Groups to Defend Law Ending Prison Based Gerrymandering

This week, the Brennan Center and other civil rights organizations stepped up to defend New York’s law that ends prison based gerrymandering. The law, which requires that incarcerated persons be allocated as residents of their home communities, is currently being challenged by New York State Senator Elizabeth Little and others in the Little v. LATFOR.

Filing a motion in New York Supreme Court asking to intervene to help defend the law, which our colleague Erika Wood has previously discussed on ReformNY, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Law and Social Justice, D­ēmos, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Prison Policy Initiative are representing fifteen rural and urban voters and three nonprofit organizations.

We will be following this case on ReformNY. For more on Little v. LATFOR, please visit the case page on the Brennan Center's website.

An Independent Redistricting Commission: A Must for 2012

The Times Union ran an editorial on Sunday on the Senate Majority Leader’s argument on the constitutionality of an independent redistricting commission in New York State. The editorial calls out the Senate Majority for its position of supporting an independent redistricting commission during the last election and its current position that the plain is unconstitutional — thus requiring a constitutional amendment and delaying the process until the elections of 2022.

Through internal reviews of the governor’s proposal, the Brennan Center found no constitutional problems with the creation of an independent redistricting commission and also issued a statement commending the bill. The Times Union cites a recent memorandum by Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP on the redistricting bill which noted that an independent redistricting commission would not intrude on the legislature’s constitutional powers, as any recommendation by the commission would still require final approval by the legislature.

The creation of an independent redistricting commission that would recommend fairly drawn districts before the 2012 election would signal an important step forward for our state legislators who have for far too long chosen their own voters.

For more on the Brennan Center’s work on redistricting, please visit our website, where you can access A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting and other resources.

Setting the Record Straight on New York Uprising

The Brennan Center never provides material support to efforts to influence the outcome of elections. An article in last week's Legislative Gazette incorrectly stated that New York Uprising, which has successfully obtained pledges from gubernatorial candidates regarding redistricting reforms, had received support from the Brennan Center and other good government groups. The Brennan Center has studied redistricting for a decade: our extensive materials are available on our website free of charge, our attorneys regularly speak with groups of all kinds as part of our education and outreach about this issue and we often comment on various proposals for reform. Deeply committed to reform of New York’s state government, we do not oppose or support any specific candidates, and, by extension, candidate pledges.

A Blueprint for Fixing Albany

Today, the New York Times ran an editorial assessing the problems in New York and what needs to be done to fix them. Calling the state a “national embarrassment” and “a $131 billion monster controlled by a crowd of smug officials whose main concern is keeping their soft jobs,” the Times outlines a must-do list for state lawmakers. The editorial says what recent polls have already suggested – with the 2010 election a little over a year away, lawmakers fail to reform state government at their peril.

The editorial lays out a laundry list of areas for improvement that it will profile in detail in the coming weeks:

• Ethics Reform. The Times calls for “independent monitors with powers to oversee the ethics of those in the state government and Legislature.”
• Campaign Finance. Advocating a public financing model, the Times calls for “strict rules for reporting and using that money.”
• Budget Reform. The Times demands a more transparent budget process.
• Pension Reform. Of the fact that the comptroller is the sole trustee of the state’s pension fund, the Times says, “This should not be happening anywhere, but especially not in Albany.” The editorial supports Cuomo’s proposal for a 13-member commission to manage pensions, but cautions that the commissioners must be carefully chosen.
• Modernize Voter Registration. Echoing the paper’s support of a national proposal to reform the voter registration system, the Times says it’s time to make it easier to register to vote in New York.
• Redistricting Reform. One of the causes of stagnation in Albany is the process by which legislators draw their own districts – and choose their own voters. The Times advocates putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission.

Some members of the New York state legislature are probably beyond redemption, but for those who still wish to accomplish something for New York State, the blueprint outlined by the Times is a great place to start.

Political Power and Dominance Beyond the Coup

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story about the impact of the state’s shifting demographics on gridlock in Albany, predicting that population increases in urban areas will lead to a larger Democratic majority after the 2010 Census.

The article mentions Republicans’ efforts to combat this trend in 2000 by packing as many urban voters into as few districts as possible while creating more rural districts of lesser population, but its author does not seem to think that this could happen again. We aren’t so sure.

Some have speculated that a primary motivation for the June 8^th Senate coup was control of the redistricting process, which occurs once per decade. And while the legislative leadership-appointed commission that redraws district lines must keep the population of each district roughly equal, there are all sorts of ways for those in charge of redistricting to game the system to grant the dominant party more control. Those in charge of the redistricting process can and often do dilute votes by packing voters together or dividing them among several districts, enhance power by creating oddly-shaped districts with the “right” partisan demographics, and divide communities of shared interest.

The ability to singlehandedly appoint a third of the members of the state’s redistricting commission (the Speaker of the Assembly appoints another third) is just another unique power of the Majority Leader that has, as we’ve said before, made the fight for leadership of the Senate so bitter.

When we consider ways to ensure that the chaos of the coup doesn’t happen again, working toward a more independent redistricting process merits serious consideration.

Times to Albany: Reform New York!

Today's Times reacts to the Bruno-Skelos news with a sharp editorial about the (poor) state of reform in Albany under the headline, "The More Things Change in Albany." Quoting from the piece:

"Here is just a short list of what needs to be fixed: a scandalous campaign finance system, a culture of back-room secrecy that serves lobbyists rather than the voters and a system for drawing political districts that comes straight out of Tammany Hall. Voters should demand concrete reforms from their state representatives, many of whom are going home this week to campaign for re-election."

Gearing Up for Reform Day

It's exciting to see all the reform-minded press this weekend as we prepare to head to Albany tomorrow for Reform Day. (You can still register and join us in telling our leaders that Enough is Enough!)

The New York Times exposes (in case you didn't already know) the unfair distribution of staff and resources in the Legislature.

The Democrat & Chronicle reports on efforts to tighten ethics enforcement in the wake of recent scandals.

And the Observer-Dispatch and the Press & Sun-Bulletin advocate reform across the board, touching on ethics, rules reform, redistricting, and campaign finance reform.

Let's head to Albany and push for the responsive, deliberative, accessible, accountable, and efficient government New Yorkers deserve!

Don’t Let Reform Slip Off the Agenda

At the beginning of 2007, we heard a State of the State from Governor Spitzer that sounded highly promising, and included firm commitments to reform in the areas of ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, elections, the judiciary, and the budget. He followed up the speech with a hard push to pass a campaign finance bill and proposals to change the way we choose judges and draw district lines. What a difference a year (and some political trouble) makes! Today's speech completely ignored last year’s ambitious reform agenda, making at the end a passing reference only to campaign finance reform.

We don’t quarrel with the importance of the items like education and healthcare that did make the cut, but we were greatly disappointed to hear crickets instead of a renewed commitment to reform of our government systems. As we have argued many times, the dysfunction we find in Albany doesn’t keep to itself -- it filters into the problems we face in all other areas. Sky-high contribution limits make our elected officials responsive to their big donors rather than ordinary voters and taxpayers. Gerrymandered districts help incumbents skate to 90-plus percent re-election rates, regardless of whether they are tackling the tough issues. And legislative rules allow Senate and Assembly leaders to bury even those bills that enjoy the support of a majority of legislators and the public.

The 2008 election season will put our broken campaign finance system, overdue switch to electronic voting machines, and gerrymandered districts on display. We will spend the year pushing for the reforms New York so sorely needs. We hope the Governor will fill in today's silence with a plan to pitch in.

Conversation with Assemblywoman Galef

The picture above was taken at the Cablevision studios in Peekskill, where I recently had an interesting, and fairly wide-ranging coversation with Assemblywoman Sandy Galef about the state of the New York State Legislature and judiciary, and the prospects for reform in New York generally on her television show "SpeakOut with Sandy Galef." I laid out some of the Brennan Center's latest thoughts on how we might get real changes in New York on campaign finance reform, legislative rules and redistricting. Sandy Galef has been one of the Legislature's leading reformers, and we discussed some of her efforts to make the legislature more effective over the last several years.

The show will be airing for the next couple of weeks in northern Westchester and Putnam counties. We'll provide a link as soon as we get one.

P.S. It is true that I'm wearing the same shirt in the photo above as the one at right -- pure coincidence! I do actually own more than one shirt.

In Response to This Morning's Anonymous Commenter and Our Other Not-So-Constant Readers

An anonymous visitor left a comment this morning on a post I wrote last week about the opportunity for redistricting reform that New York has in the few years before the next census.

Anonymous writes, in part:

A so-called bipartisan computer redistricting model will magically retain McHugh and Walsh upstate seats by generating weirdly vast gerrymandered districts with absolutely no connection to the electorate. The reason will be to ensure the disenfranchisement of downstate citizens, i.e., to dilute Hispanic votes and the potential for more Hispanic political clout in NY.

First off, thanks for participating in the conversation, Anonymous! In response, I would refer you to our further posts on the topic of redistricting. Nowhere will you find us advocating for a blind, computer-driven model of redistricting. We agree that ignoring demographic factors will lead to a map that in no way serves the needs of New Yorkers.

We are seeking reforms that will take power out of the hands of self-interested politicians and break the cycle of bipartisan gerrymanders that have plagued us for so long. District lines should be drawn to encourage competition, but as Anonymous points out, they should also be sensitive to the needs of the citizens that they encompass. Where at all possible, district lines should avoid splitting up communities of interest, whether they are official communities, such as towns and cities, or they are less defined racial and ethnic communities.

We are open to any ideas that would serve these purposes and would love to hear your further thoughts on the topic!

Possibility of Losing Congressional Clout May Carry Silver Lining

An AP story in this morning's USA Today highlights Missouri's impending loss of a congressional seat but also mentions that, given current trends, New York stands to lose two.

This is obviously bad news in terms of New York's clout in the House of Representatives, yet it also presents a ripe opportunity for redistricting reform.

In addition to considering how populations have shifted within the state, those charged with drawing the lines must figure out how to carve 27 districts out of a state that previously had 29. As in the past (New York has lost at least one seat in each of the last six census counts), this means that we will have to go through another round of political wrangling to decide whose districts will be eliminated and how that territory will be divided up. Inevitably, partisan and incumbent motives will take precedence over fairness and representation of real communities.

That is, unless we get serious about redistricting reform. Proposals like Governor Spitzer's independent commission plan would take the redistricting pen out of the hands self- and party-interested politicians.

New York deserves a redistricting process that suppresses politics and power in favor of the values of redistricting reform: counting the population and redrawing the district lines in a way that is equitable, fair, and sensitive to diversity. We should not let another census go by before we fundamentally improve the way districts are drawn in our state.

Glimpses of the Next Redistricting Fight

The Daily News reports that some of the white constituents in the district of Assemblyman Carl Heastie, who co-chairs the committee responsible for redistricting, may mount a challenge to their district lines: "There's already some rumbling that whites in the East Bronx might file legal action under the federal Voting Rights Act - as a minority group by then - to oppose a Latino congressional district being carved out there."

If it's already time to start thinking about the power struggle that follows each census, shouldn't we also get serious about redistricting reform? New York deserves a redistricting process that suppresses politics and power in favor of the values of redistricting reform: counting the population and redrawing the district lines in a way that is equitable, fair, and sensitive to diversity.

Counting Incarcerated New Yorkers

Yesterday, the New York Times editorial page cheered the fact that thirteen New York counties that exclude from redistricting counts prisoners housed within their boundaries. This information comes from the newest report by the Prison Policy Initiative, a group that has long advocated allocating prisoners to their last known address for purposes of representation and distribution of federal, state, and local resources.

We wholeheartedly agree with the Times and PPI. By counting prisoners as residents of their current locales instead of their home communities, New York unfairly inflates the power of prison towns. In effect, since incarcerated people are disenfranchised, the votes of citizens in towns that house prisons are worth more than those of citizens who reside in other areas.

New York State should pass legislation to either exclude prisoners altogether from redistricting data or, better yet, collect information on prisoner's last known address and count them in their home communities.

Read more about the need to change the way incarcerated people are counted in the census here.

Theories of Representation

In today's Washington Post, columnist David Broder laments what he sees as "mob rule" in the federal government:

The belief that official Washington is deaf to the people's wishes is a staple of political rhetoric for both Republicans and Democrats.Let a reporter who is not running for anything suggest that exactly the opposite may be true: A particularly virulent strain of populism has made official Washington altogether too responsive to public opinion.

He sees the defeat of the bipartisan immigration bill as evidence of this swing toward strict adherence to public opinion.

This is an interesting contrast to the way things are perceived to work in New York. It seems that the voices of the people are rarely heard at all, let alone heard so loudly that they force or sink passage of legislation. New Yorkers have been pleading for years for things like Wicks Law reform, energy solutions, and better economic opportunities for upstate.

During this Fourth of July week, it is interesting to think about representation and the delicate balance of the will of the people with what is right for the entire state or country. Should the will of the people ultimately trump all other considerations, as anti-Federalist Melancton Smith argued during the ratification of the federal Constitution? Or should our representatives be trusted to know better than the common person what is in the best interests of their constituents and the public at large, as argued by 18th century British political theorist Edmund Burke?

In New York, at least, it seems that our broken institutions prevent us from having either type of representation. The rules of the Legislature ensure that only bills that are approved by leadership are considered and approved, thwarting legislation that is popular with the public but opposed by powerful special interests. New Yorkers are also unable to trust that their elected officials will act in their best interests, since big donors and gerrymandered districts seems to have more sway over elections than voters.

That's why we think campaign finance reform, legislative rules reform, and independent redistricting must be on the top of the legislative agenda. Until and unless reforms in these areas are implemented, we can neither ensure that our voices are heard in government nor trust our representatives to act in our best interests.

Suffolk County Creates Independent Redistricting Commission

Governor Spitzer joined Suffolk County Executive Levy today for the signing of the bill that creates a “non-political commission” to perform redistricting for the county legislature.

As Newsday reports:

Levy's initiative would set up an eight-member commission with four Republicans and four Democrats, but no one actively involved in politics. Members would include four retired judges, two representatives from recognized minority groups and two from good government watchdog groups.

In many respects, this is certainly an example for the state Legislature to follow.

Brennan Center Op-Ed in Buffalo News

Kahlil argues in this morning's Buffalo News that the rules of the Legislature should be improved to enable rank-and-file members to participate in the legislative process before we take steps toward implementation of initiative and referendum. He refutes the idea that redistricting reform would create unbreakable one-party control in New York:

There’s little evidence to suggest that the GOP can’t win elections or that electoral tides couldn’t sweep them back into power should they lose it. So rather than concerning ourselves with stemming the legitimate power granted by voters to the Legislature, our representatives should work to ensure that the will of the electorate is effectively channeled by offering meaningful rules and redistricting reform.

How About Independent Redistricting with a Nice Tall Glass of Rules Reform on the Side

Are you concerned that New York is going to become a one party state if we adopt an independent redistricting process?

You’re not alone. Lawmakers, including Senator James Alesi writing in the Buffalo News [link updated] last week, have expressed hesitation at the idea of reversing the gerrymander that keeps Republicans in charge of the Senate and Democrats dominant in the Assembly. By party affiliation, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state almost 2-to-1.

Alesi argues that, if redistricting is truly done in an impartial way, “the citizens of this state must have significant protection against the predictable outcome of one party controlling both houses of the Legislature, congressional districts and a predictable long-term occupation of the governor’s office.”

First, we don’t grant Alesi’s premise that Democrats will form an iron grip on the executive branch. Didn’t Republican George Pataki just leave office after 12 years in power? Hasn’t the overwhelmingly Democratic city of New York been run by Republican mayors for just as long? New Yorkers know how to split tickets.

But more importantly, we don’t think Alesi’s solution of adopting unbridled initiative and referendum is necessary to give all New Yorkers a proper voice in government.

What we really need is legislative rules reform. Without a constitutional amendment, even without agreement between the Assembly and Senate, each house can clean up its rules to give rank-and-file members of both parties the opportunity to effectively represent their constituents.

By equalizing staff and office resources, improving the committee process, allowing votes on legislation even when it’s unpopular with leaders, and institutionalizing conference committees, the Legislature can clear the way for the people’s representatives, regardless of party and geography, to participate in the creation and implementation of innovative solutions to New York’s most urgent problems.

Spitzer Announces Redistricting Proposal

Today, Governor Spitzer announced a bold plan to bring vital reform to the way New York draws its legislative lines. Right now, every ten years, the sitting legislators carve up the state as they wish, with the freedom to create their own designer districts for maximum gain. The Governor has proposed a vast improvement: a commission, out from under the legislative thumb, to take the pen out of the hands of self-interested partisans. We’re delighted to see the Governor speaking out on multiple fronts – substantial campaign finance reform, redistricting, voter registration procedures … in short, a systematic effort to bring the people back into their government. We applaud Governor Spitzer for helping to move the state’s political process forward – and urge the legislature to take up the challenge.

Any West Wing Junkies Out There?

Senate Majority Leader Bruno announced yesterday that he is backing Senator Griffo’s bill to limit the terms of statewide officials and legislative leaders.

The bill would limit statewide officials to eight years in office, and it would prevent a member from serving as Senate Majority Leader and Assembly for more than eight years. Committee chairmen would be limited to six years in those positions.

While the Brennan Center has no official position on term limits, this does get us thinking about a certain quote from the first season of the West Wing. President Bartlett says, “When the playing field is leveled and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits: they’re called ‘elections.’”

There is definitely some truth to that. Why start with term limits on all officials, good and bad, when you can go a long way toward fixing the underlying problem without them?

If you want to reduce incumbent financial advantage, try lowering contribution limits, closing campaign finance loopholes, and creating a system of public financing.

If you want to stop incumbents from excluding strong challengers from the competition, try taking the power of redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and vesting it in an independent body.

And if you want to see a more diverse slate of candidates, try easing the restrictions on challengers trying to appear on the ballot.

We’re glad to see the Senate attempting to address dissatisfaction with longtime incumbents and legislative leaders, but we hope to see them try more targeted solutions before resorting to the blunt instrument of term limits.

Reform Super Powers

Look up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Reform Man?

For those of you who have ever imagined Eliot Spitzer in tights with his underpants on the outside, check out the Common Cause blog for a truly amusing post.

Liam Arbetman points out that next Monday is both Reform NY Day and the return of Heroes to NBC, urging lawmakers to take more valiant and stouthearted positions on important reform issues.

He posits what powers a reform super hero might possess:

• "Super Re-apportionment": the ability to draw compact, contiguous, AND competitive district lines.


• "Freedom of Information"-vision: the ability to see through opaque layers of government bureaucracy to see what's really happening in the statehouse and with your tax dollars.


• "Campaign Contribution Shrink-Ray": the ability to shrink campaign contribution limits and close loop-holes.

Wonk-tastic, but hilarious, nonetheless.