{"id":3605,"date":"2022-04-02T00:31:52","date_gmt":"2022-04-02T00:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/linksus.net\/judge-tosses-n-y-district-lines-citing-democrats-bias-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2022-04-02T00:31:52","modified_gmt":"2022-04-02T00:31:52","slug":"judge-tosses-n-y-district-lines-citing-democrats-bias-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/2022\/04\/02\/judge-tosses-n-y-district-lines-citing-democrats-bias-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Tosses N.Y. District Lines, Citing Democrats\u2019 \u2018Bias\u2019 – The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

Advertisement
Supported by
The ruling by a Republican judge would send New York back to the drawing board if upheld and could delay its primaries. Democrats vowed to appeal it.
Send any friend a story<\/strong>
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles<\/strong> to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
By <\/span>Nicholas Fandos<\/a><\/span>
A New York State judge ruled on Thursday that Democrats had unconstitutionally drawn new congressional districts for partisan advantage, and he blocked their use in this year\u2019s election, potentially throwing the midterm contests into turmoil.
In a sweeping ruling, Justice Patrick F. McAllister of State Supreme Court concluded that Democrats who control Albany had drawn the congressional lines for partisan advantage, violating a new constitutional prohibition on partisan gerrymandering adopted by New York voters.
Justice McAllister, a Republican in rural Steuben County, accused Democrats of embracing tactics they have denounced Republicans for using in order to create a map that gave them an advantage in 22 of 26 New York seats. He called such gerrymandering a \u201cscourge\u201d on democracy.
\u201cThe court finds by clear evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the congressional map was unconstitutionally drawn with political bias,\u201d he wrote in the opinion.
The judge also tossed out fresh State Senate and Assembly districts that he said were the product of an irrevocably tainted mapmaking process. He ordered Democrats to come up with new \u201cbipartisanly supported maps\u201d by April 11.
If they fail, Justice McAllister said he would appoint an independent special master to draw them, raising the possibility that candidates already campaigning could be left in limbo for weeks, and that primaries scheduled for June could be delayed.
The ruling, which Democrats predicted would be overturned on appeal, was the latest setback for their party in what has become a high-stakes national redistricting battle that may help determine which party controls the House of Representatives next year.
Last week, a judge in Maryland ruled that district lines that would have given Democrats an advantage in at least seven of eight districts were an \u201cextreme gerrymander\u201d<\/a> and gave lawmakers just a few days to attempt a new configuration. Just days earlier, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin legislative map that would have created a new majority Black district. And it now appears<\/a> that a new Ohio House map that heavily favors Republicans will stand for 2022, despite a state court ruling<\/a> that declared it a partisan gerrymander.
Democrats view New York as perhaps the best opportunity for the party to use its unified control of a large blue state to flip a handful of congressional seats as it tries to stave off a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives this November.
The ruling in New York came on the same day that a federal judge in Florida decreed that portions of a year-old election law championed by Republicans there were unconstitutional and racially motivated<\/a>. A judge in North Carolina<\/a> has also already ruled against maps where Republican-led legislatures drew lines that clearly favored their party\u2019s candidates.
For New Yorkers, the politically charged redistricting saga captured in Thursday\u2019s ruling is what they had hoped to avoid when voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2014 to largely turn over the mapmaking process to a bipartisan outside commission like the ones used in some other states.
The commission began its work for the first time last year with considerable promise. But instead of removing partisanship from the process, as many had hoped, it became mired in it: Democratic and Republican members this winter failed to agree<\/a> on a single set of maps that they could formally recommend to state lawmakers in Albany for ratification.
That left Democrats \u2014 who control the governorship and supermajorities in both the State Senate and Assembly for the first time in decades \u2014 more or less free to draw maps of their choosing.
In February, they approved new congressional lines<\/a> that could endanger as many as four current House Republicans, a greater shift than in any other state, by moving lines on Long Island, in New York City and upstate. The State Senate map promised similar Democratic advantages.
Justice McAllister took issue with that process, saying that Democratic lawmakers had effectively tried to alter the State Constitution and subvert the will of the voters by drawing maps unilaterally after the commission gave up. He stipulated that any replacements must be approved by bipartisan majorities, despite Democratic control in the capitol, or the courts would step in to set the lines.
Justice McAllister did not explicitly find the State Senate or Assembly maps to be unconstitutional gerrymanders. But he agreed with the plaintiffs that the congressional maps violated language in the 2014 amendment saying that districts \u201cshall not be drawn to discourage competition\u201d or to intentionally favor or hurt a particular candidate or political party.
\u201cGerrymandering discrimination hurts everyone because it tends to silence minority voices,\u201d Justice McAllister wrote. \u201cWhen we choose to ignore the benefits of compromise we not only hurt others, we hurt ourselves as well.\u201d
What is redistricting? <\/strong>It\u2019s the redrawing of the boundaries<\/a>\u00a0of congressional and state legislative districts. It happens every 10 years, after the census, to reflect changes in population.<\/span>
Why is it important this year? <\/strong>With an extremely slim Democratic margin in the House of Representatives, simply redrawing maps in a few key states could determine control of Congress in 2022<\/a>.<\/span>
How does it work? <\/strong>The census dictates how many seats in Congress each state will get<\/a>. Mapmakers then work to ensure that a state\u2019s districts all have roughly the same number of residents, to ensure equal representation in the House.<\/span>
Who draws the new maps? <\/strong>Each state has its own process<\/a>. Eleven states leave the mapmaking to an outside panel. But most \u2014 39 states \u2014 have state lawmakers draw the new maps for Congress.<\/span>
If state legislators can draw their own districts, won\u2019t they be biased? <\/strong>Yes. Partisan mapmakers often move district lines \u2014 subtly or egregiously \u2014 to cluster voters in\u00a0a way that advances a political goal<\/a>. This is called gerrymandering.<\/span>
What is gerrymandering? <\/strong>It refers to the intentional distortion of district maps<\/a>\u00a0to give one party an advantage. While all districts must have roughly the same population, mapmakers can make subjective decisions to create a partisan tilt<\/a>.<\/span>
Is gerrymandering legal? <\/strong>Yes and no. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have no role to play in blocking partisan gerrymanders<\/a>. However, the court left intact parts of the Voting Rights Act that prohibit racial or ethnic gerrymandering.<\/span>
Want to know more about redistricting and gerrymandering? <\/strong>Times reporters answer your most pressing questions here<\/a>.<\/span>
In court, Democrats insisted that the changes are not only constitutional, but a natural outcome in a state where right-leaning rural areas are fast losing population and Democratic-friendly urban ones are growing. On Thursday, they said they were confident that higher courts would show deference to the Legislature and overturn Justice McAllister\u2019s ruling.
In a joint statement, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Letitia James, the state attorney general, said that they would appeal the ruling promptly.
\u201cThis is one step in the process,\u201d said Michael Murphy, a spokesman for the State Senate Democrats. \u201cWe always knew this case would be decided by the appellate courts.\u201d
Democrats could challenge the ruling in either the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court or the State Court of Appeals \u2014 New York\u2019s highest court, whose members were all appointed by Democrats. Analysts said that both venues would likely be more favorable to Democrats than rural Steuben County. Either way, their appeal will almost certainly result in a stay of Judge McAllister\u2019s decision.
\u201cThe plaintiffs got what they wanted by going to court in Steuben County,\u201d said Jeffrey Wice, an adjunct professor at New York Law School\u2019s Census and Redistricting Institute. \u201cWhether they carry their victory all the way to the State Court of Appeals is an uphill battle for them.\u201d
Regardless of the ultimate ruling, Mr. Wice said it was highly unlikely that the higher courts would suspend this year\u2019s election calendar, as Justice McAllister suggested in his ruling. The period for potential candidates in New York to collect petitions to qualify to run in the new districts is scheduled to end next week. Restarting the process would be costly and chaotic.
The plaintiffs in the case were voters across the state, but their lawsuit was financed and supervised by Republicans in Albany and Washington<\/a> who sued almost as soon as Ms. Hochul signed the new maps into law in February.
Republicans, who have made stopping New York\u2019s new maps a top national priority, celebrated the ruling on Thursday and predicted they would prevail on appeal.
\u201cThe Democrats in New York should be ashamed of themselves for what they tried to do here,\u201d said Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who is a chairman of the National Republican Redistricting Trust.
But it was not strictly partisans who were pleased with the outcome. Jeremy M. Creelan, who helped draft the 2014 constitutional amendment as an aide to then-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, said that Thursday\u2019s ruling should quiet critics who argued the changes were entirely ineffectual.
\u201cIt\u2019s clear that the constitutional amendment served the critical reform function that was intended,\u201d he said.
Advertisement<\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AdvertisementSupported byThe ruling by a Republican judge would send New York back to the drawing board if upheld and could delay its primaries. Democrats vowed to appeal it.Send any friend a storyAs a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.By Nicholas FandosA New York State judge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":869,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3605"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/869"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/linksus2.linksus.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}