Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[MsKreed 1,182]

Quote

More information regarding the redistricting and the new proposed maps will be forthcoming on the county's website and made available throughout the community in the near future.

While this is important, I don't think it's nearly enough to simply "make the information available" in the manner that it has been thus far.

I deeply hope (but am not very optimistic) that the Legislature makes a sincere effort toward community outreach to make voters aware of the plan and the reasons why it's required by local, state and federal law.  

To date, the only news/media coverage of the process besides Elmira Telegram and this forum has been very loud disapproval from the County Executive, where he criticized the process and makeup of the Committee.

That negative press was featured on both local TV stations, his podcast, and the local paper over the course of several weeks in February and March:

 

In contrast, the Legislature and the Committee have done nothing to share anything themselves except for nondescript notes on the County website and a couple of back page legal notices announcing meetings.

Aside from the Legislative Chair making an official press release explaining why the public should support the Resolution, there is nothing stopping every individual legislator from reaching out to their constituents individually, on social media, through Town Halls and/or writing Guest Editorials in the local paper.

It’s a likely bet that the Executive will put his opposition out there again before the referendum in November.

If the Legislature doesn't put equal or greater effort into publicly supporting it, the measure will be voted down..... not due to lack of merit, but simply because the body failed to communicate with its constituents. 

And the entire process will be required to start over next year. That will be infuriating.

[KarenK 383]

Pretty sure the lack of info out there is intentional.  They don't want things to change.

[MsKreed 1,182]

17 hours ago, KarenK said:

Pretty sure the lack of info out there is intentional.  They don't want things to change.

I think you're onto something.....but the pointless part is that the current district lines have to change at some point in the next few years. 

Lack of info will only prolong the situation by having voters reject and they'll just have to do this over. Like they had to do three years in a row after the '90 census.

In 1992 and 1993, the voters rejected plans just because they didn't understand the what/why of the referendum. Finally, in 1994 they got the word out with news coverage that it had bipartisan support with endorsement statements from several legislators, explained that it wasn't some bond deal that would cost anything, and only affected 350 people in one district....and an op-ed from the County Exec that detailed and supported the resolution. 

 

[Kevin 334]

46 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

I think you're onto something.....but the pointless part is that the current district lines have to change at some point in the next few years. 

Lack of info will only prolong the situation by having voters reject and they'll just have to do this over. Like they had to do three years in a row after the '90 census.

In 1992 and 1993, the voters rejected plans just because they didn't understand the what/why of the referendum. Finally, in 1994 they got the word out with news coverage that it had bipartisan support with endorsement statements from several legislators, explained that it wasn't some bond deal that would cost anything, and only affected 350 people in one district....and an op-ed from the County Exec that detailed and supported the resolution. 

 

You need to stop trying to bring common sense ideas to the legislature. You are using to many big words and will confuse them. 

[MsKreed 1,182]

 Chemung County Executive Vetoes Redistricting Resolution

[MsKreed 1,182]

As expected:

On 7/12/2022 at 5:38 PM, MsKreed said:

It’s a likely bet that the Executive will put his opposition out there again before the referendum in November.

 

[Chris 2,162]

You beat me to it. 

[TTL News 308]

[TTL News 308]

[TTL News 308]

[TTL News 308]

[Adam 373]

turf war on either side here, yes i believe maybe there should be fewer Legislators, or if savngs is the goal of reduction; strip them of health insurance coverage. yes the committee should have been made up of "civilians" but 1. there really doesn't seem to be much interest within the female or POC community to show outrage at lack of representation, so could this topic be merely for scoring political points? 2. if the entity that created suggested changes is apolitical and did so according to NYS Law; if a decrease was warranted, why was it not in the data?  as far as working with the Exec....if anyone has watched meetings or spoken with some of the Legislators, a major issue seems to be that Mr. Moss refuses to work with the Legislature, does not show up to meetings when invited, does not provide requested information(CCNF debacle) etc....almost seems "working with the Executive" means its his way or no way. i will say the concerns surrounding Mr. Smith, if true, should have disqualified him from serving on ANY committee let alone getting re-elected

[MsKreed 1,182]

A Turf War is exactly what it is....and the one whoser "message" reaches the most voters will win.

Even if some of his 'facts' are distorted, misleading, or red herrings that don't really affect the Referendum the voters will be faced with.

I agree that the Committee make-up wasn't as broad and inclusive to the community as it could have been. But the results are as fair and equitable (and legal) as one could ask for. 

The one point that the SUNY analyst (very neutral entity, unlike the original for-profit CGR group) stressed was that more publicity and public inclusion is usually a strong factor in whether voters accept a measure in the end.  I doubt they did enough to give voters that feeling of "engagement" and "participation" that will get it to pass. 

 

8 hours ago, Adam said:

1. there really doesn't seem to be much interest within the female or POC community to show outrage at lack of representation, so could this topic be merely for scoring political points?

Voices from  NAACP and EOC attended multiple meetings of the Committee. discussed their preferences on representation and district lines, and profusely thanked the Committee for their efforts and inclusion.  But (as I've said) the Legislature and Committee seem to avoid press coverage that would reinforce these positive aspects of their process.

 

8 hours ago, Adam said:

2. if the entity that created suggested changes is apolitical and did so according to NYS Law; if a decrease was warranted, why was it not in the data?  

The analysts said the state and federal laws require redrawing existing representation lines....and stated that the question of changing the number of legislative districts is a separate initiative that, by law, would require a separate resolution and referendum. But as long as Moss is unaware of that (or willfully mistating it), and Moss is the only side proactively reaching out to the public (with the Leg only responding with brief defensive statements)..... The Exec's opposition is what will stick with voters in November. 

 

[Chris 2,162]

[MsKreed 1,182]

I saw that, and noticed he completely avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Moss's opinion that the Legislature needs to be reduced. 

[KarenK 383]

50 minutes ago, Chris said:

Of  course he agrees with Moss.  Always does.  

[Chris 2,162]

 

[Adam 373]

14 hours ago, MsKreed said:

oices from  NAACP and EOC attended multiple meetings of the Committee. discussed their preferences on representation and district lines, and profusely thanked the Committee for their efforts and inclusion. 

shame on them for not coming out and refuting Moss's assertions.

no shocker regarding JB, he and Moss backed a lot of same horses this last primary

[MsKreed 1,182]

The Turf War continues.....

On the Agenda  for the  MultiServices Committee meeting on Monday, July 25th:

Quote

CHEMUNG COUNTY ROUTE SLIP * PERSONNEL REQUISITION

Resolution overriding County Executive's Veto of Introductory Local Law No. 4 for the Year 2022 a Local Law amending Local Law No. 4 of the Year 1973 entitled " A Local Law to provide for the establishment of a County Charter for the County of Chemung, State of New York" to redraw legislative district boundaries in response to the 2020 Decennial Census

To what end???

There should be serious questions whether as to the potential benefits of overriding this veto. 

Can the Legislature do it? Yes...14 legislators supported the resolution and can easily override the veto.

Should they?? That's another question that is entirely contingent upon what level of effort those 14 Legislators are willing to exert to persuade the voters to pass it in November.

If they (all of them) aren't prepared to get a message out there that will have greater impact with voters than the opposition Moss is (and will continue) spreading.....then the override is pointless at best.  At worst, it could likely undermine the strength and credibility of the body. 

At this point, the Executive has shown he can flex his muscle and issue a veto. However, if the Legislature 'flexes' right back at him, it could temporarily give the impression that they have the "power" to override him. And the BOE would be tasked with scrambling to meet the requirements of adding the referendum to November ballots.

Hooray, the Legislature proves it is more powerful than Moss. 

Until November. 

If he is more successful in disseminating his position to voters by November, then the outcome is no better than letting the veto stand would be. In fact, it's worse for the Legislature as then he'd have "voter support" that presumably would "vindicate" his decision to veto the plan.

If they are going to gather support from the EOC, NAACP, et al and write op-eds, send out press releases, swamp social media and otherwise "pound the pavement" to ensure voter support....then more power to them! If not, then they should just let the veto stand. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by MsKreed

[MsKreed 1,182]

Chemung Co. Legislature overrides redistricting veto by County Executive

Quote

 

Monday the legislature voted to override County Executive Chris Moss' veto by a vote of 12-1.

An outside consultant Jeff Wice with NY Law School was one of the individuals hired by the legislature to ensure the county was in compliance with state and federal redistricting laws. Weiss spoke at Monday, evening's meeting and explained how it stacks up to what other county governments have done and where the plan will go from here.

 

The Full Legislature Meeting includes Mr. Wice's presentation at the beginning and Legislative discussion of the plan and process (Resolution 22-427) begins at about 28:10 in the video that can be found HERE

[Kevin 334]

I wonder who the 1 vote is.   Actually I don't care I am sure I know who it is 

[KarenK 383]

Oh, I'm sure now someone will sue.  That seems to be the way it goes anymore.

[Chris 2,162]

5 hours ago, Kevin said:

I wonder who the 1 vote is.   Actually I don't care I am sure I know who it is 

Yeah not a lot of gray matter needed to figure that one out, huh?

[MsKreed 1,182]

The County website now has THIS page where links to information on the redistricting issue are consolidated in one place.  Including a FACT SHEET that explans the basics.

With additional commentary/quotes from legislators and local NAACP leader covered in THIS Star-Gazette article.

 

[Chris 2,162]

Quote

The Legislature voted to override Moss’s veto 12-1 Monday night. The redistricting plan initially passed the Legislature by a 14-1 margin, with 4th District Republican Joe Brennan casting the lone “no” vote.

As we figured...

Quote

 

Christina Sonsire, an independent who represents the 7th District, said the county executive’s attacks on the redistricting process were “offensive.”

“There was input from the minority community,” said Sonsire. “I’ve reached out to some of the folks who participated and have heard nothing but good things on the process. In the future, I think involving more of the public directly is a good idea, but the committee did its job here. I have a hard time finding anything to fault in the outcome.”

 

Quote

 

Georgia Verdier, president of the local NAACP, said the educational campaign was crucial to the process.

“We wanted the community to fully understand, ‘What is redistricting, what does that mean?’ Many people didn’t have any real sense of any of that,” said Verdier. “They were hearing about things happening and redlining and they were not aware, so our objective was to create awareness for people because knowledge is power.

 

Quote

 

Verdier hopes the redistricting process leads to a more informed citizenry that is better connected to its representatives in county government.

“So many times we’re upset because people are not involved in the issues impacting their community, but if they’re not knowledgeable about what is occurring, they don’t get involved,” said Verdier. “We had a lot of Zooms to get a better understanding of, ‘What does this redistricting mean, how (does it) impact your community, your area?’ (Residents also got) to know their representatives, so if you have some issues or concerns, this is the individual you contact.”

 

When the president of the local NAACP was not only involved, but appears to believe it was an equitable process, what's the rationale for continued pushback?