Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[MsKreed 1,167]

As I said earlier....I think the expert's point is is being dismissed prematurely before considering the impact he alludes to. 

For instance, the 9th and 11th districts shown above are 16.65% and 19.34% black, respectively. As the EOP and the County Planner noted, the neighborhoods that comprise those population concentrations have more in common than how many are people of color. 

There are higher poverty rates, families receiving rent/SNAP subsidies and single female heads of households.....among residents of any color in those neighborhoods (even in the same households there are a number of inter-racial families). Residents like those with common social/economic situations would likely support a candidate who advocates for their common concerns.....much like an area with primarily owner occupied homes for whom property taxes may have a different priority and might support candidates that advocate for their interests. 

There is also a person of color running for Legislator in both the 9th and 11th (currently as well as in past elections). Right now they are each running with a 16-19% black plus perhaps a comparable percentage of voters with similar values/concerns (of all races)....so may hope to glean 30%. If the community comprised of people of color and other residents with similar concerns were shifted to one district, it would be a much higher likelihood that a candidate of color in a >30% black in diverse neighborhoods where all races share common interests/need could indeed get more than 50% of those votes. 

As far as I know....Adon Allen was the last person of color to serve as a County lawmaker....when the Board of Supervisors was comprised of City Council members and Town/Village Supervisors. Weird how that hasn't happened again since the 15 district Legislature was was adopted. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by MsKreed

[Adam 372]

16 hours ago, MsKreed said:

Sweet didn't seem to be joking when he questioned the need to consider keeping black neighborhoods intact: “Can I ask why? Why is it so important to create that?” 

I wonder how long we'll be waiting for Brennan to call out that statement?

i wouldnt hold your breath....remember Joe has statements out there essentially blaming poor, and particularly those of darker persuasions as reasons for ill effects on neighborhoods

[MsKreed 1,167]

The Committee had another meeting yesterday (4/18/22), in which the SUNY analyst presented two initial (slightly differing) draft maps of proposed districts. 

According to the new timeline, the MultiServices committee will meet next Monday (4/25) to decide to move a resolution calling for a public hearing on Redistricting Plan to the Full Legislature (which vote on the Public Hearing on May 9th). If passed, the date for the Public Hearing would be June 6th.

Mr Simon indicated he would send PDF files of the two plans (with high resolution close-in images of district lines) to the Committee today. So far, I've only seen THESE low resolution maps posted on the county website. 

I didn't think it was possible to have poorer images than the existing District map.  I was wrong.

They are virtually impossible to discern, and I sincerely hope they're just scans of the hard copies that the Clerk uploaded while waiting to receive hi-res actual files with close up images of each district.

Plan A v0.1

 

Plan A v0.2

Edited April 19, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,153]

So, from what I can see the majority of districts changed would be in the city? And I see the 5th gets smaller while the whole of Erin looks to be in the 6th.

Still 15 districts either way. I thought maybe we’d have one or two less politicians to pay for with all this. How silly of me.

[MsKreed 1,167]

Earlier on, the analysts were asked about reducing the number of districts, and they indicated "re-districting" after a Census only includes population realignment for existing districts. Changes to the number of districts would need to be a separate process with a resolution to amend the charter subject to its own referendum. They'd also noted that there are processes where such a change can be initiated by the Legislature, by the Executive.....or by petition from the voters. 

And yes, by law, the population in the Town of Erin is too small to divide between districts, so it will have to be shifted entirely into D6 (with some of Chemung carved into D15, because Chemung is large enough to be split).  

It's not visible on those maps, but the discussion in the meeting and explanations revealed that D3, D4 and D7 are the other places with notable changes. The rest are just a street here and there (or in the case of Veteran, a couple hundred moving from D1 to D5 to reduce the D1 population within legal margin and add what's lost by T/Erin back into D5).

[Chris 2,153]

Link to all maps

[MsKreed 1,167]

There was another meeting held at 6:00 PM last night (5/2/22) that included members of the Legislature who aren't on the Committee. Joshua Simons reviewed the two drafts he's prepared and answered questions from the Legislators who were present.

Some questions and comments seemed more relevant than others....and a couple of Committee members took the opportunity to defend the Committee's work and make-up against criticism from the County Executive. 

The public was allowed to attend, but not raise questions.....a meeting (prior to the mandated Public Hearing) will be held next Tuesday (5/10) at 7:00pm and it was indicated that will be open to public questions. 

The Committee met again THIS MORNING and agreed to proceed with Version 2. They also uploaded high resolution maps of each proposed district Under the Open Advisory Minutes page HERE of the Legislature's website.

 

[KarenK 382]

Looks pretty much how I expected.

[Adam 372]

8 hours ago, KarenK said:

Looks pretty much how I expected.

one good thing is if Hyland loses 6th this year, well only have to survive 4 years; challenger would become resident of 15th

 

[Chris 2,153]

[KarenK 382]

     

Edited May 4, 2022 by KarenK

[Farm raised 23]

Mr. Grasso clearly does not understand the process. I would think the Elmira City Council operates under the same rules. 
 

[MsKreed 1,167]

To be fair, Mr Grasso has attended at least two previous meetings that were posted on the county site with the same "All interested parties are invited to attend" and they did allow questions from the public at both.

Also....at an earlier Standing Committee meeting and at Monday's meeting, they indicated another public meeting will take place before the mandated Public Hearing in June. The details for that were posted today:

 

Honestly, the complaints from two Committee members that the Executive has as much as stated he plans to veto whatever plan they pass lacks some context....as he also noted that he "hopes the public will then reject it" should the Legislature override his veto. 

They seem to be overlooking the reality of public referendums. Voters tend to reject proposals that they don't have a full grasp of. When in doubt - the gut says vote "NO".  This happened in 1992 and 1993.....where redistricting only affected a few hundred residents moving from one district to another.  Yet voters in the other 13 districts that had no affect at all voted NO. 

When that one 92/93 line was rejected, voters had not heard vocal criticism from the Exec....and still failed to pass it. I think the Committee/Legislature needs to seriously consider the likely result if they continue to quietly post public meetings where only those looking for it are aware of them....but Chris Moss's opposition is in the news. 

Any college intern taking a few Public Relations classes could tell them they should reach out to the media with more than just time/place of a generic meeting......they should be getting media coverage of some overview of what is happening and why (bullet list of the new laws, how far off some districts are from legal apportionment, etc). 

Otherwise they not just allowing a voter rejection like 92/93 to happen again....they are facilitating it. 

[Farm raised 23]

Glad to see there will be an opportunity for public comment, that is important.  You made very good points about letting all the voters know, not just those that have changes.  Part of the problem now, compared to last time this took place, is that the main news source (Star Gazette) is a shell of it’s former self and they don’t dedicate anything to local issues.  

[Chris 2,153]

12 hours ago, Farm raised said:

Part of the problem now, compared to last time this took place, is that the main news source (Star Gazette) is a shell of it’s former self and they don’t dedicate anything to local issues.  

We're here, doing our best to put some light on it. Tell your friends! 😀

[MsKreed 1,167]

The video of last night's public meeting is HERE

I really can't say that it was "productive" as far as the public comments that were raised, as it's not clear whether any of the feedback received from the public will be used to create a 'version 3' draft to be voted on.

However, in the sense that (like the first Public Meeting in March - found HERE), it did provide clear legal and logistical explanations for the reasoning behind how/why the proposed plan was decided upon. In my opinion, that is the sort of public information that really needs to be submitted to the media so voters understand what's being presented before they hit the polls in November.

Without getting that context clearly relayed to voters, I can easily see a lot of "no" votes from people who think there should be fewer districts, and aren't clearly informed that is a separate process. Or "no" votes from D5 people in T/Erin who aren't aware of the legal requirement that the town needs to be in one district (and D5's current population is too high to take the whole town, and D3 & D4 are already too overpopulated to absorb any T/Hhds residents from that side of D5). 

Or (like 92/93) a bunch of "no" votes from people who are simply inclined to be suspicious of any referendum that they know nothing about. 

 

[Chris 2,153]

I’ll have to look at it later. In the meantime, is there a power point or something that we could post here?

[MsKreed 1,167]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

In the meantime, is there a power point or something that we could post here?

Something like that would be wonderful, but the Committee hasn't produced one. Basically, Sweet read a prepared statement that reiterated and summarized much of the legal requirements that were outlined by the analysts in the first public meeting (on March 16th - in the minutes HERE).

 

Then the analyst pulled up on the screen the District Maps and zoomed in as he discussed various details of each one.

 

[MsKreed 1,167]

Maybe I'll get a chance to compose something for the Elmira Telegram that covers the points that voters should know about before the June 6th mandated Public Hearing. 

I've followed all the meetings and located the various places that documentation and such are available on the county website; I don't think I'm overstating to say that I honestly think I have as good of a grasp on the process and requirements as some of the Committee members 😉

Edited May 12, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,153]

36 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

I don't think I'm overstating to say that I honestly think I have as good of a grasp on the process and requirements as some of the Committee members 😉

I would bet money on it.

[KarenK 382]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

Maybe I'll get a chance to compose something for the Elmira Telegram that covers the points that voters should know about before the June 6th mandated Public Hearing. 

I've followed all the meetings and located the various places that documentation and such are available on the county website; I don't think I'm overstating to say that I honestly think I have as good of a grasp on the process and requirements as some of the Committee members 😉

You probably have more of a grasp on it.

[TTL News 307]

[MsKreed 1,167]

The Event Calendar on teh County site says it's a five minute meeting.....😲

[MsKreed 1,167]

Two members of the public spoke at Monday's Public Hearing (found HERE)......was very short.

Both noted a few borders that they felt could have been drawn better. 

It was mentioned that this proposed map would move the residences of some legislative challengers to a different district and would require them to meet and acquaint themselves with a whole new group of constituents in 4 years. Since there is/was no intent by the analysts (they didn't have addresses of current or potential legislators when drafting the map), that point isn't relevant.

However, Hafler made the point that I've found to be the most important throughout the process:

Quote

holding a public meeting like this, which is advertised as a legal notice in a paper that largely goes unread, is not the best way to solicit actual feedback, assuming that was your intent.

Should the full Legislature pass this plan, they will need to change their approach and significantly ramp up community education and outreach between now and November, or it will fail at the referendum. 

[Chris 2,153]