Democrats in Albany last week OK’d new districts for New York elections for the next 10 years. It was an obscene partisan gerrymander that rigs US House and state legislative seats in Democrats’ favor, with far-reaching consequences both nationally and for New York.
And it’s as clear a symbol as any of politicians picking their voters, instead of voters selecting them.
Equally troubling, the move also flouts New York’s Constitution: Democrats acted in blatant violation of an anti-gerrymandering amendment voters added in 2014, which specifically says, “Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.”
Yet despite the voters’ clear command to steer clear of such games, Democratic majorities in the Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul simply pretend it doesn’t matter. They blithely claim their plans are drawn fairly and are consistent with the Constitution.
Republican voters have now sued to overturn this sham. In their court papers, the plaintiffs point out that the Democrats’ plan for Congress is more partisan than 5,000 computer-generated alternatives for the state’s 26 congressional districts.
A renowned national expert on redistricting, Dave Wasserman, believes the Democrats’ plans likely runs afoul of the state Constitution, but also points out the Dems’ dirty little secret relating to the state courts: Democrats operate under the assumption that the judiciary is in their pocket.
Comparing New York’s constitutional ban on gerrymandering to a similar provision in Ohio, Wasserman states: “There’s little doubt that if the NY reform’s anti-gerrymandering language were enforced as the OH reform’s language has been, NY’s Dem gerrymander would be struck down too. The only real difference in the outlook: the timeline and makeup of state courts.”
Democrats figure that, regardless of how egregious their gerrymander and no matter what the state Constitution may say, they’ll win with a compliant and partisan judiciary. Such confidence cynically assumes the judiciary is comprised of mere political partisans who fail to recognize the importance of the oath they took to uphold the constitutions of both the United States and the state of New York.
Yes, both parties engage in gerrymandering throughout the nation. But other states aren’t constrained by the strict anti-gerrymandering language that New York voters added to our Constitution in 2014.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently relied upon its constitutional prohibitions against gerrymandering to toss Republican-sponsored maps of congressional and legislative districts. Other state courts have acted similarly.
Some people complain that litigation over district lines could delay the candidate-petitioning schedule and even the June primary election. Yet Democrats were aware of the schedule when they adopted their unconstitutional districting scheme and cannot now in good faith claim a hardship they themselves caused.
And there’s no doubt the new districts violate the language: In every single instance, changes in the political complexion of the district have benefitted Democrats and hurt Republicans. In some instances, strongly Democratic districts have been made slightly less Democratic but never enough so as to make such districts competitive.
The gerrymandering has also produced peculiarly formed boundaries: The 3rd Congressional District now covering parts of Nassau, Suffolk and Queens has been reconstituted by adding parts of The Bronx and Westchester. This five-county amalgamation is unnatural and doesn’t reflect any community of interest among these constituencies — but it does transform the district into a solidly Democratic one.
The boundaries of Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s Manhattan/Brooklyn district have been made even odder, and it’s clear why: to help a Democrat defeat GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis by adding solidly Democratic areas of Brooklyn to her Staten Island-based district.
The people spoke clearly in 2014 when they adopted the anti-gerrymandering provisions in our Constitution. Since the Democratic Legislature and Hochul have decided that partisanship is more important than their constitutional oath, we must now rely upon fair-minded judges to right this wrong.
John J. Faso has served in Congress and the state Assembly. He was Republican candidate for governor in 2006.
