New York State Insider: Albany Times Union Oped from Former Congressman John Faso: New York’s Unconstitutional Gerrymander.

 

Source: Albany Times Union.

Commentary: New York’s gerrymandering violates state’s constitution.

John J. Faso March 1, 2022 In 2014, New York voters added a fair elections provision to their state constitution. The new provision, contained in Article III, Section 4, reads as follows: “Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.” The language is clear. But Democratic majorities in the state Assembly and Senate, as well as Gov. Kathy Hochul, acted in willful disregard for the plain meaning of the constitution when they adopted new congressional and legislative maps, signed on February 3. These new political districts, in force for the next 10 years, are blatant partisan gerrymanders. It is not just Republicans who say so either. Dave Wasserman, perhaps the foremost national commentator on redistricting, said that the congressional map was “an effective gerrymander,” designed so that Democrats will “gain three seats and eliminate four Republican seats” in Congress, creating “probably the biggest shift in the country.” Michael Li, attorney for the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, stated that the congressional map “isn’t good for democracy” because it is a “master class in gerrymandering.” Republican plaintiffs have sued in state Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate maps for Congress and the state Senate. Plaintiff experts evaluating the congressional and Senate maps performed a statistical analysis comparing each map to simulations of 5,000 potential districts. Each enacted map was more skewed to the Democratic Party’s political interests than any of the 5,000 alternatives. Despite protestations from Democrats that they had no partisan designs, the evidence shows otherwise. Examination of maps indicates multiple instances where closely contested districts based on past political performance were enhanced to benefit Democrats and disadvantage Republicans. In four separate instances, GOP congressional districts were made overwhelmingly Republican to increase Democratic chances elsewhere. None of these alterations was mere happenstance; all were deliberately made to effectuate a partisan result. Some justify the New York gerrymander by citing GOP efforts in other states to advantage their party through redistricting. Yet those states do not have the explicit constitutional commands against partisan gerrymandering. Other state courts, such as in Ohio and North Carolina, have rejected GOP maps based on anti-gerrymandering language in their state constitutions. If gerrymandering is wrong elsewhere, rigging district lines in New York doesn’t make it right. Others argue that courts should not reject this plan because candidates will soon begin the process of gaining ballot access for the June primary. But, as in other states, courts can delay election timelines and even move the primary election if necessary to uphold our constitution. It is no secret that New York Democrats figure they can rely upon the state’s judiciary to do their partisan bidding. That is a risky assumption. Prior political affiliation is no guarantee as to how a judge will decide a case. Those who smugly make this assumption deserve to be disappointed. Ultimately, the state Court of Appeals will have to decide whether the constitution means what it says. The anti-gerrymandering language in the constitution is mandatory, not discretionary. Most citizens are dismayed at the increasing polarization across the nation. There are many reasons for such polarization: distrust of institutions, decline of local newspapers and the increasing prevalence of social media and cable programming, which elevate the most strident and extreme voices. The rise of gerrymandered congressional and legislative districts tends to force candidates to cater to their base voters rather than voices in the political center. If implemented, New York’s new anti-gerrymandering constitutional provision would foster the creation of more competitive districts. Political competition, in which candidates must appeal broadly to voters and not just partisans in their base, would be good for the state and nation. Hopefully, the citizens of New York weren’t misled when they voted for fair districting in our state. John J. Faso served in Congress and the state Assembly. He was Republican candidate for governor in 2006. https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Commentary-New-York-s-gerrymandering-violates-16965340.php