RIGGED to MAINTAIN POWER How NYS’ 2012 Redistricting Protected Incumbents and Continued Majority Party Control
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RIGGED TO MAINTAIN POWER How NYS’ 2012 Redistricting Protected Incumbents and Continued Majority Party Control An Impartial and Independent Redistricting Process Prop 1 Will Outlaw Unfair Districts, Curb Power of Legislators and Give New Power to New Yorkers to Ban Gerrymandering A Citizens Union Foundation Report October 2014 Citizens Union Foundation 299 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10007-1976 phone 212-227-0342 • fax 212-227-0345 • www.citizensunion.org Peter J.W. Sherwin, Chair • Robert Abrams, President • Dick Dadey, Executive Director Report Written by Peggy Farber, Legislative Counsel, and Rachael Fauss, Director of Public Policy Citizens Union Foundation October 2014 Rigged to Maintain Power Page i Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 B. The Report’s Major Findings .............................................................................................................. 3 1. Competition at the Polls Reached New Lows.............................................................................. 3 2. Redistricting in 2012 Benefitted the Parties in Power in Each House ....................................... 4 3. The Majority Parties Used Population Deviations for Partisan Gain ......................................... 4 4. Public Engagement Was a Sham in 2012 ..................................................................................... 5 5. The Legislature Does Not Reflect the Diversity of New York ..................................................... 5 C. Solution to the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 6 1. Binding rules that replace the current weak and vague rules. .................................................. 6 2. A politically balanced redistricting commission consisting of 10 members with significant barriers on who can serve to eliminate conflicts of interest. .................................................... 6 3. An open opportunity for meaningful public engagement. ........................................................ 7 4. The legislature would be bound by the redistricting rules. ....................................................... 7 2. Rigging the System 2012: Citizens Union’s Findings ....................................................................... 8 A. Elections Were Even Less Competitive After the 2012 Gerrymander ............................................ 8 B. Redistricting in 2012 Protected Partisan Advantage ..................................................................... 10 1. The Majorities Held onto Seats in Each House in Disproportionate Numbers ....................... 10 2. New Districts to Shore up Power ............................................................................................... 11 3. The Majorities Divided Metropolitan Areas for Partisan Advantage ...................................... 13 4. Districts Combined to Protect Partisan Power .......................................................................... 14 5. Bizarrely Shaped Districts ........................................................................................................... 14 C. The Parties Used Population Deviation for Partisan Gain ............................................................. 16 1. Population Deviation to Favor Districts by Majority Party Enrollment ................................... 16 2. Population Deviation to Favor Districts by Region ................................................................... 18 D. Public Engagement Was a Sham in 2012 ........................................................................................ 19 E. The Legislature Does Not Reflect the Diversity of New York State............................................... 20 1. Queens – Representation of Minority Communities ................................................................ 20 3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 23 Citizens Union Foundation October 2014 Rigged to Maintain Power Page ii Report Illustrations Table 1: Competitiveness Scale..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: NYS 2012 Election Results for State Legislative Office .................................................................. 9 Figure 1: Comparing Votes Cast for Majority Parties Statewide and Election Results ............................... 11 Figure 2: The Senate’s Newest District, SD 46 ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Rochester Assembly Districts, 2012 ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 4: Rochester Senate Districts, 2012 ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5: Comparison of Buffalo Senate District 60: 2002 and 2012 .......................................................... 15 Figure 6: Assemblywoman Tenney’s District ............................................................................................. 16 Table 3: The Relationship between Party Enrollment and Population Deviation ...................................... 17 Table 4: The Relationship between Votes Cast and Population Deviation ................................................. 18 Table 5: Senate Representation of Minority Communities in Queens County ........................................... 21 Table 6: Assembly Representation of Minority Communities in Queen County ........................................ 22 Citizens Union Foundation October 2014 Rigged to Maintain Power Page 1 1 Executive Summary A. INTRODUCTION The rigged system of redistricting is corrupting the spirit and reality of representative democracy in New York. It has become a form of collusion between the majority parties in Albany, who draw safe district lines to protect incumbents and limit voter choice that reduce the number of competitive elections. This report examines the election results that followed the 2012 redistricting process and reveals that once again legislators rigged the system to maximize their hold on power in each house, and shows how a proposed redistricting constitutional amendment on the ballot this year as Proposal 1 would have reformed the process by outlawing partisan gerrymandering, and ending the practice of legislators drawing districts to favor incumbents and majority parties. In 2012, incumbent state legislators’ re-election rates rose to 97 percent, 37 percent of all candidates – incumbents and newcomers – effectively faced no challenger, only 10 percent of the 213 state legislative contests in the general election were competitive, and candidates won by an average margin of 61 percent. And the legislature continues to be slow to reflect demographic and cultural changes in the state’s population with a process that protects incumbents. These simple facts show how rigged the 50-year process of redistricting has been and why New Yorkers need to bring about change by voting for Proposal 1 to take power away from the legislature and end partisan gerrymandering once and for all. The grab for institutional power that has plagued New York State for decades and is described in this report would not be possible under the terms of the constitutional amendment for several reasons. The amendment strips New York incumbent legislators of their unchecked power by making it unconstitutional to draw lines “for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties.”1 Nothing in the laws or constitution of New York, or the United States, currently makes partisan gerrymandering illegal. Thus, if enacted, the amendment would be a radical departure in New York State law. Across 1 Amended Article III, Section (4)(c)(5). Citizens Union Foundation October 2014 Rigged to Maintain Power Page 2 the nation, only four states prohibit partisan gerrymandering in their constitutions, and only five other states contain statutory language prohibiting it. In addition to establishing a constitutional ban against district lines drawn for political advantage, Proposal 1 would create a politically balanced redistricting commission. No legislators, lobbyists, or other political figures would be allowed to serve. The commission would be legally bound to engage the public in meaningful participation in the process. It would be required to hold 12 public hearings across the state and to make all of its data and draft maps widely available to the public 30 days before hearings, using the best available technology, in a form facilitating the public’s ability to review and analyze proposals. Proposal 1 would also establish binding rules for the drawing of district lines. The commission would be under an obligation to create districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants as practicable, and “for each district that deviates from this requirement, the commission [would have to] provide a specific public explanation as to why such deviation exists.”2 Districting that abridged or denied the voting rights of racial or language minorities