New York Redistricting Commission Amendment, Proposal 1 (2014)

Proposal 1 Type Constitutional amendment Origin New York Legislature Topic Redistricting Status Approved a

2014 measures November 4 Proposal 1a Proposal 2a Proposal 3a Endorsements Expenditures

The New York Redistricting Commission Amendment, Proposal 1 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the state of New York as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure was designed to create a redistricting commission to draw state senate, assembly and congressional districts.

Proposal 1's redistricting commission is composed of ten members:

• Two members appointed by the temporary president of the senate.
• Two members appointed by the speaker of the assembly.
• Two members appointed by the minority leader of the senate.
• Two members appointed by the minority leader of the assembly.
• Two members appointed by the eight legislatively appointed members. Neither could have been enrolled in the top two legislative officeholding political parties in the state.

The commission is required to hold 12 public hearings during the process of redistricting.

If the legislature were to reject the commission’s plan twice, the legislature would amend the commission’s plans.

The amendment was sponsored in the New York Assembly by House Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-65) as A 2086 and in the New York Senate by Senate Co-President Dean Skelos (R-9) as S 2107.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

New York Proposal 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,705,903	57.67%
No		1,252,213	42.33%

Election results via: New York Board of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text appeared as follows:

“

Revising State’s Redistricting Procedure The proposed amendment to sections 4 and 5 and addition of new section 5-b to Article 3 of the State Constitution revises the redistricting procedure for state legislative and congressional districts. The proposed amendment establishes a redistricting commission every 10 years beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees; prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission’s redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission’s plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article III, New York Constitution

The measure amended Sections 4 and 5 of Article III of the New York Constitution.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 4 Subsection (a) § 4. (a) Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate and assembly districts next occurring, in so far as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor. The legislature, by law, shall provide for the making and tabulation by state authorities of an enumeration of the inhabitants of the entire state to be used for such purposes, instead of a federal census, if the taking of a federal census in any tenth year from the year nineteen hundred thirty be omitted or if the federal census fails to show the number of aliens or Indians not taxed. If a federal census, though giving the requisite information as to the state at large, fails to give the information as to any civil or territorial divisions which is required to be known for such purposes, the legislature, by law, shall provide for such an enumeration of the inhabitants of such parts of the state only as may be necessary, which shall supersede in part the federal census and be used in connection therewith for such purposes. The legislature, by law, may provide in its discretion for an enumeration by state authorities of the inhabitants of the state, to be used for such purposes, in place of a federal census, when the return of a decennial federal census is delayed so that it is not available at the beginning of the regular session of the legislature in the second year after the year nineteen hundred thirty or after any tenth year therefrom, or if an apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate districts is not made at or before such a session. At the regular session in the year nineteen hundred thirty-two, and at the first regular session after the year nineteen hundred forty and after each tenth year therefrom the senate districts shall be readjusted or altered, but if, in any decade, counting from and including that which begins with the year nineteen hundred thirty-one, such a readjustment or alteration is not made at the time above prescribed, it shall be made at a subsequent session occurring not later than the sixth year of such decade, meaning not later than nineteen hundred thirty-six, nineteen hundred forty-six, nineteen hundred fifty-six, and so on; provided, however, that if such districts shall have been readjusted or altered by law in either of the years nineteen hundred thirty or nineteen hundred thirty-one, they shall remain unaltered until the first regular session after the year nineteen hundred forty. Such districts shall be so readjusted or altered that each senate district shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, and be in as compact form as practicable, and shall remain unaltered until the first year of the next decade as above defined, and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and no county shall be divided in the formation of a senate district except to make two or more senate districts wholly in such county. No town, except a town having more than a full ratio of apportionment, and no block in a city inclosed by streets or public ways, shall be divided in the formation of senate districts; nor shall any. In the reapportionment of senate districts, no district shall contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the same county, than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such district. Counties, towns or blocks which, from their location, may be included in either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make said districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. No county shall have four or more senators unless it shall have a full ratio for each senator. No county shall have more than one-third of all the senators; and no two counties or the territory thereof as now organized, which are adjoining counties, or which are separated only by public waters, shall have more than one-half of all the senators. Subsection (b) (b) The independent redistricting commission established pursuant to section five-b of this article shall prepare a redistricting plan to establish senate, assembly, and congressional districts every ten years commencing in two thousand twenty-one, and shall submit to the legislature such plan and the implementing legislation therefor on or before January first or as soon as practicable thereafter but no later than January fifteenth in the year ending in two beginning in two thousand twenty-two. The redistricting plans for the assembly and the senate shall be contained in and voted upon by the legislature in a single bill, and the congressional district plan may be included in the same bill if the legislature chooses to do so. The implementing legislation shall be voted upon, without amendment, by the senate or the assembly and if approved by the first house voting upon it, such legislation shall be delivered to the other house immediately to be voted upon without amendment. If approved by both houses, such legislation shall be presented to the governor for action. If either house shall fail to approve the legislation implementing the first redistricting plan, or the governor shall veto such legislation and the legislature shall fail to override such veto, each house or the governor if he or she vetoes it, shall notify the commission that such legislation has been disapproved. Within fifteen days of such notification and in no case later than February twenty-eighth, the redistricting commission shall prepare and submit to the legislature a second redistricting plan and the necessary implementing legislation for such plan. Such legislation shall be voted upon, without amendment, by the senate or the assembly and, if approved by the first house voting upon it, such legislation shall be delivered to the other house immediately to be voted upon without amendment. If approved by both houses, such legislation shall be presented to the governor for action. If either house shall fail to approve the legislation implementing the second redistricting plan, or the governor shall veto such legislation and the legislature shall fail to override such veto, each house shall introduce such implementing legislation with any amendments each house of the legislature deems necessary. All such amendments shall comply with the provisions of this article. If approved by both houses, such legislation shall be presented to the governor for action. All votes by the senate or assembly on any redistricting plan legislation pursuant to this article shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules: (1) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, approval of legislation submitted by the independent redistricting commission pursuant to subdivision (f) of section five-b of this article shall require the vote in support of its passage by at least a majority of the members elected to each house. (2) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, approval of legislation submitted by the independent redistricting commission pursuant to subdivision (g) of section five-b of this article shall require the vote in support of its passage by at least sixty percent of the members elected to each house. (3) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, approval of legislation submitted by the independent redistricting commission pursuant to subdivision (f) or (g) of section five-b of this article shall require the vote in support of its passage by at least two-thirds of the members elected to each house. Subsection (c) (c) Subject to the requirements of the federal constitution and statutes and in compliance with state constitutional requirements, the following principles shall be used in the creation of state senate and state assembly districts and congressional districts: (1) When drawing district lines, the commission shall consider whether such lines would result in the denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights, and districts shall not be drawn to have the purpose of, nor shall they result in, the denial or abridgement of such rights. Districts shall be drawn so that, based on the totality of the circumstances, racial or minority language groups do not have less opportunity to participate in the political process than other members of the electorate and to elect representatives of their choice. (2) To the extent practicable, districts shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants. For each district that deviates from this requirement, the commission shall provide a specific public explanation as to why such deviation exists. (3) Each district shall consist of contiguous territory. (4) Each district shall be as compact in form as practicable. (5) Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties. The commission shall consider the maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions, including counties, cities, and towns, and of communities of interest. (6) In drawing senate districts, towns or blocks which, from their location may be included in either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make said districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants. The requirements that senate districts not divide counties or towns, as well as the 'block-on-border' and 'town-on-border' rules, shall remain in effect. During the preparation of the redistricting plan, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct not less than one public hearing on proposals for the redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts in each of the following (i) cities: Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and White Plains; and (ii) counties: Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, and Suffolk. Notice of all such hearings shall be widely published using the best available means and media a reasonable time before every hearing. At least thirty days prior to the first public hearing and in any event no later than September fifteenth of the year ending in one or as soon as practicable thereafter, the independent redistricting commission shall make widely available to the public, in print form and using the best available technology, its draft redistricting plans, relevant data, and related information. Such plans, data, and information shall be in a form that allows and facilitates their use by the public to review, analyze, and comment upon such plans and to develop alternative redistricting plans for presentation to the commission at the public hearings. The independent redistricting commission shall report the findings of all such hearings to the legislature upon submission of a redistricting plan. Subsection (d) (d) The ratio for apportioning senators shall always be obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, by fifty, and the senate shall always be composed of fifty members, except that if any county having three or more senators at the time of any apportionment shall be entitled on such ratio to an additional senator or senators, such additional senator or senators shall be given to such county in addition to the fifty senators, and the whole number of senators shall be increased to that extent. The senate districts, including the present ones, as existing immediately before the enactment of a law readjusting or altering the senate districts, shall continue to be the senate districts of the state until the expirations of the terms of the senators then in office, except for the purpose of an election of senators for full terms beginning at such expirations, and for the formation of assembly districts. Subsection (e) (e) The process for redistricting congressional and state legislative districts established by this section and sections five and five-b of this article shall govern redistricting in this state except to the extent that a court is required to order the adoption of, or changes to, a redistricting plan as a remedy for a violation of law. A reapportionment plan and the districts contained in such plan shall be in force until the effective date of a plan based upon the subsequent federal decennial census taken in a year ending in zero unless modified pursuant to court order. Section 5 § 5. The members of the assembly shall be chosen by single districts and shall be apportioned by the legislature pursuant to this section and sections four and five-b of this article at each regular session at which the senate districts are readjusted or altered, and by the same law, among the several counties of the state, as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, excluding aliens. Every county heretofore established and separately organized, except the county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of assembly, and no county shall hereafter be erected unless its population shall entitle it to a member. The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton, until the population of the county of Hamilton shall, according to the ratio, entitle it to a member. But the legislature may abolish the said county of Hamilton and annex the territory thereof to some other county or counties. The quotient obtained by dividing the whole number of inhabitants of the state, excluding aliens, by the number of members of assembly, shall be the ratio for apportionment, which shall be made as follows: One member of assembly shall be apportioned to every county, including Fulton and Hamilton as one county, containing less than the ratio and one-half over. Two members shall be apportioned to every other county. The remaining members of assembly shall be apportioned to the counties having more than two ratios according to the number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. Members apportioned on remainders shall be apportioned to the counties having the highest remainders in the order thereof respectively. No county shall have more members of assembly than a county having a greater number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. The assembly districts, including the present ones, as existing immediately before the enactment of a law making an apportionment of members of assembly among the counties, shall continue to be the assembly districts of the state until the expiration of the terms of members then in office, except for the purpose of an election of members of assembly for full terms beginning at such expirations. In any county entitled to more than one member, the board of supervisors, and in any city embracing an entire county and having no board of supervisors, the common council, or if there be none, the body exercising the powers of a common council, shall assemble at such times as the legislature making an apportionment shall prescribe, and divide such counties into assembly districts as nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as may be, of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable, each of which shall be wholly within a senate district formed under the same apportionment, equal to the number of members of assembly to which such county shall be entitled, and shall cause to be filed in the office of the secretary of state and of the clerk of such county, a description of such districts, specifying the number of each district and of the inhabitants thereof, excluding aliens, according to the census or enumeration used as the population basis for the formation of such districts; and such apportionment and districts shall remain unaltered until after the next reapportionment of members of assembly, except that the board of supervisors of any county containing a town having more than a ratio of apportionment and one-half over may alter the assembly districts in a senate district containing such town at any time on or before March first, nineteen hundred forty-six. In counties having more than one senate district, the same number of assembly districts shall be put in each senate district, unless the assembly districts cannot be evenly divided among the senate districts of any county, in which case one more assembly district shall be put in the senate district in such county having the largest, or one less assembly district shall be put in the senate district in such county having the smallest number of inhabitants, excluding aliens, as the case may require. No town, except a town having more than a ratio of apportionment and one-half over, and no block in a city inclosed by streets or public ways, shall be divided in the formation of assembly districts, nor shall any districts contain a greater excess in population over an adjoining district in the same senate district, than the population of a town or block therein adjoining such assembly district. Towns or blocks which, from their location may be included in either of two districts, shall be so placed as to make said districts most nearly equal in number of inhabitants, excluding aliens. Nothing in this section shall prevent the division, at any time, of counties and towns and the erection of new towns by the legislature. An apportionment by the legislature, or other body, shall be subject to review by the supreme court, at the suit of any citizen, under such reasonable regulations as the legislature may prescribe; and any court before which a cause may be pending involving an apportionment, shall give precedence thereto over all other causes and proceedings, and if said court be not in session it shall convene promptly for the disposition of the same. The court shall render its decision within sixty days after a petition is filed. In any judicial proceeding relating to redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, any law establishing congressional or state legislative districts found to violate the provisions of this article shall be invalid in whole or in part. In the event that a court finds such a violation, the legislature shall have a full and reasonable opportunity to correct the law's legal infirmities. Section 5-b Subsection (a) § 5-b. (a) On or before February first of each year ending with a zero and at any other time a court orders that congressional or state legislative districts be amended, an independent redistricting commission shall be established to determine the district lines for congressional and state legislative offices. The independent redistricting commission shall be composed of ten members, appointed as follows: (1) two members shall be appointed by the temporary president of the senate; (2) two members shall be appointed by the speaker of the assembly; (3) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the senate; (4) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the assembly; (5) two members shall be appointed by the eight members appointed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subdivision by a vote of not less than five members in favor of such appointment, and these two members shall not have been enrolled in the preceding five years in either of the two political parties that contain the largest or second largest number of enrolled voters within the state; (6) one member shall be designated chair of the commission by a majority of the members appointed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subdivision to convene and preside over each meeting of the commission. Subsection (b) (b) The members of the independent redistricting commission shall be registered voters in this state. No member shall within the last three years: (1) be or have been a member of the New York state legislature or United States Congress or a statewide elected official; (2) be or have been a state officer or employee or legislative employee as defined in section seventy- three of the public officers law; (3) be or have been a registered lobbyist in New York state; (4) be or have been a political party chairman, as defined in paragraph (k) of subdivision one of section seventy-three of the public officers law; (5) be the spouse of a statewide elected official or of any member of the United States Congress, or of the state legislature. Subsection (c) (c) To the extent practicable, the members of the independent redistricting commission shall reflect the diversity of the residents of this state with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, language, and geographic residence and to the extent practicable the appointing authorities shall consult with organizations devoted to protecting the voting rights of minority and other voters concerning potential appointees to the commission. Subsection (d) (d) Vacancies in the membership of the commission shall be filled within thirty days in the manner provided for in the original appointments. Subsection (e) (e) The legislature shall provide by law for the compensation of the members of the independent redistricting commission, including compensation for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. Subsection (f) (f) A minimum of five members of the independent redistricting commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business or the exercise of any power of such commission prior to the appointment of the two commission members appointed pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of this section, and a minimum of seven members shall constitute a quorum after such members have been appointed, and no exercise of any power of the independent redistricting commission shall occur without the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members, provided that, in order to approve any redistricting plan and implementing legislation, the following rules shall apply: (1) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, approval of a redistricting plan and implementing legislation by the commission for submission to the legislature shall require the vote in support of its approval by at least seven members including at least one member appointed by each of the legislative leaders. (2) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, approval of a redistricting plan by the commission for submission to the legislature shall require the vote in support of its approval by at least seven members including at least one member appointed by the speaker of the assembly and one member appointed by the temporary president of the senate. Subsection (g) (g) In the event that the commission is unable to obtain seven votes to approve a redistricting plan on or before January first in the year ending in two or as soon as practicable thereafter, the commission shall submit to the legislature that redistricting plan and implementing legislation that garnered the highest number of votes in support of its approval by the commission with a record of the votes taken. In the event that more than one plan received the same number of votes for approval, and such number was higher than that for any other plan, then the commission shall submit all plans that obtained such number of votes. The legislature shall consider and vote upon such implementing legislation in accordance with the voting rules set forth in subdivision (b) of section four of this article. Subsection (h) (h) (1) The independent redistricting commission shall appoint two co-executive directors by a majority vote of the commission in accordance with the following procedure: (i) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, the co-executive directors shall be approved by a majority of the commission that includes at least one appointee by the speaker of the assembly and at least one appointee by the temporary president of the senate. (ii) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, the co-executive directors shall be approved by a majority of the commission that includes at least one appointee by each of the legislative leaders. (2) One of the co-executive directors shall be enrolled in the political party with the highest number of enrolled members in the state and one shall be enrolled in the political party with the second highest number of enrolled members in the state. The co-executive directors shall appoint such staff as are necessary to perform the commission's duties, except that the commission shall review a staffing plan prepared and provided by the co-executive directors which shall contain a list of the various positions and the duties, qualifications, and salaries associated with each position. (3) In the event that the commission is unable to appoint one or both of the co-executive directors within forty-five days of the establishment of a quorum of seven commissioners, the following procedure shall be followed: (i) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, within ten days the speaker's appointees on the commission shall appoint one co-executive director, and the temporary president's appointees on the commission shall appoint the other co-executive director. Also within ten days the minority leader of the assembly shall select a co-deputy executive director, and the minority leader of the senate shall select the other co-deputy executive director. (ii) In the event that the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, within ten days the speaker's and temporary president's appointees on the commission shall together appoint one co-executive director, and the two minority leaders' appointees on the commission shall together appoint the other co-executive director. (4) In the event of a vacancy in the offices of co-executive director or co-deputy executive director, the position shall be filled within ten days of its occurrence by the same appointing authority or authorities that appointed his or her predecessor. (i) The state budget shall include necessary appropriations for the expenses of the independent redistricting commission, provide for compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the members and staff of the commission, assign to the commission any additional duties that the legislature may deem necessary to the performance of the duties stipulated in this article, and require other agencies and officials of the state of New York and its political subdivisions to provide such information and assistance as the commission may require to perform its duties.

Background

See also: Redistricting in New York

Prior to this measure, the state legislature was responsible for redistricting. While there was a commission on redistricting, it only acted in an advisory role. The final deal needed to be approved by the Department of Justice.

The advisory commission, known as the Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), was composed of six individuals:

• 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

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

Support

The campaign in support of the amendment was led by Vote Yes for Progress.

The measure was sponsored in the New York Legislature by Rep. Sheldon Silver (D-65) and Sen. Dean Skelos (R-9).

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D)
• Senate Co-President Dean Skelos (R-9)
• Senate Co-President Jeffrey Klein (D-34)
• House Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-65)

Assembly

The following state assembly members voted to place the amendment on the ballot:

Note: A yes vote on the amendment merely referred the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators approved of the stipulations laid out in Proposal 1.

• Fred Thiele (D-1)
• Daniel Losquadro (R-2)
• Edward J. Hennessey (D-3)
• Steven Englebright (D-4)
• Alfred Graf (R-5)
• Philip Ramos (D-6)
• Andrew R. Garbarino (R-7)
• Joseph Saladino (R-9)
• Chad A. Lupinacci (R-10)
• Robert Sweeney (D-11)
• Andrew Raia (R-12)
• Charles Lavine (D-13)
• David McDonough (R-14)
• Michael Montesano (R-15)
• Michelle Schimel (D-16)
• Thomas McKevitt (R-17)
• Earlene Hill Hooper (D-18)
• Edward Ra (R-19)
• Harvey Weisenberg (D-20)
• Brian Curran (R-21)
• Michaelle C. Solages (D-22)
• Phillip Goldfeder (D-23)
• David Weprin (D-24)
• Nily D. Rozic (D-25)
• Edward Braunstein (D-26)
• Michael Simanowitz (D-27)
• Andrew Hevesi (D-28
• William Scarborough (D-29)
• Margaret Markey (D-30)
• Michele Titus (D-31)
• Vivian Cook (D-32)
• Barbara Clark (D-33)
• Michael DenDecker (D-34)
• Jeffrion Aubry (D-35)
• Aravella Simotas (D-36)
• Catherine Nolan (D-37)
• Michael Miller (D-38)
• Francisco Moya (D-39)
• Ronald T. Kim (D-40)
• Helene Weinstein (D-41)
• Rhoda Jacobs (D-42)
• Karim Camara (D-43)
• James Brennan (D-44)
• Steven Cymbrowitz (D-45)
• Alec Brook-Krasny (D-46)
• William Colton (D-47)
• Dov Hikind (D-48)
• Joseph Lentol (D-50)
• Felix Ortiz (D-51)
• Joan Millman (D-52)
• Vito Lopez (D-53)
• Rafael Espinal (D-54)
• William Boyland (D-55)
• Annette Robinson (D-56)
• Walter T. Mosley III (D-57)
• N. Nick Perry (D-58)
• Alan Maisel (D-59)
• Inez Barron (D-60)
• Matthew Titone (D-61)
• Joseph Borelli (R-62)
• Michael Cusick (D-63)
• Nicole Malliotakis (R-64)
• Sheldon Silver (D-65)
• Deborah Glick (D-66)
• Linda Rosenthal (D-67)
• Robert Rodriguez (D-68)
• Daniel O'Donnell (D-69)
• Gabriela Rosa (D-72)
• Dan Quart (D-73)
• Brian Kavanagh (D-74)
• Richard Gottfried (D-75)
• Vanessa Gibson (D-77)
• Eric Stevenson (D-79)
• Mark Gjonaj (D-80)
• Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-81)
• Michael Benedetto (D-82)
• Carmen Arroyo (D-(84)
• Nelson Castro (D-86)
• Luis R. Sepulveda (D-87)
• Amy Paulin (D-88)
• Shelley Mayer (D-90)
• Steven Otis (D-91)
• Thomas Abinanti (D-92)
• David Buchwald (D-93)
• Sandra Galef (D-95)
• Kenneth Zebrowski (D-96)
• Ellen Jaffee (D-97)
• James G. Skoufis (D-99)
• Aileen Gunther (D-100)
• Peter Lopez (R-102)
• Kevin Cahill (D-103)
• Frank Skartados (D-104)
• Kieran Michael Lalor (R-105)
• Didi Barrett (D-106)
• Steven McLaughlin (R-107)
• John T. McDonald, III (D-108)
• Patricia Fahy (D-109)
• Phillip G. Steck (D-110)
• Angelo Santabarbara (D-111)
• James Tedisco (R-112)
• Tony Jordan (R-113)
• Daniel G. Stec (R-114)
• Janet Duprey (R-115)
• Addie Russell (D-116)
• Kenneth Blankenbush (R-117)
• Marc Butler (R-118)
• Anthony Brindisi (D-119)
• William Barclay (D-120)
• William Magee (D-121)
• Clifford Crouch (R-122)
• Donna Lupardo (D-123)
• Barbara Lifton (D-125)
• Gary Finch (R-126)
• Albert A. Stirpe (D-127)
• Sam Roberts (D-128)
• William Magnarelli (D-129)
• Robert Oaks (R-130)
• Brian Kolb (R-131)
• Philip Palmesano (R-132)
• Bill Reilich (R-134)
• Mark Johns (R-135)
• Joseph Morelle (D-136)
• Harry Bronson (D-138)
• Robin Schimminger (D-140)
• Crystal Peoples (D-141)
• Michael Kearns (D-142)
• Dennis Gabryszak (D-143)
• Jane Corwin (R-144)
• John Ceretto (R-145)
• Raymond Walter (R-146)
• David DiPietro (R-147)
• Joseph Giglio (R-148)
• Sean Ryan (D-149)
• Andrew Goodell (R-150)

Senate

The following state senators voted to place the amendment on the ballot:

Note: A yes vote on the amendment merely referred the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators approved of the stipulations laid out in Proposal 1.

• Kenneth LaValle (R-1)
• John J. Flanagan (R-2)
• Lee Zeldin (R-3)
• Philip Boyle (R-4)
• Carl Marcellino (R-5)
• Kemp Hannon (R-6)
• Jack Martins (R-7)
• Charles Fuschillo (R-8)
• Dean Skelos (R-9)
• Tony Avella (D-11)
• Malcolm Smith (D-14)
• Joseph Addabbo (D-15)
• Simcha Felder (D-17)
• Eric Adams (D-20)
• Martin Golden (R-22)
• Diane Savino (D-23)
• Andrew Lanza (R-24)
• Brad M. Hoylman (D-27)
• Adriano Espaillat (D-31)
• Ruben Diaz (D-32)
• Jeffrey Klein (D-34)
• David Carlucci (D-38)
• William Larkin (R-39)
• Greg Ball (R-40)
• John Bonacic (R-42)
• Kathleen A. Marchione (R-43)
• Elizabeth O'C. Little (R-45)
• Cecilia F. Tkaczyk (D-46)
• Joseph Griffo (R-47)
• Patricia Ritchie (R-48)
• Hugh Farley (R-49)
• John DeFrancisco (R-50)
• James L. Seward (R-51)
• Thomas Libous (R-52)
• David Valesky (D-53)
• Michael Nozzolio (R-54)
• Ted O'Brien (D-55)
• Joseph Robach (R-56)
• Catharine Young (R-57)
• Thomas O'Mara (R-58)
• Patrick Gallivan (R-59)
• Mark Grisanti (D-60)
• Michael Ranzenhofer (R-61)
• George Maziarz (R-62)
• Tim Kennedy (D-63)

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of New York
• Citizens Union

Arguments

A Citizens Union video, titled "Vote YES Prop 1: Redistricting Reform Now."

Vote Yes for Progress, the organization who led the campaign in support of Proposal 1, listed the following five reasons to vote "yes" on the amendment:

“	1. TO END THE SELF-INTERESTED PROCESS OF LEGISLATORS DRAWING THEIR OWN LINES No longer will legislators be able to pick their constituents and have sole authority to draw their own lines. 2. TO CREATE A POLITICALLY BALANCED AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSION, LIMITING THE ABILITY OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DRAW ITS OWN MAPS The commission consists of ten members with significant bans on who can serve. The commission has: Equal representation from each of the four legislative leaders, with 2 additional members not affiliated with either major party appointed by the commission members. NO legislators, lobbyists or other political figures serving as commissioners. The state legislature can only step in to amend plans should it TWICE reject the independent commission’s plans, and then can only do so according to new rules established in the state constitution and by no more than 2 percent of the population of any district, according to a new law that was passed with the amendment. 3. TO ESTABLISH NEW RULES THAT REMOVE PARTISAN SCHEMING AND CREATE IMPARTIALITY All that the current rules require is that districts be contiguous and compact, and these standards are vague. Additional rules in the amendment: End “partisan gerrymandering” by requiring that districts not be drawn to favor or disfavor any incumbents, particular candidates (including challengers) or political parties. Protect communities of interest and racial and language and minority groups by codifying existing national Voting Rights Act language in the state constitution. 4. TO CREATE A FAIR AND PUBLIC PROCESS Any plan approved by the ten-member commission must have a supermajority of seven members vote in favor, ensuring balance and cooperation. Additional controls are in place to require a higher threshold for approval in the legislature should one party control both houses. The amendment also requires that the commission release data, maps and information to the public to allow it to develop alternative proposals, and requires the holding of public hearings throughout the state. 5. THIS IS A RARE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW YORKERS TO REMOVE REDISTRICTING POWER FROM THE LEGISLATURE. THOUGH NOT PERFECT, THE AMENDMENT IMPROVES THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE For more than fifty years, the New York State legislature has exclusively controlled the drawing of legislative maps. Ample opportunities have been squandered to reform the process, regardless of which party controlled the state senate. If this amendment is rejected, it is highly unlikely the legislature will pass any other amendment to reform the process. The amendment also provides a new floor from which additional statutory reforms can be enacted in the future.	”
—Vote Yes for Progress

The New York City 2014 Voter Guide included arguments in favor and in opposition to Proposal 1. The following were the guide's arguments in favor:

“	The proposed commission will be more independent than the current model because state and federal legislators, legislators’ staff, and registered lobbyists are prohibited from serving as members. The amendment will discourage gerrymandering because the commission and the legislature are required to follow common principles that would prohibit drawing district lines that abridge the rights of racial or language minority voters, or lines that favor or disfavor incumbents, would be required to consider maintaining the cores of pre-existing districts, political subdivisions, and communities of interest, and would be required to create districts of contiguous territory that are as compact as practicable. The courts can use these principles to evaluate any plan and throw it out if necessary. The amendment will ensure that the majority and minority parties will be forced to work toward consensus to approve senior staff and any redistricting plan. The proposed commission will limit partisanship because membership will be equally balanced between the majority and minority parties in the legislature, and will also include two members who are not enrolled in either of the two major parties. The current system doesn’t work, and some improvement is far better than none at all. The legislature has not addressed this issue in fifty years. If we don’t approve this compromise, it will be many years before we get another chance.	”
—New York City 2014 Voter Guide

Other arguments in support of the amendment included:

• Dick Dadey of Citizens Union argued, "Prop 1 will ban partisan gerrymandering by outlawing the drawing of legislative maps for political advantage, positioning New York as a national leader on redistricting reform. Currently, this powerful constitutional ban exists in only four states. The amendment will strip state legislators of their long unchecked redistricting power by creating a politically balanced commission that will divide the state into fair districts. This commission will be banned from drawing districts to favor any incumbents, candidates or parties and will be required to provide a thorough explanation of any districts that are not of equal population size."

Campaign contributions

As of December 11, 2014, supporters had received $89,573 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Citizens Union of the City of New York	$83,275	$64,176
League of Women Voters of NYS Redistricting Committee	$6,298	$6,298
Total	$89,573	$70,474

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
League of Women Voters of NYS	$6,298
Robert Kaufman	$3,250
Lorna Goodman	$2,500
Gail Erickson	$1,500
Sterling Equities	$1,313
Curtis Cole	$1,125

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Assembly

The following state assembly members voted against placing the amendment on the ballot:

• Peter Abbate (D-49)
• David Gantt (D-137)
• Micah Kellner (D-76)
• Kieran Michael Lalor (R-105)
• Claudia Tenney (R-101)
• Bill Nojay (R-133)
• Stephen Hawley (R-139)
• Carl Heastie (D-83)
• Keith Wright (D-70)
• Herman Farrell (D-71)
• Michael Fitzpatrick (R-8)
• J. Gary Pretlow (D-89)
• Christopher Friend (R-124)
• Steve Katz (R-94)
• Ann Rabbitt (R-98)

Senate

The following state senators voted against placing the amendment on the ballot:

• Neil Breslin (D-44)
• Ruben Diaz (D-32)
• Martin Malave Dilan (D-18)
• Michael Gianaris (D-12)
• Terry W. Gipson (D-41)
• Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D-36)
• Liz Krueger (D-28)
• George Latimer (D-37)
• Velmanette Montgomery (D-25)
• Kevin Parker (D-21)
• Jose Peralta (D-13)
• Bill Perkins (D-30)
• J. Gustavo Rivera (D-33)
• John Sampson (D-19)
• James Sanders, Jr. (D-10)
• Jose M. Serrano (D-29)
• Daniel Squadron (D-26)
• Toby Ann Stavisky (D-16)
• Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-35)
• Cecilia F. Tkaczyk (D-46)

Organizations

• Common Cause New York
• New York Public Interest Research Group
• EffectiveNY
• Village Independent Democrats

Individuals

• Rob Astorino (R), 2014 gubernatorial candidate
• Zephyr Teachout (D), 2014 gubernatorial candidate
• Bill Samuels, Democratic activist and businessman

Arguments

Blair Horner, NYPIRG's legislative director, lambasted Proposal 1 as a "fake reform" and called on New Yorkers to vote "No." He said:

“	...Vote NO not because you think the state’s redistricting system is fine – it’s far from it – but vote NO to send a clear message to Albany: You are sick of fake reforms... Much has been made that Proposal 1 creates a new redistricting commission and that there are new standards for membership on the proposed redistricting Commission. But will that Commission be truly independent? Proposal 1 lets the Legislature choose the members of the redistricting commission. And here’s the kicker: If these political appointees miraculously act independently, Proposal 1 allows the Legislature to reject their plan and replace it with their own!... But it gets worse. For the first time in New York state history, future mapmakers will have to consider the core of existing legislative districts when drawing future district lines. Despite all you will hear about how Proposal 1 prohibits gerrymandering, it requires future mapmakers to rely on the current gerrymandered districts when future districts are drawn. Currently, there is no such requirement in the state Constitution. Theoretically, mapmakers can start from scratch when drawing district lines. Proposal 1 forces future mapmakers to rely on the “core” of existing districts (an undefined term) to draw future maps. So, Proposal 1 not only is a scheme that seeks to bamboozle the public with the status quo merely masquerading as reform, it actually makes the current situation worse! New York voters are faced with two lousy choices: keep the awful status quo or approve a so-called reform that makes matters worse. But a vote NO helps keep the pressure on Albany. The next redistricting is not due until 2022, which gives the governor and the Legislature plenty of time to get it right.	”
—Blair Horner

The New York City 2014 Voter Guide included arguments in favor and in opposition to Proposal 1. The following were the guide's arguments in opposition:

“	The commission will not be independent because the state legislature chooses eight of the ten members and will control their votes. Along with the governor, the legislature has final say over any redistricting plan. The legislature can even draw up its own plan if it rejects the commission’s plan twice. The amendment will not end incumbent-friendly gerrymandering. In drawing district lines, the commission and the legislature are required to consider maintaining the cores of pre-existing districts and communities of interest. This sounds like the amendment would protect incumbents’ districts. This will hardly produce an impartial and independent redistricting plan. The amendment creates a complicated partisan voting system for hiring senior staff and approving a redistricting plan, which gives the minority party the power to veto the will of the majority. The amendment also requires the votes of particular political appointees for an approval. If the voting system were truly impartial it would require the votes of the unaffiliated members instead, for example to break ties. The commission will not be effective because it will have an even number of members with equal representation from the two major parties. This will lead to gridlock. A deadlock on the commission empowers the legislature to create its own plan. The current system is lousy, but this proposal will make things worse. Even its proponents admit it has flaws. In fact, it is a dangerous and counterfeit reform. If approved, it will set in stone a system of political control of redistricting in our state constitution rather than creating a truly independent redistricting process. Changing it or improving it will be extremely difficult. The legislature can and should come up with a better plan before the next redistricting in 2022.	”
—New York City 2014 Voter Guide

Other arguments against the amendment included:

• Common Cause Executive Director Susan Lerner argued, “The proposed constitutional amendment sets up a hyperpartisan, expensive and ineffective structure for redistricting. Ultimately this is not an independent process, and the voters lose.” Elsewhere, she said, "We should not be memorializing partisan control of redistricting — this requires it. There is a set of voting rules that is dependent on who is in the majority of either house. And the criteria for redistricting are deliberately structured so they can do anything they want to with the maps and not provide guidance for the courts. They don’t have to consciously discriminate. They can just ‘respect the cores of existing districts."

Campaign contributions

As of December 2, 2014, opponents had received $87,215 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
NYPIRG Vote No on Redistricting Proposal Committee	$1,786	$1,569
No to Fake Redistricting Reform	$85,429	$84,419
Total	$87,215	$85,988

Top contributors:

Donor	Amount
Common Cause NY	$67,616
Carlyle Capital Group LLC	$5,000

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of New York ballot measures, 2014

Opposition

• Adirondack Daily Enterprise said, "We agree with McGrath’s ruling. New York state’s democracy needs more independence from both of its major political parties than proposition No. 1 seems capable of providing. Voters hungry for any kind of change in Albany may approve the measure, but at least they won’t do so under any false belief the ballot initiative is providing an independent reform."
• Albany Times Union said, "The measure’s supporters claim it will turn redistricting over to an independent commission. But as surely as a puppet doesn’t act independently from its unseen puppeteer, this commission would be a tool of the legislature that created it. And which wrote loopholes into it big enough to drag a gerrymandered district through… If Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature have their way, politicians will be even more empowered than they are now to manipulate the political maps, and essentially pick who votes for them."
• The Journal News said, "Voters should hold out for a redistricting plan that truly serves democracy, not one that could – or could not – provide a path to real reform."
• Newsday said, "Iowa and California are states where independent commissions draw the boundaries. We don't believe the best argument made in favor of the amendment: "It's the best we can hope for." New York deserves a truly independent redistricting process. Vote no on proposal No. 1."
• New York Times said, "The net result would be to reinforce, not reform, a system that virtually guarantees job security for incumbents and discourages competition."
• The Post-Standard said, "Question: When does the word “independent” mean ”controlled by the same old party leaders”? Answer: When it comes in front of “redistricting commission”… Voters have one more chance to defeat this ill-conceived, undemocratic and partisan constitutional amendment."
• Times Herald-Record said, "The amendment would take those broken promises and make them part of the Constitution. Better to live with the imperfect procedures we have now and hope that they might change some day than to alter the Constitution and ensure that they never will."

Other opinions

• Auburn Citizen called for neutral ballot language, saying, "Regardless of whether one agrees with the substance of a particular referendum, the ballot language must honestly describe the proposed amendment without attempting to influence its passage or defeat. The Board of Elections must insist on neutral language for the redistricting proposition."
• The Daily News criticized the use of "independent" in the text of the measure, saying, "Could members of the Cuomo administration be up to the same mischief they engaged in last year when seeking permission to expand legalized gambling?"

Noteworthy events

Independent vs. bipartisan

Leading up to the New York Board of Election's August 1 adoption of Proposal 1's ballot language, Common Cause, New York Public Interest Research Group, EffectiveNY and Make the Road New York called on the board to adopt "neutral language." They offered their own draft:

“	The proposed amendment to Article 3 of the Constitution would allow New York State’s legislative leaders to appoint a bipartisan commission to establish new state legislative and congressional district lines every 10 years pursuant to state criteria with final approval by the Legislature. Shall the amendment be approved?	”
—Common Cause, the New York Public Interest Research Group, EffectiveNY and Make the Road New York

Jesse Laymon, executive director of EffectiveNY, said he was concerned that the board would approve language that mirrored the alleged passive language of 2013's Proposal 1, which stirred a dispute. He continued, "This year’s amendment on redistricting must not be a repeat."

Following the board's adoption of language on August 1, 2014, the involved groups stated their opposition to the measure's wording, specifically references to the commission as "independent."

Common Cause and New York Public Interest Research Group said the ballot question should refer to the proposed redistricting commission as "bipartisan," not "independent," since the commission would be "chosen by self-interested legislative leaders." Blair Horner, NYPIRG's legislative director, argued, "What rankles the most in the way that the Board of Elections drafted the language is the description of the new proposed redistricting commission as being independent. It's not, and they chose to use that word for a reason."

Susan Lerner of Common Cause added, "This language is intended to be confusing and misleading, which is in direct violation of the statutory directive to offer a 'concise' explanation." ... "There is misleading language. It’s the voters, again, who are shorted in this process."

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014

Lieb vs. Walsh

On August 19, 2014, Common Cause New York initiated a lawsuit against the measure's wording. The group asked a judge to order the proposal's language be rewritten. Common Cause argued that the word "independent" did not accurately describe the proposed redistricting committee.

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause-New York, said, "This is a commission that is independent in name only... Too many people will walk into the polling place, they'll get their ballot and it will be the first they've heard about this. That's why the language needs to be neutral, so voters have a reasonable opportunity to make up their own minds."

The case was heard by the New York Supreme Court on September 12, 2014.

On September 17, 2014, Judge Patrick McGrath ruled that the word "independent" must be struck from the measure's text. He said, "[T]he commission cannot be described as 'independent' when eight of 10 members are the handpicked appointees of the legislative leaders and the two additional members are essentially political appointees by proxy."

Neil Steiner, the lawyer for Common Cause New York, responded, "To exercise the right to vote – the very core of our democracy – voters must be given fair and accurate information. We're pleased that the court recognized that describing the proposed commission as "independent", when it so clearly is not, unfairly tilted the playing field, and stopped the Board of Elections from doing so."

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the New York Constitution

According to the New York Constitution, a majority vote was required in two successive sessions of the New York State Legislature in order to qualify the amendment for the statewide ballot.

The measure was referred to the ballot after being approved by both houses in successive terms by simple majority. A2086 was approved for a second time by the New York State Assembly on January 14, 2013. S2107 was approved for a second time by the New York State Senate on January 23, 2013.

Assembly vote

January 14, 2013 Assembly vote

New York A2086 Assembly Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		133	89.86%
No		15	10.14%

Senate vote

January 23, 2013 Senate vote

New York S2107 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		43	68.25%
No		20	31.75%

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• New York 2014 ballot measures
• Redistricting in New York

External links

Basic information

• Proposal 1

Support

• Vote Yes for Progress
• Vote Yes for Progress Facebook
• Vote Yes for Progress Twitter

Additional reading

• Rochester Business Journal, "Coalition seeks neutral language for election redistricting language," July 29, 2014