Redistricting New York
Redistricting New York
A thorough review of the Special Master's report
The subject of congressional redistricting may not be on every voter's mind, but ever since the recent two Supreme Court rulings in Allen v. Milligan and Moore v. Harper, redistricting is in the air again. It may have been a year since the Empire State set new lines for its congressional map —26 districts in all — but let’s not ignore the earthquake that caused New York into a political frenzy.1
Former Chief Judge of New York's Court of Appeals, Janet DiFiore, struck down the state's Democratic-controlled legislature's congressional map in last April's 4-3 ruling in Harkenrider v. Hochul, ordering that the lower Court in Steuben County appoint a special master to help draw new lines. The ruling also rescheduled the state's primary election from June 28 to August 23, practically creating headaches for both parties in their 2022 political calendars. DiFiore herself would later resign from her post by the end of August, likely due to an ethics investigation at the time, a few months after the state's newly implemented congressional districts were officially adopted in May. Overall, the appeals court believed that a lower court would be able to swiftly, "adopt constitutional maps with all due haste."2
The matter came to be because Judge Patrick McAllister of the lower Court [in Steuben County] originally ruled that the proposed legislative district maps made by the state legislature were illegally gerrymandered to benefit Democrats. In addition, McAllister ordered new maps to be redrawn after a successful lawsuit by Republicans.3
The person whom McAllister would appoint would be none other than Jonathan Cervas, a postdoctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University in the Institute for Politics and Strategy.
Cervas would be called, "New York's most unexpected power broker," a headline by the New York Times, written by Jason McKinley.4
Democrats, eager to pick up House seats with their legislative proposed map that eventually was struck down, were outraged. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a fierce establishment Democrat representing parts of Brooklyn and Queens, said that Mr. Cervas' work degraded the Black and Latino populations in five New York City-based congressional districts. The unelected, out-of-town special master did a terrible job, produced an unfair map that did great violence to Black and Latino communities throughout the city…"5
In another Times piece, Jeffries was quoted saying that the maps were a, "constitutional travesty," and that Mr. Cervas' changes resulted in shrinking voting populations amongst a handful of Black and Latino districts.6
Make of it what you will, but hardly has anyone given a thorough breakdown of Mr. Cervas' full report, and written a thorough summary of his explanations. It's rare for someone to come across an independent map maker, especially for the state of New York. Regardless of political ideology, it bears acknowledging there truly is something historical to be learned here, and I hope future historians and political scientists alike can divulge into this matter and its analysis for time to come.7
PART ONE: WHO IS MR. CERVAS?
Contrary to a suggested former headline, Jonathan Cervas was no power broker. That title belongs to Bob Moses, more than any other New Yorker in its history. But the fact is, he did play an important, if not the most important role in all of New York politics: Creating the state's congressional and the state senate's legislative districts.8
Cervas described himself to be someone who served both the Court and democracy. He was also someone who enjoyed governance, but never liked the bickering, animosities, or games that came with it. “Those types of things are uninteresting to me,” he said.9
Being appointed by McAllister, not only was there a tight deadline, but whatever he was going to map out would eventually affect not only the millions of New Yorkers but ones who ambitiously continued to seek political careers in the Empire State.10
In his roots, Cervas studied politics at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, supporting himself by working in a movie theater and later bartending.
Upon entering graduate school at the University of California at Irvine, he studied under Bernard N. Grofman, where he soon developed to see him as a mentor and came to find a deep interest in the political science topic of gerrymandering, as well as other geographic systems.11
Once Mr. Grofman was appointed to be a special master for a case in the Navajo Nation in Utah, which was around the time Cervas became a research assistant for Mr. Grofman. Helping to empower Navajo Native Americans by drawing lines, "Nothing felt as great as that moment when I had a direct impact on people's lives. And that continues on every one of these cases," he reflected.12
Before being picked by McAllister, Cervas had done previous redistricting work in states such as Georgia, Utah, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Mark Nordenberg, who chairs the Pennsylvania redistricting commission, said that Cervas proved to be an invaluable specialist in redistricting, and had a very deep depth of knowledge of both the law and mapping skills in the technical sense. Nordenberg also happened to be the former chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, and stated that Cervas made his approaches, "in a fair and nonpartisan fashion."13
In a brief bio indicated at the start of his report, Cervas is a postdoctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University. He explained the background of three state cases, as previously summarized. Recently with the Pennsylvania decision, he indicated, "the maps drafted by the commission passed with a bi-partisan vote on February 4, 2022. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unimously [sic] affirmed the final reapportionment plan. My worth with the commission is ongoing."14
PART TWO: BREAKING IT DOWN
The map he created seemed to fully reflect the geographical concentration that makes up many of New York's minority populations, such as African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans.15
Even Jerry Vattamala, the Democracy Program's director at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who acted on behalf of lobbying to represent people of color throughout New York City, reflected that Mr. Cervas was responsive to the thousands of public comments he received, further noting that the long six-hour drive was worth it in his estimate.16
There are numerous points where Cervas gives descriptive reasonings for his approach, and how such decisions when redistricting were to abide by both federal and state laws.
The first established point comes from a generalization of the legal case, and what led up to the current mantra. In the decision made by the New York Court of Appeals, they had ruled, "congressional and state senate plan passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor had bypassed the Redistricting Commission and thus were not enacted through a constitutionally valid process…" furthermore, "the Court also held that the Respondents ‘engaged in prohibited gerrymandering when creating the districts.’”17
Given the legal circumstances, this matter, "triggered the new provision of the State Constitution that shifted the burden to state courts to specify a process for creating constitutional maps for each body. On April 18, 2022, I was asked by Judge and Acting Supreme Court Justice Patrick McAllister to serve as Special Master in preparing a remedial plan for the New York congressional delegation to be considered by the Court."18
Second, under the instructions given by McAllister, Cervas must adhere to the provisions by the constitution of the state of New York, for example, "the strict equal population requirement for Congress," and to avoid the fragmentation of the political subunits that exist in both counties and their cities, whereas, "I sought to draw districts that were reasonably compact." In other words, compactness over fragmentation.19
With bold emphasis, Cervas was also told to draw his proposed maps that were, "blind to the location of incumbents… The predominant motive of these proposed maps was to fully comply with federal and state law. Race-based redistricting is strictly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore I did not use race as a preponderant criterion…"20
Third, even with the primary date postponed by two months, the Court provided a timetable of deadlines for Cervas to submit filings, few were such as: expert witness reports, both the preparation and dissemination of his report and final map, and given the fact that, "the Court was operating under extremely severe time constraints."21
Fourth, such an urgent matter with the imposed deadlines set by the Court, "the time pressure made it impossible for a single individual to do everything that was needful…" naming the employment of research assistants to help out in the New York redistricting case. "In addition, with the approval of the Court, I brought in the distinguished redistricting scholar, Bernard Grofman (University of California, Irvine), as a consultant."22
Fifth, aside from viewing the past congressional maps enacted in 2012 and the Redistricting Commission's proposed maps, "I also benefited from hearing in person from around 30 citizens in Bath, NY on May 6, 2022." This helped Cervas prepare his map in the required time frame given. "In so doing, I looked for good ideas from the many submissions by concerned citizens and groups and, to the extent feasible given the time constraints, incorporated them when they allowed for integration into a complete map drawn fully according to constitutional principles."23
Sixth, public input was helpful because comments made by both the public and groups of concern, due to their input necessary by the Court, were to improve changes related to existing map proposals. Such feedback, accounted for by Cervas, was an estimated 800+ emails and social media messages, while the 3000+ comments were submitted to the Court. This allowed for the ability to review revisions and expert witness reports.24
Seventh, changes in the proposed maps had to do with communities of interest. In some submissions, there were unsuitable plans, in other words, inconsistent. For instance, as Cervas lays out, "Some submissions were simply infeasible to implement without ripple effects that would force dramatic changes in the maps, affect other constitutional criteria, or suggestions were feasible in practice because of the very binding population equality constraints imposed by the New York Constitution." With that said, it is deemed entirely inappropriate if and when a map were to be drawn to benefit an incumbent's chances for re-election, or a particular party. This is based on the merit that, "good government strictures [sic] embedded in the Redistricting Amendment to the New York State Constitution, and the requirement that maps neither favor nor disfavor any political party or incumbent…"25
Eighth, the Court, eager to hear about communities of interest upon the multitude of submissions, Cervas put forward in his report, the descriptions and criteria used to plan a constitutional map, and its key features for review. It was to, "discuss how those suggestions for improvement were dealt with in the final revisions to the initial proposed maps."26
Ninth, a set of multiple criteria given in no order of rank: Voting rights, equal population, contiguity, and compactness. Followed by subcategories about competition, partisan or incumbent bias, district cores, pre-existing political subdivisions, and communities of interest.27
Voting rights: