With New York's state Assembly Democratic-controlled (as always) and its state Senate having reverted to form with a GOP majority (albeit very narrowly) the assumption is that the state's new congressional map will be a bipartisan incumbent-protection plan that shores up vulnerable members of both sides, as well as dumps a member of each party as New York loses two seats.
I cannot communicate just how badly that in effect amounts to a GOP gerrymander. But I'll try. Imagine Bill Brady (R) had beaten Pat Quinn (D) in the race for Illinois governor last year. With split control in that state, the assumption would be a bipartisan incumbent-protection map as well. So that would essentially mean that Democrats would be going along with a plan to cement the 2010 fluke winners, and creating a map that gives Republicans more seats than they deserve to hold in a neutral environment, and puts most of them out of reach for the foreseeable future. It would literally be a worse map than the old one.
That is essentially what would happen in New York should the Assembly and Governor Cuomo allow an incumbent-protection map. Such a map gives the most benefit to tea party Republicans who wouldn't be able to win re-election in a neutral year. The Democrats who would benefit have already demonstrated their ability to get elected in swing districts during difficult times for our side. In short, we would be screwing ourselves massively. It is very critical that we understand just how rapidly New York has changed in recent years, particularly upstate New York. Under the current map, there are actually zero safe Republican seats, compared to 17 safe Dem seats. Between 2006 and 2010, we won every single seat in the state at least once except for Peter King's NY-03, which is only safe because of the incumbent's popularity. But even there, we held him to 56% in 2006. Were it an open seat, Obama's 47% would provide a good starting point for any Democrat (and Al Gore actually won the district). So any map that actually creates safe Republican seats out of swingy formerly Democratic-held seats (between 2006 and 2010) is essentially a GOP gerrymander.
But a compromise is required, so this is what I propose: a virtual repeat of the current map, minus two seats. Democrats still have a chance to take back a lot of the seats lost in 2010. Republicans also keep their ability to win seats that are quite red at the local level, like those held by Kathy Hochul and Bill Owens. That's the compromise.
Furthermore, with the assumption that Democrats will be losing a safe D seat, I refused to drop a Republican in a swingy seat as well. Getting rid of someone like Buerkle (who holds a 56% Obama seat) is not a fair trade for dropping Ackerman (a 63% Obama seat). That's dropping two Dem seats, just one of them happens to have a fluke GOP incumbent. Same goes for axing Bob Turner, that's also essentially dismantling a Dem seat. So I drew out Tom Reed who holds probably the most conservative upstate district, and even though Eric Massa won it in 2008, it was with a very narrow margin against an extremely scandal-plagued incumbent, and we lost it by 13 points last year so it's the obvious choice to go. Maps and details follow:
We'll start with Long Island of course.
NY-01 (Blue): Tim Bishop (D). Extends a bit further as it has to for population. 11.4% Hispanic now. He will still have to work hard every now and then to hold this district. Obama/McCain 51.6%/47.4% (old O/M 52/48).
NY-02 (Green): Steve Israel (D). Does the same. Up to 18.5% Hispanic now and 8.8% Black. O/M 55.5/43.7 (old 56/43).
NY-03 (Purple): Peter King (R). Continues the shift west as it must, now encroaching onto McCarthy's turf. I would have loved to dismantle this seat as it is probably the closest thing they have to a safe GOP seat but that's not realistic, from either a map-making or a political perspective. It is now only 80% white (old stats 94%) and in the future I think this seat is in reach. 47.3/51.9. (old 47/52).
NY-04 (Red): Carolyn McCarthy/Gary Ackerman (D). The lost Dem seat happens quickly here. Ackerman is the usual target of the lost seat but he has a fighting chance here because rather than see his district chopped up half a dozen ways as in other maps, it's mostly just a merge of his and McCarthy's seats. McCarthy also has a fair chance, but her district is being squeezed between Meek to the west and King to the east, so it has to go all the way north. As a hodgepodge of districts it maintains its significant minority constituencies. O/M 58/42. (McCarthy's was 58/41, Ackerman's was 63/36).
NY-05 (Yellow): Gregory Meeks (D). Had a hell of a time keeping the African-American percentage up as this district expands in physical area. Unfortunately, I found I had to cross into Nassau to find them. 49.5% African-American by VAP (53.9% old). This is the successor to the old NY-06 and from here on out every district drops one number. 88/12 (old 89/11).
NY-06 (Teal): Joseph Crowley (D). Shifts a bit further east to help gobble up leftovers from Ackerman's district, but mostly retains its current lines. I was sure I had done something wrong, but the racial stats are simply a reflection of the changing nature of Queens and the Bronx, plus the added Asian-Americans from Ackerman's old seat. 40.5% Hispanic, 26.9% Asian, 20.6% White, 10.2% Black (old stats 35.9 H, 12.9 A, 45.1 W, 18.7 B). Crowley is powerful and like I said he maintains most of his old territory, but when he's gone this will certainly favor a minority Representative. 75/24 (79/20).
NY-07 (Saddle Brown): Jerrold Nadler (D). Mostly the same, but goes further north up Manhattan's West Side now for population. Still keeps its silly tentacle down Brooklyn to grab part of Coney Island (I don't pretend to understand how these district lines came about). Now takes in Chinatown, significantly higher Asian (and Hispanic) numbers overall. 80/19 (74/26)
NY-08 (Slate Blue): Bob Turner (R). Between calls to either annihilate this unfortunate district, or to actually pack it in Brooklyn to be like 56% McCain, I decided the best compromise is simply to preserve it as is. Turner will have to demonstrate he isn't a fluke winner with his own electoral strength. Takes in a bit more of extremely conservative South Brooklyn (where in one precinct McCain hit an astounding 92% in) to balance it also growing to take in more of diverse Queens (leftovers from Ackerman). Asian population now at 23.9% O/M 55.4/43.8 (old 55/44).
NY-09 (Cyan): Ed Towns (D). Shifts a bit west, but mostly unchanged in physical area. But ten years of demographic change have dropped the African-American percentage from 63% to 52.9%. O/M 91/9 (91/9).
NY-10 (Deep Pink): Yvette Clarke (D). Looks like a fish swimming into Ed Towns' district. 52.3% Black compared to old stat of 61.2%, which again is unavoidable as there simply aren't enough African-Americans in Brooklyn to keep two congressional districts above 60% Black anymore. O/M 86/14 (91/9).
NY-11 (Light Green): Nydia Velázquez (D). Loses Chinatown, takes a bit more of Queens to maintain Hispanic numbers. 44.4% Hispanic by VAP but that will increase over time (old stat 48.5 but I couldn't seem to hit that number short of drastically reconfiguring the seat). 83/16 (86/13).
NY-12 (Cornflower Blue): Michael Grimm (R). Takes in a bit more of politically even Brooklyn precincts to make population. Why should Democrats agree to make him safe when we can win it back? Slightly higher minority percentages. O/M 48.3/50.9 (49/51).
NY-13 (Dark Salmon): Carolyn Maloney (D). Minor adjustments in Queens. 79/20 (78/21).
NY-14 (Lime Green): Charles Rangel (D). Squeezed from the south by the expanding Manhattan districts, it has to go somewhere. So it goes into the Bronx, doing its best to grab areas with significant African-American percentages (but, being the Bronx, also majority Hispanic). With the Manhattan areas of this district already having more Hispanics than African-Americans, when Rangel retires it is highly likely that north Manhattan sends a Latino to Congress. 51.9% Hispanic, 33.2% Black (old stats 47.6% Hispanic, 34.6% Black). O/M 95/5 (old 93/6).
NY-15 (Orange): José Serrano (D). His formerly compact southwest Bronx district shifts a bit north and to the east as NY-14 squeezes in (and to take a bit of Crowley's majority Hispanic precincts). Still, nothing to complain about for Serrano. 63.7% Hispanic (old 62.8%) The African-American percentage declines significantly though, and NY-15 loses the title of highest Obama percentage to NY-14. 92/8 (old 95/5).
NY-16 (Hot Pink): Eliot Engel (D). Barely any changes beyond the required expansion. 29.7% Black, 21.8% Hispanic. O/M 69/30 (old 72/28).
NY-17 (Spring Green): Nita Lowey (D). Grows in physical area and now pushes up against the Westchester County border. Similar percentages of minorities. O/M 61/38 (62/38).
NY-18 (Yellow): Nan Hayworth (R). Squeezed further north by the downstate districts, it loses all but a path to Mount Kisco (Hayworth's home). Has the expected slight increases in minority percentages but maintains overall the same partisanship, per my idea of this compromise. O/M 50.7/48.2 (old 51/48).
NY-19 (Cornflower Blue): Chris Gibson (R). Mostly the same, expands a bit of course. Again I refuse to endorse a bipartisan proposal to make districts like these safe GOP when they are eminently winnable by a Democrat. And if the GOP Senate balks, what are they going to do? Hope the courts draw a GOP gerrymander for them? O/M 51.1/47.1 (old 51/48).
NY-20 (Dark Green): Paul Tonko (D). Dropped it's arm into Rensselaer County and instead had it pick up a couple counties to the west, to maintain the competitiveness of nearby districts. 57/41 (old 58/40).
NY-21 (Maroon): Maurice Hinchey (D). Mostly squeezed out of Orange County (unpreventable) and so takes a bit more of upstate, including some of Reed's district, and some more areas around Ithaca to balance. 57/41 (old 59/39).
NY-22 (Dark Pink): Bill Owens (D). Squeezed out of some of its eastern portions and has to take in Rome now in Oneida County. Still the same overall numbers, Republicans will have a good chance of taking this back in a good year for them. 51.3/47 (old 52/47).
NY-23 (Goldenrod): Richard Hanna (R). With the loss of Rome to Owens, and other portions along the southern border to Hinchey, it is squeezed out westward all the way to the suburbs of Rochester, taking in a significant portion of Tom Reed's district, thus beginning the dismantling of it. Still quite winnable for Democrats, but ancestrally Republican. Fair in my eyes, and Democrats should agree to nothing less. 50.7/47.7 (old 51/48).
NY-24 (Indigo): Ann Marie Buerkle (R). Squeezed a bit out of Onondaga County by Owens, so takes a bit more south. But still essentially the same district, Syracuse to Rochester suburbs. Out of all the GOP seats, proposals to gerrymander a safe Republican one here infuriate me the most as she is a prime example of a fluke winner and this will go Dem again in any neutral year. We must not give her a safe seat, or pick this one to be axed (as that will be two Dem-leaning seats gone then). I refuse to believe that just because we lost a seat before redistricting, Democrats are obligated to protect the Republican afterwards in any compromise. O/M 55.7/42.6 (old 56/43).
NY-25 (Light Pink): Kathy Hochul (D). Practically identical. She demonstrated that she can win McCain's best district in the state against a credible, scandal-free Republican during a time when the Democratic Party is in deep trouble. Why should we pack her into a super-Dem seat and give up our chances at offense elsewhere? O/M 46.5/52 (old 46/52).
NY-26 (Dark Gray): Brian Higgins (D) / Tom Reed (R). Trades the 60%+ Dem areas of Buffalo for the 90%+ Dem areas with Louise Slaughter, thus keeping the Dem percentage stable as it expands greatly to eat up a good portion of Reed's district, including his home in Corning. I know the typical way to drop an incumbent as a state loses districts is with a same-party deathmatch but there is no way to do that here that doesn't actually sacrifice a seat that Obama won, which defeats the purpose. Reed had to go as his was the most Republican (Bush's highest margins) and by dropping the conservative congressman in a Buffalo district (that Higgins won last year with 60%), Reed simply can't win. O/M 55.3/43.1 (old Higgins 54/44, old Reed 48/51).
NY-27 (Sea Green): Louise Slaughter (D). I was so tempted to drop the stupid arm connecting Rochester and Buffalo and just have two separate, compact districts based in each city, but the whole point of this map is the least amount of changes possible from the last bipartisan map, while maintaining the same level of competitiveness. So the arm remains. Hands off the more African-American areas of Buffalo to Higgins (drops from 29% Black to 15%) however so the district does unpack significantly. O/M 62/37 (old 69/30).
So that's that. A map that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, as it keeps the status quo that worked last time. Republicans will be upset all their fluke winners aren't safe, but they do maintain the ability to further their gains by targeting Owens, Hochul, and even Bishop. Democrats will be upset Hochul and Owens aren't safe, but it seems like an easy price to pay to keep the ability to run the table upstate and win 4 seats there, plus Anthony Weiner's old seat for 5 net gains.
And yes, I know this is fundamentally unlikely as it seems in every split control redistricting the trend is always to protect incumbents of both parties, and reduce competitiveness (California 2002 being the prime example of that). I am merely arguing that this is what Democrats should insist on, as anything else actually makes things worse for us. And if we risk a court-drawn map, so be it. I don't think a court will pack Democrats and leave lean-GOP seats any more than the current map already does. Giving the Republicans six safe GOP seats in New York would be the biggest blunder in redistricting since Missouri Democrats overrode the veto of their own Dem governor to pass the GOP gerrymander.