Redistricting in New York after the 2010 census

in  New York

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* New York state budget and finances
* Tax policy in New York
* Finance
* Financial regulation in New York
* Pensions
* Public pensions in New York
* Pension health in New York
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in New York
* Campaign finance requirements in New York
* Campaign finance requirements for New York ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in New York
* Education
* Charter schools in New York
* Higher education in New York
* Public education in New York
* School choice in New York
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in New York
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in New York
* Political parties in New York
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in New York
* Redistricting in New York
* Voting in New York
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in New York
* Fracking in New York
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in New York
* Endangered species in New York
* Environmental policy in New York
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in New York
* Medicaid spending in New York
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in New York
* Immigration
* Immigration in New York

|  Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

|

Redistricting in New York

General information
Partisan control:
Split
Process:
Legislative Authority
Deadline:
Before 2012 Election
Total seats
Congress:

State Senate:
63 (Legislature increased from 62)
State House:
150
This article details the timeline of redistricting events in New York following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

New York lost two seats from the reapportionment after the 2010 census, bringing its delegation from 29 to 27 seats. The state's growth rate was at 2.19%, below the national rate of 9.7%.[1]

## Contents

* 1 Process
* 1.1 Advisory Commission
* 2 Leadership
* 2.1 2011
* 3 Census results
* 3.1 City/county population changes
* 4 Congressional redistricting
* 5 Legislative redistricting
* 5.1 September 2011: Rumors of 63rd Senate seat
* 5.2 October 2011: Outside groups propose maps
* 5.3 January 2012: LATFOR releases maps
* 5.4 March 2012: Maps passed
* 6 Redistricting legislation
* 6.1 SB 660
* 6.2 SB 2543/AB 3432
* 6.3 Redistricting Reform Act of 2011
* 6.3.1 Reactions
* 6.4 Constitutional amendment
* 7 Legal issues
* 7.1 April 2011: Prison-based redistricting lawsuit
* 7.1.1 August 2011: Individuals join lawsuit
* 7.1.2 August 2011: LATFOR to follow law
* 7.1.3 October 2011: Arguments presented in court
* 7.1.4 December 2011: Case thrown out
* 7.2 Favors, et al. v. Cuomo, et al
* 7.2.1 December 2011: AALDEF files to join suit
* 7.2.2 February 2012: Three-judge panel appointed
* 7.2.3 February 2012: Special master appointed
* 7.2.4 February 2012: Legislators submit maps
* 7.2.5 March 2012: Court releases draft map, final map
* 7.2.6 March 2012: Map approved
* 7.3 January 2012: New senate seat lawsuit
* 8 Partisan registration by district
* 9 History
* 9.1 2001 redistricting
* 9.1.1 Deviation from Ideal Districts
* 9.1.2 Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census
* 10 See also
* 11 External links
* 12 Footnotes

## Process[edit]

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

During the 2010 redistricting cycle, the New York Legislature was responsible for redistricting. While there was a commission on redistricting, it only acted in an advisory role. The final plan required approval from the Department of Justice.[2]

The New York Constitution provided authority to the Legislature for redistricting in Sections 4 and 5 of Article III.

### Advisory Commission[edit]

There was a six person advisory commission on redistricting in New York. Known as the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), it was established by Chapter 45 of the New York State laws of 1978.[3] Members were selected as follows:

* One Legislator selected by Assembly Majority Leader
* One Legislator selected by Senate Majority Leader
* One Citizen Member selected by the Assembly Majority Leader
* One Citizen Member selected by the Senate Majority Leader.
* One Member selected by Senate Minority Leader.
* One Member selected by Assembly Minority Leader[4].

The 2011-12 state budget included $1.5 million designated for LATFOR.[5]

## Leadership[edit]

### 2011[edit]

The six members of the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment were:

New York State Senate

* Michael Nozzolio
* Martin Dilan
* Welquiz Lopez

New York State Assembly

* John McEneny
* Robert Oaks
* Roman Hedges

|
|

## Census results[edit]

On March 23, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped New York's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data guided redistricting for state and local offices. The data was publicly available for download.[6]

The new ideal district population was approximately 719,298 for Congress, 313,242 for state Senate, and 129,274 for the state Assembly.[7]

### City/county population changes[edit]

These tables show the change in population in the five largest cities and counties in New York from 2000-2010.[8]

|  Top Five most populous cities

City  |  2000 Population  |  2010 Population  |  Percent change
New York  |  8,008,278  |  8,175,133  |  2.1%
Buffalo  |  292,648  |  261,310  |  -10.7%
Rochester  |  219,773  |  210,565  |  -4.2%
Yonkers  |  196,086  |  195,976  |  -0.1%
Syracuse  |  147,306  |  145,170  |  -1.5%
|  |  Top Five most populous counties

County  |  2000 Population  |  2010 Population  |  Percent change
Kings  |  2,465,326  |  2,504,700  |  1.6%
Queens  |  2,229,379  |  2,230,722  |  0.1%
New York  |  1,537,195  |  1,585,873  |  3.2%
Suffolk  |  1,419,369  |  1,493,350  |  5.2%
Bronx  |  1,332,650  |  1,385,108  |  3.9%

## Congressional redistricting[edit]

With New York slated to lose two seats in 2012, analysts speculated over which representatives may lose their seats. Queens College sociologist Andrew Beveridge predicted it would fall on Democrats Brian Higgins and Louise Slaughter, who represented Districts 27 and 28, as both had populations under 100,000.[1] Former New York Rep. Tom Reynolds (R), who took part in redistricting during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, predicted one of the seats would be lost in the upstate West, west of Syracuse. He predicted the other would depend on population loss in New York City compared to Eastern New York.[9]

Reports in early February 2011, indicated that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D) Long Island district could be the first to go. It was expected that, if McCarthy’s district was in fact removed, that would be balanced by cutting the district from an upstate Republican.[10] At least one congressman, Democrat Maurice Hinchey, had said he would not seek re-election.[11]

In January 2012, Assemblyman John McEneny (D) said the congressional plan probably would not be seen by the public until early March 2012.[12]

On February 20, 2012, McEneny said Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans had both drawn up maps but not yet met to compare them. "We're at a point where each sides have at least a draft map, and the leadership will have to get together and decide whether we can merge the two maps. If we can merge the two maps, it could be ready to be voted on next week," he stated.[13]

With a special master appointed, Assembly and Senate leaders admitted on March 11, 2012, that they failed to reach an agreement.

"Regarding federal lines, we have been working non-stop and tried very hard but just couldn't come to an agreement with the various parties," said Michael Whyland, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D).[14]

## Legislative redistricting[edit]

The six-member joint legislative task force in charge of redistricting held its first meeting on July 6, 2011. Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said that he would veto any plan that not drawn by an independent commission.[15]

The joint panel held 12 public hearings beginning July 19, 2011, and concluding October 5, 2011.[16] The dates were:[17]

* July 19: Syracuse
* July 20: Rochester
* August 4: Albany
* August 10: Westchester
* August 17: Binghamton
* August 18: Buffalo

* September 7: Queens
* September 8: Bronx
* September 20: Kings
* September 21: Manhattan
* September 22: Richmond
* October 5: Long Island

|

### September 2011: Rumors of 63rd Senate seat[edit]

In mid-September 2011, it was reported that Senate Republicans were considering adding another seat to the then-62 member chamber. Making the total seats an odd number would ensure there would always be a majority, avoiding situations where a tied number of seats could potentially shut down the chamber as it did in 2009.[18]

In response, Senate Democratic Conference Spokesman Mike Murphy issued a statement calling the move unconstitutional. "What the Senate Republicans are doing is illegal and no reading of the State Constitution would allow a new seat to be created. We are witnessing the depths that the Republicans will go to hold onto power. They are playing a dangerous game with the state constitution and the redistricting process. Unfortunately, the Senate GOP has made it clear that they care more about protecting their partisan interests than the people of New York State," he said.[19]

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R) announced on January 3, 2012, that there was a good chance the redistricting committee would add a 63rd seat in the Senate. The 62nd seat was added after the 2000 census.

Democrats were critical of the proposal, with spokesman Mike Murphy saying, "What the Senate Republicans are doing is illegal and no reading of the State Constitution would allow a new seat to be created."[20] The state constitution set the number of Senate seats at 50 in 1894, allowing districts only to be added based on a formula of county versus state growth. The court had since interpreted that in two different ways over the years.

On January 10, 2012, Republicans confirmed they planned to add the seat. Republicans said the 63rd seat was required when calculating the census figures, requirements of the constitution and voter protection laws. Democrats argued that it did not make sense to grow the state Senate while slow population growth required New York to lose two of its congressional seats.[21]

### October 2011: Outside groups propose maps[edit]

During the first week of October 2011, a coalition of groups, including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and LatinoJustice submitted state Assembly and Senate district maps. The maps created more minority-majority districts.[22]

### January 2012: LATFOR releases maps[edit]

LATFOR released proposed Senate and Assembly maps on January 26, 2012. While Gov. Cuomo said he would veto any lines not drawn by an independent process, just prior to the release of the maps he was unclear about his course of action after the plans were released, stating, “I want to let the process play out. A lot of people have a lot of ideas. Some of the good government groups have ideas. Let’s see how it plays out. My point all along has been, I want a better product, and I want a better process. And I don’t know where it ends.”[23] After the maps were published, a spokesman for the governor said, “At first glance, these lines are simply unacceptable and would be vetoed by the governor. We need a better process and product.”[24]

LATFOR also released a schedule of nine public hearings. Those dates were:[25]

* January 30
* January 31
* February 1
* February 2
* February 7

* February 9
* February 14
* February 15
* February 16

|

The Senate plan included the addition of a 63rd seat upstate which would have resulted in the division of Albany, a Democratic stronghold, for the first time. Additionally, the map merged four Senate districts based in Queens into two, all four of which were represented by Democrats, including Michael Gianaris, who was Chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

The Assembly's plan created three Asian-majority districts and merged two upstate Republican districts into one.[26]

At the February 7, 2012, meeting of LATFOR, Sen. Michael Gianaris (D) called the Senate Republican's plan gerrymandering to protect their power and said it brought shame to the state. Republicans responded, calling Gianaris and the other Democrats hypocrites for not pushing for independent redistricting while they were in power from 2008-2010.[27]

Gov. Cuomo said on February 17, 2012, that he would consider withholding his veto if three criteria were met: redraw the lines in a more fair manner than the first draft, work to pass a constitutional amendment that would put an independent system in place for the next redistricting, and rework the current redistricting law in case the amendment fails. Aides to the governor, however, said he was still prepared to veto the new districts.[28] Twenty-two Senate Democrats signed a letter to Cuomo, telling him that they would be able to block a potential veto override.[29]

### March 2012: Maps passed[edit]

Late on March 11, 2012, leaders of LATFOR filed a 253-page bill laying out new state Senate and Assembly districts.[30] They closely resembled the maps originally proposed back in January that Cuomo said were unacceptable.

Leaders also offered a constitutional amendment that would set up a new bipartisan commission on redistricting following the next census in 2020.[31]

When the new districts came to a vote in the Senate, the Republican majority passed the plan after Democrats walked out in protest. Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson said he had reached an agreement with Republicans to extend the debate to four hours but when that was cut off after only two, they left the chamber.[32]

On March 15, the legislature approved the constitutional amendment. In order to become law, it required approval from the next separately elected legislature and also by voters in a referendum.[33] With the amendment approved, Cuomo signed the maps into law.[34][35]

## Redistricting legislation[edit]

### SB 660[edit]

On January 5, 2011, State Senators David Valesky (D) and Michael Gianaris (D) introduced SB 660, which would create a nonpartisan redistricting commission to draw the boundaries for Congressional and state legislative districts. Valesky stated, "This piece of legislation will benefit all New Yorkers by eliminating partisan influence designed to preserve majorities and incumbents, and creating districts that are cohesive geographically and culturally."[36]

The new commission would replace the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. Commission members could not be in public office, or have held such office within the past two years, could not be a lobbyist, in a position within a political party, or be related to an elected or public official. The commission would hold public hearings throughout the state on the proposed districts.

The bill was referred to the Investigations and Government Operations Committee on January 5, 2011.

### SB 2543/AB 3432[edit]

On January 25, 2011, Sen. Gianaris introduced SB 2543 to create an independent apportionment commission. The same bill was introduced as AB 3432 by Hakeem Jeffries.

The Senate bill was referred to the Investigations and Government Operations Committee and the Assembly bill to the Governmental Operations Committee on January 25, 2011.

### Redistricting Reform Act of 2011[edit]

Gov. Cuomo unveiled his own bill for redistricting reform on February 17, 2011.[37] The plan, known as the Redistricting Reform Act of 2011, would establish a permanent Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts. It was introduced into the Assembly by Speaker Sheldon Silver as A5388 and was known as S3419 in the Senate.[38]

In a press release, Cuomo said, "Redistricting in New York is a system that has prioritized incumbency and partisan interests over democratic representation. This process needs to be about the people and not the politics. To help restore faith in our State government, we need to reform the system. This bill ensures greater independence, transparency, and a commitment to fair representation and equality."[39]

The process of creating the commission would begin with the executive and legislative branches nominating a bipartisan pool of qualified candidates. From that pool, legislative leaders would select the members of the commission, being sure to reflect the state's geographic, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. In order to serve on the commission, members had to be four years removed from serving in the legislature or Congress, being a legislative or executive chamber employee, political party official, or registered lobbyist.

The Commission would hold a series of public hearings, with information about plans and related data available online. Following the hearings, the Legislature would vote on the Commission's plan without amendments. If rejected, the Commission would submit an amended plan and the Legislature would vote once again with no amendments. If rejected a third time, the Commission would submit another amended plan, but it would not be subject to amendment by the Legislature.

The Commission would have to meet specific requirements when drawing districts, including making them nearly equal in population, contiguous, respectful to the rights of minority voters to participate in the political process, and to elect the candidates of their choice, and not intentionally favor or oppose any political party, any incumbent, or any previous or presumed candidate for office.[39]

#### Reactions[edit]

Senate Minority Leader John Sampson (D) pledged his support for the bill, calling for its immediate passage when the legislature returned on February 28, 2011. He said , "Governor Cuomo has introduced legislation that keeps his commitment to reform, and I am calling on the Senate to do the same by immediately passing his legislation when we return to Albany."[40]

NYS Senator David Carlucci on independent redistricting

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R), who signed a pledge for redistricting reform, issued a statement:

> "The issue of redistricting reform is an important one and I have said repeatedly that we will act on reform legislation. A number of proposals have been advanced and we have to take a close look at what makes the most sense to ensure a fair, open and truly nonpartisan process." However, he went on to say that it should not be the top priority, "our focus right now must be on getting a fiscally responsible budget enacted by April 1st, which is just 43 days away.[41]

Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver (D), who did not sign the pledge, said, "We are reviewing the governor's program bill and remain committed to working with governor and our colleagues in the Senate to reform redistricting in time for the upcoming redistricting process."[42]

NYS Assemblyman Steve Katz on independent redistricting

Sen. Diane Savino, a member of the independent Democratic caucus said, "We would look like a bunch of idiots if we didn't do it. It's one of the things I found quite frustrating in the Democratic conference. We always campaigned on this, but when we were in the majority we didn't do it."[43]

### Constitutional amendment[edit]

On March 15, 2011, the state Senate passed SB 3331, which made the first step toward a Constitutional amendment creating an independent, nonpartisan apportionment commission.

Republican Greg Ball supported the amendment, stating, “Demographics and geography should decide district lines, not politics. The only real way to establish constitutional standards is by amending the Constitution, the way our Founders suggested, and make these changes permanent and constitutionally sound.” With 35 votes, the minimum number that would have allowed the bill to move forward, the full Senate passed it.[44]

The proposed amendment would create a five member nonpartisan commission to redraw the lines. Four would be appointed by the majority and minority officers of the legislature, with the fifth selected by the appointed four.[45]

A Constitutional change would require the approval of two consecutively elected legislatures and thus would take years to implement. If approved, it would not be in effect until redistricting following the 2020 census.[46]

In exchange for Gov. Andrew Cuomo's (D) approval on 2012 maps, the legislature agreed to approve a constitutional amendment to initiate independent redistricting. If they failed to approve the amendment by the end of January 2013, a law would automatically create such a commission to draw the maps in 2022. Additionally, if lawmakers in either chamber failed to meet the deadline, the governor assumed commission appointments in that chamber.[47]

## Legal issues[edit]

### April 2011: Prison-based redistricting lawsuit

A number of Senate Republicans filed suit on April 4, 2011 against the Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment and the state Department of Correctional Services for plans to count prisoners at their previous residence. Calling the law unconstitutional, the suit said the U.S. Census does not allow for prisoners to be counted in such a manner. Those filing the suit included Sens. Stephen Saland, Joseph Griffo, and Thomas O'Mara, all of whom had prisons in their districts.[48]

The case brief stated:

> [The law] exacerbates vote dilution of certain communities and enhances the voting power of other communities by the fictitious movement of a phantom population of almost 58,000 non-voting prisoners into residents already occupied by others, and from upstate Republicans districts to downstate New York City Democratic districts which constitutes political gerrymandering.[49]

Read the full complaint.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who sponsored the original legislation, called the suit baseless, saying, “The constitutional concerns raised in the lawsuit are unfounded and are simply designed to mask a naked attempt to maintain political power.”[50] State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was also an original sponsor of the legislation when he was serving in the state Senate.

Additionally, Common Cause/NY, Demos, and the Prison Policy Initiative all expressed objections to the lawsuit.[51] Brenda Wright, Director of the Democracy Program at Demos, called for the suit to be dismissed, saying “The miscount of incarcerated individuals called for in the lawsuit violates the fundamental one-person, one vote principle of our democracy and contradicts the New York Constitution, which clearly states that a prison is not a residence. The plaintiffs here are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law."[52]

Despite the U.S. Census Bureau using prison population when making its counts, the practice is illegal under New York State law. Article II, Section 4 of the New York Constitution states that redistricting prison populations is unlawful because, "no person shall he deemed to have gained or lost a residence...while confined in any public prison.”[53]. Also, Section 5-104 of the New York State election laws make it illegal for prison populations to be used for redistricting, using the same language as the Constitutional law[53].

Assemblyman Kenneth Blankenbush (R), in arguing against the law, explained, "They're residing in the prisons. That's where they're using our water, our sewer, our electric. My opinion is that this is a political ploy for downstate to again beef up the numbers downstate."[54] Democrats said that the renewed interest by the GOP is just another distraction by Republicans to avoid redistricting reform.

In March 2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons denied Maryland's request for prior residence information on prisoners, citing privacy protections. Despite the state's new law, this forcedMaryland to count the prisoners in the district with the prison. To that end, New York could be denied approval as well.[55]

A coalition of activist groups filed a motion asking the New York Supreme Court to intervene on May 17, 2011.[56] The full press release from the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund is available here.

Assembly Speaker Silver's office said, "We believe the statute is constitutional and will be upheld."[57]

On May 27, 2011, a trio of activist groups requested the court's permission to join the case on the defendants' side.[58] In part, the petition submitted by the NAACP New York State Conference, Voices of Community Activists and Leaders, and Common Cause of New York, asserted that the named defendants could not adequately represent the interests before them.

#### August 2011: Individuals join lawsuit

In August 2011, New York State Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine said a group of 15 individuals could the lawsuit. However, Devine said three advocacy groups -- NAACP New York State Conference, Voices of Community Activists and Leaders-New York, and Common Cause of New York -- could not.[59]

In mid-August, the individuals filed a motion for summary judgmentRefers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law., asking a judge to throw out the original lawsuit brought by the senators, saying that counting prisoners where they are incarcerated inflated the political influence of districts with prisons.[60]

#### August 2011: LATFOR to follow law

While the Senate Republicans continued their lawsuit to overturn the law in August 2011, they agreed to count prisoners in their own home location.[61]

#### October 2011: Arguments presented in court

On October 4, 2011, lawyers for the Republicans who filed suit over prison-based redistricting presented their arguments before New York Supreme Court Justice Eugene Devine, arguing that the law violates the constitution because it creates two census counts.

Lawyers for the defense argued that the Census allows for state and local governments to define where prisoners are counted. Stephen Kerwin, a lawyer in the Attorney General's office, said, "If the Census does not provide the information, than the Census does not control, and it does not make prison gerrymandering a requirement."[62]

#### December 2011: Case thrown out

Devine threw out the case on December 2, 2011, upholding the law that prisoners must be counted at their last known home address. "Though inmates may be physically found in locations of their respective correctional facilities at the time the census is conducted, there is nothing in the record to indicate that such inmates have any actual permanency in these locations or have an intent to remain," he wrote.[63]

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a victory for fundamental fairness and equal representation.”[64]

On January 10, 2012, LATFOR agreed to count prisoners as residents of their home districts.[65] Republicans initially sought to appeal the ruling, but dropped it on February 24.[66]

### Favors, et al. v. Cuomo, et al

A group of civic leaders filed a lawsuit on November 17, 2011, asking that a three-judge panel appoint a special master to oversee the drawing of new congressional and legislative districts. The process, they argued, was “an exercise in partisan self-dealing and incumbent protection” that could hurt elections in 2012.[67] The suit named Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Senate and Assembly leaders, and LATFOR as defendants.[68]

Richard Mancino, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "The system is out of time. The system is broken. It doesn’t seem likely that the system will correct itself, at least not when it’s being handled by very partisan people in Albany.”[69]

#### December 2011: AALDEF files to join suit

On December 28, 2011, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint on behalf of four New York residents, seeking to add them to the suit. The complaint argued for equal representation for Asian-Americans in the new districts when they were drawn. According to AALDEF, the lines split the largest Asian-American neighborhoods in New York City into different districts, reducing their voting power.[70]

#### February 2012: Three-judge panel appointed

Plaintiffs sent a letter to Judge Dora Irizarry on February 10, 2012, asking for the appointment of a three-judge panel to hear the case as time was running short. “The March 20 start to the candidate petitioning period is less than six weeks away, yet no congressional lines have even been proposed through New York’s legislative process. It is now exceedingly unlikely that a new congressional redistricting plan can be proposed and passed by the legislative redistricting task force, referred to and passed by the Legislature, signed by the Governor, sent to the U.S. Department of Justice and precleared, all sufficiently in advance of March 20 so that candidates and their supporters can prepare for the petitioning period,” the letter said.[71]

On February 13, Irizarry ordered such a panel appointed, giving it authority to appoint a special master to draw congressional districts if the legislative stalemate continued. The panel was appointed by the Chief Judge for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the next day.[72]

#### February 2012: Special master appointed

The panel dismissed calls from legislative leaders to dismiss the case and appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann as special master. The panel ordered all parties to appear before them and Mann on February 27.[73] At the hearing, Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans acknowledged they did not have an agreement through LATFOR and Mann ordered them to submit plans for congressional districts two days later.[74]

#### February 2012: Legislators submit maps

On February 29, 2012, legislative leaders said they were unable to agree on a proposed map and instead three of the four legislative conferences submitted their own plans. Senate Democrats chose not to submit a plan because they thought politicians should not draw the maps.[75]

While all the proposals differed, the three parties each urged the court to preserve the seats of incumbents and agreed that the district held by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D), who was retiring, should be one of the two eliminated. Since the proposals were all submitted separately, they were not legally binding and Mann was not required to adopt any of them.[76]

The court also announced it would hire Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School, as an adviser for Mann. Persily had recently served as special master in Connecticut.

#### March 2012: Court releases draft map, final map

Judge Mann held a public hearing on March 5, 2012, to collect information on the proposals she had received. Lawyers for both the Republican and the Democratic leaders urged Mann to defer to the legislative proposals and to avoid drawing incumbents into the same district.[77] Mann asked why she should put those considerations before the guidelines set out in the state Constitution, which called for contiguous and compact districts while not mentioning incumbency at all.[78]

The following day, Mann released her proposed map. Her plan resembled geographically compact lines as proposed by Common Cause. In order to reduce the number of districts from 29 to 27, it eliminated Maurice Hinchey's district, as was proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, and got rid of a district in Queens.[79]

The legislature could still have avoided Mann's proposal from taking effect by adopting their own plan by March 15. However, on March 11, they announced their failure to reach an agreement. Late the next day, Mann issued her final recommendation, which made only minor changes to her initial recommendation. This plan now went to the panel of three federal judges who had until March 20 to decide whether or not to accept her recommendations.[80]

Republicans issued their formal objection to the plan on March 14, focusing their arguments on incumbency protection. Their letter said the court should avoid placing incumbents in the same district if at all possible, saying , “Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about ‘respecting the cores of prior districts,’ insisting such claims are merely ‘pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents.’ As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized.”[81]

#### March 2012: Map approved

The federal three-judge panel approved the new congressional districts on March 19, 2012, the day before candidates could begin collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot.[34] The map was nearly identical to Mann's proposal.[82]

### January 2012: New senate seat lawsuit

Sen. Martin Dilan (D) joined others in filing suit in Manhattan state Supreme Court on January 31, 2012, arguing that adding a 63rd seat to the Senate is a violation of the state Constitution. According to the lawsuit, "This increase is unconstitutional because LATFOR failed to apply the Senate size formula prescribed in Section 4 consistently, rationally, or in good faith."

The suit said, "Even assuming LATFOR has a modicum of discretion to determine which counting methodology is more faithful to the Constitution, Section 4 requires that its decision be exercised in a manner that is rational, evenhanded, and consistent. LATFOR has no discretion to manipulate the Constitution by changing its counting methodology after every Census to suit its ephemeral purposes, let alone to use two different counting methodologies within the same reapportionment."[83]

Senate Republicans said the plan met all legal requirements.

In early March 2012, State Supreme Court Judge Richard F. Braun ruled that the court had no ability to review the proposal as it had not been voted on or signed into law and was only a recommendation.[84] Following the passage of the new districts, the court heard oral arguments in the case on April 6.[85]

In a decision released April 13, state Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun rejected the Democrats' petition, saying they failed to establish that the process used by Republicans was unconstitutional.[86] On April 27, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a letter in federal court saying they did not object to the plan.[87]

## Partisan registration by district[edit]

Partisan registration and representation by Congressional district, 2010[88]

Congressional district  | Republicans  | Democrats  | Unaffiliated  | District Total  | Party Advantage*  | 111th Congress  | 112th Congress
1 (Suffolk County - Smithtown)  | 170,066  | 146,018  | 166,014  | 482,098  |  16.47% Republican  |  |
2 (Suffolk County - Brentwood)  | 132,509  | 167,535  | 134,814  | 434,858  |  26.43% Democratic  |  |
3 (Suffolk County - Levittown)  | 186,580  | 143,825  | 132,108  | 462,518  |  29.73% Republican  |  |
4 (Nassau County - Hempstead)  | 148,905  | 182,860  | 105,760  | 437,525  |  22.80% Democratic  |  |
5 (Nassau County - Great Neck)  | 66,214  | 184,883  | 86,005  | 337,102  |  179.22% Democratic  |  |
6 (Queens)  | 26,011  | 262,245  | 58,884  | 347,140  |  908.21% Democratic  |  |
7 (Bronx)  | 36,263  | 228,720  | 65,920  | 330,903  |  530.72% Democratic  |  |
8 (Kings County)  | 53,438  | 268,306  | 97,215  | 418,959  |  402.09% Democratic  |  |
9 (Kings County)  | 63,808  | 201,380  | 87,294  | 352,482  |  215.60% Democratic  |  |
10 (Kings County)  | 20,747  | 324,715  | 62,274  | 407,736  |  1465.12% Democratic  |  |
11 (Kings County)  | 21,253  | 297,618  | 65,767  | 384,638  |  1300.36% Democratic  |  |
12 (Kings County)  | 29,121  | 250,749  | 80,217  | 360,087  |  761.06% Democratic  |  |
13 (Richmond County)  | 104,424  | 179,237  | 97,080  | 380,741  |  71.64% Democratic  |  |
14 (Queens)  | 66,598  | 252,140  | 105,099  | 423,837  |  278.60% Democratic  |  |
15 (New York County)  | 22,179  | 327,771  | 68,445  | 418,395  |  1377.84% Democratic  |  |
16 (Bronx)  | 15,839  | 262,794  | 52,034  | 330,667  |  1559.16% Democratic  |  |
17 (Rockland County - Spring Valley)  | 55,040  | 233,915  | 82,038  | 370,993  |  324.99% Democratic  |  |
18 (Rockland County - White Plains)  | 108,711  | 193,862  | 123,407  | 425,980  |  78.33% Democratic  |  |
19 (Orange County - Beacon)  | 147,395  | 152,850  | 141,992  | 442,237  |  3.70% Democratic  |  |
20 (Delaware County - Saratoga Springs)  | 187,780  | 126,774  | 152,838  | 467,392  |  48.12% Republican  |  |
21 (Fulton County - Albany)  | 112,714  | 181,747  | 136,460  | 430,921  |  61.25% Democratic  |  |
22 (Sullivan County - Kingston)  | 123,083  | 165,638  | 128,109  | 416,830  |  34.57% Democratic  |  |
23 (Clinton County - Potsdam)  | 167,148  | 123,478  | 109,560  | 400,186  |  35.37% Republican  |  |
24 (Cortland County - Utica)  | 157,080  | 134,985  | 106,787  | 398,852  |  16.37% Republican  |  |
25 (Wayne County - Syracuse)  | 146,560  | 150,923  | 140,499  | 437,982  |  2.98% Democratic  |  |
26 (Genesee County - Batavia)  | 174,205  | 147,732  | 125,639  | 447,576  |  17.92% Republican  |  |
27 (Erie County - Buffalo)  | 115,174  | 207,618  | 114,241  | 437,033  |  80.26% Democratic  |  |
28 (Monroe County - Rochester)  | 86,525  | 222,582  | 89,265  | 398,372  |  157.24% Democratic  |  |
29 (Yates County - Hornell)  | 174,996  | 131,021  | 116,692  | 422,709  |  33.56% Republican  |  |
State Totals | 2,920,366 | 5,853,921 | 3,032,457 | 11,806,744 | 100.45% Democratic | 26 D, 3 R | 21 D, 8 R
*The partisan registration advantage was computed as the gap between the two major parties in registered voters.

## History[edit]

The 1894 state Constitution created an Assembly of 150 members, where each of the 62 counties received one seat, with the rest accorded to the most populous counties by population ratios. The Senate was set at 50 seats and was to be expanded after each reapportionment to reflect the number of districts received by the twelve largest counties over what they received in 1894. This resulted in rural areas receiving more legislative representatives. The 1960s began with rural areas holding 17 more seats than they would have by population alone, and saw senate districts in the 12 largest counties averaging 100,000 more residents than other counties.

On May 1, 1961, WMCA radio and others filed suit in federal court alleging New York's apportionment process was unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th amendment. The court said that it was a political matter that they could not decide. WMCA appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, who, following their decision in Baker v. Carr, sent the case back to the district court. The district court upheld the constitutionality of New York's apportionment process, and once again WMCA appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 15, 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that neither chamber of the New York Legislature adhered to the equal population standard. They remanded the case back to the district court, who mandated the legislature enact a new redistricting plan. A special session was called December 15 to take up the issue. Elections in November had rendered a large number of the Republican majority lame ducks and they enacted four different redistricting plans in the hopes that one would be approved by the courts. Three of them were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, with the remaining one declared invalid by the  New York Supreme Court due to the fact that it called for an assembly over the 150 member limit. The federal court ruled this plan would be used for the November 1965 elections and required a new plan for 1966.

Legislators failed to enact a new plan in 1965 and the state Supreme Court appointed a commission in 1966 made up of former judges to prepare a valid plan. This resulted in a 57 seat Senate and 150 member assembly in accordance with the equal population standard. The major shift resulting from this change was to transfer districts from rural areas to the New York City and upstate metropolitan areas. Three additional seats were added to the senate following the 1970 census.[89]

An Advisory Commission on redistricting was created in 1976[4].

### 2001 redistricting[edit]

#### Deviation from Ideal Districts[edit]

2000 Population deviation[90]

Office  | Percentage
Congressional Districts  |  0.00%
State House Districts  |  9.43%
State Senate Districts  |  9.78%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an Ideal District by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. Ideal Districts are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

#### Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census[edit]

There were three lawsuits, not counting appeals, related to the New York 2000 census redistricting process.[91]

* Rodriguez v. Pataki, No. 02 Civ. 0618 (S.D. N.Y. May 23, 2002) : Plaintiffs challenged the current congressional districts as in violation of equal population requirements and requested the court to draw new districts if the Legislature failed to do so. A special master was appointed on April 26, 2002. On May 13, the Special Master recommended a plan to the court and on May 23 it was adopted by the three-judge court, but said it was still “willing, indeed eager” to let state lawmakers draw their own plan.

* Allen v. Pataki, No. 02-101712 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, May 29, 2002) : Plaintiffs challenged the state senate redistricting plan signed by the governor on April 24, 2002, on the ground that it failed to meet equal population requirements. They alleged the plan favored upstate districts and disfavored downstate districts. The trial court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined the use of the plan for the 2002 election.

* Rodriguez v. Pataki, No. 02 Civ. 0618; Allen v. Pataki, No. 02 Civ. 3239, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 15, 2004), aff’d 543 U.S. ____ (Nov. 29, 2004) (No. 04-218) (mem.) : Plaintiffs challenged various state Senate districts enacted in 2002, some as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and some as violations of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One group of plaintiff-intervenors challenged a Senate district and another challenged the 17th Congressional District as violating § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge district court dismissed all the challenges.

## See also[edit]

* State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* ReShapeNY
* NY Uprising

## External links[edit]

* New York Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment
* New York Senate Redistricting Website
* NY Uprising
* ReShapeNY
* Report by Mayor Bloomberg, "Impact of Redistricting Reform and Nonpartisan Elections," December 13, 2010
* Assemblyman Mark John's May 19, 2011 op-ed on Cuomo's redistricting bill
* Common Cause Blog
* Citizens Union report on Partisan Gerrymandering and the Redistricting Process - November 2011

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Wall Street Journal, "New York State Loses 2 Seats in House," accessed December 22, 2010
2. ↑ New York Observer, "Backgrounder: How Redistricting Will Reshape New York's Battle Lines," December 27, 2010
3. ↑ Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment \- Homepage
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Redistricting in the States"(See Page 30)
5. ↑ Times Union, "New York awaits more reform," April 3, 2011
6. ↑ PR Newswire, "Media Advisory — Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to New York," March 23, 2011
7. ↑ WNYC, "Redistricting: What Is the Deal in New York?" March 24, 2011
8. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "New York Custom tables 2010," accessed March 14, 2011
9. ↑ National Journal, "Q+A: Tom Reynolds," January 21, 2011
10. ↑ New York Daily News, "L.I. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s district on the chopping block," February 2012
11. ↑ Politicker, "Congressional Redistricting Plan Begins to Unfold," February 9, 2012
12. ↑ Ithaca Journal, "N.Y. faces tough task meeting primary deadlines," January 30, 2012
13. ↑ WGRZ, "McEneny: Senate, Assembly To Compare Congressional Maps," February 20, 2012
14. ↑ Syracuse, "New York legislators fail to make deal for congressional redistricting," March 12, 2012
15. ↑ Times Union, "Cuomo warns of veto over redistricting," July 7, 2011
16. ↑ Post Star, "Redistricting process begins," July 7, 2011
17. ↑ LATFOR "Hearings," July 6, 2011 (dead link)
18. ↑ New York Daily News, "State Senate Republicans mull adding extra seat to 62-member body," September 19, 2011
19. ↑ New York Daily News, "Senate Dems: Adding 63rd Seat Unconstitutional," September 19, 2011
20. ↑ Poughkeepsie Journal, "Skelos: 'Good chance' Senate will expand," January 3, 2012
21. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "GOP to add a seat to NY Senate, protecting power," January 10, 2012
22. ↑ The Empire, "Civil rights advocates propose their own redistricting maps," October 5, 2011
23. ↑ New York Times, "Lawmakers Release New York State Redistricting Maps," January 26, 2012
24. ↑ New York Daily News, "Gov. Andrew Cuomo vows to veto Republicans' redistricting plan," January 26, 2012
25. ↑ LATFOR, "Public Hearing Schedule - Second Round," accessed January 26, 2012
26. ↑ New York Daily News, "State Senate GOP majority wants to merge four Queens districts currently held by Dems into two," January 25, 2012
27. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "NY redistricting plan gets an earful in Queens," February 7, 2000
28. ↑ New York Daily News, "Gov. Andrew Cuomo set to veto district boundaries drawn by the Legislature," February 21, 2012
29. ↑ New York Daily News, "NY Senate Dems urge Gov. Cuomo to veto redistricting plans, show they have votes to block override," accessed February 23, 2012
30. ↑ New York Times, "Albany Redrawing Political Map With Old Lines of Thought," March 12, 2012
31. ↑ Syracuse.com, "New York releases its final redistricting maps for state Senate and Assembly districts," March 12, 2012
32. ↑ NY Daily News, "Angry Senate Democrats Walk Out On Redistricting Vote," March 15, 2012
33. ↑ Reuters, "New York lawmakers approve redistricting amendment," March 15, 2012
34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 New York Times, "New Congressional Lines Imposed by Federal Court," March 19, 2012
35. ↑ Capital New York, "Cuomo says redistricting is fixed, and on transparency: 'You can't live your life in a goldfish bowl'," March 15, 2012
36. ↑ Herkimer Telegram, "Valesky calls for the formation of a nonpartisan redistricting commission," January 24, 2011 (dead link)
37. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Cuomo proposes NY independent redistricting bill," February 17, 2011
38. ↑ Ballot Access News, "New York Governor Wants Redistricting Commission," February 18, 2011
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 New York Governor's Office, "Governor Cuomo Announces Legislation to Establish Independent Redistricting Commission," February 17, 2011
40. ↑ Capital Tonight, "Sampson On Cuomo’s Redistricting Bandwagon," February 17, 2011
41. ↑ New York Senate, "State Senate Majority Leader Skelos Statement" February 17, 2011
42. ↑ The New York Observer, "Cuomo’s Independent Redistricting Plan Gets Mixed Response From Lawmakers," February 17, 2011
43. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Cuomo proposes NY independent redistricting bill," February 17, 2011
44. ↑ Huffington Post, "Bill To End Gerrymandering Advances, But Could Take Decade To Implement," March 14, 2011
45. ↑ Empire State News, "Senator calls for independent redistricting, constitutional change," February 28, 2011
46. ↑ WGRZ, "Ed Koch Says New York State Senate Republicans Reneging On Independent Redistricting Pledge," March 1, 2011
47. ↑ Syracuse.com, "Redistricting up for another vote for New York lawmakers," January 14, 2013
48. ↑ Politics on the Hudson, "Senate Republicans Sue Over Prisoner Count In Redistricting," April 5, 2011
49. ↑ Legislative Gazette, "Republican senators sue DOCS, redistricting committee over 'prison-gerrymandering' law," April 5, 2011
50. ↑ Bed-Stuy Patch, "GOP State Senators File Law Suit Against Jeffries's Prisoner Counting Law," April 7, 2011
51. ↑ Politics on the Hudson, "More good-government groups defend prisoner-count law," April 6, 2011
52. ↑ Prisoners of the Census, "Court Should Reject Lawsuit Seeking to Manipulate Prison Populations in New York Redistricting," April 6, 2011
53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 New York State Senate, "Prison-based Gerrymandering"
54. ↑ Watertown Daily News, "Prisoner Counts Vexing," March 8, 2011
55. ↑ Fox News, "Feds Foil Maryland Redistricting Plan to Count Inmates by Former Home," March 23, 2011
56. ↑ Read Me, "Civil Rights Organizations File Motion to Defend Law Ending Prison Based Gerrymandering," May 17, 2011
57. ↑ WAMC Northeast Public Radio, "Civil Rights Organizations File Motion to Defend Law Ending Prison-Based Gerrymandering," May 19, 2011
58. ↑ Thompson-Reuters, "Rights groups ask court to join prisoner-redistricting suit," May 27, 2011
59. ↑ Thomson Reuters News & Insight, "Individuals can join lawsuit to defend prison redistricting law," August 11, 2011
60. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "Voters ask judge to throw out prison-redistricting suit," August 24, 2011
61. ↑ WXXI "Redistricting Could Determine Which Party Controls Senate," August 5, 2011
62. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "Court hears challenges to prisoner redistricting law," October 4, 2011
63. ↑ Reuters, "New York judge rules in inmate legislative districting case," December 2, 2011
64. ↑ Watertown Daily Times, "Judge throws out ‘prison gerrymandering’ lawsuit," December 3, 2011
65. ↑ NY 1, "State Prisoners To Be Counted In Home Districts, Panel Rules," January 10, 2012
66. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "NY GOP senators dropping prisoner redistricting appeal," February 24, 2012
67. ↑ CBS NEW YORK, "Civic Leaders Asking Judge To Oversee NY Redistricting," November 19, 2011
68. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "Court asked to oversee New York redistricting process," November 21, 2011
69. ↑ Roll Call, "Lawsuit Adds to New York’s Redistricting State of Flux," November 21, 2011
70. ↑ NY Daily News, "Asian-American voters get the shaft in NY because of political district lines: Suit," December 29, 2011
71. ↑ New York Plaintiffs in Favors v Cuomo Lawsuit Appeal to Court to Take Over New York Redistricting," February 10, 2012
72. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "New York redistricting plan goes to court panel," February 14, 2012
73. ↑ Politics on the Hudson, "Panel appoints magistrate to help with redistricting," February 21, 2012
74. ↑ Times Union, "Judge takes over redistricting," February 27, 2012
75. ↑ New York Times, "Update on New York Redistricting," February 29, 2012
76. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "NY court receives redistricting proposals," March 1, 2012
77. ↑ New York Times, "Update on New York Redistricting," March 5, 2012
78. ↑ Capital New York, "Judge Mann asks legislature's lawyers why on earth redistricting should protect incumbents," March 5, 2012
79. ↑ Democrat and Chronicle, "Judge releases draft congressional map ahead of schedule," March 7, 2012
80. ↑ Democrat and Chronicle, "Federal judge releases her final congressional map," March 13, 2012
81. ↑ Politicker, "Senate GOP Objection: Court Map ‘Needlessly Violates New York’s Traditional Redistricting Principles’," March 14, 2012
82. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "Court approves New York redistricting plan," March 19, 2012
83. ↑ ‘’New York Daily News, “Dilan and Others Sue Over Redistricting,” January 31, 2012
84. ↑ New York Times, "An Update on New York Redistricting," March 12, 2012
85. ↑ Thomson Reuters, "Brooklyn federal court braces for NY state redistricting," March 28, 2012
86. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Judge rejects NY Senate Dem bid to block 63rd seat," April 13, 2012
87. ↑ The Journal News, "Justice Department clears N.Y. Senate redistricting plan; map," April 28, 2012
88. ↑ New York State Board of Elections, "Voter Enrollment by Congressional District Party Affiliation and Status," November 1, 2010
89. ↑ Policy Archive, "Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the 50 States," Rose Institute of State and Local Government, January 1981 (pg.229-237)
90. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, “Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table”," accessed February 1, 2011
91. ↑ Minnesota State Senate, "2000 Redistricting Case Summaries"

v • e

Redistricting after the 2010 census

State-by-state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Overviews|

State legislative and congressional redistricting • State legislative redistricting maps • Redistricting deadlines • Redistricting timelines • Status of redistricting maps • Redistricting lawsuits • Partisan balance of redistricting committees

* * *

v • e

Election policy

Voting policy|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for state and federal candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for political parties|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Ballot access for presidential candidates|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Redistricting|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *