Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3485

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ------x MARK A. FAVORS, et. al., : : Plaintiffs, : : NON-PARTY SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE -against- : TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : ANDREW M. CUOMO, as Governor of : the State of New York, et. al., : DOCKET #11-cv-5632 : (RR)(GEL)(DLI)(RLM) Defendants. : ------x

REENA RAGGI, United States Circuit Judge GERARD E. LYNCH, United States Circuit Judge DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:

Listed below, in alphabetical order by last name of either individual members of the public or

interested organizations, is a list of individuals and organizations who timely filed with the court

responses to the Report and Recommendation and the Recommended Redistricting Plan issued by

Magistrate Judge Mann on March 12, 2012.1

1. Assemblywoman Inez Barron & Councilman Charles Barron Objection

2. Councilman Charles Barron Objection

3. Heights Association 3.14.12 Objection

4. Deborah Bruch Bucki Objection

5. Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke 3.14.12 Letter in Support

6. Raymond J. Dague 3.14.12 Letter in Support

7. DANR 3.02.12 Cover Letter for Proposed Map

8. DANR 3.02.12 Proposed Map

1 Listed submissions unaccompanied by a date were timely filed, but undated. 1

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3486

9. DANR 3.07.12 Objection to Magistrate Judge

10. DANR 3.13.12 Objection to R&R

11. J. Peter Flemming 3.14.12 Objection

12. Ed Freeborn Letter in Support

13. Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie 3.14.12 Objection

14. Councilmember Letitia James 3.14.12 Letter in Support

15. Mamaroneck, et. al. Objection

16. David Nir 3.14.12 Objection

17. Orthodox Alliance for Liberty 3.13.12 Objection

18. Cynthia P. Simmons 3.14.12 Objection

19. Voting Rights for All 3.14.12 Objection and Exhibits

20. Keith L. T. Wright 3.14.12 Proposed Map and Objection

2

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-1 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3487

Honorable Inez Barron Honorable Charles Barron Member of the NYS Assembly Member of the NYC Council Legislative Office Building – Room 553 250 Broadway Albany, NY New York, New York

Re: Redistricting

Three-Judge Panel Federal Court Brooklyn, New York

Dear Judges,

As a members of the State and City legislative bodies, we write to express our objections regarding the Report and Recommendations and Proposed Redistricting Map submitted by U.S. Magistrate Joann L. Mann for the congressional districts of New York State.

While there have been modifications made to the present Eighth and Ninth Districts, the proposed Seventh District as well as the congressional districts for the areas of Buffalo, Erie and Niagara do not in fact have lines that provide for fair representation of the common interests of the ethnic groups located in those communities.

The intent of the Voting Rights Act is to insure that the communities in protected areas are not disenfranchised nor is there any dissolution to their opportunity to select a representative of their preference. By the addition of communities that lessen the percentage of the target community in the proposed Seventh District, the majority-minority community is greatly diminished. By “cracking” the targeted communities of Buffalo, Erie and Niagara, the nomination and voting strength of the community is fractured. This fracturing is “de facto” a reformed version of gerrymandering.

While there has been mandates in other areas of the country has brought about requirements that are leading to the twentieth century equivalent of a poll tax, the presentation of lines in New York’s congressional districts is problematic and tantamount to modern day disenfranchisement of the very communities that look to the federal system for protection.

We urge you to present district lines that more adequately reflect the populations of people whose voting rights are being marginalized and who are being disenfranchised.

We look forward to seeing lines that appropriately reflect the letter and the intent of the Voting Rights Act.

Sincerely,

Inez Barron Charles Barron Member of the NYS Assembly Member of the NYC Council Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-2 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3488 Councilman Charles Barron – (42nd Council District)

Redistricting or Redistribution of Power

On Tuesday, US Magistrate Roanne Mann completed the task of drawing new Congressional District lines in New York and the results are suspect. Judge Mann was appointed by a three-judge panel to draw up new district lines after the State Legislatures failed in their responsibility to do so. However, we must be extremely vigilant and pay close attention to Judge Mann’s proposed new lines. Irrespective of the impact these new district lines may have on individual races, we must not be shaded from the larger picture – Black and Latino electoral empowerment. Historically, we have fought long and hard for Black and Latino political empowerment. All across the country there are attempts to disenfranchise Black & Latino voters through schemes like the requirement of Voter ID or drawing lines that politically divide our communities.

After thorough review of these plans, I also noticed that racially, the white Congressional Districts would be more solidified with an overwhelming majority population, thereby making it almost impossible for them to lose any power. For example, the new 27th District is 92.7% white, the 21st District - 91.6% white, the 23rd District - 90% white, the 19th District - 86% white, the 20th District – 79% white, the 24th District – 83% white, the 1st District – 77.9% white, and the beat goes on. The whites are secured in their power base.

When it comes to the Black districts, the highest percentage of Blacks in a District under this plan is in the new 8th Congressional District (formerly the 10th Congressional District – currently headed by Congressman Ed Towns) with 58% Blacks. Congresswoman Yvette Clark’s district was 55% Black but was changed so dramatically that it now includes neighborhoods in Brooklyn that are non-black making her position vulnerable. Congressman Greg Meeks’ District is 55% Black but still 45% other. Congressman Charlie Rangel's Harlem District under this new plan is majority Latino and a little over 30% Black and over 20% White. This is the District of former Congressman Adam Clayton Powell who fought to have a Black Congressional District in Harlem and now that will no longer exist.

So we must be aware of redistricting plans that redistribute power and thus disempowers the Black and Latino communities. This plan is not final - the State Legislature still has an opportunity to make changes. I am calling on all of our leaders in the Senate and the Assembly not to gloat about new lines that may individually favor them but keep the bigger picture in mind or else we will drastically lose many of the gains that so many died for in the 60s.

There have been attempts in the past by whites to secure seats in majority black districts. Remember David Yassky’s attempt to take the Congressional seat formerly held by and in Brooklyn. who is now the Congressional Representative of that district won that election in 2006. Blacks and Latinos must not let them divide and conquer us. We must stay united and prioritize our people over personal and political interests. Remember our struggle is long but the victory is certain. Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-3 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3489

page 1

55 Pierrepont Street, Box 170 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 858-9193. www.thebha.org

Favors, et. aI., v. Cuomo, et. al., Docket Number ll-cv-5622, Pub- Assn-objection Officers

President March 14, 2012

Jane Carroll McGroarty REENA RAGGI, United States Circuit Judge Vice Presidents GERARD E. LYNCH, United States Circuit Judge Alexandra Bowie DORA l. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge Martha Dietz Donald Fraser Tom Van den Bout The Brooklyn Heights Association, founded in 1910, has been actively involved Treasurer in community affairs in our community for over one hundred years. We Daniel Watts respectfully submit our objection to the published reapportionment of Secretary Congressional District #7 contained in Judge Roanne Mann's Report and Susan Shepard Recommendation to the Court.

Board of Governors The proposed Congressional District #7 approximates the current iz" Kerith J. Aronow Martha Atwater Congressional District held by Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez. However, Alexandra Bowie Judge's Mann scheme creates a district without Brooklyn Bridge Park and the Donald Brennan land adjacent to Brooklyn Heights west ofthe Brooklyn Queens Expressway. Neil Calet For over thirty years the Brooklyn Heights Association, together with Brooklyn Saundra Cornwell local elected officials, Brooklyn community groups and organizations have Martha Bakos Dietz Jen Donaker worked to create a park on the former land and pier structures formerly Donald G. Fraser owned by the Port Authority of New York and . This park, partially Meredith Hamilton completed, drew tens of thousands of visitors last summer, most of whom Patrick Killackey live in Brooklyn. We believe that it will be detrimental to the communities in Philip Magnuson the new 7th Congressional District if their Congressperson does not have Brian McGorry Jane Carroll McGroarty Brooklyn Bridge Park in his/her district. DianeR Miller Christopher Neville One of the mandates of the plan prepared by Judge Mann was that the Steve Rothman "Districts shall be compact, contiguous, respect political subdivisions, and Alexandra H. Russello preserve communities of interest." It our opinion that Brooklyn Heights Susan E. Shepard Tom van den Bout and the adjoining waterfront is part of an existing political subdivision since nd Daniel Watts it lies within the same State Congressional (zs") and State Assembly (S2 ) Christopher Wright rd Districts as well in the same District (33 ). Inger Yancey

The rationale for having Brooklyn Bridge Park included withi~ the new ih CD is Executive Director strengthened by the fact that there is also new residential development at 360

Judy Stanton Furman Street. Without a change, those constituents will be represented by a different official with a district that bears little relationship to downtown Office Manager Brooklyn. The families at 360 Furman Street consider themselves residents of Irene E. Janner Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-3 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3490

page 1

Brooklyn Heights and they deserve to be represented by the same Congressperson.

We have experienced times when an elected official has too many pieces of different neighborhoods; this can affect their ability to serve constituents and understand the local issues. At the present time Brooklyn Heights is represented by two different Congressional representatives. The bulk of the community is in the current iz" Congressional District with smaller pieces in the io" District. We applaud Judge Mann's plan because it does make the district more compact and places all of Brooklyn Heights (except the waterfront) within one Congressional District.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Brooklyn Heights Association, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Jane McGroarty, President Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-4 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3491

Dear Honorable Court,

You have proposed that the 26th Congressional District extend to a boundary that runs down the center of Muegel Road in the Town of Amherst. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that this boundary would divide the 84th election district, which extends on both sides of Muegel Road. As a committeewoman for that district, I believe that this boundary would cause havoc to our election procedures. Further, it would divide a closely connected residential neighborhood. In my view, it would make far more sense to set the boundary at the center of Casey Road, a fairly busy street located less than one-half mile from Muegel Road. If you need to compensate for this shift, a more logical arrangement would be to transfer one or more election districts near to Hopkins Road in Amherst. Please give your thoughtful consideration to my suggestions which will preserve neighborhood integrity and which will avoid undue confusion in our election process.

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah Bruch Bucki 225 Halston Pkwy. East Amherst, New York 14051 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3492

Yvette D. Clarke Member of Congress

March 14, 2012 Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re: Favors v. Cuomo

Dear Magistrate Mann:

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to please the Court with submissions, testimony and an explanation for a proposed mapping configuration of the existing NY-11th Congressional District. The Court has ensued in this cumbersome undertaking with efficiency and effectiveness. It is reassuring to know that by March 20, 2012 congressional district lines for the State of New York will be finalized and known.

I respectfully submit that the new Congressional District 9 of this Honorable Court’s Recommended map, as indicated in the Court’s Report and Recommendation, dated March 12, 2012 preserves the core of the existing 11th Congressional district and maintains communities of interest by keeping relevant populations whole and together to ensure that their voting power is not diluted. Keeping these communities together will ensure that these populations have a full and fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Yvette D. Clarke

:lmw Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-6 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3493 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-6 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3494 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-6 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3495 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-7 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3496

45 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10006 212.599.3322 PHONE 212.557.0295 FAX

WWW.BECKER-POLIAKOFF.COM WWW.BECKERNY.COM

March 2, 2012

The Honorable Roanne L.Mann Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 22 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Dear Magistrate Judge Mann:

On behalf of the Dominican American National Roundtable (the “DANR”) we respectfully submit a map for a proposed new congressional district encompassing predominantly Hispanic areas of Northern , the West Bronx and Jackson Heights/ Corona, Queens. In this letter and consistent with your Honor’s Order of February 28, 2012, we would like to set out the reasons why this Court should adopt the map as proposed by the DANR.

Essentially, there are two interconnected questions the Court needs to consider. The first is, whether, in accordance with applicable legal standards, is it appropriate to create a new congressional district connecting Spanish speaking communities in portions of these counties; second, if so, what are the appropriate contours of such a district.

To the first question, the Court already has before it a number of proposals for a district uniting these Spanish speaking communities into a new congressional district, and there should be little question that this is an idea whose time is past due. Spanish speaking communities have historically been adversely impacted by discriminatory re-districting practices, including packing and cracking designed to disenfranchise Spanish speaking voters. In addition, as the Court is aware, there has been enormous growth in the Spanish speaking communities in the referenced areas, and they are linked in large respect by a common culture as well as a common language.

The need for a new district acknowledging these characteristics has been addressed by others and we believe, need not be repeated here. Reference in this regard is made to the map proposed by the New York State Senate and in the letter from Chairman Keith Wright of this date. Rather the question for the Court is not whether such a district should be created, but what should be the contours of the district.

To this question, we respectfully suggest that the key issue to be taken into account is what would best reflect a cognizable “community of interest”. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 US 900 (1995).

LEGAL AND BUSINESS STRATEGISTS

MEMBERS OF CONSULEGIS AN INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAW FIRMS, AND NETWORK OF LEADING LAW FIRMS Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-7 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3497

Page 2

The District proposed by the DANR would do this. It would unite common characteristics not just of language but of culture. Moreover the communities it links are geographically contiguous, compact in the sense that 90% of the District can be traversed by the use of only three bus routes, they share places of worship, common educational institutions and public officials--- indeed, there are within the proposed District some 14 State and City Latino elected/officials (including officials of Puerto Rican, Dominican and Ecuadorian descent) more than in any other existing or proposed congressional district.

While we respect the proffer of other maps that would create districts linking the Spanish speaking communities in Northern Manhattan, the Bronx and/or Queens, we believe none is as faithful to the community of interest principles as the District proposed by the DANR, and, as a consequence, that its map is the most appropriate one for the Court to accept to ensure the Hispanic community is fairly represented in Congress.

Finally, as the Court will appreciate, the DANR and its members are analyzing on an ongoing basis the maps submitted by others in accordance with the Court’s rigorous timetable. While one other non-party has submitted a map nearly identical to the one proposed by the DANR, it appears that, for the most part, the interests of the DANR and its members have not been sufficiently represented by the current parties in this matter. DANR members may, therefore, desire to place more detailed facts before the Court. Mindful of the Court’s reluctance to accept additional intervenors, we nonetheless hope that if such intervention is sought, it will be permitted by the Court. The issues here are too important to deny the Court a full and complete analysis of all factors relevant to its ultimate decision, including, for example, the application of relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act..

We have registered to speak at the hearing on March 5, 2012, and look forward to addressing these matters with the Court at that time.

We thank the Court for its consideration of this proposal.

Respectfully,

Becker & Poliakoff, LLP Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-8 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: Dominican American 3498 National Roundtable

Proposed Congressional District Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-9 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3499

March 7, 2012

The Honorable Roanne L.Mann Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 22 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Dear Magistrate Judge Mann:

On behalf of non-party the Dominican American National Roundtable (the “DANR”), and pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 6, 2012, we respectfully submit this objection to the “Proposed Plan” (as defined in such Order), insofar as it pertains to proposed Congressional Districts 13, 14 and 15.

The geographic regions covered by these proposed districts include the northern part of Manhattan, the west Bronx and the Corona/ Jackson Heights neighborhoods of Queens, areas that are heavily populated by Spanish speaking residents, and areas in which the Hispanic population has substantially increased since the 2000 census. As the Court will recall, in advance of the hearings on March 5, 2012, the DANR submitted a map that, taking cognizance of the community of interest that binds these neighborhoods, united them into a single, new congressional district. For the Court’s convenience, a copy of that map ( the “Map”) is attached.

In the Proposed Plan, however, the Court rejected the DANR’s Map and instead created a fragmented series of districts that, respectfully, “tell [ ] a tale of disparity not community.” See Miller v Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 908 (1995). Thus, proposed District 13 is largely the District now represented by Congressman Rangel, but a heavily Hispanic portion of the Kingsbridge area of The Bronx has been fused into that District. The areas east of Kingsbridge are divided between the proposed 15th District, in what is now predominantly Congressman Serrano’s District, and a proposed 14th District, encompassing Pelham Parkway to I-95, then snaking down to Queens, in what is now Congressman Crowley’s District.

As we understand it, this would result in a small numerical Hispanic voting age population (“VAP”) Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-9 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3500

March 7, 2012 Page 2

majority in the proposed 13th District, and a significant non-Hispanic majority in the proposed 14th District. Given the dynamic of the 13th District, with a well-known incumbent and the likelihood that the majority of the actual registered voters (and per force the likely voters in any election) would not be Hispanic, and the less favorable statistics in the 14th District, also represented by a strong incumbent, the Proposed Plan essentially maintains the status quo and does not increase Hispanic representation. In other words, there would still be three districts, with only one likely, as a practical reality, to elect a Hispanic representative, despite the significant increase in Hispanic population in the relevant areas.

This, we respectfully suggest, should result in the Court’s taking a second look at the merits of the DANR Map, and that second look should confirm that the DANR Map is a better accommodation of relevant interests than is the Proposed Plan. Preliminarily, it should be noted, since the Court is dealing with covered districts here, that the DANR Map would cause no retrogression. The Proposed Districts 13 and 15 would likely maintain their existing minority representation.

But most importantly, the DANR Map would avoid the fragmenting of a Hispanic community of interest--and the dilution of Hispanic voting strength that is the unavoidable by-product of the Proposed Plan.

The area covered by the DANR Map, though having a 63.5% Hispanic VAP, is now represented by four out of five non-Hispanic congressmen (Mssrs Rangel, Crowley, Ackerman and Engel). But within the new district proposed by the DANR, there are some 13 Hispanic elected legislators, legislators of Dominican, Puerto Rican and Ecuadorian descent, the highest concentration of Hispanic elected officials in any existing or proposed district. This reflects a highly interactive and interdependent community, a community sharing, among other things, a common language, a common religion, and common problems that transcend geography.

These things can not be replicated, for example, by placing or maintaining a large number of Dominican residents in the District currently represented by Congressman Rangel. Those residents would have a closer sharing of interests with the Dominican, Ecuadorian and Columbian communities of Corona/Jackson Heights in respect of language and immigration-related matters, and thus form a natural community of interests.

For the community of interest concept to have any meaning, it must provide a genuine opportunity for the residents of the community to elect a representative of their choice. It is not enough to create two districts that could theoretically elect a Hispanic congressman but which in reality are unlikely to do so. The substantial number of locally elected Hispanic officials in the area covered by the DANR Map reflects a political cohesion that is empirically verifiable. The Proposed Plan does not, or is, at best, speculative in this regard.

It is no accident that the DANR Map does this. It was the product of extensive community outreach and input. On information and belief, an unusually large number of residents of the areas covered by Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-9 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3501

March 7, 2012 Page 3

the DANR Map testified before LATFOR and other community forums, and were overwhelming in their position that these areas constituted a single community of interest that should be united.

While there has not been time for the kind of in depth analysis that would be most beneficial to the Court, from a redistricting standpoint, the Proposed Plan has some obvious facial deficiencies. For example, the proposed 14th District may be contiguous, but it is respectfully, the antithesis of compactness.

In any event, even though concepts such as compactness and contiguity are legitimate considerations, they should not be extolled over more central considerations. As Chief Justice Warren said in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964), “Legislators represent people, not…acres.” Given the mutually inconsistent nature of many of the factors a court may properly consider in the redistricting context, the DANR respectfully requests that the Court err on the side of the voice of the community. That voice says the northern Manhattan, west Bronx and Corona/ Jackson Heights areas constitute a single community of interest that should be entitled to select a single representative to speak for it in Congress.

Finally, it is ironic but significant that the Proposed Plan unsettles the interests of two groups that the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect. Specifically, as set forth in the submission of Dr. John Flateau on behalf of Manhattan Democratic County Leader Keith Wright, to which the Court’s attention is respectfully commended, the Proposed Plan actually dilutes both Black and Hispanic voting strength.

We are sure that Court does not desire such an anomalous result, and respectfully request it revise the Proposed Plan to adopt the DANR Map.

We thank the Court for its consideration of the DANR’s position.

Respectfully,

/s/ Lance Gotthoffer

Lance Gotthoffer

Becker & Poliakoff, LLP

Attorneys for Dominican American National Roundtable Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-10 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3502

March 13, 2012

The Honorable Reena Raggi The Honorable Gerard E. Lynch United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10007

The Honorable Dora L. Irizarry United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Favors v. Cuomo, 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RLM; Objections to the Report and Recommendation

Dear Judges Raggi, Lynch and Irizarry:

We represent the Dominican American National Roundtable (the “DANR”) and write pursuant to the Order of the Special Master dated March 12, 2012 to object, in part, to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and Proposed Redistricting Map (the “Report”).

By way of background, on March 2, 2012 the DANR timely filed a map for a proposed congressional district linking the Spanish speaking areas of northern Manhattan, the west Bronx and the Corona/Jackson Heights areas of Queens. At the same time, the DANR filed a letter submission in support of the propriety of this proposed district. Copies of the map and letter are included as part of this submission. In accordance with the March 6, 2012 Order of the Special Master promulgating proposed statewide maps, on March 7, 2012, the DANR timely filed an objection, in pertinent part, to those maps, a copy of which is also included as part of this submission.

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-10 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3503

Page 2

The Report did not adopt a district consistent with that proposed by the DANR. Indeed, it did not even acknowledge proposal. Accordingly by this letter, the DANR respectfully objects to the Report, and in support of that objection states as follows:

1) The Report Creates an Ex Post Facto Requirement of Statewide Rather than District Specific Maps.

The lions’s share of the Report is based on the Affidavit of Nathaniel Persily, the Court appointed expert to the Special Master. In Paragraph 65 thereof, commenting on district- specific submissions, Dr. Persily states:

Partial and individual district plans cannot be adopted wholesale while fulfilling the requirements that we create a plan of 27 districts. Furthermore, especially with respect to proposed individual districts, a proposal cannot be inserted into a plan while ignoring the population “needs” of the surrounding districts. Moreover, adopting an individual district proposal risks ignoring the necessary tradeoffs between districts, and can raise [Voting Rights Act] problems if one district’s configuration leads to race-based dilution or retrogression in another district.

In Paragraph 67, Dr. Persily makes substantially the same statements regarding submissions by non-parties.

Respectfully, this wholesale marginalization, if not exclusion, of partial and district-specific plans constitutes an impressible changing of the rules after the game has been played, and an inappropriate dismissal of access to that portion of the population that has typically been excluded from meaningful participation in the redistricting process.

Specifically, there is nothing in the Orders of this Court or the Special Master requiring the submission of statewide maps (and only statewide maps) as a condition precedent for meaningful consideration of that party’s position. To the contrary, numerous persons and groups submitted partial or individual plans, believing they would be given serious consideration. Instead, the treatment by the Court appointed expert borders on the dismissive.

If it was the intention of the Special Master to require the submission of a statewide plan as a condition precedent to meaningful consideration of any individual district map, this should have been stated specifically at the outset. Upon information and belief, many of the participants-- and certainly the DANR -- would have altered their conduct in light of this.

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-10 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3504

Page 3

2) The Court Should Require Meaningful Consideration of Partial and/or District Specific Plans.

However, the Court should not require the submission of statewide plans as the price for consideration of district-specific proposals. While appreciative of the Herculean task faced by the Special Master and this Court, if the public is to have meaningful input into the redistricting process, interested persons must be permitted to submit partial or district specific plans.

The DANR is a good example of why this is true. Its specific interest is in ensuring fair representation in the Spanish speaking communities of New York that have traditionally been denied such representation. It has limited resources and cannot seriously be expected to utilize those resources to map and argue the propriety of congressional districts on the Canadian border. Similarly, partial plans were proposed by the Democratic County Chairmen of The Bronx and New York Counties. These individuals each represent a defined constituency. Should the price of having the voice of that constituency heard be the expenditure of funds to map Erie or Wyoming County? If so, then that voice will be silenced, as will the voices of those whom the DANR represents; and these are precisely the voices that, historically, have not been heard, because of artificial impediments to, and manipulation of, the process.

Finally, we note that in Paragraph 67 of his Affidavit, Dr. Persily states with respect to the partial plans submitted by the public: “For the same reasons the partial plans of the parties were rejected but given consideration, these plans were accorded the same treatment.”

Unfortunately, in the same paragraph, Dr. Persily purports to list the non-party members of the public who submitted partial plans. Although the DANR did precisely that, and provided testimony at the hearing before the Special Master on March 5, 2012, and submitted an objection to the Special Master’s Proposed Plan two days later, Dr. Persily fails to mention the DANR. This, at a minimum, calls into question exactly how much “consideration” was given to these plans, if any was given at all.

3) The Court Should Not Accept a Plan that is Rushed Rather Than Reasoned.

This Court, and the Special Master, have not only been asked to discharge the duties the state legislature shirked, but to do so in an unrealistically compressed timeframe. The timeframe is driven by the commencement of the petitioning process, now scheduled for March 20, 2012. The Court should revisit whether adherence to this timeframe is commanding too great a price.

At issue here is the most fundamental constitutional right of the citizenry- - the right to vote. And this Court’s decision will pertain not transiently, but for the next decade. Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-10 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3505

Page 4

The DANR has no doubt that if more time were available, the Special Master and Dr. Persily would not have diminished the partial plans submitted by the parties and other interested persons, and would not have made other errors that crept in to the Report and Affidavit- - errors which, while not necessarily material, highlight the risk of sacrificing reflection for rapidity.1

By abdicating its responsibilities, the legislature may be able to require this Court to undertake the thankless task of redistricting, but it should not be able to force the Court to a rush to judgment. For the reasons stated in the Rose Intervenors’ Brief in Response to Magistrate’s Order to Show Cause dated March 7, 2012 (Docket #191), the Court should order a judicial “time-out” and provide a timeframe for comment and analysis more compatible with the importance of the task, whatever the ramifications may be for the legislature.

4) There are Significant Problems with the Special Master’s Plan

So that the Court may put the DANR’s concerns into concrete context, the DANR has proposed a district uniting the Spanish speaking neighborhoods of northern Manhattan, the west Bronx and Corona/ Jackson Heights into a single congressional district. The explication for why this district is the most appropriate one from the standpoint of conventional redistricting criteria is set forth in our March 7, 2012 letter of objection to the Special Master and incorporated by reference herein.

The DANR proposal was sub silentio rejected by the Special Master in favor of a district that essentially fuses Harlem, historically an African-American neighborhood, with the Kingsbridge section of The Bronx, a largely Hispanic community. This was done despite the fact there has been a dramatic growth in the Hispanic population throughout the relevant area, and the existence of a discernable community of interest linking the Kingsbridge neighborhood to adjacent Spanish speaking neighborhoods in northern Manhattan and The Bronx.

By so doing, the Special Master has conjoined “disparity not community”. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 US 900, 908 (1995). Thus, the district proposed by the DANR is united by a common language; the district proposed by the Special Master is not. The district proposed by the DANR shares a common culture; the district proposed by the Special Master does not. The district proposed by the DANR is economically homogeneous; the district proposed by the Special Master is not.

It is telling that NewYork County Democratic Leader Keith Wright, as well as Dr. John Flateau, in their respective responses to the Special Master’s Proposed Plan, referred approvingly to the DANR proposal, and noted that the Special Master’s 13th congressional

1 For example, in paragraph 88 of his Affidavit, Dr. Persily states that the Marble Hill- Inwood neighborhood “is part of New York County but is adjoined to the [sic] Bronx.” In fact, Marble Hill is adjoined to The Bronx, but Inwood is not. Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-10 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3506

Page 5

district (the Harlem/Kingsbridge district referred to above) actually diluted both Black and Hispanic voting strength.

Factors such as these merit more time and study than the Special Master, working under impossible constraints, could afford to give them. Accordingly, the DANR respectfully requests this Court adopt the DANR’s proposed district (in lieu of Districts 13, 14 and 15 as recommended by the Special Master), or that, in the alternative, it remand to the Special Master for further proceedings appropriate in light of the foregoing.

We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.

Respectfully, /s/ Lance Gotthoffer,

Becker & Poliakoff

Attorneys for Dominican American National Roundtable

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-11 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3507

J. PETER FLEMMING 51 Joralemon St Brooklyn NY 11201

Tel/Fax 718 852 2418 [email protected]

March 14, 2012

Hon. Roanne L. Mann, U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn NY 11201 Re: Favors et al v. Cuomo et al, 1:11-cv-5632 District 7/District 10 Dear Madam Magistrate Judge:

As a 61-year resident of Brooklyn Heights, a former member of the Board of Trustees of the Brooklyn Heights Association, a current member of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Advisory Committee, and the current co-chair of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community Council, this is to urge that the Hon. Nydia Velazquez’ new District 7 continue to include the shoreline between Fulton Landing (Brooklyn Bridge) and Atlantic Avenue. While Congressman Nadler has a proven interest and record in promoting the industrial and maritime waterfront in Brooklyn from 69th Street north to Ft. Hamilton Avenue, and while there may be some logic to extending his new District 10 to include the working piers from Erie Basin to Pier 7 at Atlantic Avenue – there is no rationale for extending his District even further north from Pier 6 to Pier 1 – since these Piers and this upland has since 2001 become the already world-famous Brooklyn Bridge Park. Furthermore, there is no rationale for splitting the Pier 1-6 section of the Park from the Brooklyn Bridge south, from the other half of the Park from Brooklyn Bridge north to the Con Edison line north of the Manhattan Bridge. While we have no doubt of Mr. Nadler’s good intentions vis a vis the Park, we have long treasured Ms. Velazquez support and attention to the whole Park, and beg you to restore the Furman Street Piers 1-6 part of the Park to her District.

Sincerely yours, Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-12 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3508

Comment on U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann's Report and Recommendation and Proposed Redistricting Map for the congressional districts of New York State

Submitted by:

Ed Freeborn 8340 Number 5 East Road Fabius, NY 13063 315-677-3015 [email protected]

All attempts to create geographic subdivisions based on population characteristics will require compromise in some of the subdivision’s desired attributes. On the whole, I believe Magistrate Mann’s proposed redistricting map strikes a good balance among these attributes for the Upstate New York districts. The districts I am considering include Districts 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. These include a compact geography, historical regional affinity within a region, balance between urban centers and surrounding associated region of influence, maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions – primarily counties, and similar geography within the district.

With respect to Upstate NY Congressional Districts I would like to see this map adopted. Thank your for your efforts to develop a rational redistricting map, Magistrate Mann, and I apologize for the inability of our State’s legislative branch to fulfill their responsibility.

Respectful regards,

Ed Freeborn Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-13 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3509

Carl E. Heastie

Memo

To: Magistrate Roanne Mann From: Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie Date: March 14, 2012 Re: An Appeal for Communities of Common Interest in New York City

We are once again writing to strongly object to your proposed Congressional district composition. In our opinion, the court missed an opportunity to empower communities of interest, one of the key tenets of the redistricting process. The data shows us that we have an opportunity to keep together communities of interest in areas where the court has created divisions.

Specifically, in Districts 12 – 15, the court has not maximized its ability to merge communities of interest. What is not seen in the numbers is a bond that exists between longstanding traditional communities and the existence of newly formed, expanding communities that have more similar characteristics.

With just a few changes, the court could compose new districts that preserve a longstanding, historic African American district, acknowledge the shift and slight migration within a borough of another, and establish and recognize an emerging community seeking to elect a representative that understands the true nature of their communities.

The communities you’ve included in the 15th District share a common bond with many now included within their borough in District 14. These two districts could merge more seamlessly, and could be shifted to accommodate changes needed to combine communities located in a better constructed 13th District.

The 13th District should be changed to reflect the commonalities within the communities of Harlem, Spanish Harlem and the Bronx. The court should connect these communities, as they are inextricably linked through history. Many of the residents of the Northeast Bronx and Co-Op City actually have family in the communities of Harlem and Spanish Harlem. They grew up in Harlem and still attend church in Harlem.

Simply put, the court should acknowledge the unique nature of these communities and deem them communities of interest. By the numbers, the court should examine and address the dilution of African American votes in the 13th, 14th and 15th Districts. In the current composition, you are making African Americans take a step backward by dividing the community. In addition, you are denying the Latino community more representation.

It is American tradition to send representatives to Washington to articulate the distinct cultures of their respective districts. Magistrate Mann, you have an opportunity to insure that all New Yorkers can feel as though they have a voice in Washington, one that is not muted by dilution.

Once again, we urge you to reconfigure the lines under the auspices of the concept of communities of interest. It is the right thing to do.

1 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-13 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3510

 Page 2

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-14 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3511

 DISTRICT OFFICE CHAIR 67 HANSON PLACE SANITATION & SOLID WASTE BROOKLYN, NY 11217 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (718) 260-9191 COMMITTEES FAX: (718) 260-9099 CONTRACTS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL OFFICE THE COUNCIL OF HOUSING & BUILDINGS 250 BROADWAY, ROOM 1792 NEW YORK, NY 10007 THE CITY OF NEW YORK SMALL BUSINESS (212) 788-7081 TECHNOLOGY FAX: (212) 788-7712 LETITIA JAMES [email protected] COUNCIL MEMBER, 35TH DISTRICT

March 14, 2012

The Honorable Gerard E. Lynch & The Honorable Reena Raggi U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

The Honorable Dora L. Irizarry United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Dear Judge Lynch, Judge Raggi, and Judge Irizarry,

On behalf of the communities of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Prospect Heights in central Brooklyn, I want to express my gratitude for the latest congressional maps released by the court and applaud the court's efforts to ensure that our "communities of interest" remain whole1.

These neighborhoods have benefited from existing within the same congressional district. They share an overlapping or adjoining school district, police precinct, community board, commercial corridor and means of transportation, all of which have strengthened our neighborhoods for over thirty years. Keeping these "communities of interest" together will ensure that traditionally African-American neighborhoods, such as these, will have a voice in the halls of government.

The Federal Voting Rights Act plays a central role in elections that help determine the fair and judicious allocation of congressional and legislative representation around the country. Last week, the court instructed us on how to voice our concerns regarding the proposed maps. Residents of central Brooklyn responded in great numbers to express that we are one community.

1 Since 2003, I have represented the 35th district in the New York City Council including the communities of Clinton Hill, Fort Greene; parts of Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Bedford Stuyvesant. Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-14 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3512

The recommended maps released late Monday did much to correct the earlier problems we had cited.

The court's hard work over the last month is an admirable testament to the critical role the Federal bench plays in our lives. We once again thank you for stepping in to fairly apply the law and to protect the interests of central Brooklyn communities.

Sincerely,

Letitia James NYC Council (D-35th)

2 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-15 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3513

Dear Judge Mann: Thank you for your efforts to shape a fair and rational redistricting plan for the State of New York. We applaud the principles that have guided your work and recognize the many commendable qualities in the proposal before you. We write to you as individuals who currently serve as elected local officials in Westchester County shore communities on Long Island Sound to raise serious concerns the court drafted redistricting plan now proposed for Westchester County.

Specifically, we respectfully object to the manner in which proposed Congressional Districts 16 and 17 divide Westchester and Rockland counties. Our communities share crucial issues with communities upstream related to flooding, stormwater management, and a variety of related issues affecting Long Island Sound. In recent years the Sound Shore has suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damage, incurred increased costs for our sewage treatment plants that flow into Long Island Sound, and have sought increased intermunicipal cooperation from upstream communities that share our watershed. As you are aware, our watersheds travel North/South. The existing districts recognize and benefit our communities because they unify the shared interests of central and southern Westchester communities with forceful representation in Washington. To split these watersheds will greatly diminish our ability navigate these issues effectively and in concert with each other and with focused representation at the federal level. More broadly, our voice will be additionally diluted and diminished in the following ways: Proposed Congressional Districts 16 and 17 would shatter the core of the districts that currently comprise the lower Hudson Valley. The Sound Shore region and central Westchester have together formed the core of a single district for at least 30 years. Under this proposal, the link between the Sound Shore and central Westchester would be severed for the first time in more than a generation.

Proposed Congressional Districts 16 and 17 separate hundreds of thousands of residents from their current representatives. A majority of Westchester and Rockland residents would be placed in new congressional districts, without sufficient regard for continuity of representation.

Proposed Congressional Districts 16 and 17 would divide a community of interest. With nearly 950,000 residents, Westchester County has more than enough population to have an entire Congressional District drawn entirely or almost entirely within its borders. Doing so would facilitate effective representation for the many interests that bind Westchester residents together, including shared public institutions, transportation networks and infrastructure, commuting patterns, first responder needs, water quality and environmental concerns, and taxation policies. Instead, this proposal divides Westchester nearly in half.

...

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-15 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3514

Our current representative, Nita Lowey, for many years, has been the most important champion for the Long Island Sound and flooding relief in Congress and is now a senior member of the powerful Appropriations Committee. The restoration and preservation of Long Island Sound has been a long, expensive and critical effort for enhancing and protecting the quality of life and values of our communities.

The effort is not complete. We need to continue the work to ensure that Long Island Sound continues to be cleaned up and protected for our residents, real estate values and our environments. We need Nita Lowey to continue to fight for Long Island Sound and us with a continued focus on the shared interests between Southern and Central Westchester County. This vital issue in our communities is a prime example of the need to maintain continuity of representation for the cores of Congressional districts, and we respectfully request that you consider adjustments to the current proposal to reunite theses communities with such great shared interests.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Nancy Seligson Supervisor, Town of Mamaroneck

Joshua Mandel Mayor, Village of Larchmont

Catherine Parker City Council Member, City of Rye

Barry Fertel City Council Member, City of New Rochelle

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 3515

David Nir 230 E. 88th St., Apt. 4B New York, NY 10128 (212) 655-9641 [email protected]

March 14, 2012

By public online submission system

District Judge Dora L. Irizarry Circuit Judge Reena Raggi Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Favors et al. v. Cuomo et al., No. 11-cv-5632

Dear Judges Irizarry, Raggi, and Lynch:

I previously submitted a public comment in this matter to Magistrate Judge Mann via the Court’s public online submission on March 7, 2012. I am very pleased that the Court has made adjustments to the Proposed Plan, reflected in the Recommended Plan, that partially address two specific concerns that I identified in my March 7 comment (regarding the unification of Genesee and Livingston Counties). However, I believe that several issues that I identified remain outstanding and that this court can address them without departing in any way from the standards it set for Judge Mann. To the contrary, all of the ameliorative changes I propose here would further the stated goals of this court.

In his affidavit, Professor Persily indicated that he intended to reunite both Livingston and Wyoming Counties in the Recommended Plan.1 Regrettably, the Recommended Plan does not accomplish this: Wyoming County remains split between recommended Districts 23 and 27.2 In its adjustments to the treatment of Livingston and Wyoming Counties in the Proposed Plan, the Recommended Plan splits the town of Naples in Ontario County (in order to compensate for population inequalities arising out of these adjustments). To achieve reunification, the 231

1 Affidavit of Professor Nathaniel Persily, J.D., PH.D., (“Persily Affidavit”), ¶ 158. 2 While the Recommended Plan does reunite the town of Pike in Wyoming County, the town of Arcade remains split as I discussed in my March 7 comment, with 231 residents assigned to recommended District 23 and 3,974 residents assigned to recommended District 27. A review of the appendices to the Persily Affidavit confirms this. See, e.g., Persily Affidavit, Appendix H at p. 2, Persily Affidavit, Appendix I at p. 2, and Persily Affidavit, Appendix J at pp. 1, 45, and 53. Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 3516

residents of the town of Arcade currently assigned to the recommended 23rd District could be moved to the recommended 27th District, in exchange for 231 residents (of 1,294) of the town of Naples currently assigned to the recommended 27th District. Doing so would reunite the town of Arcade and, correspondingly, all of Wyoming County, without splitting any new jurisdictions or departing from the rule requiring strict population equality.

Further, the town of Canandaigua in Ontario County remains split in the manner discussed in my March 7 comment.3 Block 3010 of Tract 506.01, another “errant zero-population block”4 which is currently assigned to recommended District 23, can also be restored to recommended District 27 with no effects on the other changes in Ontario County that I discussed above or the important principle of population equality as a whole.

To address the above issues, I propose changes, at the block level, that make the necessary adjustments to recommended Districts 23 and 27 while preserving population equality. A map of these changes and the resulting “adjusted districts” is shown in Attachment A1 (across two pages). The corresponding block equivalency file is attached as Attachment B1.5

I also respectfully submit that the other issues that I identified in my March 7 letter can be addressed without harming any of the interests identified in Professor Persily’s Affidavit and Judge Mann’s Report and Recommendation.6 These issues are the splitting of both Erie and Niagara Counties across recommended Districts 26 and 27, and the splitting of both Montgomery and Rensselaer Counties across recommended Districts 19 and 20.

In my March 7 comment, I presented potential adjustments at a general level that would resolve these issues and reduce, by two, the number of counties split across districts. With the benefit of additional time, I am now able to propose specific changes at the Census Block level. Maps of

3 I noted that: “One block of that town, Block 3010 of Tract 506.01, contains zero population and is assigned to the proposed 23rd District, while the remainder of the town is assigned to the proposed 27th District.” 4 Professor Persily uses this term to describe another zero-population block that I identified in Genesee County. See Persily Affidavit, ¶ 158. 5 Attachments A1-A3 are included on subsequent pages. Attachments B1 through B4 are all comma- delimited block equivalency text files and submitted separately. 6 In my March 7 comment, I also discuss the issue of six towns in Westchester County split between proposed Districts (and now recommended Districts), when two split jurisdictions should be sufficient for population equality purposes. In the interim, I have also identified similar issues in Dutchess County (the towns of East Fishkill, Hyde Park, La Grange, and Poughkeepsie are all split between recommended Districts 18 and 19), Herkimer County (the towns of Manheim and Russia between recommended Districts 21 and 22), Monroe County (the towns of Clarkson and Hamlin between recommended Districts 25 and 27), Saratoga County (the towns of Ballston and Stillwater between recommended Districts 20 and 21), and Tioga County (the towns of Nichols and Owego between recommended Districts 22 and 23). In each of these instances, the splitting of one town (or city) should be sufficient for population equality purposes. However, as I have not had sufficient time to propose detailed block-level changes that would resolve these issues, I do not address them further here.

2 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3517

these changes for Erie/Niagara Counties and Montgomery/Rensselaer Counties are presented in Attachments A2 and A3, respectively, and the corresponding block equivalency files in Attachments B2 and B3, respectively.

My proposed changes to Erie and Niagara Counties reunite Niagara County within adjusted District 27 by moving 81,744 Niagara County residents from recommended District 26 to adjusted District 27 in exchange for 81,744 Erie County residents from recommended District 27 to adjusted District 26.7 My proposed changes to Montgomery and Rensselaer Counties reunite Montgomery County within adjusted District 20 by moving 15,613 Montgomery County residents from recommended District 19 to adjusted District 20 in exchange for 15,613 Rensselaer County residents from recommended District 20 to adjusted District 19.8

The changes I propose here (detailed in attachments) fully respect the standard of population equality achieved by the Recommended Plan and required by the Constitution. A complete statewide block equivalency file that includes all the changes that I propose in this comment is included as Attachment B4. Adoption of all the changes I propose would reduce, by three (to seventeen) the number of counties split between districts.

Again, I appreciate the attention that the Court has paid to the integrity and unity of political subdivisions. Reducing county splits was listed by the Court as an important goal. As I indicated in my initial comments to Judge Mann, reducing such splits has other benefits as well. Doing so lowers the burden on local officials, especially those tasked with elections administration. The beneficial effects include requiring elections administrators to maintain fewer voting precincts and prepare fewer unique styles of ballots corresponding to the various representative districts in which a voting precinct may fall, among others.

Sincerely,

/s/ David Nir

7 All Niagara County residents assigned to recommended District 26 are assigned to adjusted District 27. The Erie County residents moved from recommended District 27 to adjusted District 26 reside in the towns of Amherst, Hamburg, and Orchard Park. The town of Amherst is reunited within adjusted District 27 and the town of Hamburg is moved entirely to the adjusted District 27. The town of Orchard Park is split between adjusted Districts 26 and 27. 8 All Montgomery County residents assigned to recommended District 19 are assigned to adjusted District 20. The Rensselaer County residents moved from recommended District 20 to adjusted District 19 reside in the towns of East Greenbush, Schodack, and Schaghticoke. The towns of Schodack and Schaghticoke, which had been split between recommended Districts 19 and 20, are reunited within adjusted District 19. The town of East Greenbush is split between adjusted Districts 19 and 20.

3 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 3518

Attachment A1 – Ontario County

4 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 3519

Attachment A1 – Wyoming County

5 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 3520

Attachment A2 – Erie and Niagara Counties

6 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-16 Filed 03/19/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 3521

Attachment A3 – Montgomery and Rensselaer Counties

7 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-17 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3522

Orthodox Alliance for Liberty

March 13, 2012

BY ECF Honorable Reena Raggi United States Circuit Judge

Honorable Gerard E. Lynch United States Circuit Judge

Honorable Dora L. Irizarry

United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re: Objections to Magistrate’s Proposed Redistricting of Orthodox Communities in Kings, Queens and Nassau counties Favors v. Cuomo, No. 1: 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL (E.D.N.Y.)

Honorable Judge Raggi, Honorable Judge Lynch and Honorable Judge Irizarry:

The Court holds the power to influence the next generation of American voters in this case.

I approach the Honorable Court on behalf of an alliance of Orthodox Jewish grass roots advocacy groups based in the New York City area with strong objections to the Special Master’s proposed Redistricting Plan.

I. ORTHODOX JEWS ARE A RACIAL GROUP PROTECTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

As we argued in our proposal to Honorable Judge Mann, Orthodox Jews constitute a unique and distinct class of the Hebrew race (commonly known as the Jewish people). Of the larger racial group of Jews in general, Orthodox Jews alone place primary importance on upholding the Torah, which contains rules that have kept the Jews a distinct demographic over the course of millennia.

U.S. Congressional Districts representing Orthodox Jewish communities in the New York City area have been egregiously gerrymandered up until the present date. Natural and complete neighborhoods of Orthodox Jews have been split between as many as five different Congressional districts (such as Midwood and Gravesend, called “Flatbush” by Orthodox Jews). Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-17 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3523

Natural, neighboring communities of interest have been separated from each other (such as Hollis Hills, Jamaica Estates and Hillcrest being separated from Kew Gardens Hills, Forest Hills and Kew Gardens in Queens; while Far Rockaway and Bayswater are separated from their abutting neighbors in Lawrence, Cedarhurst and Woodmere in Nassau County).

The Honorable Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Redistricting Plan does nothing to alleviate this violation of the Civil Rights Act, but actually aggravates the injustice.

II. OBJECTIONS TO REDISTRICTING OF ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN KINGS COUNTY New York State is slated to lose two Congressional districts following the Census. By eliminating the seat of Robert Turner, the large Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of Flatbush is broken up and subsumed in neighboring African American communities.

III. OBJECTIONS TO REDISTRICTING OF ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN QUEENS COUNTY Jamaica Estates, Hollis Hills and Hillcrest should not be separated from the rest of the Jewish community in adjoining Kew Gardens Hills, Forest Hills and Kew Gardens. IV. OBJECTIONS TO REDISTRICTING OF ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN NASSAU COUNTY Far Rockaway should be included with its natural neighbors in the Five Towns.

We thank the Court for its kind invitation to submit our proposal, and for honorably carrying out its sacred mission to preserve our nation with the rule of law.

Respectfully submitted,

Dovid Z. Schwartz Community Guardians Group Flushing, NY (917) 680-6632

On Behalf of the Orthodox Alliance for Liberty

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-18 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3524

Cynthia P. Simmons 376 President St. Brooklyn, NY 11231

March 14, 2011

District Judge Dora L. Irizarry Circuit Judge Reena Raggi Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Favors et al. v. Cuomo et al,. No. 11-cv-5632

Dear Judges Irizarry, Raggi, and Lynch:

I have been a resident of the Carroll Gardens/Gowanus area for over twenty years. I am also a former member of Community Board Six in Brooklyn and served on the Waterfront and Economic Development Committee. The piers numbered 1-9B up to Hamilton Ave/ Brookyn Battery Tunnel have been a focus of CB 6 and have been a historically vital part of Carroll Gardens and the Columbia Waterfront community as the shipping industry provided jobs for many longshoresman who lived in the Carroll Gardens area.

Today, these piers continue to provide jobs and remain a vital part of the City’s commerce. Currently, they the are located within Congressional District 12 and are also located within the 52nd Assembly District and Community Board Six. The proposed plan by Judge Mann places these piers in District X, a district that does not have as active ties to the adjacent community as the current 12th District has. The neighborhood contiguous to the piers (Columbia Waterfront District) is growing and the residents need a liaison to foster dialogue between the shipping terminals and the residents. regarding various quality of life issues.

Piers 1- 9B should remain contiguous with the adjoining neighborhoods and be placed into the recommended Congressional District 7.

Very truly yours,

Cynthia P. Simmons Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 3525 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 3526 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3527 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 3528 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 3529 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 3530 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 3531 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 3532 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 3533 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 3534 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 3535 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-19 Filed 03/19/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 3536 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-20 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3537 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-20 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3538 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-20 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3539 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-20 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3540 Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 240-20 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3541