[MUSIC]

Tiffany: It's The Brian Lehrer Show. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Tiffany Hanssen, filling in for Brian today. Yesterday, the State Court of Appeals began hearing arguments on whether New York's congressional lines should be redrawn, again. Obviously could have statewide implications, but it could also affect the balance of power in Washington. With us to talk about the hearing and New York's redistricting efforts is WNYC's Albany reporter, Jon Campbell. Hi, Jon.

Jon: Hi, Tiffany.

Tiffany: All right. If we have time, in addition to redistricting, Jon, I'd like to get your take on what bills rather, we might see Governor Hochul signing before the end of the year, and maybe actually take a quick look ahead at January's legislative calendar as well. Now, Jon, this redistricting process has been a bit of a soap opera. I would like too, if listeners will bear with us, because I know not everybody is really plugged into the history on this. It's complicated, and I think history will give us context for what happened yesterday.

We're going to try to get to a little bit of that before we talk exactly about what happened in yesterday's hearing. Because just talking about that in a vacuum won't really make any sense. Get back in the way back machine with me, Jon, and we're going to go back to 2014. Voters in New York approved a constitutional amendment to create an Independent Redistricting Commission. This was after the 2020 census, right? This commission couldn't really do what they were supposed to do, right?

Jon: Yes. The 2010 census, they redraw the lines once every 10 years in every state that has more than one congressional district. New York is certainly one of those back then. They had 27 districts. Now, we've got 26 districts. What happened then was, if you could even go further back in the way back machine to 2010, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor, he made it a point of his to try to reform the redistricting process because, for decades before that, New York just did it by having whoever was in power in the state legislature, draw the lines for Congress, draw the lines for the state legislature.

That is a recipe for gerrymandering because whatever party is in power, would be inclined to draw the lines to their party's favor. He set out on a quest to get a new process. He had all these candidates sign a pledge saying, "Yes, we want independent redistricting." Then they didn't do it that cycle, but they reformed the process for the next cycle, which is what brought us to 2014. There was this constitutional amendment that voters approved in New York that set up the Independent Redistricting Commission, five Republican appointees, five democratic appointees, they were supposed to draw the lines for this most recent redistricting cycle last year.

They tried to and they put one proposal forward, the legislature rejected that. Actually, they put two proposals forward at once, the legislature rejected both, and then they deadlocked and couldn't come up with a second plan. That's what happened with the Independent Redistricting Commission.

Tiffany: We got two maps out of that, right?

Jon: We got two maps out of that, but they were both rejected by the Democrat-led legislature. Then the legislature stepped in and said, "Okay, we're going to draw it ourselves." They did. It was heavily skewed towards Democrats, and then that's when you saw Republicans' suit last year.

Tiffany: Right. We had Democrats in control of the Assembly and the Senate. They drew maps, as you said, in favor of Democrats, right? Governor Hochul signed it, Republicans sued. We're talking March of last year, Republican sued. It went to a "friendly" court upstate. What was the uptake from that?

Jon: Well, they originally sued a little earlier in 2022 in Steuben County. It's Elmira, west of Binghamton, for people who were following along on the map here, but they sued, they won. The judge in Steuben County said, "Yes, these are gerrymandered. The Constitution doesn't allow drawing congressional lines to benefit a particular party or person or race or whatever." The judge threw that out, but the judge also ruled that the process was not followed, that the legislature should not have stepped in to draw the lines because the Independent Redistricting Commission was supposed to send two different sets of proposals, and they didn't.

The Independent Redistricting Commission threw up his hands, and said, "Hey, we're deadlocked. We can't send the second set." That was thrown out, it went to the mid-level appeals court, they agreed. It went to the Court of Appeals, which is all appointed at that point by Democratic governors, and it agreed too. It was a 4-3 decision, Republicans won. They got those lines tossed last year. It goes back to the Steuben County court. They appointed a special master, academic from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh to redraw the lines. Those were the ones that were in place for last year.

Tiffany: All right. Listeners, there's your history lesson. We want to hear from you. We know you have questions about redistricting. Who cannot have a question about redistricting? It's been in the news, it's been on our minds, it's been in the courts for so long now. There's got to be some nagging question for you about either the process, about the process of gerrymandering, about all of this action in the courts that's been taken around redistricting. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

You can also text us at that number we're talking with, Jon Campbell, WNYC's Albany reporter who's been keeping tabs on redistricting, as we heard for, well, for a long time, which is good, because the context is needed. Jon, we definitely appreciate that. All right. We left off with a special master. We have this poli-sci prof from Pennsylvania who's become the special master of New York's redistricting. Where do we get with that and how does that land us in court again?

Jon: He drew new maps. His name's Jonathan Cervas. He drew a new map, it went into place, Republicans performed very well on that map. It was a more competitive map. Of the 26 districts, there were seven or eight that were competitive districts, and Republicans cleaned up last year. They did really well in New York. They picked up a net gain of three seats. That helped them take control of Congress. That was a huge deal. True Blue New York went further Republican, there was 15 Democrats who won 11 Republicans. Democrats did not like that, they sued.

They are claiming on procedural grounds that that Independent Redistricting Commission should get another shot at drawing these lines. They want to throw out the current lines that the special master put in place. They say the Independent Redistricting Commission should get another shot. The mid-level appeals court agreed with Democrats, it went to the State Court of Appeals yesterday. That's the top court, seven judges. They heard arguments in that case, and that decision is going to help determine whether New York gets a new map for next year's elections.

Tiffany: Jon, I want to bring some listeners in here. Again, listeners, if you have questions about redistricting, call us, 212-433-9692. You can also text that number. We have our resident redistricting expert, Jon Campbell with us today to answer your questions. Rodney in Briarwood, Queens. Rodney, what's your question for Jon?

Rodney: Good morning. My question is, what would a fair process of redistricting look like? If we're not facing decisions on party lines or race or some other illegal criteria, how would that process take place? What would be the procedure?

Tiffany: Jon, if we could put this all into a vacuum and not have any political forces acting on it or any other kind of forces acting on the decision-making process, what would that look like?

Jon: Well, that's going to change depending on your perspective, and what you think fair means in this context. What I would say is the good government groups, what they have advocated for is something that is truly independent. What you have now on the Independent Redistricting Commission, you have five Democratic appointed members, five Republican appointed members, that can lead to deadlock, so that's perhaps not a perfect process. It also goes to the legislature after, and the legislature and governor have to approve, give final approval.

Good government groups don't like that, either. I think what they would want to see is a more independent panel that's perhaps not appointed directly by the people in power, and they certainly wouldn't want to see the legislature have final say. They would want that panel, some sort of independent entity to have final say. That is, I think, what the good government organizations would want.

Tiffany: Isn't that what the special master was supposed to be?

Jon: Well, sure, in theory, but in practice, if I'm a Democrat, I can make the argument, "Well, this guy was appointed by a Republican judge in Steuben County. The Republicans went judge-shopping and found somebody in rural Steuben County." I can make that argument, if I'm a Democrat. That's coming from the Democratic point of view. It's also important to note here too, that in the arguments yesterday, Democrats aren't arguing that the map is unconstitutional, that the current 26 districts are unconstitutional, they're saying that the process calls for the Independent Redistricting Commission to step back in.

Tiffany: Let's talk about this. You were in court yesterday. You heard Judge Michael Garcia, you heard lawyers on the Democratic side, on the Republican side. Let's hear a little bit about what you heard. You brought some tape with you today.

Jon: Yes.

Tiffany: Tell us who this is that we're going to listen to and what we're listening for.

Jon: Yes. Nice to clarify, I wasn't in court yesterday because he was in Buffalo. The court took their show on the road this week. It's usually in Albany, but it was it was in Buffalo this week. I watched on a livestream. What we're going to hear here is Michael Garcia, he's the lone Republican judge on the court. He was appointed by Andrew Cuomo. He had a lot of questions Aria Bridges. She's the top Democratic attorney in this case about the process argument that whether or not the map itself is unconstitutional.

Judge Michael Garcia: The goal here are fair maps, right?

Aria Branch: The goal is for the congressional map to be drawn according to the process--

Judge Michael Garcia: That's a procedural argument that you're seeing that trumps the substantive provision in the Constitution.

Aria Branch: I'm not saying that trumps the substantive provision in the Constitution, but the procedural requirements are important.

Tiffany: We're getting a little in the weeds with procedural requirements. We heard the conversation there, not really a conversation, between as you said, the lone Republican on the Court of Appeals Judge Michael Garcia, and an attorney Democratic attorney, Aria Branch. Translate a little bit what was happening there for us.

Jon: Yes, and I apologize. I think I said Aria Bridges. It's Aria Branch. Thank you for correcting.

Tiffany: Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

Jon: No, no, no, I'm glad you did. What's happening there is some of the more moderate to conservative judges on the court, there's three of them, really latched in on this argument from the Democrats. Basically, they said they don't take any constitutional issue with the current map in place. They just think that procedurally the Constitution allows them to get a new map from the the Independent Commission. That is really what they latched on. They were like, "Well, you don't really have a problem with the map itself on a constitutional basis, so why should we throw it out?"

Tiffany: We're going to get to how the Republicans responded to that in a second, but I want to bring a caller in. We're going to go to Steve, who's on the Upper West Side. Steve, good morning. Welcome to The Brian Lehrer Show.

Steve: Hi, how are you doing good.

Tiffany: Good.

Steve: Not a first-time caller. I love the show.

Tiffany: Great.

Steve: The criteria that should be used for drawing districts, it should be done by a computer, by starting with the population mass center as the center of the redistricting process, which could be an iterative computer-generated process that minimizes the perimeter of the district to the enclosed population ratio and makes the perimeters of each district as small as possible, so that you don't get these districts like the Bullwinkle District in Queens and Brooklyn, which has an incredibly long perimeter, and really does look like Bullwinkle, was very aptly named.

The whole criteria would be a first-pass redrawing, and of course, it would have to take geographic formations like lakes and things into account in the perimeter minimization. It's not a very simple problem, but it's not a really mathematically complicated problem. Then it would ultimately redraw the districts and every 10 years, they would apply the same calculus, which does not involve calculus, but it would be the same process for each redrawing as the population moves, and it is what it is.

And everyone just has to grit their teeth and bear it, but this would never happen in the real world because no one would agree, because both Democrats and Republicans are trying to outcheat each other. They would never agree to allow some computer or some godless mathematician to guide the redrawing of the district.

Tiffany: Should we leave it up to math?

Jon: Well, I think what the mapmakers would say is like they do start there. You also see a lot of rounds of public comment, things like that. What happens is, and the mapmaker, Jonathan Cervas, the person who put these maps into place, he put out a proposal and then there was comment to the court, and he made some changes based on, "Well, you're splitting Crown Heights, or you're splitting this neighborhood, that neighborhood." It starts with that computer analysis, every mapmaker is going to be using some sort of computer map-based program to do that, but then you have to make some human tweaks to ensure that neighborhoods aren't split, things like that.

Tiffany: Jon, overwhelmingly-- Well, not overwhelmingly, but we're getting several texts, and that pretty much say the same thing about people really liking the idea of "independent view on all of this". "I'm sympathetic to nonpartisan redistricting approaches, but when we see what happens elsewhere, as example in Wisconsin, it seems like unilateral disarmament." Also, Scott in Kew Gardens says, "I'm anti-gerrymandering, however, since Texas and other red states still do it with glee, could we not reverse the New York constitutional amendment?"

I think there's a couple of things there. One is, generally speaking, people are like, "Yes, let's try to make this fair for everyone." I think that that's kind of where we get tangled up. The other thing here is that we're hearing a little bit about these other states. I just wonder if you can touch on that, and then I want to go back to yesterday's hearing, too, as well, but just maybe touch on some of what's happening in the other states.

Jon: Yes. In this state, it's the Republicans that are arguing that this is a power grab by Democrats. That this is, "Look at how brazen this is, they're trying to get a new map so they can get new districts that are beneficial to them," but say, go to North Carolina, and Republicans took more power in North Carolina, and they got their map thrown out. Now that map is more beneficial to Republicans, and in some states, they don't have an anti-gerrymandering provision like New York has had since 2014 that prevents maps from being drawn to benefit a partisan party here.

That disarmament argument is one that you hear a lot, because if Democrats were to give up their final say over maps in New York, maybe that puts them more at a disadvantage when Republicans have final say in however many states they have final say in. Both parties are doing this in different states. In New York, Republicans are making the power grab argument, but in other states, it's Democrats say that Republicans have the power grab.

Tiffany: Well, I want to hear from Republicans that were in court yesterday. I'll have you set up this GOP attorney, who was in court yesterday. You brought another clip for us.

Jon: Yes. This is basically making the argument that one of the things Republicans made the argument, this is Misha Tseytlin. He's the lead Republican attorney on the case. He's making the case that redistricting in the middle of the decade is dangerous, essentially.

Misha Tseytlin: Mid-decade redistricting is particularly dangerous because, of course, the potential gerrymanders know where the incumbents are, know where the close districts are, and know how to take them out.

Jon: That's part of the Republicans making this argument that this is really brazen on the Democrat's part. That they are just trying to get a map that better benefits their party.

Tiffany: Jon, I want to bring Amy from Manhattan in the conversation. Good morning, Amy. Welcome to The Brian Lehrer Show. Amy, are you there?

Amy: Yes. Hi.

Tiffany: Hi.

Amy: Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

Tiffany: I can hear you.

Amy: All right. Actually, I have an observation in addition to the question. One is about the statement that partisan redistricting is unconstitutional. I was wondering where in the Constitution. It sounds like it was in the state constitution, but what does it actually say? The other thing I want to point out about having redistricting-- It's hard to say, redistricting computerized, then it would all depend on who writes the programs and how it's written.

Tiffany: Jon, getting to an independent process, it's not an easy thing no matter how you look at it.

Jon: No, it would require-- I mean, to get to a truly independent process where the legislature doesn't have the final say, it would require a constitutional amendment and that is a multi-year process, you need the legislature to pass it, then you need the next legislature to pass it, and then it goes to the voters and the voters would have to pass it. That's exactly what happened in 2014, when this process was originally put into place. That's where that anti-gerrymandering statute was put into place. I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it says, you can't draw lines to benefit a particular partisan interest.

Tiffany: Well, and I want to get to Amy, I forgot to say thank you. Thank you for your call, Amy, but I want to get to Jon what she talked about there with the Constitution. You're talking about constitutional amendments, what does New York State Constitution say about redistricting efforts?

Jon: It lays out the entire process. It lays out the membership of the Independent Redistricting Commission, it lays out what date they're supposed to send a map to the legislature, what date they're supposed to send a second map to the legislature, and it lays out that entire process, that's what voters approved in 2014. It's really vague in some parts on that part of the reason why we have this court case right now.

Tiffany: Listeners, we're talking with Jon Campbell, WNYC's Albany reporter about redistricting back in the courts yesterday. Jon had some tape for us. He's got some perspective for us and we want to hear from you as well. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 with your redistricting questions, you can also text that number. Jon, in court yesterday, any idea based on what you heard, how soon this might wrap up and or if we will see any movement from the courts anytime soon?

Jon: The seven judges of the Court of Appeals didn't give any indication when they would rule but both parties, Republicans, Democrats, they're hoping it is soon because the primaries are supposed to be in April and we already have candidates who have declared and who are trying to-- they're campaigning as we speak. They're hoping for something soon. We should say to, six of the seven judges were on the bench for last year's redistricting case. They split 3-3. Three sided with Republicans, three-sided with Democrats, and they both seem to be on that path yesterday.

There's a wildcard, the seventh judge who is not actually on the Court of Appeals, but she's replacing a judge who recused herself in this case, she's the wildcard here. Her name is Dianne Renwick and she didn't really ask many questions yesterday, so we have no idea which way she's going to go.

Tiffany: One thing we didn't mention on our little history lesson is the retirement of DiFiore last year, do I say is it, DiFiore or DiFiore?

Jon: No, you had it right. She was the chief judge. She retired, she was replaced by a new chief judge, Rowan Wilson, who was already on the court and then he was replaced by a judge, Caitlin Halligan. We didn't know which way she was going to go on the redistricting case here, but she is the one who recused herself. It all comes down to this Dianne Renwick. She's the presiding judge for the middle courts in the first apartment.

Tiffany: Okay, Jon, I want to bring another listener in here. Joe in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Good morning, Joe. Welcome to The Brian Lehrer Show. Hi, Joe.

Joe: Hello.

Tiffany: You had a question for Jon?

Joe: Yes, I was curious about whether he believes that the Supreme Court decision, which deprived federal jurisdiction to questions of state gerrymandering is a correct decision that whether there's not some basis for having federal jurisdiction reviewable up to the Supreme Court in the federal system?

Tiffany: Jon.

Jon: Well, it's beyond my area of expertise to say whether or not that was a correct decision, but it was the decision that was handed down so that's a Supreme Court decision that basically said, "Hey, it's up to the states to figure this out." It doesn't really apply here in New York's case because New York does have an anti-gerrymandering provision in its constitution, like we've said a few times. The state constitution is really what's at play here in New York.

Tiffany: We go back to the commission again, the Democrats are arguing we throw it back to the Commission again, what's the likelihood that and I know you've touched on it a little bit, but I'm just wondering, it obviously didn't work last time around what's the likelihood that we're going to get any better result this time around if, in fact, we do just throw it back to the commission.

Jon: It's certainly there's a possibility that the commission could deadlock again and that is what happened last time. There are new members on the commission, Ken Jenkins, a deputy county executive from Westchester County, is the Democratic chair, and Jack Martins was on the Republican side, but he's in the Senate now. There are new members, but it doesn't-- there's certainly that possibility, and then it would go to the Democratic legislature to draw the lines and then Republican who would probably sue again, and we'd be right back here talking about another case.

Tiffany: Because we should know that every time they propose a new map, they being the Commission, the legislature has approval.

Jon: Yes.

Tiffany: [crosstalk] Just to underline that.

Jon: They're all Democrats, the Senate's controlled by Democrats, the assembly is controlled by Democrats and Governor Hochul is Democrat.

Tiffany: All right, Jon, lots to consider definitely, when it comes to redistricting in the State of New York, we really appreciate your time on that. Before I let you go, I just want to talk a little bit about some of the bills that are coming across Governor Hochul's desk, maybe even today, Clean Slate bill could be signed today.

Jon: It was signed-

Tiffany: It was signed.

Jon: -just as we were speaking. As we were speaking, the Governor signed it at the Brooklyn Museum. That's the Clean Slate Act and this is a major criminal justice reform that is going to automatically seal most criminal convictions. We're talking for like two million people in New York. Say, you're convicted of a misdemeanor, you'd have to complete your sentence and then wait. There's a waiting period of three years for felonies, it's eight years before that conviction will be automatically sealed. That means it wouldn't be available to the general public.

There are certain exceptions, it doesn't apply to sex crimes. It doesn't apply to the most serious felonies, murder, arson, things like that. Then there are also schools, if they're hiring somebody, they will still be able to see the convictions or police agencies or the DMV will still be able to see driving convictions. It's a big deal and the governor just signed it really a few minutes ago.

Tiffany: Okay, I just have one other bill I want to ask you about and that's this LLC Transparency Act. The AG in Brooklyn and Manhattan, the Manhattan district attorney urging Governor Hochul to sign that bill, what's the likelihood that that's going to happen?

Jon: This is a bill that would require LLC's limited liability companies to reveal who their "beneficial owners" are. So often LLC is are used to shield who the actual owner of a company or an entity is. You see that a lot in real estate where you can't really figure out who owns a building, you can only find the LLC name. This would require them to name the owners. It is something that real estate is pushing back on, some sectors of real estate are pushing back on.

Real estate is a major funder of the Governor Hochul's campaign so she's got a tough decision here about whether to sign this act, which is supposed to increase transparency, or whether to seed to real estate, which has concerns about it.

Tiffany: All right. Jon before I let you go, it's crystal ball time. Coming up 2024 first part of 2024, legislatively speaking, what do we see on the horizon and what don't we?

Jon: Well, housing is probably going to be a big issue. It was a big issue last year, the governor had this big housing plan, she said it would create 800,000 units and she and the legislature couldn't come to any sort of agreement on that, they didn't do anything substantive on housing. Now that is almost certainly going to come up again this coming year in the legislative session, but it's an election year for all 213 state lawmakers. It's going to be make it that much harder to get something through when they couldn't get something through last year.

Tiffany: Jon, I think we're going to have to leave it there. Jon Campbell, WNYC's Albany reporter. Jon, thanks so much for your perspective and all of your reporting today. We appreciate it.

Jon: Thanks for having me, Tiffany.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.