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.