principle. The interpretation of Paragraph 3 was last litigated in Schneider v. Rockefeller (1972), a challenge to the reapportionment that took effect in 1972. The interpretation followed by the Legislature in the 1972 reapportionment was upheld by the NYS Court of Appeals in Schneider, and followed by the Legislature in 1982 and 1992. Some of the language in art. III, § 4, par. 3, is not perfectly clear. The application of the formula is further complicated by the fact that some county boundaries have changed since 1894. As interpreted in a series of decisions by the Court of Appeals – Matter of Dowling, 219 N.Y. 44 (1916), Matter of Fay, 291 N.Y. 198 (1943), Matter of Orans, 15 NY2d 339 (1965), and Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 NY2d 420 (1972) – the paragraph may be parsed as follows: • “ratio” A ratio of apportionment is 1/50 (2%) of the total state population, not including remainders. The rounding is always downward; thus a county with 6.01% of the total state population is deemed to have as many ‘full ratios of apportionment’ as a county with 7.99% (three ‘full ratios,’ but still short of four). “any county” Territory comprising a single county, as it existed in 1894; the particular instances will be explained below.
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 10
“having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment” Having a population, based on the new census data, equal to at least three ‘full ratios.’ “shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators” In addition to the number of Senate districts apportioned to the county in 1894. “such additional senator or senators” In addition to the county’s 1894 apportionment. “and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent” Increased above the basic number of 50. The application of the formula can only add districts to the basic 50. No loss of population share in any county can cause a subtraction from the original 50 seats.
There are three instances in which the application of the formula requires the reconstruction of counties as they were in 1894 (or, in one case, a bi-county Senate district of 1894): New York/Bronx/Westchester Bronx County was created in 1912. In 1894, that part of the Bronx west of the Bronx River was part of New York County, and the part east of the river was part of Westchester County. There are two ways to construe the application of the formula to these counties in the reapportionments that took effect in 1972, 1982, and 1992. In one way, New York and Bronx Counties are taken to be a single county, and the number of ‘full ratios of apportionment’ in their combined population is compared with the 12 Senate districts apportioned to New York County in 1894. The other way, the three counties – New York, Bronx, and Westchester – are treated as a single county, and the number of ‘full ratios of apportionment’ in their combined population is compared with the total of 13 Senate districts apportioned to New York and Westchester Counties in 1894 (12 to New York, one to Westchester). Both methods produce the same result: no effect on the size of the Senate. Queens/Nassau Nassau County was created in 1899, from territory that was part of Queens County in 1894. Under art. III, § 4, par. 3, the number of ‘full ratios of apportionment’ in the combined populations of Queens and Nassau Counties is compared with the one Senate district apportioned to Queens County in 1894. Richmond/Suffolk In 1894, Richmond and Suffolk Counties shared a single Senate district. (Without defending this odd arrangement, it can be explained as a reflection of the priority given in the 1894 Constitution to preserving the integrity of county boundaries. The creation of a district that divided a county without being wholly contained within the county was strictly forbidden. Richmond’s population was too small for a Senate district of its own, and New York, Kings, and Queens Counties were each too populous to be combined with
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 11
Richmond in a single district, so a Senate district was created comprising Richmond and Suffolk.) Under art. III, § 4, par. 3, the number of ‘full ratios of apportionment’ in the combined populations of Richmond and Suffolk Counties is compared with the one Senate district apportioned to the pair of counties in 1894. Kings County has also exceeded the three-full-ratios-of-apportionment threshold, but this case is not complicated by boundary changes. An increase from 60 to 61 occurred in 1982, when the Richmond/Suffolk combination achieved its fourth ‘full ratio.’ Tables A, B, and C show how the number of Senate seats was determined in 1972, 1982, and 1992. Erie County appears only in the 1972 chart, since it did not reach three ‘full ratios’ in subsequent censuses. Table A. Determining the Size of the Senate – 1972 (‘Full Ratio’ = 364,828) 1970 ‘Additional’ (Combined) ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate Districts 1894 ‘County’ Population Apportionment Districts (above 50) Erie 1,113,491 3 3 0 Kings 2,602,012 7 7 0 New York + Bronx 3,010,934 8 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,905,340 10 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,416,012 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,422,473 3 1 2 Table B. Determining the Size of the Senate – 1982 (Full Ratio = 351,146) 1980 ‘Additional’ (Combined) ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate Districts 1894 ‘County’ Population Apportionment Districts (above 50) Kings 2,230,936 6 7 0 New York + Bronx 2,596,648 7 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,463,247 9 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,212,907 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,636,352 4 1 3
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 12
Table C. Determining the Size of the Senate – 1992 (‘Full Ratio’ = 359,809) 1990 ‘Additional’ (Combined) ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate Districts 1894 ‘County’ Population Apportionment Districts (above 50) Kings 2,300,664 6 7 0 New York + Bronx 2,691,325 7 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,566,191 9 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,239,164 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,700,623 4 1 3 In 1982 it was not only the Legislature that applied the formula upheld in Schneider to arrive at a 61-seat Senate. The Special Master appointed by the three-judge Constitutional Court in Flateau v. Anderson also proposed the creation of 61 Senate districts, in place of the then-existing 60 districts. See Appendix II to Report of the Special Master: New York State Senate Plan, June 7, 1982 and Appendix B to Report of the Special Master: Report of Ketron, Inc., June 7, 1982. Note also that the combined population of Queens/Nassau achieved its ninth ‘full ratio’ in 1992 with only 882 persons to spare. The 1990 census showed the population of Nassau County declining during the 1980’s. Had a further 883 persons been lost (assuming the same total state population), the number of Senate districts would have reverted to 60. Loss of population share by a county (or reconstructed 1894 county) cannot produce a subtraction from the basis of 50 seats – Kings County in the charts above produces a value of zero in the last column, not a negative value – but loss of population share can subtract from the number of ‘additional’ seats that have been generated by the county’s previous (post 1894) growth. The formula is applied anew in the reapportionment following each census. Table D shows how the application of the formula used in 1972, 1982 and 1992, would have produced a Senate of 61 districts if applied to the 2000 census counts. Table D. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2002 (‘Full Ratio’ = 379,529) (Using the Same Procedure as in 1972, 1982, and 1992) 2000 ‘Additional’ Districts (Combined) ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate Population Apportionment Districts (above 50) 1894 ‘County’ Kings 2,465,326 6 7 0 New York + Bronx 2,869,845 7 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,793,304 9 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,563,923 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,863,097 4 1 3
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 13
In 2002, however, the Legislature created a Senate of 62 districts. A memorandum dated March 7, 2002, from Michael Carvin, outside counsel to the Senate Majority, gives a constitutional rationale for this result. Mr Carvin asserts that the “best method for apportioning the New York Senate” would differ from the method approved by the Court of Appeals in Schneider and employed by the Legislature in 1972, 1982, and 1992. Although he does not note the fact, Mr. Carvin’s favored interpretation is exactly that which was advocated unsuccessfully by the Schwartz group of plaintiffs in Schneider. (Mr. Carvin’s memorandum does not mention the combination of Suffolk and Richmond Counties, but that combination does figure in the method employed in 2002, and its role in the formula is assumed in the calculation that concludes Mr. Carvin’s penultimate paragraph.) The formula applied by the Legislature to the 2000 census counts differs in two respects from the formula employed during the previous three decades. Manhattan, Bronx, and Westchester – the 2002 Interpretation New York and Bronx Counties (or, alternatively, New York, Bronx, and Westchester Counties) were not combined in their entirety, to reconstitute an 1894 county. Instead, that part of Bronx County east of the Bronx River – the territory that was part of Westchester County in 1894 – was combined with all of Westchester County to construct the ‘county’ whose ‘full ratios of apportionment’ were to be compared with the one Senate district apportioned to Westchester in 1894. Only the part of Bronx County west of the river was combined with New York County. Westchester County alone would have had only two ‘full ratios of apportionment’ (2.41, rounded down) according to the 2000 census, and therefore would not have figured in determining the number of Senate districts (only counties with at least three ‘full ratios’ are relevant). But when Westchester County was combined with the part of Bronx County east of the Bronx River, the resulting 1894 ‘county’ had three full ratios of apportionment. Subtracting the single Senate district apportioned to Westchester in 1894, the reconstituted Westchester County of 1894 contributed two additional seats to the computation of the total number of districts. Aggregation of County Apportionment Ratios – the 2002 Interpretation When two counties were to be combined to reconstitute an 1894 county, by the method used in 1972, 1982, and 1992, the number of ‘full ratios of apportionment’ in the reconstituted ‘county’ was determined by first summing the populations of the presentday counties, then calculating the number of ‘full ratios’ in the combined total population (as shown in Tables A through D, above). Under the new method adopted by the Legislature in 2002, the number of ‘full ratios’ was first calculated for each present-day county (or relevant part of such county), the remainders were dropped, and the rounded-down ‘full ratios’ – not populations – were then summed. This change in procedure made a difference in the Queens-Nassau combination. The combined population of the two counties in 2000 was 3,563,923. Under the formula used previously, the combined total population would be divided by the ‘full ratio’ of
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 14
379,529; and the result would be 9.39, rounded down to 9 ‘full ratios of apportionment.’ Subtracting the one district apportioned to Queens County in 1894, the reconstituted ‘county’ would have contributed 8 districts to be added to the basic number of 50. But under the new method, the ratios of apportionment were calculated separately for present-day Queens and Nassau Counties. Queens’s population of 2,229,379, divided by 379,529, yielded 5.87 ‘ratios,’ rounded down to 5 ‘full ratios.’ Nassau’s population of 1,334,544 yielded 3.52 ‘ratios,’ rounded down to 3 ‘full ratios.’ Adding the ‘full ratios’ – not the populations – the reconstituted ‘county’ had 8 ‘full ratios.’ Subtracting the one district apportioned to Queens County in 1894, the Queens-Nassau combination contributed 7 districts to be added to the basic number of 50. For the Bronx-Westchester and Richmond-Suffolk combinations, the new method for aggregating county ‘apportionment ratios’ yielded the same results as the old method, as applied to the 2000 county population counts. In summary, one change in the constitutional interpretation (the treatment of Bronx and Westchester Counties) produced two more Senate districts than the prior method, and the other change (aggregating ‘full ratios’ rather than populations) produced one less. The net result was a Senate of 62 districts, instead of 61, as shown in Table E. Table E. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2002 (‘Full Ratio’ = 379,529) (The New Procedure Adopted in 2002) 1894 ‘Additional’ Sum Districts Senate of ‘Full Modern 2000 ‘Full 1894 (above 50) Ratios’ Districts County Population Ratios’ ‘County’ Kings 2,465,326 6 Kings 6 7 0 XXXX New York 1,537,195 4 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Bronx (west of the Bronx New York River) 794,061 2 + Bronx (pt.) 6 12 0 Bronx (east Westchester of the Bronx 538,589 1 + Bronx (pt.) 3 1 2 River) XXXX Westchester 923,459 2 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXXX Queens 2,229,379 5 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Queens Nassau 1,334,544 3 + Nassau 8 1 7 XXXX Richmond 443,728 1 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Richmond Suffolk 1,419,369 3 + Suffolk 4 1 3
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 15
Determining the Size of the Senate for 2012 Tables F1 and G1 are based on the county population counts from the 2010 census, PL94-171 redistricting data set, published by the Census Bureau on March 25, 2011. Table F1. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2012 Based on 2010 County Population Counts (‘Full Ratio’ = 387,562) (Using the Same Procedure as in 1972, 1982, and 1992) 2010 ‘Additional’ (Combined) ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate Districts 1894 ‘County’ Population Apportionment Districts (above 50) Kings 2,504,700 6 7 0 New York + Bronx 2,970,981 7 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,920,094 10 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,570,254 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,962,080 5 1 4 Table G1. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2012 Based on 2010 County Population Counts (‘Full Ratio’ = 387,562) (The New Procedure Adopted in 2002) ‘Full Ratios of Sum 1894 ‘Additional’ Modern 2010 Appor- 1894 of ‘Full Senate Districts County Population tionment’ ‘County’ Ratios’ Districts (above 50) Kings 2,504,700 6 Kings 6 7 0 XXXX New York 1,585,873 4 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Bronx (west of the Bronx New York River) 829,963 2 + Bronx (pt.) 6 12 0 Bronx (east Westchester of the Bronx 555,145 1 + Bronx (pt.) 3 1 2 River) XXXX Westchester 949,113 2 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXXX Queens 2,230,722 5 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Queens Nassau 1,339,532 3 + Nassau 8 1 7 XXXX Richmond 468,730 1 XXXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX Richmond Suffolk 1,493,350 3 + Suffolk 4 1 3
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 16
Both methods would produce a Senate of 62 seats in 2012. The convergence of the two methods is a coincidence, arising from the new population counts for certain counties, and may not hold after the 2020 census. The Effect of Prisoner Populations Legislative Law §83-m(13), enacted as part of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2010, now requires that prisoners in federal or state custody be subtracted from the redistricting population basis, and that those in state custody be reallocated, insofar as possible, to the census blocks of their addresses prior to incarceration. It is not yet possible to take account of the reallocation, as the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment has not yet performed that task (which it alone can perform, due to the confidentiality provisions of §83-m(13)). But it is possible to determine the subtractions to be made, on the basis of the Census 2010 Advance Group Quarters Summary File (AGQSF), Tables P42 (identical to the AGQSF) and PCT20 of Summary File 1 (SF1), and other information sources identifying the locations of state and federal facilities. With the required subtractions, and no reallocation, the statewide redistricting population basis is 19,312,948, yielding a ‘full ratio of apportionment’ of 386,259. Tables F2 and G2 show how each formula would work with this ‘full ratio’ and the indicated subtractions at the county (or sub-county) level. Table F2. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2012 Based on 2010 County Population Counts with Prisoner Subtractions (‘Full Ratio’ = 386,259) (Using the Same Procedure as in 1972, 1982, and 1992) 2010 (Combined) ‘Additional’ Population Districts after ‘Full Ratios’ of 1894 Senate subtraction Apportionment Districts (above 50) 1894 ‘County’ Kings 2,502,475 6 7 0 New York + Bronx 2,969,505 7 12 0 New York + Bronx + Westchester (alternate to above) 3,915,805 10 13 0 Queens + Nassau 3,569,606 9 1 8 Richmond + Suffolk 1,961,612 5 1 4
The Number of NYS Senate Districts – September 22, 2011 – p. 17
Table G2. Determining the Size of the Senate – 2012 Based on 2010 County Population Counts with Prisoner Subtractions (‘Full Ratio’ = 386,259) (The New Procedure Adopted in 2002) ‘Full 2010 Sum 1894 ‘Additional’ Population Ratios of Appor- 1894 of ‘Full Senate Districts Modern after Ratios’ Districts (above 50) subtraction tionment’ ‘County’ County Kings 2,502,475 6 Kings 6 7 0 New York 1,584,524 4 XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX Bronx (west of the Bronx New York River) 829,836 2 + Bronx (pt.) 6 12 0 Bronx (east Westchester of the Bronx 555,145 1 + Bronx (pt.) 3 1 2 River) Westchester 946,300 2 XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX Queens 2,230,074 5 XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX Queens Nassau 1,339,532 3 + Nassau 8 1 7 Richmond 467,812 1 XXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX Richmond Suffolk 1,493,350 3 + Suffolk 4 1 3 As can be seen from a comparison of Table F1 with Table F2, and a comparison of Table G1 with Table G2, the subtraction of prisoner populations does not change the result of either formula for determining the number of Senate districts. Nor, as explained below, could any reallocation of prisoners, when finally performed, alter this result. In Table F2, the ‘1894 county’ whose population is closest to a tipping point that could change the final calculation is the Richmond/Suffolk combination: 5.078 ratios are rounded down to 5 full ratios. Supposing that all 58,900 persons listed in SF1, Table PCT20, as inmates of state prisons or of ‘correctional residential facilities’ under the jurisdiction of the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, could be reallocated, the statewide redistricting population basis would increase to 19,371,848, and a ‘full ratio of apportionment’ would increase to 387,437. If no prisoners were reallocated to addresses in Richmond or Suffolk County, the Richmond/Suffolk combination would then have 5.06 ratios, still rounding down to 5 ‘full ratios’ as in Table F2. In Table G2, the county or county part whose population is closest to a tipping point is Suffolk County, which would be 56,398 persons short of a fourth ‘full ratio’ (assuming that a ‘full ratio’ increases to 387,437, in the hypothetical case described in the previous paragraph). So if 95.76% of the state prison inmates listed in Table PCT20 were reallocated to Suffolk County, the number of Senate districts would increase to 63 – arithmetically possible, but a real world impossibility. And no county would have one ‘full ratio’ less than in Table G2 (again using 387,437 as the ‘full ratio’), even on the assumption that no prisoners were reallocated to the given county.
To: CC: From: Date: Re:
Sen. Skelos, Steve Boggess Vinny Bruy [Author’s name redacted for 2010 distribution] 05/04/01 Reapportionment Areas
Following is a description of a preliminary “Reapportionment Area” configuration. I use the term reapportionment area to refer to a group of counties whose combined population will allow a whole number of Senate Districts to be drawn within the exterior boundaries of that group and be within an acceptable population deviation from the ideal. I emphasize that this is just one of many possible configurations. An additional note; I’ve arranged this configuration based on a 62-seat Senate, but have given deviations from both a 62- and a 61-seat Senate for the upstate and island areas. I did this because I operated on the assumption that east of the Nassau/Queens line and north and west of the Hudson R/A district, the basic number of districts will not change. It is within the New York R/A’s that we will have wiggle room to draw districts at a 61or 62-seat Senate. Thus, a 61-seat Senate would combine the Queens, Kings and Hudson areas to create a New York R/A starting at Queens/Nassau and running to Columbia/Albany. Instead of the 30 districts apportioned to that area, it would entail 29 districts @ 323,128, a deviation of +3.87%. Ideal Population for 62 is 306,072; for 61 it is 311,089 R/A Long Island Description, Population and Deviation (62 / 61) Nassau & Suffolk 9 districts @ 305,990 2,753,913 -.03% / -1.64%
7 @ 318,483 +4.05% /+2.38%
8 @ 308,166 +.68%/-.9%
Richmond, NY, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia 4,676,021 15 @ 311,735 +1.85%/-.2%
Rockland, Orange, Ulster, Sullivan, Delaware 927,890 3 @ 309,297 +1.05% / -.5%
Albany 294,565 1 @ 294,565 -3.76% / - 5.31%
Rensselaer, Saratoga, Fulton, Schenectady, Montgomery 604,509 2 @ 302,255 -1.25% / -2.84
Washington, Clinton, Hamilton, Warren, Essex, Franklin 299,603 1 @ 299,603 -2.11% / -3.69%
Broome, Tioga, Cortland 300,919 1 @ 300,919 -1.68% / -3.27%
Greene, Schoharie, Otsego, Chenango, Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga, Oswego, Jefferson, St. Lawrence, Lewis 1,475,480 5 @ 295,096 -3.59% / -5.14
Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Yates, Schuyler, Tompkins, Steuben, Chemung, Monroe, Livingston, Orleans, Genesee, Niagara, Erie, Wyoming, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, Allegany 2,948,852 10 @ 294,885 -3.66% / -5.21%
Overall deviation at 62 is 7.81% (-3.76% ..+4.05%) Overall deviation at 61 is 9.18% (-5.31%..+3.87%)
Majority Redistricting Office 250 Broadway New York, NY 10007
To: From: CC: Date: Re:
Sen. Skelos, Steve Boggess [Author’s name redacted for 2010 distribution] Vinnie Bruy July 20, 2001 Size of the Senate
We have had numerous discussions regarding the possibility of the Senate increasing in size to 63. While the ultimate decision will be made with political numbers for proposed districts at each size in hand, I believe that the decision basically comes down to the raw census numbers. I have previously stated my contention that the only reason to go to 63 is to strengthen the Long Island delegation by combining politically undesirable areas in the extra district. There are no areas elsewhere in the state where we have the opportunity to pick up a district, or strengthen surrounding districts solely on the basis of adding another district to an area. In fact, as you will recall, our proposed redistricting areas upstate are already configured in such a manner as to draw districts light, to avoid migration downstate. Adding another district anywhere upstate would exacerbate that situation. Initially, my thinking was that in going to 63 we would strengthen all nine members by carving out a tenth district strictly on the island, combining all the minority areas from Elmont on the Nassau/Queens border east to Brentwood in the town of Islip. This would serve the dual purpose of carving out politically undesirable areas and at the same time demonstrate sensitivity to testimony received at both the Nassau/Suffolk and Westchester public hearings. There are four major reasons mitigating against this scenario: a. At a district population of 275,391, the deviation from the ideal for 10 districts on the island would be –8.57%. With a total permissible deviation of 10%, this would give us precious little room to maneuver elsewhere in the state; b. While this minority district is theoretically possible, it is extremely unsightly and would most likely bring scrutiny ala Shaw v. Reno; c. Senator Trunzo lives squarely within one of the major minority concentrations which would be included in the minority district (Brentwood). d. The additional district almost certainly would not be a republican pickup. Thus, all else being equal, the republican majority would be 36-27 The next option under a 63-seat Senate I considered was to include Queens with Long Island. Under this scenario, there would be a minority district bridging Nassau/Queens, with approximately 115,700 in Nassau. That number is reasonably close to the population of the minority areas of Hempstead, Lakeview, Elmont, Roosevelt and Baldwin and could be combined with black areas in Jamaica to form a minority district. Several pertinent comments regarding this scenario: a. Politically, this would certainly help Senators Skelos, Fuschillo and Hannon.
b. We have received testimony that the minority areas in Hempstead should be together and this would accomplish that. The minority district is reasonably compact and should not run afoul of a Shaw v. Reno issue. c. In this configuration, the Nassau/Suffolk bridge district(s) would have a population of 246,829 in Suffolk and 46,306 in Nassau. It is not my job to be an advocate of one county over another, but the fact of the matter at hand is that we currently have two Nassau-based Senators whose districts comprise portions of Suffolk county. The political reality is that it is extremely unlikely that Nassau (despite any agreement between the two county’s organizations) would be able to control a bridge district(s) in which only 15% is in Nassau county; and that, in turn, while not necessarily meaning the loss of a republican seat, would mean the loss of an incumbent. d. An additional county line cut (Nassau/Queens). e. As above, the additional district would not likely be taken by a republican and the majority would stand at 36-27, all else being equal. Finally, I looked at a reapportionment area which stretches from Suffolk to Columbia county. This would result in a district size of 303,151, of which several comments can be made: a. The Nassau portion of the Nassau/Queens bridge district would contain a population of only 25,554. That few people would be of negligible political value. b. Although the Nassau/Queens bridge would be a minority district, the above mentioned minority areas in Hempstead (with the exception of Elmont) would still need attention. c. The Nassau/Suffolk district(s) would be a 32%/68% split. Not quite the current 44%/56% split, but closer than the above15%/85% split. Enough to avoid the loss of Nassau county control of that seat(s)? Hard to tell. d. Another county line cut (Queens/Kings). e. Again, unlikely that the additional district would be a republican pickup.
Senator Skelos [Author’s name redacted for 2011 distribution] Vinny Bruy December 18, 2001 “The 135”
There seems to be a bit of confusion over the provenance of the population number in Westchester which is to be attached to Bronx County. There has been some speculation that this number has been arbitrarily chosen out of thin air. It has not. It is arbitrary only to the extent of selecting which of several combinations of counties is to be used for this Reapportionment Area (R/A). Through the examination of various combinations of counties, the following combination (which I’ll call the Hudson R/A) maximizes the Westchester portion attached to Bronx. Following are some numbers and calculations which I hope will better illustrate how this figure was determined. The process requires two distinct steps: A. determination of the size of Senate districts in the Hudson R/A; and, B. another calculation to determine the portion of Westchester attached to Bronx. A. Senate District size calculation First, calculate the total population of the Hudson R/A. Hudson R/A: (Columbia, Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester, Bronx, New York, Richmond & Kings): Kings Richmond New York Bronx Westchester Putnam Dutchess Columbia Total 2,465,326 443,728 1,537,195 1,332,650 923,459 95,745 280,150 63,094 7,141,347
In order to craft districts whose population falls within the acceptable overall deviation of 10%, 23 Senate districts, stretching from Brooklyn to Columbia County, are drawn at a population of 310,493. Because of manipulation of town combinations in Dutchess and Westchester, I was able to take advantage of the NYS Constitution’s “town on border” rule and draw the Saland and Leibell districts a little bit “lite” at 301,541 and 303,359 respectively. This has the effect of further increasing the Westchester portion over what it would have been with the Saland and Leibell districts being drawn at 310,493. Subtracting the populations of those two “lite” districts now leaves a remaining population in the Hudson R/A of 6,536,447. 7,141,347 - 301,541 - 303,359 6,536,447 Saland SD Leibell SD Total remaining in Hudson R/A
Dividing this remaining total by 21 gives us a district size of 311,259 for the remaining 21 SD’s in this R/A. Because of the NYS Constitution’s “block on border” rule, the size of the districts within the city and lower Westchester will each be within one or two of this 311,259 size, simply because you will almost always be able to find a block with small enough populations to equalize the districts. 21 Districts @ 311,259 B. Bronx/Westchester calculation: Total population of counties Westchester-Columbia SD 41 Saland SD 40 Leibell SD 37 Oppenheimer SD 35 Spano Total left in Westchester to be attached to Bronx 1,362,451 - 301,541 - 303,359 - 311,259 - 311,259 __________ 135,033
This total is set. It be changed only by adjusting the R/A itself. For example, it would be possible to create an alternate R/A which attaches Queens County to the above Hudson R/A. Running the same above calculations for this new R/A would result in a Westchester total of 131,418 connected to Bronx. Likewise, another adjustment to the R/A would be to add Nassau & Suffolk counties. Again, running the same above calculations results in a Westchester total of 134,515. Thus, there is method (maximizing the Westchester total), not arbitrariness in selecting which R/A to use in calculating the portion of Westchester connected to Bronx. The only consideration now, is how (or if) it is divided between Senators Velella and Hassell-Thompson. If it is not divided, and Senator Velella receives the entire “135”, I would suggest that the U.S. Justice Department would look unkindly on eliminating a minority legislator.
Technical Determination of the Size of The Senate
Senator Joseph Bruno Senator Dean Skelos Michael A. Carvin March 7, 2002 Senate Size
You have inquired about the best method for apportioning the New York Senate. This memo will not set forth all the constitutional provisions affecting the size of the Senate, or the mathematical calculations, but will focus directly on the relevant issues. After examining the relevant provisions of the New York Constitution, case law and historical evidence, I have concluded that the best way to implement the New York and federal requirements governing apportionment is (i) to combine the portions of Bronx County that, in 1894, were part of Westchester County or New York County with those respective counties to determine those counties' full ratios, and (ii) to calculate the full ratios of Nassau and Queens Counties independently, then aggregate those full ratios to determine the number of senators for the combined counties. In my view, this methodology is most consistent with the intent underlying the New York Constitution and fully lawful. I note that if these modifications are adopted, the size of the New York Senate will be increased to 62 Senators. 1. Westchester, New York and Bronx Counties As part of the constitutional scheme for determining the size of the Senate, the Legislature must compare modern-day counties to those that existed in 1894. See N.Y. Const. Art. III, § 4; see also In re Fay, 291 N.Y. 198 (1943); In re Dowling, 219 N.Y. 44 (1916) (holding that the term "county" in the constitutional phrase "except that if any county having three or more senators" means the "county" as comprised in 1894). This comparison is complicated, however, by the fact that some modern counties, namely Bronx and Nassau Counties, did not exist at that time. With respect to contemporary Bronx County, it was in 1894 part of New York and Westchester Counties. To account for this anomaly, the legislature has sometimes considered the entire Bronx County and New York County as one unit when making the constitutionally-required historical comparisons. See, e.g., In re Schneider, 31 N.Y.2d at 433-34; see also In re Fay, 291 N.Y. 198 (1943) (approving redistricting plan that coupled New York and Bronx counties to determine first full ratios). This approach to allocating Bronx County is unsatisfactory, however, because it ignores the reality that Bronx County was not wholly a part of either New York or Westchester at that time. While not technically impermissible, lumping all of the Bronx in with New York or Westchester is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitutional requirement that the Legislature "compare the number of senators allotted to the counties encompassing substantially the same territory as was contained in the original county, with the number of senators given the original count in the Constitution of 1894." Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 N.Y.2d 420, 432 (1972). Indeed, recognizing this problem, the 1971 Joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment recommended that "[t]he comparison should be between the counties as organized in Senate districts in 1894 and the counties which today encompass the same 'territory,'" which means apportioning the Bronx between Westchester and New York. See Interim Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment 11 (Dec. 14, 1971). This should be the course that we follow. The most accurate and constitutionally faithful way to compare modern New York, Westchester and Bronx Counties to the counties of 1894 is to determine the portions of Bronx County that were in New York and Westchester Counties at that time and allocate Bronx's population to those counties accordingly. Of the forty-one square miles that currently constitute Bronx County, roughly twenty-one of them were in Westchester in 1894 and twenty were in New York. See Ruth C. Silva, Apportionment in New York, 30 Fordham Law Rev. 581, 626-27 (April 1962). Since we are now aware of the specific contours of the old New York/Westchester County line, and modern computer software allows us to precisely determine the current population of that territory, there is simply no reason to fail to replicate the same territory that constituted the original counties. Under this formulation, Westchester has three full ratios, compared to its single full ratio of 1894. Since New York County has fewer ratios than it had in 1894, this means that two senate seats should be added to the Senate because of the increase in Westchester. I have considered the objections that might be made to splitting the current Bronx County for ratio purposes, but they are devoid of merit. First, the New York Court of Appeals has approved dividing Bronx county in this method when it recognized in In re Schneider that
7/30/2011 11:39 PM
this would be most consistent with the New York Constitution and "tak[e] into account that a portion of the Bronx belonged to Westchester in 1894, that in 1895 New York County annexed parts of Westchester County, and that in 1912 New York County ceded certain territory, including the territory annexed from Westchester in 1895, to form Bronx County." See 31 N.Y.2d at 433-34. Second, the overarching goal of apportionment is to accurately account for "increases in the population of the territory of the original county." Id. at 432-33. Without a doubt, the most precise, and thus most constitutionally true, way to determine the population increase in the New York, Westchester and Bronx Counties from 1894 to today is to compare the actual territories that comprised these counties then to the same territories now, which requires splitting Bronx County. Finally, it has never been the understanding of the New York Court of Appeals that the term "county" as used in the Constitution means the geographical county as it is comprised today. The Court has recognized that "county" can mean the aggregation of counties best approximating the "county" of 1894. See, e.g., In re Fay, 291 N.Y. at 217 (allowing for the aggregation of Nassau and Queens Counties). And if the Constitution allows for aggregation, it must also allow for division. 2. Nassau and Queens Counties. The area now comprising Queens and Nassau Counties was, with minor changes, in 1894 a single county - Queens. In light of this fact, the legislature has determined the ratios for Queens and Nassau Counties either by calculating the full ratios for each and aggregating those full ratios, see In re Fay, 291 N.Y. at 211-12, 217; In re Orans, 17A N.Y.2d 11,12 (calculating ratios in this manner); see also In re Schneider, 31 N.Y.2d at 432 (observing that prior to 1971 this was how counties were apportioned), or by aggregating the raw population of the two counties and calculating a single full ratio, see In re Schneider, 31 N.Y.2d at 432. The New York Court of Appeals has approved both methods as "consonant with the broad historical objectives underlying the provision for increasing the size of the Senate." See id. at 433. While the other method is permissible, I believe the traditional method of computing senators for Nassau and Queens -- calculating the full ratios for each county individually and aggregating those full ratios -- is more faithful to the Constitution. See Silva supra at 606 (discussing the concerns of Elihu Root that a county should not be allowed to combine territories and districts to "combine their remainders to gain an additional senator"). As noted, this method was used for many years, has already been approved by the New York Court of Appeals, and most accurately reflects the growth that has occurred in the territory of Nassau. See In re Fay, 291 N.Y. at 217-18 (holding that by calculating full ratios for Nassau and Queens, then aggregating those ratios, the legislature did not enact a statute that conflicts with the law). If these changes were adopted, Queens and Nassau Counties would be entitled to eight Senators, a net increase in seven over the one Senator Queens enjoyed in 1894. Since this is one less Senator than this area enjoyed in the 1990's, this would result in a decrease of one Senate seat. When this loss of one is combined with the net increase of two created in Westchester, the size of the Senate would increase by one, to sixty two. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at your earliest convenience. BACK
New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and R...
http://latfor.state.ny.us/faqs/
LATFOR Home
Hearings & Meetings Maps
Publications on Sale Members
NYS Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment 250 Broadway — Suite 2100 New York, NY 10007 212-618-1100 Email LATFOR: info@latfor.state.ny.us
9/21/2011 10:24 PM
The U.S. Constitution requires that congressional and state legislative district boundaries be redrawn every ten years, reflecting population shifts detected by the Federal census. This process, referred to as "redistricting", is undertaken by the state Legislature. In New York State, the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment analyzes the Census Bureau population figures used in the redistricting plan.
Reapportionment is the redividing of a given number of seats in a legislative body among smaller geographical units. For example, the 435 seats in Congress must be allocated to reflect a state's proportion of the national population. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau reports that New York's population grew by 5.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the national population grew by 13.2 percent. As a result, the state will lose 2 seats in Congress.
What other requirements must the legislature follow?
The State Constitution requires 150 Assembly districts and contains a formula for the determination of the number of Senate districts. Based on the formula and analysis of the 2000 census data, the size of the Senate will increase by 1 seat to 62(Click here to view technical determination of the size of the Senate). The average number of people represented by these legislators will increase by about 6,510 and 11,147, respectively (to 126,510 per Assembly district and 306,072 per Senate district), due to the state's population gain. Each of New York's 29 Congressional districts will contain 654,361 people (an increase of 74,024). All districts must contain essentially the same number of people to preserve the principle of one person, one vote. Also, the federal Voting Rights Act requires that new boundaries be drawn in a manner which provides minority communities with opportunities to elect representatives of their choice.
Who must approve the plan?
The redistricting plan must be approved by the state Legislature and the Governor. In addition, 3 counties of New York City (Bronx, Kings, and New York) require that the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia review and approve the plan for compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
The new boundaries for congressional and state Assembly and Senate districts will be in effect for the 2002 elections.
Why is the process important to me, and to my community?
It will determine how every citizen and community will be represented at the state and federal levels of government for the next ten years. It will also determine whether New York's diverse communities will have sufficient political strength to elect candidates of their choice. At a time when so many public policy decisions affect the qualtiy of our daily lives, your right to fair and effective representation is crucial.
The Task Force has, and will again, hold a series of public hearings across the state to get input from the general public. If you did not have the opportunity to attend one of their hearings, or may not be able to attend future hearings, there is still time to submit written testimony. For more information, contact the Task Force.
How can I get redistricting data?
The need for public access to redistricting data was stated time and time again at the Task Force hearings. In response, the Task Force unanimously adopted a public access policy to encourage full and meaningful public participation in the redistricting process.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Testimony of Todd Breitbart - Size of the Senate - 22 September 2011Skip carouselImbong v ComelecChapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975)Case on DivorceThe Wealth of NetworksBaker v Carr Key Cases Congressional Districting v.3 (07-03)Untitleddec-2004Framework Safety Case Assessment Draft 10032015UntitledPictorial Report on the Observance of DAPC WeekAttack Outline - MBE - Con Law-Final2business law Student Notes Chapter 3 Re So LutiAdmiin Digest MhiletDolalr StretcherGLSL -Digital Democracy - Social Media as Public Sphere- Draft-1On the Public SpherePublic Speaking Competition 2Humanities Circle Summer 2015Download Electronic Voting and DemocracyWords and DeedsCase ListPOLI DIGEST - Fundamental Powers of the StateCalhoun Civil Society Public Sphere History of ConceptThe Role of Economist powerpoint.pptxPublic Policy Polling - Tennessee Survey ResultsPowers&Duties of Officers-DOPTHabermas - Public Spheresept01.2015 cOmbudsman 2016 budget hearing highlights need for more fiscal autonomyAssociate Reporting Officer2Understanding Why Delivering Aid Can Be a DangerousDocuments About Apportionment (Politics)Skip carouselKirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969)I. William Bianchi, Jr., Quentin B. Sammis and the Town of Huntington v. Evans K. Griffing, William P. Bain, Lester M. Albertson, William J. Leonard, Stephen F. Meschutt, Ralph J. Osgood, Charles R. Dominy, Robert J. Flynn, Arthur M. Cromarty and Thomas J. Harwood, Constituting the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk County, New York, and Town of East Hampton, Town of Riverhead, Town of Shelter Island, Town of Southampton and Town of Southold, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellees, 393 F.2d 457, 2d Cir. (1968)Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732 (Haw. Jan 6, 2012)Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Kostick v. Nago, CV 1200184-JMS (filed May 8, 2012)Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Kostick v. Nago, No. 12-00184 MMM-JMS-LEK (D. Haw. July 11, 2013)Motion to Affirm, Kostick v. Nago, No. 13-456 (Nov. 12, 2013)Roxbury Taxpayers Alliance, Susan E. Moore, Edward V.S. Moore, and Elsa MacDonald v. Delaware County Board of Supervisors, 80 F.3d 42, 2d Cir. (1996)Frank J. Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 352 F.2d 123, 4th Cir. (1965)Harris vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting CommissionAvery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968)United States v. State of Mississippi. Aaron E. Henry v. State of Mississippi, 444 U.S. 1050 (1980)Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433 (1965)Connor v. Coleman, 425 U.S. 675 (1976)Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colo., 377 U.S. 713 (1964)Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612 (1979)Citizens Committee to Oppose Annexation v. City of Lynchburg, Virginia, County of Campbell, Virginia v. City of Lynchburg, Virginia, Citizens Committee to Oppose Annexation v. City of Lynchburg, Virginia, 528 F.2d 816, 4th Cir. (1976)Brief for Appellants, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940 (July 31, 2015)Large v. Fremont County, Wyo., 670 F.3d 1133, 10th Cir. (2012)PA Redistricting Majority OpinionConnor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549 (1972)Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U.S. 542 (1969)Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973)Rockefeller v. Wells, 389 U.S. 421 (1967)Guy A. Donatelli Michelle M. Harman Scott Richert Keith Gross George Miller Raymond Pierson Harry P. Ross Harvey Eck v. Brenda K. Mitchell William Boehm Frank A. Pecora John M. Perzel Robert J. Cindrich Allen G. Kukovich F. Joseph Loeper Robert J. Mellow J. William Lincoln Robert C. Jubelirer, 2 F.3d 508, 3rd Cir. (1993)Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964)Travia v. Lomenzo, 381 U.S. 431 (1965)McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981)Evenwel v. AbbottHadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50 (1970)Judson Edge, Ronald J. Foust, Georgia L. Deriso, David W. Tietjen, and Arthur Watts v. Sumter County School District, 775 F.2d 1509, 11th Cir. (1985)More From Laura NahmiasSkip carouselDecember 2013 Enrollment Report_Jan 13 2014Complaint Cohen FreidmanDonald Trump's Complaint Against Attorney General Eric SchneidermanTestimony Fugate 3-20-2013Medicaid Personal Care in New York City Service Use and Spending Patterns2013 08 06 DEI to Navarra Re NY MedicaidDarrell Issa Letter to John McDonald reASSEMBLYMEMBER- WILLIAM BOYLAND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM 2013Dan Halloran Diving Request
Government's Richard Lipsky Sentencing MemoRichard Lipsky Sentencing MemorandumBill Thompson Ask DOH to Table Soda Ban Vote911 Museum Final MOU FinalVelvet UndergroundRavi Batra Resignation Letter2009 Namcs Web TablesNYPIRG Pay to Play AnalysisEd Patterns Tables 20120907 Patterns of Emergency Department Utilization Report via United Hospital FundTime and AgainNew Kings Democrats Say Vito Lopez Sends out Misleading MailerRelease - Speaker Silver Welcomes JCOPE InvestigationGloria Allred Statement, August 30, 2012Speaker Silver Welcomes JCOPE InvestigationStatement from Gloria Allred, August 29, 2012Huntley LetterVito Lopez Letter 8-24-12Tappan Zee Bridge Environmental Impact Study SummaryProtecting Women’s Equality, Safety and Health CareProtecting Women’s Equality, Safety and Health Care