Joseph Bruno, the GOP boss in New York State who's run the State Senate forever, is retiring. He's terrible and part of a whole terrible corrupt system. There's a chance that the Democrats will take control of the incredibly gerrymandered state senate, and if that happens it's gonna be a huge redistricting party afterwards.
« We Wuz Robbed | Main | Race Matters »
Bruno Retires
24 Jun 2008 11:42 am
Comments (20)
Yeah, but does it matter? After this year, the Republicans will only have 2 House seats in the entire state anyway.
It's premature to celebrate redistricting.
Dems would need to
1) Have control of the Senate AFTER the 2010 elections (half the body is up for election then
AND
2) Continue having the governorship.
Winning the Senate this time around won't guarantee anything. Reapportionment is done in 2011.
Agree with jbryan. The delegation is already 23-6, and will be improving for the Democrats this year. Moreover, New York will almost certainly lose a seat or two in reapportionment.
How many seats does Matthew think the Democrats can gain here? No more than 1 or 2, I'd think.
Praise Jesus! FINALLY.
Reapportionment is done in 2011.
Texas Republicans broke the 10 year mold, remember? Is there a state law in NY that says redistricting MUST occur at 10 year cycles?
I'm pretty sure that Matthew means redistricting for the State Senate. Thus, there's some chance of locking in Democratic control for some time like in California.
I take Matt to mean redistricting for the state legislature, which, in the Senate, has a quite pro-Republican gerrymander. Even so I am skeptical of what difference it makes. Sheldon Silver doesn't strike me as a brave reformer waiting for his moment; nor does Patterson. I am convinced that Spitzer basically tried to call-girl his way out of Albany, but he would have been useful in 2009.
All this just supports my personal hobbyhorse: all state legislatures should be unicameral.
Dems have 60% of the CA Senate and 65% of the CA House. Doesn't matter - reapportionment (like the budget) requires 2/3s approval, irrespective of who is Governor, so the GOP has veto.
It just means that when it is done, it creates districts that reelected all incumbents. Of the 53 California House districts, there are maybe 2 or 3 (all GOP) that will have contests within 5% this year.
There is another referendum this November to put this under control of an outside commission; Dem leadership opposes it.
Oh, and our State Senate districts have around a million people each (40 for a state of now 40 million people) - larger than any US House district in the country.
I've been chewing on this for a while, and this seems like a good opening to throw it out there. I'd love to hear people's thoughts, including MY...
It's accepted gospel among all reasonable people that gerrymandering is badbadbad. But...
Is there anything to be said for the fact that a lot more 51-49 districts will yield a more cautious politics, more finger-in-the-wind-ism, less boldness, etc.?
Couldn't you make the case that democratic principles are better served when a given representative enjoys the support of 75 percent of his/her constituents as opposed to barely half?
Um... the problem isn't gerrymandering per se. Although there are some districting issues in the senate, the main problem is disproportionate number of senators assigned to upstate counties. And like the US Senate, it's a feature of the system, not an abuse of it. How would redistricting solve that, Matt?
I couldn't give two shits. Sheldon Silver is even worse than Bruno. Downstate will still get screwed by Upstate, even with Downstate politicians in charge. See congestion pricing.
Although the Republicans have held the NY Senate forever, and although Bruno's been a senator forever, he's only been majority leader since 1995.
Um... the problem isn't gerrymandering per se ... the main problem is disproportionate number of senators assigned to upstate counties.
This is due to gerrymandering.
Dems have 60% of the CA Senate and 65% of the CA House. Doesn't matter - reapportionment (like the budget) requires 2/3s approval, irrespective of who is Governor, so the GOP has veto.
I don't believe this is the case in NY.
Other commentators are correct, however, that the Democrats would have to hang on to both houses (and the governorship) until 2012 unless they pull a Tom DeLay.
My reference to California was because someone wondered about the ability to add Dems seats here. The supermajority requirements limit that possibility.
California also gets screwed every 10 years. We added 3 million + people in the 2000 census, but gained only one new House member, even while smaller states that added under 2 million gained 2 (it's a mathematical fluke that on a national basis determines how many people should be in a district when possible). So not only do we get the same 2 Senators a state 1/60th our size (Wyoming) does, but we get screwed on our House members as well.
And then Dems can't even maximize our delegation.
After redistricting, New York will have a terrible corrupt one-party system. Whoopee!
So does this mean Marriage Equality (from inside the state, created by the legislature not the courts) may actually happen, for it was my understanding it was Joseph Bruno the majority leader who was going to make sure that such an issue would never get a vote on the senate floor.
Posted by SOS
Um... the problem isn't gerrymandering per se. Although there are some districting issues in the senate, the main problem is disproportionate number of senators assigned to upstate counties. And like the US Senate, it's a feature of the system, not an abuse of it. How would redistricting solve that, Matt?
In the past, NY Senators represented counties, and a disproportionate number of Senators were from Upstate. In 1968, the courts required proportionate representation, which in turn developed into the gerrymandered districts that Republicans enjoy today.
One good result of the impending Democratic takeover of the NY Senate may be drug law and prison reform. NY has harsh mandatory sentencing for non-violent drug crimes, and all reasonable people agree those laws should be reformed. Republicans have had an interest in retaining those laws beyond the typical "law and order" agenda: most NY prisons are in Upstate Republican communities. By some accounts there are 6 Republican districts which would need to be redrawn if their prison populations were not counted.
The Republicans now hold a 32-30 advantage in the Senate. If that flips the other way, expect the 2010 districting to make the Democratic advantage permanent. It will be a disaster for good government in New York, and one more step towards the deterioration of the national GOP into a regional, southern party.
"Dems would need to
1) Have control of the Senate AFTER the 2010 elections (half the body is up for election then)."
Not so. All state legislators in New York serve two-year terms.
And Hans, do you think we have "good government" now? Both houses desperately need new leaders, but even one would be an improvement.
I have forgotten precisely how redistricting works in NYS, but this reminds me of one of my own pet peeves: prison inmates are counted as permanent residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated rather than of the counties in which they and their families live. Yet they lose the right to vote while incarcerated. This absurdity has been relied upon in New York and who knows how many other states to artificially boost nominal rural populaton levels not only for redistricting but also to tilt whatever statewide resources (school funds, etc.) are based upon population formulas. Brent Staples writes about this about once a year in the NY Times, but I have been waiting for a first-class political blogger like Yglesias to take this up as a cause. How 'bout it, Matt?
Comments closed July 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's premature to celebrate redistricting.
Dems would need to
1) Have control of the Senate AFTER the 2010 elections (half the body is up for election then
AND
2) Continue having the governorship.
Winning the Senate this time around won't guarantee anything. Reapportionment is done in 2011.
Posted by hopeless pedant | June 24, 2008 11:57 AM