The New Rochelle City Council held a public hearing last night on plans to redraw the lines which carve up the City into six council districts. The event, which became contentious at times, was largely a matter of political theater with the various sides jockeying for position in a redistricting battle which is all but certain to end up in the Federal courts as happened previously in the wake of the 2000 census. The City was required at that time to create a “black opportunity district” to give African-American residents of New Rochelle an edge in determining the outcome of the election in what is now District 3. The large growth in the Latino population in New Rochelle since 2000 has led to calls for a similar district for Latino voters in what may become District 1 or District 4 depending on where the lines are drawn.
The Democrats plan was made public on April 8th. The Republican plan was made available last night. An ad-hoc group calling itself the Concerned New Rochelle Citizens’ Redistricting Committee (CNRCRC) released a third plan yesterday as well.
Several supporters of the Democrats plan spoke in favor of the Democrats plan while acknowledging they had not reviewed the other two plans. Several members of the CNRCRC plan spoke in favor of their plan. No one spoke in favor of the Republican plan which was only released to the public an hour before the meeting nor did they Mayor complain about anyone pissing on his leg.
After the meeting, the Mayor refused a request to allow members of the Concerned New Rochelle Citizens’ Redistricting Committee to appear before Council to present their plan outside the constraints of the 3 minute time limit imposed during the public hearing. Despite requests by Council Member Lou Trangucci, Former Republican Mayor Len Paduano and Former Democratic Assemblyman Ron Tocci, Noam Bramson refused to allow the CNRCRC to speak on the grounds that they were a self-appointed group.
Responding to the Mayor’s statement, Paduano claimed that the Mayor was “afraid to have the Citizen Committee come before Council to have a real give and take over the competing plans because he is fearful that the public will see our plan is superior to his”. Commenting on the Mayor’s refusal to even meet to discuss the CNRCRC plan, Paduano said that he was Mayor he met with “everyone, anybody, anytime” all but calling the Mayor out as a coward afraid to defend his own plan against a competing plan.
Ron Tocci said he was “disappointed” with the Mayor’s attitude.
“Redistricting is the most important issue facing this City at this time,” said Tocci. “To simply dismiss out of hand any alternatives to his own plan shows a narrowness of mind that is unbecoming in a Mayor ostensibly elected to represent all of the people in New Rochelle. It suggests that sort of political immaturity that many New Rochelle residents find unbecoming and is likely only to serve to place redistricting decisions back in the hands of a Federal judge, to no one’s benefit and at great expenses to the City which can ill afford such extravagances.”
Other residents at the hearing but not associated with the CNRCRC expressed surprise that the Mayor would refuse to hear from the CNRCRC because they were not elected members of council noting that the Mayor has allowed all sorts of unelected individuals and groups to appear before City Council including numerous real estate developers, various citizens committees, arts groups and even one entrepreneur promoting a “Fringe Festival” event at Wildcliff Manor.
During the hearing, many speakers, including those in favor of the Democrats plan, expressed concerns that the Residence Park neighborhood would be divided up among three Council district under the Democrats plan.
“Bifurcation has been bad enough but trifurcation is tough to take”, said longtime Residence Park representative Charles Mirabella.
Some speakers took exception to the reliance on “Citizen Voting Age Population” or “CVAP” statistics in the Democrats plan to justify what they claim is a decrease in the percentage of black residents in District 3.
“CVAP will disappear like cotton candy in your mouth”, said Mark McLean, chairman of the CNRCRC.
Council Member Jared Rice, responding to that point, took issue with McLean’s claims noting that under the Democratic plan the percentage of African-Americans in the general population of District 3 increases from 42% to 43% and increases from 52% to 53% using CVAP.
“The numbers are the numbers,” said Rice.
Doug Colety, Chairman of the New Rochelle Republican Party, cast doubt on whether the Democrats plan would be acceptable to a Federal Judge, pointing out that the Census will not release CVAP data for the 2010 Census until December 2011 so that the CVAP numbers used by the Democrats were estimates with a very low Confidence Interval, a statistical term referring to the reliability of plotting data to perform analysis.
A publicly available email exchange involving Andrew A. Beveridge, the demographer selected by Mayor Noam Bramson to advise the City Council on redistricting, indicated that Beveridge himself had articulated concerns about the use of CVAP in another context. Beveridge is being paid $8,000 as a consultant.
The Republicans have refused to rely on Beveridge in developing their plan, causing some delay in completing their work, on the grounds that Beveridge is a Democrat who served previously as a Democratic District Leader in Yonkers and donated money to Bramson in 2009. Bramson has claimed he did not know that Beveridge had donated to him which few political observers in New Rochelle find credible given the meticulous nature of the Mayor’s cultivation of political supporters. Bramson has since stated that he returned the money to Beveridge.
The most eloquent remarks came from former County Legislator and Board of Education president Pearl Quarles who closed a precise, effective critique of the attempt to rush through redistricting changes by saying “If you think we are going to take whatever is thrown at us you are sorely mistaken”.
More than three-quarters of the way through the meeting, Mayor Bramson stated that due to changes to the Democrats plan a second public hearing would be required.
In his prepared remarks on behalf of the CNRCRC during the hearing, Former Mayor Paduano compared deciding between the three plans to buying a car, encouraging those who supported the Mayor’s plan without having seen alternative plans to “shop around” first before making a decision.
Concerned New Rochelle Citizens’ Redistricting Committee Plan
Republicans Redistricting Plan
Gerrymandering is Election Fraud Noam!!!!
Drawing a jurisdiction’s district lines is a central and important task in a district-based election system — the principal American form — because the nature of districts often dictates the electability of candidates, if not the actual results of elections. The people who draw these lines therefore have a great deal of power over who will represent each district. It is thus no surprise that one of the biggest debates in election law, both within the academia and the courts, is about policing redistricting to ensure that it is fair (J.Fromer). So, you have now an initial redistricting plan by the Mayor of New Rochelle and the Democratic Party who seek to implement it without public input or much less consideration by reasonable people. Mayor Bramson, as noted in the initial presentation and the public discussion this week, is not willing to entertain an amendment or addition to his redistricting map. It is his way or the highway.
Many in legal academia have continuously advocated for a very public and thorough analysis of redistricting. If it is not done this way, Mayor Bramson’s plan will meet its fate in the dust bin of history because as we all know, ultimately, the plan implemented for all of us will be the one fashioned by a Federal Judge who will look at all the plans presented last night and will be guided by the previous consent decrees.
“It is imperative that a measure of fairness be elaborated in the redistricting context for at least two reasons. First, polities concerned with the impact of redistricting on legislative representation — and thus ultimately, substantive rights — require a measure of fairness to guide them in constructing districts at each redistricting opportunity. Second, if courts are to police states’ redistricting schemes, they need manageable and preferably objective standards to adjudge the fairness of these schemes. A desirable model of fairness, then, is both constructive and descriptive. A constructive model of fairness instructs a polity on how to construct fair districting schemes, while a descriptive model of fairness allows courts and others to determine whether a particular districting scheme is fair.” J. Fromer 93 Geo. L.J. 1547 (2004-2005)
So last night’s theatrics by Mayor Bramson, Council Members Sussman and Fertel, who should know better since they are presumed to be competent lawyers, is abhorring and insulting to the communities of color in New Rochelle. Their gerrymandering is a slap in the face to our community and serves as notice that they are NOT for our community. They represent their self-interests and as the Mayor believes, he will take care of them (us in the West End). We must not tolerate this. We must expose Bramson, Fertel and Sussman for what they are.
“Toleration of partisan gerrymandering is unfortunate because gerrymandering is election fraud, no less pernicious than stuffing the ballot box or intimidating or bribing voters. The gerrymandered district is designed to squander the votes of the opposition party by -packing- large majorities of opposition voters into a few districts or by -cracking- districts controlled by opposition voters into numerous districts that can be won by a small margin of voters of the dominant party. The practice dilutes the votes of the disadvantaged party members, making it harder for that party to translate its voting strength into legislative seats. A gerrymandered political system is unresponsive to changes in the will of the electorate. Partisan gerrymandering, in short, is an affront to constitutional democracy. It is hostile to the notion of -fair and effective representation for all citizens, and the public policy of the state ….who should seek to prevent it”. G. Harrison 23 Alaska L. Rev. 51
So get out and speak out at the next City Council Meeting.