NYPIRG STATEMENT ON REDISTRICTING PROPOSAL As an organization that has spent decades advocating for reforms to New York’s broken redistricting process, NYPIRG believes it is momentous that there is a proposal to amend the state constitution and enact a state law in this area. A constitutional amendment and law could create a new paradigm for drawing state legislative and congressional districts lines for the future. NYPIRG has identified two broad principles for reforming the state’s redistricting process: independen ce of the mapmakers and establishing clear, objective criteria to limit gerrymandering. We believe these principles, in conjunction with those secured by the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution, are essential to providing the public with assurances that maps were constructed fairly. As the difficulties of creating a truly independent redistricting commission became apparent, our primary focus has been on establishing objective, verifiable criteria that would constrain a line-drawing commission to the greatest extent possible. Over the past year, we have released a report examining the possibility of requiring district lines to have smaller population deviations; provided several testimonies before LATFOR that focused on population discrepancies; and analyzed the lines proposed in February through the lens of population variance. The focus on objective criteria in the form of tight limits on population deviation between districts derive s from the principle of “one-person, one- vote,” first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions in Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which ushered in the modern era of redistricting. Close adherence to the one-person, one-vote standard not only equalizes the voting strength of individual voters within the various districts, it limits the ability of mapmakers to engage in the well-developed practices of “cracking” and “packing” districts for partisan gain. Unfortunately, the federal courts ha ve not required exact population equality in state legislative districts — in fact the courts typically allow deviations of up to 10% between least and most populous districts. Nevertheless some state governments have taken the initiative to require minimal population deviation in their districts. We recognize the proposal represents a potential paradigm shift in the way the redistricting process would take place in New York. It also would articulate a policy against drawing lines for partisan advantage. However, without the inclusion of stringent objective criteria we cannot say with confidence that it will lead to a better product in the form of fairer district lines that result in greater public trust in the maps. Accordingly, NYPIRG’s long-held position does not allow us to support this proposal.

Nypirg Statement on Redistricting Proposal

Download PDF Report

Upload
elizabeth-benjamin
View
217
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Nypirg Statement on Redistricting Proposal

8/2/2019 Nypirg Statement on Redistricting Proposal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nypirg-statement-on-redistricting-proposal 1/1

NYPIRG STATEMENT ON REDISTRICTING PROPOSAL

As an organization that has spent decades advocating for reforms to New York’s broken redistrictingprocess, NYPIRG believes it is momentous that there is a proposal to amend the state constitution and

enact a state law in this area. A constitutional amendment and law could create a new paradigm for

drawing state legislative and congressional districts lines for the future.

NYPIRG has identified two broad principles for reforming the state’s redistricting process: independenceof the mapmakers and establishing clear, objective criteria to limit gerrymandering. We believe these

principles, in conjunction with those secured by the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution, are

essential to providing the public with assurances that maps were constructed fairly.

As the difficulties of creating a truly independent redistricting commission became apparent, our primary

focus has been on establishing objective, verifiable criteria that would constrain a line-drawing

commission to the greatest extent possible. Over the past year, we have released a report examining the

possibility of requiring district lines to have smaller population deviations; provided several testimonies

before LATFOR that focused on population discrepancies; and analyzed the lines proposed in Februarythrough the lens of population variance.

The focus on objective criteria in the form of tight limits on population deviation between districts derives

from the principle of “one-person, one-vote,” first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions

in Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which ushered in the modern era of redistricting.

Close adherence to the one-person, one-vote standard not only equalizes the voting strength of individual

voters within the various districts, it limits the ability of mapmakers to engage in the well-developed

practices of “cracking” and “packing” districts for partisan gain.

Unfortunately, the federal courts have not required exact population equality in state legislative districts — in fact the courts typically allow deviations of up to 10% between least and most populous districts.

Nevertheless some state governments have taken the initiative to require minimal population deviation intheir districts.

We recognize the proposal represents a potential paradigm shift in the way the redistricting process

would take place in New York. It also would articulate a policy against drawing lines for partisan

advantage. However, without the inclusion of stringent objective criteria we cannot say with

confidence that it will lead to a better product in the form of fairer district lines that result ingreater public trust in the maps.

Accordingly, NYPIRG’s long-held position does not allow us to support this proposal.