We Need to Rethink Redistricting in New York

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled initial redistricting maps drawn by the Democratic-led state legislature unconstitutional, resulting in the appointment of a Special Master to draw the new maps. Photo by Matt H. Wade.

Elections are a complicated time of the year for voters. Between finding time to vote and understanding candidates’ positions on crucial issues, voters take on a great deal of responsibility for the preservation of an important democratic norm. For New York voters, these challenges are multiplied by yet another factor—having two election dates instead of one. 

New York uses a hybrid model where redistricting responsibilities are split between an appointed commission and the state legislature, whose inability to agree upon one set of district maps ultimately led to two election dates. Last year, the bipartisan commission failed to produce a set of maps the legislature approved of. This roadblock sent the redistricting baton to the Democrat-led state legislature, which passed a proposal that was then shut down by the New York State Court of Appeals. The court ultimately ruled that the maps were unconstitutional. A judge in Steuben County then appointed Special Master Jonathan Cervas to draw new lines for the congressional race, thereby resulting in two primary election dates—June 28 and August 23. 

Redistricting in New York was not always split between a commission and the state legislature. In 2014, New York passed a constitutional amendment to change redistricting from a state legislature-led process to a hybrid model. The failure of this past year, however, demonstrates a clear need to reevaluate the redistricting process in New York to increase efficiency and restore the democratic nature of voting. 

Since each state chooses how its district lines are drawn, there exists a wide variety of methods that have their own benefits and drawbacks. The hybrid model that New York utilizes for redistricting is used by only one other state—Virginia. In contrast, thirty three states give sole control over redistricting to the state legislatures. 

Giving power to political parties to draw district lines invites partisan conflict. In Ohio, a state that utilizes a similar hybrid model as New York but for the state legislature, the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC) was created to produce maps based on community feedback. But when the OCRC presented these maps to the legislature, it was already too late; its work was “largely dismissed by the majority party.” This incident demonstrates all too well the heightened risk of inefficiency and corruption that occurs even in hybrid models that place only some power into politicians’ hands. 

The problem is clear, but so is the solution. New York should join the eight states that use the third method of redistricting—an independent commission not attached to any partisan politics. Conveniently, New York can learn from one of its most populated cities, Syracuse, which gives redistricting power to an independent, citizen-led commission. I spoke with Jason Belge, a commissioner on the Syracuse City Redistricting Commission (SCRC), to learn about the benefits of independence in redistricting. 

The SCRC is led by 15 citizens who are chosen through an application process. Commissioner Belge stated that he applied because he felt he was improving his community and easing the growing distrust between citizens and their government. Moreover, the commission’s diversity ensures a process that is representative of the city. 

“We had 15 total strangers, from all walks of life, different ages, races, backgrounds, political beliefs—and we ended up having a supermajority and we voted on a final map, which is great,” Belge said.  

Belge noted, however, the difficulties of drawing district lines in the city. The commission prioritizes keeping similar groups, or “communities of interest,” together. But what constitutes a community can mean different things to different people. 

“It could be your local garden that people want to go to, it could be your local grocery store, the local watering hole, it could be the street corners that you think your neighborhood belongs to,” he said.

Due to the nonpartisan nature of the commission, the commission’s drawing of maps effectively incorporated community feedback and avoided those pitfalls. Belge felt that citizens were enthusiastic at meetings.  

“I can see the whispering, so to speak, from the public when they do come to our meetings like, ‘Oh my god, this is so great. And here’s my idea.’” 

Although Syracuse redraws city lines, this process can and should be adopted at the state level as well. The citizen-led model has proved successful in multiple other states. For example, California’s 14-member independent commission was able to withstand any influence from the state legislature and successfully create new maps. Michigan and Colorado’s implementation of independent commissions resulted in increased transparency, including public hearings with residents to ensure that community voices are heard. 

Before the next census, New York should reflect upon the failures of the current redistricting process and learn from Syracuse’s citizen-led commission. Ultimately, an independent body works more efficiently than even a combination of a commission and the state legislature. Removing the power of redistricting from politicians’ hands entirely and placing it into the citizens that voted for them presents the most democratic option amid the highly partisan environment of our time. 

Ashwin Marathe is a sophomore at Columbia studying political science and is from Bentonville, Arkansas. He enjoys reading about politics, attending comedy shows in New York, and dancing for Columbia Raas.