Redistricting 2020: Challenges to Hispanic Congressional Representation in New York State

Home , Adriano Espaillat, Nicole Malliotakis, Ritchie Torres

RESEARCH BRIEF Issued March 2021 By: Carlos Vargas-Ramos1 Centro DS2021-01 In months ahead, governmental institutions at the federal, state and local levels will begin anew the process of apportioning political power in the United States that comes in the heels of the decennial census. New York Latino U.S. representatives, and specifically Puerto Ri- can representatives, are vulnerable to losing their congressional seats in the upcoming process of congressional reapportionment and redistricting.

In this brief we present an analysis of population change Congressional Reapportionment: The Pro- at the state, county and congressional district levels to cess of Readjusting Political Power illustrate the changes to come in anticipation of the pro- The federal apportionment of the House of Represen- cess of congressional reapportionment and redistricting tatives is a constitutionally mandated task.2 This appor- as it affects federal political representation in New York tionment is based on the decennial enumeration the U.S. State. New York gained population between decades, Census Bureau presently conducts.3 Each state, irrespec- but at a very low rate. New York gained population tive of population size, is entitled to one Representative. because of the sustained growth of the state’s Hispanic The remaining Representatives are then apportioned to population, which countered the declining population of states on the basis of their population size.4 the state, particularly the decreasing non-Hispanic white population. The year 2020 saw the completion of the decennial census and the general elections which resulted in the Given this context, if New York State is to lose two seats election of several new members to the House of Rep- in the U.S. House of Representatives, one question is resentatives from New York State.5 The year 2021 will whether such loss will come at the expense of Hispan- see the release of census data likely showing hardly any ic representation. The analysis of data suggests that population growth in New York State between 2010 and upstate counties had significant population loss, while 2020 (about 0.3%). In contrast, as many as nine states in three New York City boroughs (i.e., Kings, New York and the Sunbelt and Mountain West will see growth at twice Bronx) and three adjacent counties (Westchester, Rock- the rate as the national average (about 6%). New York land and Orange) represented areas with some of the State is therefore likely to lose congressional represen- largest population growth in the state. A pertinent inter- tation in the next round of reapportionment. This loss of related question in the analysis of redistricting is whether congressional representation will result in at least one all potential losses of representatives’ districts should congressional seat and very likely two seats lost. come from upstate counties, where population losses have been greater, in order to prevent disenfranchise- New York State has lost two representatives in the House ment of downstate district voters. 1 Table 1. Population Change by State, 2010-2019

2019 Total 2010 Total Difference 2010-2019 Percent Change 2010-2019

District of Columbia 705,749 604,453 101,296 16.8% Utah 3,205,958 2,776,469 429,489 15.5% Texas 28,995,881 25,257,114 3,738,767 14.8% Colorado 5,758,736 5,049,071 709,665 14.1% Florida 21,477,737 18,843,326 2,634,411 14.0% Nevada 3,080,156 2,704,642 375,514 13.9% Idaho 1,787,065 1,571,450 215,615 13.7% Arizona 7,278,717 6,413,737 864,980 13.5% North Dakota 762,062 674,499 87,563 13.0% Washington 7,614,893 6,744,496 870,397 12.9% South Carolina 5,148,714 4,636,312 512,402 11.1% Oregon 4,217,737 3,838,957 378,780 9.9% North Carolina 10,488,084 9,561,558 926,526 9.7% Georgia 10,617,423 9,712,587 904,836 9.3% South Dakota 884,659 816,463 68,196 8.4% Delaware 973,764 899,769 73,995 8.2% Montana 1,068,778 990,898 77,880 7.9% Tennessee 6,829,174 6,356,897 472,277 7.4% Virginia 8,535,519 8,024,617 510,902 6.4% Minnesota 5,639,632 5,310,584 329,048 6.2% California 39,512,223 37,349,363 2,162,860 5.8% Nebraska 1,934,408 1,830,429 103,979 5.7% Oklahoma 3,956,971 3,761,702 195,269 5.2% Massachusetts 6,892,503 6,557,254 335,249 5.1% Maryland 6,045,680 5,785,982 259,698 4.5% Hawaii 1,415,872 1,363,621 52,251 3.8% Indiana 6,732,219 6,490,621 241,598 3.7% Iowa 3,155,070 3,049,883 105,187 3.4% Arkansas 3,017,804 2,921,606 96,198 3.3% New Hampshire 1,359,711 1,316,759 42,952 3.3% Kentucky 4,467,673 4,346,266 121,407 2.8% Wyoming 578,759 564,460 14,299 2.5% Alabama 4,903,185 4,785,298 117,887 2.5% Alaska 731,545 713,985 17,560 2.5% Missouri 6,137,428 5,996,231 141,197 2.4% Wisconsin 5,822,434 5,691,047 131,387 2.3% Louisiana 4,648,794 4,544,228 104,566 2.3% Kansas 2,913,314 2,859,169 54,145 1.9% New Mexico 2,096,829 2,065,932 30,897 1.5% Ohio 11,689,100 11,536,182 152,918 1.3% Maine 1,344,212 1,327,567 16,645 1.3% Michigan 9,986,857 9,877,574 109,283 1.1% New Jersey 8,882,190 8,801,624 80,566 0.9% Pennsylvania 12,801,989 12,709,630 92,359 0.7% Rhode Island 1,059,361 1,052,886 6,475 0.6% New York 19,453,561 19,392,283 61,278 0.3% Mississippi 2,976,149 2,970,036 6,113 0.2% Vermont 623,989 625,960 -1,971 -0.3% Connecticut 3,565,287 3,577,073 -11,786 -0.3% Illinois 12,671,821 12,843,166 -171,345 -1.3% West Virginia 1,792,147 1,853,973 -61,826 -3.3% TOTAL 328,239,523 309,349,689 18,889,834 6.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B01003); 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: DP05) 2 every decade since 1990, and a total of 18 since 1940, rado, Florida, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, North Dakota and the height of New York congressional power, when it had Washington) grew at rates twice the national average. An 45 representatives.6 Traditionally, the way redistricting additional ten states grew between the national average has taken place in New York State after losing two repre- and twice that rate. Another 25 states grew at lower rates sentatives is that one district has been lost upstate and of growth, but faster than New York State. New York’s another downstate, with one Democrat and one Republi- population only grew faster than the population of five can sacrificing their seats. Population loss in the districts other states (i.e., Mississippi, Vermont, Connecticut, is one factor for losing the district, along with a represen- Illinois, West Virginia). New York State is therefore at tative’s relative political power in the state congressional the bottom of the national population growth ranks. This delegation given by the seniority of the member and the tepid population growth will result in the loss of congres- political parties that control the state legislative cham- sional representation as congressional seats are redis- bers. Relevant will also be the relationship between the tributed nationally in the process of reapportionment as a representatives whose district might be in jeopardy and result of changes in population during the decade. the different county party organizations. Within the state of New York, population is not distributed Population Change between 2010 and 2019 evenly either. Neither has been the change in population Table 1 shows the rate of population growth at the state between 2010 and 2020. A review of population changes level between 2010 and 2019, the latest year for which at the county level between 2010 and 2019, the last year data are presently available. During that period, the U.S. for which there are Census Bureau data readily avail- population has grown at a rate in excess of 6%. The Dis- able, shows that 49 of the state’s 62 counties lost popu- trict of Columbia and nine states (i.e., Utah, Texas, Colo- lation (see Table 2). All of these 49 counties were located upstate or eastern Long Island (see Figure 1). Fourteen Fig.Figure 1 Total1. Total Population Population Change Change by County, 2010-2019 by County, 2010 to 2019 Clinton

Franklin St. Lawrence

Essex Jefferson

Lewis

Hamilton Westchester Warren

Washington Oswego

Orleans Niagara Herkimer Oneida Bronx Monroe Wayne Fulton Saratoga Genesee Onondaga Montgomery Ontario Madison New Seneca Schenectady York Erie Cayuga Wyoming Rensselaer Livingston Yates Otsego Queens Nassau Cortland Albany Schoharie Tompkins Chenango Schuyler Allegany Chautauqua Cattaraugus Steuben Greene Columbia Delaware Kings Chemung Tioga Broome

Ulster Richmond

Dutchess

Percentage Change Sullivan -5.5% or lower Putnam -3% to -5.4% Orange 0.0% to - 2.9% Westchester +0.1% to +1.5% Rockland +1.6% to +4.5% Bronx Suffolk New York Kings Nassau Richmond Queens

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates 3 Table 2. Population Change by County in New York State, 2010-2019 Non-Hispanic Total Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Native Two or More Hispanic County Black Asian Population White Native American Hawaiian Races Alone Albany 0.5% -0.9% -5.4% 6.2% -5.6% 39.2% 22.5% 28.7% 26.7% Allegany -5.9% -6.2% -7.0% 18.1% 11.3% 22.1% 50.0% 19.9% 16.3% Bronx 2.2% -3.8% -16.1% -2.1% 0.4% 14.0% -6.5% 16.0% 7.4% Broome -5.0% -6.0% -9.0% 19.1% 5.0% 15.7% 31.3% 24.3% 24.0% Cattaraugus -5.1% -5.5% -6.7% 5.1% 6.3% 12.7% 93.3% 23.6% 19.6% Cayuga -4.2% -4.9% -5.8% 0.3% 4.5% 22.5% 52.0% 23.3% 26.0% Chautauqua -5.8% -7.4% -8.2% -2.4% 7.8% 21.3% 10.0% 14.4% 19.2% Chemung -6.1% -6.8% -7.6% -11.4% 10.3% 13.9% 0.0% 23.5% 19.3% Chenango -6.3% -6.8% -7.5% 26.1% 1.3% 34.2% 50.0% 17.3% 16.4% Clinton -2.0% -2.4% -3.3% 6.4% 9.4% 18.9% 12.5% 9.3% 16.5% Columbia -5.7% -6.8% -8.1% 2.6% 24.4% 16.8% 11.1% 13.2% 21.5% Cortland -3.4% -4.0% -4.8% 18.5% -3.1% 11.7% 225.0% 12.2% 20.6% Delaware -7.8% -8.5% -9.3% 9.8% 13.1% 19.5% 87.5% 6.1% 12.7% Dutchess -1.2% -3.8% -6.5% 12.1% -2.3% 0.4% 35.3% 18.8% 20.7% Erie 0.0% -1.3% -3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 44.2% 37.8% 31.4% 26.2% Essex -6.3% -6.7% -7.1% -13.6% 23.2% 8.0% 125.0% 23.5% 10.2% Franklin -3.1% -3.8% -4.2% -3.1% -2.8% 5.0% 37.5% 9.9% 18.8% Fulton -3.7% -4.9% -5.5% 4.2% 21.4% 15.3% 63.6% 14.3% 45.8% Genesee -4.4% -5.2% -5.8% 5.1% -2.8% 2.2% 100.0% 13.3% 22.3% Greene -4.0% -5.3% -6.5% -3.8% 12.2% 53.9% 0.0% 26.7% 22.1% Hamilton -9.0% -9.8% -10.9% 33.3% 8.3% 41.7% 0.0% 35.6% 70.6% Herkimer -4.9% -5.5% -6.3% 20.2% 22.6% 6.1% 62.5% 26.9% 33.6% Jefferson -5.8% -8.2% -10.6% 18.2% 1.7% 15.9% -10.4% 12.3% 35.5% Kings 2.0% 3.1% 4.6% -5.8% -7.1% 20.0% 3.0% 48.4% -2.6% Lewis -2.9% -3.3% -3.7% -9.3% 32.6% 33.8% 94.1% 31.3% 23.8% Livingston -3.6% -4.7% -5.3% 2.1% 9.5% 5.0% 60.0% 15.2% 34.9% Madison -3.4% -3.9% -4.5% -0.9% -9.4% 18.5% 45.5% 27.1% 23.6% Monroe -0.4% -2.4% -4.2% 0.4% 0.4% 9.5% 19.4% 23.6% 25.4% Montgomery -2.2% -6.3% -7.9% 43.9% 29.2% 9.9% 145.5% 25.0% 30.6% Nassau 1.1% -2.2% -9.7% 10.4% 14.2% 38.1% 49.4% 33.7% 20.6% New York 2.5% 2.4% 0.4% -2.8% 1.2% 13.3% 11.5% 24.0% 2.9% Niagara -3.3% -4.5% -6.0% 2.0% -0.8% 24.8% 38.5% 26.4% 47.5% Oneida -2.6% -4.1% -6.6% 2.9% 0.4% 39.5% 67.3% 24.1% 29.2% Onondaga -1.5% -2.6% -5.0% 3.0% -0.4% 20.1% 18.9% 22.2% 25.6% Ontario 1.5% -0.3% -1.2% 9.5% 8.0% 33.3% 25.0% 16.7% 51.2% Orange 3.1% -1.3% -5.3% 18.9% 3.1% 19.6% 47.1% 20.0% 22.7% Orleans -5.8% -6.8% -7.5% -2.8% 6.4% 24.6% 57.1% 8.6% 16.3% Oswego -4.1% -4.7% -5.5% 30.5% 1.5% 8.2% 125.0% 30.8% 25.6% Otsego -4.4% -5.2% -6.2% 28.7% 12.3% 20.0% 52.4% 1.9% 17.7% Putnam -1.4% -6.5% -8.4% 36.9% 7.5% 11.5% 35.0% 21.3% 37.4% Queens 0.9% 0.0% -10.2% -2.0% -2.9% 11.9% 12.4% 20.7% 3.1% Rensselaer -0.4% -1.8% -4.1% 16.2% 11.1% 22.1% 50.0% 11.6% 35.5% Richmond 1.4% -0.2% -5.8% -0.8% -6.5% 44.3% 2.0% 26.3% 8.9% Rockland 4.3% 1.0% 0.0% 4.3% -13.5% 0.9% 48.1% 23.1% 21.9% St. Lawrence -3.6% -4.1% -4.7% 7.6% -9.2% 4.0% 44.4% 16.2% 20.8% Saratoga 4.4% 3.4% 1.4% 34.1% 12.2% 63.3% 51.3% 27.3% 44.6% Schenectady 0.3% -1.5% -6.8% 20.3% 30.6% 33.3% 38.9% 21.8% 29.5% Schoharie -5.2% -5.7% -6.2% -4.7% 9.3% 5.0% 0.0% 21.3% 14.8% Schuyler -2.9% -3.6% -4.5% 20.4% 20.9% 123.1% 75.0% 17.0% 51.3% Seneca -3.5% -4.5% -5.8% 6.8% 38.3% 8.1% 0.0% 40.2% 31.1% Steuben -3.7% -4.0% -4.7% 0.7% 6.1% 29.1% 15.4% 16.6% 18.1% Suffolk -1.2% -5.5% -8.1% 6.8% -3.5% 16.9% 12.0% 16.6% 20.4% Sullivan -2.6% -6.1% -7.8% -3.2% 4.1% 27.8% 21.4% 20.9% 19.5% Tioga -5.5% -6.2% -6.9% 23.9% 32.9% -0.3% 25.0% 29.2% 44.0% Tompkins 0.4% -0.7% -3.4% 7.6% 4.1% 16.2% 7.3% 12.0% 25.3% Ulster -2.7% -4.6% -6.3% 6.5% -1.4% 15.8% 44.8% 14.9% 18.0% Warren -2.6% -3.6% -4.7% 47.2% 16.0% 29.5% 140.0% 22.7% 50.1% Washington -3.4% -4.1% -4.8% 4.7% 26.4% 30.2% 63.6% 24.0% 24.9% Wayne -4.1% -5.0% -5.7% -6.2% 14.2% 27.1% 45.8% 19.6% 20.1% Westchester 1.8% -3.0% -7.0% 4.2% 1.5% 15.3% 26.2% 24.3% 18.7% Wyoming -5.4% -5.7% -5.8% -11.4% 15.4% 26.3% 57.1% 29.9% 5.1% Yates -1.8% -2.4% -3.2% 7.5% 47.5% 108.6% 100.0% 18.8% 34.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates 4 counties saw their populations increase, most of them Population losses across the state and its counties were located downstate, in the immediate vicinity of New York driven mostly by the decrease in the largest group in the City: Orange, Rockland, Westchester, New York’s five state—non-Hispanic whites—and to a lesser extent by the boroughs and Nassau. (Saratoga, Albany, Schenectady, non-Hispanic black population. The non-Hispanic white Ontario and Tompkins also saw their population numbers population represented 55% of the state’s population in increase. Erie’s population remained virtually unchanged.) 2019; but it declined by 5.1% from 2010 (see Table 3). Non-Hispanic blacks represented 14% of the state’s popu- Variations in growth are also evident for the different eth- lation, and declined by 0.5%. New York’s population grew nic and racial group that make up the state’s population. because its non-Hispanic Asian, Native Hawaiian, and

Table 3. Population Change by Ethnicity in New York State, 2010-2019 NEW YORK STATE 2010 2019 Percentage change TOTAL POPULATION 19,399,878 19,453,561 0.3% NOT HISPANIC 15,968,337 15,702,503 -1.7% One Race: White 11,338,096 10,755,420 -5.1% Black or African American 2,829,157 2,813,773 -0.5% American Indian and Alaska Native 56,595 56,781 0.3% Asian 1,454,315 1,713,428 17.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 7,711 8,983 16.5% Two or More Races 282,463 354,118 25.4% HISPANIC 3,431,541 3,751,058 9.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates Figure 2. Non-Hispanic White Population Change by County, 2010-2019 Fig. 2 Non-Hispanic White Population Change by County, 2010 to 2019 Clinton

Franklin St. Lawrence

Essex Jefferson

Lewis

Hamilton Westchester Warren

Washington Oswego

Ulster Richmond

Dutchess

Percentage Change Sullivan -10% or Lower Putnam -5% to -9.9% Orange 0.0% to -6.9% Westchester 0.1% to +1% Rockland +1.1% to +5.0% Bronx Suffolk New York Kings Nassau Richmond Queens

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates 5 multiracial populations as well as Hispanics, which grew triple digits. by 17.8%, 16.5%, 25.4% and 9.3%, respectively. Howev- er, it was specifically the growth of the Hispanic popula- Similar changes in population are also evident at the con- tion that drove the state’s population growth, by more than gressional district level. Members of the 113th Congress 319,000 people. The non-Hispanic population as a whole of the United States (2013-2015), the first Congress elect- declined by 1.7% between 2010 and 2019. ed after the previous apportionment and redistricting, represented approximately 717,700 constituents at the start At the county-level, there are also notable variations in the of their term (first session). In contrast, representatives of changes in population between 2010 and 2019. Whereas 116th Congress (2019-2020) from New York represented 49 counties lost population overall during this period, the between 687,000 (23rd district) and 776,000 (8th district); non-Hispanic population decreased in most, declining a difference in excess of 12% (see Table 4).7 Population in 57 counties (see Table 2). Driving this decline across change between 2010 and 2019 at the congressional counties was the non-Hispanic white population, which district level has ranged between a gain of 8% in the inter- declined in 59 counties (see Figure 2), followed by the vening years (8th district) and a loss of 4% (23rd district). non-Hispanic black population. In contrast, non-Hispan- Of the twenty-seven congressional districts in New York, ic Asians and Latinos each only lost population in one fourteen saw their population increase,8 while twelve lost county (for Hispanics, see Figure 3). The proportion of population.9 One was relatively unchanged.10 Five of the growth of these two population groups was in the double districts that saw population decline were located down- digits; for non-Hispanic Asian specifically it was in the state (2 in Long Island; 3 in New York City) (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Hispanic Population Change by County, 2010-2019 Fig. 3 Hispanic Population Change by County, 2010 to 2019 Clinton

Franklin St. Lawrence

Essex Jefferson

Lewis

Hamilton Westchester Warren

Washington Oswego

Ulster Richmond

Dutchess

Percentage Change Sullivan 0.0% or Lower Putnam +0.1% to +10% Orange +10.1% to +25% Westchester +25.1% to 35% Rockland +35.1% to +70% Bronx Suffolk New York Kings Nassau Richmond Queens

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates 6 Table 4. Population Change by Congressional District in New York, 2010-2019

Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Congressio- Total Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Some Other Two or More Hispanic White Black Native American Asian Native Hawaiian nal Districts Population Race Alone Races Alone 1 -0.6% -6.7% -8.5% 5.5% -81.8% 21.3% -51.9% -20.7% 4.3% 41.8% 2 -2.6% -6.4% -10.8% 3.0% 168.3% 33.4% 288.9% 205.4% 0.2% 12.2% 3 1.1% -0.4% -7.1% -8.3% 183.4% 29.0% -100.0% 314.9% 14.3% 15.5% 4 1.8% -3.8% -11.8% 7.5% -24.9% 35.1% -100.0% 103.7% 66.0% 27.1% 5 5.8% 4.3% -8.0% 1.2% -20.0% 40.1% 10.0% 17.8% -27.4% 11.8% 6 -0.5% -2.6% -16.4% 27.9% 52.4% 7.6% -100.0% 14.3% 16.7% 8.9% 7 -2.6% 4.3% 11.2% -4.0% -15.7% -3.3% 27.7% -17.4% 27.0% -11.8% 8 8.2% 9.5% 22.0% 1.0% -76.0% 43.6% -59.7% -1.6% 32.6% 2.7% 9 0.4% -0.6% 8.6% -10.8% -60.5% 26.2% -21.5% -3.9% 56.8% 8.1% 10 2.1% 0.6% -3.7% -16.1% 73.8% 14.8% -100.0% 125.2% 36.6% 12.7% 11 2.7% 0.8% -6.8% 7.8% -37.0% 37.8% -100.0% -6.5% 18.4% 13.2% 12 1.1% -0.1% -5.8% 5.5% -67.5% 25.7% -100.0% -23.5% 29.6% 8.9% 13 4.7% 6.2% 33.9% -8.2% -28.9% 12.4% -100.0% 42.1% 19.0% 3.5% 14 -2.9% -7.3% -16.1% -13.9% -34.9% 9.1% -10.6% -20.7% 15.5% 1.9% 15 3.0% 6.9% 17.5% 6.4% -42.5% 7.0% -100.0% 41.0% -4.4% 0.9% 16 3.1% -3.3% -8.9% -4.2% 105.5% 14.0% -77.5% 176.0% 20.9% 24.3% 17 2.7% -1.4% -3.2% 5.6% -65.1% 6.0% -68.5% -36.3% 14.5% 19.6% 18 0.1% -4.0% -7.1% 19.0% -45.6% 10.3% -44.3% -12.5% -3.3% 23.7% 19 -2.3% -4.5% -6.4% 10.9% -16.7% 12.9% 63.9% 19.2% 41.7% 30.5% 20 1.1% -0.4% -4.9% 2.3% -79.6% 46.0% 77.7% -8.4% 79.2% 29.0% 21 -3.2% -3.9% -4.4% -1.2% -54.6% 49.3% -17.3% 46.3% 24.0% 24.2% 22 -4.1% -5.0% -6.8% -4.5% -34.5% 33.6% -100.0% -36.3% 53.2% 23.4% 23 -4.2% -5.2% -6.4% -3.2% -2.9% 18.3% 38.9% -24.6% 28.3% 26.2% 24 -2.2% -3.3% -5.3% -0.8% -38.3% 24.2% -59.2% -42.3% 50.4% 26.8% 25 -0.4% -2.6% -4.3% 0.4% -15.0% 10.5% -9.0% 72.4% 13.5% 26.3% 26 -2.0% -3.7% -7.2% -2.2% -5.4% 52.2% 87.6% -42.7% 29.0% 26.8% 27 0.3% -0.5% -1.4% 11.0% -19.6% 6.2% 11.2% 77.0% 53.7% 33.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial 116th Congressional District Summary File (TableID: P5); 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002)

FigureFig. 6 Total4. Total Population Population Change Change by Congressional District, 2010-2019 by Congressional District, 2010 to 2019

13 25 24 15 26 03 27 14 22 10 20 12 06 07 05 23 04 09 19 08 11

Percentage Change -2.5% or Lower -2.4% to 0.0% 18 +0.1% to +2.5% +2.6% or Higher 17 16 01 15 12 03 10 06 02 04 09 11 08 05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial 116th Congressional District Summary File (TableID: P5); 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) 7 The remaining seven districts with declining population Hispanic Vulnerability were located upstate (one in the Catskill/Hudson Valley Of particular concern about these population changes region; one in the North country; two in the Finger Lakes statewide from a Hispanic perspective is that, of the region; one in the Southern tier; one containing Roches- twelve congressional districts statewide that lost pop- ter; and one containing Buffalo). ulation, three are represented by Hispanics (7th, 14th and 19th).11 [Three districts represented by Hispanic As with changes at the county-level, the most notable members grew in population (11th, 13th and 15th).] Of changes between 2010 and 2019 in terms of race and the three districts that lost population, one is represented ethnicity were driven by the changes among non-Hispan- by a representative with long seniority and standing (i.e., ics, specifically non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics. The Velázquez), but two are not, since they have only been in non-Hispanic white population decreased in 22 congres- office for one full term (i.e., Delgado and Ocasio-Cortez). sional districts, and it increased in only five (see Figure While two districts represented by Hispanics grew in pop- 5). The Hispanic population grew in 26 districts across ulation, these are adjacent to districts that lost popula- the state, and decreased in only one district (see Figure tion; and one of these districts that gained population will 6). A similar pattern of growth and decline was observed be represented by a newly elected representative (i.e., among non-Hispanic Asians; increasing in 26 districts Torres). In contrast, the districts with the most population and decreasing in one. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the loss (23rd, 22nd and 21st), represented by non-Hispanic pattern was more diverse: this population increased in white representatives, are adjacent to each and to other sixteen districts and declined in eleven. districts that lost population as well (see Figure 7).

Fig. Figure 7 Non-Hispanic 5. Non-Hispanic White White Population Population Change Change by Congressional District, 2010-2019 by Congressional District, 2010 to 2019

13 25 24 15 26 03 27 14 22 10 20 12 06 07 05 23 04 09 19 08 11

Percentage Change -16% or Lower -5% to -15.9% 18 0.0% to -4.9% +0.1% to +10% 17 16 +10.1% to +34% 01 15 12 03 10 06 02 04 09 11 08 05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial 116th Congressional District Summary File (TableID: P5); 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) 8 FigureFig. 8 Hispanic 6. Hispanic Population Population Change Change by Congressional District, 2010-2019 by Congressional District, 2010 to 2019

13 25 24 15 26 03 27 14 22 10 20 12 06 07 05 23 04 09 19 08 11

Percentage Change 0.0% or Lower +0.1% to +13% 18 +13.1% to 19.6% +19.7% to +30.5% 17 16 +30.6% to +42% 01 15 12 03 10 06 02 04 09 11 08 05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial 116th Congressional District Summary File (TableID: P5); 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) Figure 7. Descriptive Political Representation by Congressional District, 2019-2021

19 Largest Ethnic Group by Congressional District, 2019

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Asian 21 Non-Hispanic Black 18 Non-Hispanic White 25 24 22 26 27 20 Representative's Ethnicity by Congressional District, 2019 23 19 ## Hispanic ## Non-Hispanic Asian 18 Non-Hispanic Black 17 ## 17 ## Non-Hispanic White ## Non-Hispanic Black/Hispanic ## Non-Hispanic White/Hispanic Descriptive Political Representation 20 19 18 16 17 16 01 15 14 13 15 Representative's Ethnicity 13 03 12 Hispanic 11 Non-Hispanic Asian 10 10 14 Non-Hispanic Black 02 9 12 06 8 Non-Hispanic Black/Hispanic 07 7 Non-Hispanic White/Hispanic 04 05 6 Non-Hispanic White Count (# Congressional Districts) Count 09 08 5 *Columns represent the 4 total number of districts 3 with a particular ethnic 11 2 majority. Each column is subdivided to reflect the 1 number of representatives 0 of a given ethnicity within Hisp NHA NHB NHW each ethnic district category. District Ethnic Majority Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) 9 Because of the loss of population and the adjacency of sion, mostly appointed by the Legislature’s leadership, districts that have gained in population but have newly will be charged with creating plans for approval of the elected representatives, Hispanic representatives may Legislature. The redistricting commission must present be vulnerable to have their districts redrawn beyond their the Legislature with legislative maps by January 1, 2022. initial constituencies, and pitting those representatives There is also a New York State Legislative Task Force with others in adjacent districts who may not enjoy the on Demographic Research and Reapportionment estab- weight and influence incumbency may provide. A loss of lished to provide the Legislature with technical assistance Hispanic congressional representation is a highly unde- on demographic issues, including redistricting.14 Pres- sirable outcome overall, given advances in descriptive ently the task force is overseen by Assemblymember representation, and, more so, given that New York would Robert Rodriguez (East Harlem) and Senator Michael have lost population and even more congressional rep- Gianaris (Astoria/Western Queens). This year the state resentation had it not been for the growth of the Hispanic legislature will be fully in the hands of Democrats, which population. Instead, the state of New York increased its might indicate declining political fortunes for Republican population marginally as a result of the large growth of its representatives. (There will be eight Republican repre- Hispanic population. Therefore, Congressional redistrict- sentatives from New York in the 117th Congress.) Newly ing in New York should prevent the disenfranchisement of elected representatives might be at a political disadvan- the growing Hispanic population and should not come at tage, given their lack of seniority. the expense of Hispanic representation. A Democrat-controlled legislature may want to protect The population numbers used in this brief are produced Democrat-held congressional districts, but there may be by the U.S. Census Bureau on the basis of surveys, reasons for why even a Democrat-controlled legislature subject to statistical adjustments. However, reapportion- might have to or might want to sacrifice a Democrat-held ment and redistricting must be based on the decennial district. Under the latter circumstances, Hispanic-led enumeration that seeks to count all persons in the United congressional districts might be vulnerable given that a States.12 But Hispanics have been consistently under- number of them have lost population in the intervening counted in decennial enumerations as have been other years since the previous reapportionment and redistrict- racial and ethnic minorities, residents of urban centers ing, although not as many as majority non-Hispanic white and persons of lower socioeconomic status. Moreover, districts represented by non-Hispanic white represen- the 2020 decennial count was marred by institutional tatives. As mentioned above, three of the Hispanic-led initiatives and efforts that had the effect, whether intend- districts lost population, two of them in New York City. ed or inadvertent, to depress Hispanic participation in the However, the population of all five counties/boroughs in census.13 Therefore, the 2020 enumeration numbers to New York City, where most of these Hispanic-led districts be used in the reapportionment and redistricting process are grew anywhere from 2.5% (Queens) to 3.8% (Bronx). are expected to contain count errors yet to be deter- No New York City county/borough lost population; all five mined; errors that will place Hispanics, as well as other of the city’s counties where among the state’s top-fifteen underrepresented and historically undercounted groups, counties in population growth. Sacrificing Hispanic-led at a potentially serious disadvantage in political repre- congressional district will undermine the civil rights ad- sentation. vances of this population in the face of persistent attacks to democratic participation and representation. Redistricting Institutions Congressional redistricting in New York State is ultimate- Safeguarding Hispanic legislative representation in the ly the responsibility of the State Legislature. However, in redistricting process is an important community goal, referendum questions presented to voters in 2014 and in as Hispanic voters have indicated their repeated will- 2020, a ten-member independent redistricting commis- ingness to support and elect Hispanic candidates when given structural and institutional opportunities to do so. 10 Just as important is the goal of preserving or attaining maximum Hispanic political influence. meaningful influence as constituent and voters, even when no Hispanic candidate runs for elected office. As a Current congressional in upstate New York and east- result, efforts to cram Hispanic voters into few discrete ern Long Island, however, have lost population and are districts (i.e., “packing”), or to disperse those voters adjacent to other districts that have also lost population across several districts (i.e., “cracking”), serve to dilute (even as Hispanics have also grown, sometimes substan- Hispanic voting power, and run counter to the protections tially in those very districts). As a matter of fairness and offered by civil rights and voting rights legislation as well equity, redrawing congressional districts at the expense as the spirit of democratic fairness. Redistricting bodies, of Hispanic legislators is not a tenable position. such as the New York State independent redistricting commission, must strive to create legislative districts of

Notes 1 With the research assistance of Damayra Figueroa-Lazu and Paul Bendernagel. 2 Article I, section 2 of the United States Constitution states: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers,….” 3 Article 1, section 2 further states: “The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct”. 4 Section 2 of the Fourteenth amendment states: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” 5 Garbarino (2nd-R), Malliotakis (11th-R), Torres (15th-D), Bowman (16th-D), Jones (17th-D), Tenney (22nd-R). 6 https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-08.pdf 7 From a numerical perspective, districts with fewer residents are thought of as having greater political power, as it takes fewer voters to elect a representative that has the same voting power in the legislature as residents of districts with more residents. Districts in highly dense urban areas tend to have more residents within their districts than less dense rural districts, indicating an imbalance in political power. However, adherence to the one-person, one-vote principle [Reynold V. Sims (1964); Baker V. Carr (1962)] prevents deviation from numerical equality in population for congressional districts [Wesberry V. Sanders (1964)]. 8 Districts 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 27. 9 Districts 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. 10 Less than one-half or one percent change: districts 18. 11 A note on Hispanic descriptive representation: the 117th Congress (2021-2022) has six members of the House of Representatives that are of Hispanic origin or descent: Nydia Velázquez (Puerto Rican), Nicole Malliotakis (Greek and Cuban), Adriano Espaillat (Dominican), Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (Puerto Rican), Ritchie Torres (Puerto Rican and African American), and Antonio Delgado (Puerto Rican and African American). All of these members acknowledge and recognize their Hispanic or Latino origin or descent. Representative, Espaillat, Ocasio Cortez and Torres represent districts that are majority Hispanic. Representative Velázquez represents a district with a Hispanic plurality. Representatives Malliotakis and Delgado represent districts that are majority non-Hispanic white. Of these six Hispanic members, only Velázquez, Espaillat, Ocasio Cortez and Torres identify politically as Hispanic representatives by virtue of their membership in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which gathers Hispanic Democrat members of Congress. The Republican counterpart to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus—the Congressional Hispanic Conference— which might include Malliotakis, does not appear to be in operation. Delgado is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, but not belong to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 12 Department of Commerce v. United States House (98-404). 13 Trump v. State of New York (20-366); Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966). 14 https://latfor.state.ny.us/

11 APPENDIX A. TOTAL NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2019

Clinton

Franklin St. Lawrence

Essex Jefferson

Lewis

Hamilton Westchester Warren

Washington Oswego

Ulster Richmond

Dutchess

Percent of Total Population Sullivan +20% or Lower Putnam +20.1% to +40% Orange +40.1% to +60% Westchester +60.1% to +75% Rockland +75.1 to +96% Bronx Suffolk New York Kings Nassau Richmond Queens Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates APPENDIX B. TOTAL HISPANIC POPULATION BY COUNTY, 2019

Clinton

Franklin St. Lawrence

Essex Jefferson

Lewis

Hamilton Westchester Warren

Washington Oswego

Ulster Richmond

Dutchess

Percent of Total Population Sullivan +5% or Lower Putnam +5.1% to +10% Orange +10.1% to +20% Westchester +20.1% to +30% Rockland +30.1% to +56% Bronx Suffolk New York Kings Nassau Richmond Queens

12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (Vintage) 2010 and 2019 Population Estimates APPENDIX C. TOTAL NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION BY CONGRESSIONAL DIS- TRICT, 2019

13 25 24 15 26 03 27 14 22 10 20 12 06 07 05 23 04 09 19 08 11

Percent of Total Population +15% or Lower +15.1% to +35% 18 +35.1% to +65% +65.1% to +75% 17 16 +75.1% to +91% 01 15 12 03 10 06 02 04 09 11 08 05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) APPENDIX D. TOTAL HISPANIC POPULATION BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, 2019

13 25 24 15 26 03 27 14 22 10 20 12 06 07 05 23 04 09 19 08 11

Percent of Total Population +7% or Lower +7.1% to +14% 18 +14.1% to +28% +28.1% to +39% 17 16 +39.1% to +64% 01 15 12 03 10 06 02 04 09 11 08 05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates (TableID: B03002) 13 The Center for Puerto Rican Studies (Centro) is the nation’s leading university-based insti- Centro Library and Archives tution devoted to the interdisciplinary study of the Puerto Rican experience in the United Silberman Building, States. Centro is dedicated to understanding, preserving and sharing the Puerto Rican 2180 Third Avenue at 119th Street, experience in the United States. Centro invites Centro Voices contributors to make use of the Room 121, New York, N.Y. 10035 Library: 212-396-7874 extensive archival, bibliographic and research material preserved in its Library and Archives. Archives: 212-396-7877 The Centro Library and Archives is devoted to collecting, preserving and providing access centropr.hunter.cuny Follow us @centropr to resources documenting the history and culture of Puerto Ricans. The Centro Library and Archives was established in 1973 as a component of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies. The collections include books, current and historic newspapers and periodicals, audio, film Hunter College, The City University of New York & video, manuscripts, photographs, art prints, and recorded music. The Library and Archives 695 Park Avenue, E1429 provides services and programs to the scholarly community as well as the general public. Con- New York, N.Y. 10065 stituents are diverse and come from the United States and abroad. The Library and Archives VoiceMail: 212-772-5688 facilitates access to information on its holdings through the City University’s online public Fax: 212-650-3673 catalog or CUNY+. It also provides research and information assistance via phone and email.

Center for Puerto Rican Studies Hunter College, CUNY 14 695 Park Avenue New York, NY 212-772-5688, centropr.hunter.cuny.edu