Some alterations were made to satisfy the demands of civic groups and minority advocacy organizations, but, at first glance, many were not.

In Bayside, Queens, Asian-American civic groups are likely still upset that a section below the neighborhood home to a growing Asian population was not included in the district represented by Councilman Dan Halloran. In Brooklyn, former district leader Lincoln Restler's chances took a hit when a change to unite Hasidic communities in south Williamsburg and north Bedford-Stuyvesant was included in the final map, giving incumbent Councilman Steve Levin a stronger base of support. And Manhattan Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito, a vocal critic of the redistricting process, had Randall's Island and a section of East Harlem restored to her district as she had demanded.

View the maps for yourself below:

Manhattan:

NYC Council Maps February 6 Plan for Manhattan by

Brooklyn:

NYC Council Maps February 6 Plan for Brooklyn by

Bronx:

NYC Council Maps February 6 Plan for the Bronx by

Queens:

NYC Council Maps February 6 Plan for Queens by

Staten Island:

NYC Council Maps February 6 Plan for Staten Island by

Congressman Israel (Photo: NY1)

New York Congressman Steve Israel, who heads up the House Democrats' campaign efforts, made an interesting pitch to NY1's Errol Louis on Inside City Hall last Friday. He argued the most New York is now in play with the judge's new congressional redistricting plan.

"Right in New York, as a result of the map the courts have approved, we have races all over the state that will be competitive," he said, before ticking down a laundry list of newly competitive seats.

"Congressman Gibson now has a district that is much more Democratic, [with] the map on Long Island, Congressman King goes from safe Republican seat to a 49.5% Democratic seat," he continued. "Congressman Reed has a more Democratic district. Congresswoman Buerkle, in the Syracuse area, is so out of touch ... with her district that I believe we're going to pick that one up."

Mr. Israel is correct that a number of Republicans have more competitive districts, but he may need some luck and extraordinary candidates to turn the entire state blue, although it isn't completely out of question. For example, Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice might need to enter the race against veteran GOP  Congressman Pete King to truly make that race competitive.

(Of course, every single House seat in New York State except Mr. King's has been held by a Democratic incumbent within the last two election cycles, so perhaps Democratic competitiveness across the state isn't especially new.)

On the flip side of the coin, Republicans have their own reasons to be optimistic with redistricting. Democratic Congresswomen Louise Slaughter, Kathy Hochul, and Nita Lowey have seen potentially strong Republican challengers mull races against them in recent days.

Governor Cuomo (Photo: Wikimedia)

Earlier today, good government advocate Bill Samuels took the rhetorical hammer to Governor Andrew Cuomo's record over his middle-of-the-night compromise legislation on redistricting reform this week.

"I think it's a historically terrible thing for the history of our state," he began his interview with The Capitol Pressroom's Susan Arbetter.

"To the extent our governor had a chance to be a great governor, when history is written, that opportunity is gone forever," he continued. "It's only a question of whether maybe he can go down in history maybe as a mediocre governor."

Mr. Samuels didn't just hold his criticism for Mr. Cuomo. He blasted Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver for their part in a cynical process.

"Skelos looked at Silver and winked. Silver looked at Skelos and winked. Then the governor looked at them and they all winked," he said. "The question I ask, and I really don't know the answer, is why did Cuomo do this?"

Mr. Cuomo, on the surface, appeared to have traded away a reform position on redistricting in exchange for other legislative items passed in the middle of the same night. However, Mr. Samuels felt this grand deal was a pretext for intentionally passing a terrible redistricting map.

"I don't think this was a negotiation at all. I think that he purposely threw in the redistricting bill into the mix so in the press it got buried," he said.

Mr. Samuels went on to theorize the redistricting deal was a part of Mr. Cuomo's presidential ambitions.

"Here's the only thing I can think of ... He has made the determination that he wants six years of Republican control ... so he can run for President and say, 'In New York, where I had to run with a Republican State Senate and with a Democratic State Assembly, I got a lot done. Our President Obama has not been able to do that.'"

The Senate Democrats would like to see districts like this still see some change.

Earlier today, the New York State Senate Democrats asked the court currently enacting the state's new Congressional redistricting plan to consider expanding their efforts and, at the very least, draw up their own maps for the State Senate as well.

They made two core arguments about the need for this legal action in their letter to the court.

"First, the Legislature’s plan is subject to preclearance by the Department of  Justice pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a process that can take up to 60 days," the wrote, referring to the required process of federal review for some counties in New York like the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn.

Next, they argued the redistricting lawsuit the Senate Democrats filed against the increase in size of the State Senate adds enough uncertainty into the process that a contingency plan is needed:

"Second, as described in more detail below, the Legislature’s addition of a 63rd Senate seat violates Article III, Section 4 of the New York Constitution and will be challenged in state court. If the Legislature’s 63-seat plan is blocked either by the Department of Justice or by a state court, then the federal Constitution will require this Court to develop and implement a lawful Senate plan because it is undisputed that the current districts (which were drawn in 2002) do not comply with the federal one person, one vote rule."

Of course, if the 63rd seat is struck down, the Legislature could always theoretically move to pass a new redistricting plan with 62 seats. However, the Senate Democrats' lawyers contend there might not be enough time, creating the need for the federal redistricting court to make a decision on the issue even as its being currently litigated in a completely different court.

"We recognize that this is the very same issue that we will be litigating in state court. But as we have explained, it is this Court—not the state judiciary—that is primarily responsible for enforcing the federal Constitution," the letter argues. "And nobody can assure this Court that the state courts will rule on the constitutionality of the 63rd district before it is too late for this Court to enforce the Equal Protection Clause."

The letter concludes by saying "We acknowledge that this is a highly unusual procedural posture," and, "We are aware of no case in which any federal court has ever been asked to address a threshold state constitutional question regarding the size of the legislative body to be redistricted."

How much change the court would enact on the existing plan in this extremely hypothetical scenario is unknown. While there was a Supreme Court decision in Texas where it was ordered a court-drawn map “should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan,” there could be a lot of leeway for change when the total number of districts changes as well.

View the full letter below:

Unsurprisingly, he found it wanting. He gave the amendment a 'C-' overall on an 'A' through 'F' scale.

The amendment, which passed in the State Senate by a 36 to 0 vote when the Democratic conference walked out in protest, and by 117 to 12 in the State Assembly, will need to be voted on by a subsequent legislative session and then by the public in order to become law.

Some of his biggest criticisms were over the probability of gridlock, the defaulting to the Legislature should such gridlock occur, and incumbent protection measures. However, Mr. Benjamin wasn't entirely negative, he rated a couple of the points highly, including the requirement that redistricting information be 'widely available' to the public.

Despite the silver lining, Mr. Benjamin said the good was outweighed by the bad, and he intended to vote against the proposal should it make its way to a public vote.

"Some good government groups argue that this is the best we can do, 'close enough for government work,'" he concluded. "I think we can do a lot better. If this amendment actually reaches the ballot I will vote No. And then I will work in support of calling a constitutional convention, where genuine serious reform of the legislative districting process will be a primary goal."

View Mr. Benjamin's report card below:

The Republican Senate drew Democratic State Senate candidate Lew Fidler's house, in the southeastern part of this new district, into a fellow Democrat's seat.

In the wee hours of the morning, Governor Andrew Cuomo blasted out a statement touting two of the three aspects of his redistricting compromise: a constitutional amendment providing a commission to draw districts the in the future and a statue to implement the amendment as ordinary law if the Legislature doesn't follow through with its promise to pass the amendment in the subsequent legislative session.

(Left unsaid are the "less hyper-political" lines standard he previously presented as a condition of his support.)

"This agreement will permanently reform the redistricting process in New York to once and for all end self-interested and partisan gerrymandering," Governor Cuomo said in the release.

"With the legislature agreeing to pass this historic constitutional amendment twice by a specified date, and passing a tough statute that mirrors the amendment, we have taken a major step toward finally reforming the state's broken redistricting process. New York is now a leader among the growing number of states that have reformed their redistricting process in an effort to stop such gerrymandering."

However, many, but not all, reform advocates would disagree with Mr. Cuomo's conclusion here. The constitutional change, which has a bipartisan commission of legislative appointees drawing up the map instead of an independent body, has very little teeth in actually enacting its plan. According to the language of the bill, "If the legislature fails to pass such plans twice, it may amend such plans and then vote upon them," meaning the Legislature can easily draw its own maps again with a simple up-or-down vote.

Furthermore, because the commission is required to "consider the maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions," there may not be substantive changes to the lines ten years from now, when redistricting next occurs.

Nevertheless, Mr. Cuomo hailed the deal as a significant step forward for New York State. You can read his full press release below:

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the passage of the constitutional amendment and legal statute that reforms the redistricting process in New York state by putting an end to the partisan and incumbent-protection gerrymandering that has plagued the process for over a century.

"This agreement will permanently reform the redistricting process in New York to once and for all end self-interested and partisan gerrymandering," Governor Cuomo said. "With the legislature agreeing to pass this historic constitutional amendment twice by a specified date, and passing a tough statute that mirrors the amendment, we have taken a major step toward finally reforming the state's broken redistricting process. New York is now a leader among the growing number of states that have reformed their redistricting process in an effort to stop such gerrymandering."

Dr. Michael MacDonald, Associate Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University and non-resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, said, "Thanks to Governor Cuomo's principled stand and the legislature's willingness to think beyond their immediate political calculations, New Yorkers have an unprecedented opportunity to permanently improve the process of drawing political boundaries to better reflect the needs of New York's communities over the desires of the politicians. This is a truly remarkable development. Never before in the history of American politics has a governor negotiated such a redistricting reform with the legislature in the midst of this decennial power struggle. The constitutional amendment announced today will bring much-needed independence and fairness to the redistricting process in New York."

The agreement announced today includes three components, as follows:

Constitutional Amendment: The Senate and the Assembly each agreed to introduce a resolution this session that will amend the state Constitution to establish a new redistricting process for both state legislative and congressional district lines. The separate statute discussed below requires the amendment to be passed a second time by both houses no later than January 30, 2013, at which point it will be placed on the ballot statewide for approval by the voters. The constitutional amendment will reform the redistricting process permanently beginning in the next cycle in 2020-22 as follows:

· The Independent Redistricting Commission. The constitutional amendment requires the appointment of an independent redistricting commission to draw the district lines, consisting of ten members: two appointees by each of the four legislative leaders and two appointees selected by at least five of those eight members. Neither of the latter two members shall have been enrolled members of either of the two major political parties in New York State in the last five years and at least one appointee made by either the assembly or senate minority leader must approve those two members. Accordingly, the commission's composition will ensure unprecedented and substantial roles in drawing the district lines for both the minority party conferences and for citizens who are not major party members.

The amendment further requires that the commission reflects "the diversity of the residents of this state with regard to race, ethnicity, gender, language, and geographic residence" and that the appointing authorities shall consult with organizations devoted to protecting the voting rights of minority and other voters concerning their appointments. The commission members must be registered voters in New York State, but shall not have been in the last three years (a) members of the state legislature or congress or a statewide official or the spouse of any of these elected officials, (b) a state officer or employee or legislative employee; (c) a registered lobbyist; or (d) a political party chairman. Together, these requirements will ensure that the commission's members are both independent, representative of the State's diverse communities, and sensitive to the critical importance to voters of fair and proper district lines.

· Commission Voting Rules to Ensure Independence and Curb Partisan Gerrymandering. To approve a districting plan, the independent redistricting commission requires the vote of at least seven of its ten members in support of the plan. If the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of two different political parties, then the seven or more members who approve a plan must include at least one member appointed by the speaker of the assembly and one member appointed by the temporary president of the senate. If the speaker of the assembly and the temporary president of the senate are members of the same political party, then the seven or more members who approve a plan must include one member appointed by each of the four legislative leaders. This voting rule ensures that at least three members of the commission who were not appointed by the majority conferences in either house must approve a plan before it is sent to the legislature for a vote, a key barrier to partisan gerrymandering in the development of district maps.

· Commission Must Hold Extensive Public Hearings & Release Draft Plans with All Relevant Data Using Best Available Technology. To ensure greater transparency and public involvement, the amendment requires that the commission must hold numerous public hearings in specified cities and counties throughout the state and, prior to its first hearing, must make publicly available using the best available technology not only its draft plans but also all relevant data to facilitate public review and analysis of those plans, and the development of alternative plans. These provisions will create greater public transparency in the redistricting process and ensure that the commission's final districting plans reflect fully input from communities and individuals across the state.

· Iowa-Style Process for Legislature's Approval of Commission Plans Designed to Minimize Partisan Gerrymandering. After the commission's public hearings, the Legislature shall receive and approve or disapprove the commission's plans without amendment. If the commission's first plan is rejected, the commission must submit an amended plan, which must be voted upon by the legislature again without amendments. If the commission's second plan is also rejected upon such vote, each house may then amend that plan prior to approval except that such amendments must comply with the substantive principles set forth above and, pursuant to the statute being approved separately in conjunction with this resolution, cannot affect more than two percent of the population of any district in the commission's plan. This structure will provide strict restrictions on the legislature's changes to the commission's plans.

· Legislature's Voting Rules Designed to Protect Minority Conferences and Limit Gerrymandering. Special voting rules will govern each house's vote upon the independent redistricting commission's plans in order to protect the minority conferences in each house and ensure the integrity of the commission's plans by requiring approval by more than a majority of members under certain circumstances. If the Speaker of the Assembly and the Temporary President of the Senate are members of two different political parties, approval of a commission's redistricting plan shall require a vote in support of such approval by at least a majority of the members of each house. But if the Speaker and the Temporary President of the Senate are members of the same political party, then approval of a commission's redistricting plan shall require a vote in support of such approval by at least two-thirds of the members of each house. This rule will prevent in future decades the kind of one-party gerrymandering to suppress the minority party in a state that has plagued other states, like Texas, in the past.

· Substantive Criteria to Prohibit Partisan Gerrymandering and to Protect Minority Voting Rights and Communities of Interest. The commission's redistricting plans must be drawn according to principles that provide unprecedented restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, and new protections for the voting rights of racial and language minorities, and for existing communities of interest. In particular, the commission must consider whether district lines would result in the denial or abridgment of racial or language minority voting rights, no districts shall be drawn to have the purpose of, or result in, such denial or abridgement, and districts shall be drawn so that racial or language minority 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; districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties; for the first time in the constitution, communities of interest must be considered in drawing district lines; districts shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants and any deviation in a district must be explained specifically by the commission; and districts shall be contiguous and as compact in form as practicable.

Together, these principles will provide for the first time strong and explicit restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, and protections in the constitution for minority communities beyond those contained in the federal Voting Rights Act which is facing increasing legal attacks in the courts.

· Judicial Review Provisions To Enforce Compliance With Independent Redistricting Process & Adherence to Substantive Principles. If the courts are called upon to review the district lines, this amendment requires that the court find such lines to be invalid in whole or in part if they are not in compliance with the procedural or substantive provisions of this article. Together with the other protections noted above, this provision will help to ensure that the district lines that are ultimately adopted reflect the independence, concern for minority voting rights, and attention to equal representation that the commission must provide.

Statute: The Senate and the Assembly each agreed to introduce a statute to be approved by both houses that mirrors the constitutional amendment in all respects except for two additional elements. As set forth in greater detail in the statute's effective date provisions, the statute is intended to ensure that, if the constitutional amendment is not passed for the second time in 2013 notwithstanding the public commitments by the two houses to do so, the statute will become effective and the redistricting process will be reformed by statute just as it would have been by constitutional amendment. These provisions further provide that if either house fails to pass the constitutional amendment a second time before January 30, 2013, then that house shall lose its appointments to the independent redistricting commission established by the statute and the governor will instead appoint those members. This provides a significant incentive for the legislature to honor their statutory commitment to pass the constitutional amendment a second time.

In addition, the statute further includes a restriction on any amendments made by the legislature to a districting plan submitted by the commission such that no amendment may affect more than two percent of the population of any district in such plan. This will ensure that the legislature's amendments may tweak, but cannot fundamentally alter the commission's district lines. It also provides more specific deadlines for each step of the redistricting process that are most appropriately placed in a statute rather than in the constitution. Critically, these additional provisions will be effective if the voters approve the constitutional amendment or if the statute instead becomes effective.

"Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about 'respecting the cores of prior districts,' insisting such claims are merely 'pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents,' they wrote in their letter. "As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized."

The letter further argued against placing incumbents politicians in the same districts if at all possible.

"[A]voiding incumbency pairings actually enhances the reality and appearance of judicial impartiality," they wrote, again contending protecting sitting Representatives should be more highly prioritized in the process.

The judge involved in drafting the redistricting plan was more than dismissive of these incumbency-protection claims and there's a reasonable probability the three-judge panel that will effect the final plan will share a similar view.

The specific objections were all centered around Republican districts, notably adding more Republican voters to the districts of GOP Congressional Members Pete King, Bob Turner, and Michael Grimm in the immediate New York City area. For example, the letter argued for a housing project, likely inclined to vote Democrat, to be removed from Mr. Grimm's district and for ideologically conservative Russian and Jewish voters to be added back into Mr. Turner's.

View the full 14-page letter below:

"After thorough review of these plans, I also noticed that racially, the white Congressional Districts would be more solidified with an overwhelming majority population, thereby making it almost impossible for them to lose any power," Mr. Barron, who's a candidate for Congress himself this year, wrote.

"For example, the new 27th District is 92.7% white, the 21st District - 91.6% white, the 23rd District - 90% white, the 19th District - 86% white, the 20th District – 79% white, the 24th District – 83% white, the 1st District – 77.9% white, and the beat goes on. The whites are secured in their power base."

This all contrasts, Mr. Barron said, with majority-black districts which contain much smaller majorities of around 55%. Mr. Barron cited Representatives Ed Towns' and Yvette Clarke's districts as examples. However, if these districts were to be brought up to significantly higher percentages as Mr. Barron requested, they would have to be combined, eliminating an African-American Congressional Member altogether.

Placing as many minority voters into as few districts as possible is a classic gerrymandering technique called "packing," and Mr. Barron's proposal may very well violate the Voting Rights Act. This packing often accomplishes partisan objectives and is partially blamed for the decline of the Democratic Party in Southern states.

"There have been attempts in the past by whites to secure seats in majority black districts," Mr. Barron nevertheless continued. "Remember David Yassky’s attempt to take the Congressional seat formerly held by Shirley Chisholm and Major Owens in Brooklyn. ... Blacks and Latinos must not let them divide and conquer us.  We must stay united and prioritize our people over personal and political interests. "

"Remember our struggle is long but the victory is certain," he concluded.

The court didn't only receive criticism from in their public submissions today. Mr. Barron's colleague, Brooklyn Councilwoman Tish James, wrote in to the court in praise of their draft maps.

Update: After the above submission displayed on the court's website, another submission from Mr Barron, as well as his wife, Assemblywoman Inez Barron, also appeared.

View Mr. Barron's letter below:

Karim Camara (Photo: assembly.state.ny.us)

Assemblyman Karim Camara, who heads New York State's Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, announced his caucus' opposition to the legislative redistricting plan and suggested many legislators will vote to send the plan back to the drawing board today.

Mr. Camara argued the State Senate's plan violates the Voting Rights Act because it splits minority communities in Long Island, as well as other places, where they could be kept whole.

"We expect it to come to a vote today and we expect ... it will have significant opposition to it. But our concern isn't whether this bill passes or fails," Mr. Camara told Fred Dicker on his radio show this morning. "Our concern is to use every legal recourse available, including the courts, to challenge the lines, which would include a strong possibility of a lawsuit by the caucus against the lines [regardless of] whatever happens today."

Traditionally, the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Republican Senate have allowed each other to gerrymander their own lines in a partisan fashion to expand their majorities. However, there is no inherent reason for this to be the case as the lines will be voted as a package in both of the two chambers.

Mr. Camara's caucus, in a statement today, "vowed to vote against the lines as they have currently been written for both the Assembly and Senate." If they acted in unison, there would be a strong possibility of derailing this package in the Assembly where the caucus possesses significant influence.

However, Mr. Camara, who called the Senate lines an "egregious assault on the Voting Rights Act" while praising the Assembly's map this morning, said no such unifying act was on track to occur.

"We have some members who will vote yes, some will vote no, for various reasons," he said. "We're not questioning the values of people voting either way. But, again, we're united in saying these lines are an assault on the Voting Rights Act."

When he was asked if could see the redistricting legislation being successfully voted down today, Mr. Camara responded, "Of course, there's always that possibility."

First, Mr. Cuomo argued again the judge's map was "remarkably similar" to the competing plans the State Assembly and State Senate presented to the court.

However, a quick glance at the court's map and the legislative proposals shows this not to be the case.

“It certainly doesn’t appear like the courts maps are … close to anything that exists or have been proposed,” Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping services at the City University of New York, told The Empire yesterday.

Secondly, Mr. Cuomo argued the judge worked to protect incumbent politicians, which would align the court with the interests of the Legislature.

"The magistrate clearly took incumbency into consideration," he said, contradicting the sworn affidavit of the court's redistricting expert. Representatives Bob Turner, Gary Ackerman, and Kathy Hochul, as well as retiring Rep. Maurice Hinchey, were drawn out of their districts and might also disagree.

"I don't think the magistrate's lines are going to be all that different than the assembly and senate lines. I think it's a marginal difference," he again contended later in the interview.

However, as Mr. Romalewski also noted to The Empire yesterday, the court map, if anything, represents something closer to the good government group Common Cause's proposal than the Legislature's. If the court were to intervene on the State Senate and Assembly maps as well, there might be even more substantive differences between their plan and Albany's, as Common Cause's maps for the State Senate and Assembly are very, very different from the legislative maps coming out of Albany.