Oliver Koppell (photo: council.nyc.gov)

State Senator Adriano Espaillat and Congressman Charlie Rangel are continuing to announce endorsement after endorsement of elected officials within and around the Congressional District they are both seeking to represent come 2013. The latest is Mr. Espaillat's endorsement from Bronx Councilman Oliver Koppell, who referred to the district as "new" in his statement praising Mr. Espaillat.

“I am pleased to endorse State Senator Adriano Espaillat in the upcoming Democratic Primary for the 13th Congressional District seat,” he said. “I appreciate and commend Congressman Charlie Rangel’s long service in the Congress. However, a new District and a new day demands new leadership. ... He will also be an important role model and advocate for the Dominican and Hispanic communities in my District and beyond. I endorse Adriano Espaillat.”

The idea of the district being new would probably be news to Mr. Rangel, who represented a district that contained about 75% of the reconfigured seat's population through the past decade, and represented a very similar district in decades prior to that. Most incumbents running for reelection this cycle are running in "newer" district's than Mr. Rangel, with their lines scrambled in the court-drawn redistricting plan this year.

On the other hand, the new territory is all in the Bronx and the character of the district now contains an even larger Dominican presence (If successful, Mr. Espaillat would be the first Dominican-American elected to Congress).

For his part, Mr. Rangel rolled his own endorsements last Saturday, notably Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito and State Senator Jose Serrano, who both represent the East Harlem portion of the district. He wrote on his campaign's Facebook page that the endorsements show "Team Rangel's got its eye not only on the blocs that have kept him in office so long, but to the demographics of the new district, which has a much higher percentage of Latino voters."

Also in the Democratic primary are Clyde Williams, Joyce Johnson and Craig Schley.

Some of the new districts look a little silly.

The Senate Democrats' lawsuit trying to throw out the Senate Republicans' redistricting plan based on the addition of a 63rd State Senate seat was blocked this morning by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state judicial system.

Lawyers for the Democrats contended that the map's unprecedentedly creative accounting techniques were unconstitutional, but the court, in an unanimous decision, ruled that the State Constitution doesn't forbid the move and that the Legislature's map are presumed constitutional unless explicitly proven otherwise.

"It is not our task to address the wisdom of the methods employed by the Legislature in accomplishing their constitutional mandate," the court wrote in their decision. "Rather, here, we consider only whether the methods chosen amount to 'a gross and deliberate violation of the plain intent of the Constitution and a disregard of its spirit and the purpose for which express limitations are included therein.'"

The ruling upholds a lower court's ruling, which found the accounting "disturbing," but could not find reason to intervene.

This is the second blow the Senate Democrats' various lawsuits against the redistricting plan in recent days, as last week, the federal government granted pre-clearance to the map under the Voting Rights Act. However, Mark Favors, an individual deeply involved in New York's redistricting discussion, contended over Twitter that the strongest legal argument is a still-to-be-decided federal lawsuit based on the population variances that overpopulate Democratic districts so that there are less of them, as the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly established a "one person, one vote" principle in the Constitution.

“While we are disappointed with today's decision, we are hopeful that remaining legal challenges will overturn the unfair State Senate maps," Mike Murphy, the Senate Democrats' spokesman said in a statement. "In any event, Senate Democrats remain confident that even if the existing gerrymandered maps are ultimately upheld, Democrats will gain seats and retake the majority in the State Senate this November.”

View today's ruling below:

"In Harlem right now, you know where Charles Rangel being my congressman, people are little bit disappointed in the redistricting process," he said, suggesting Mr. Rangel's new Latino-majority district has caused him to be less-than-popular in some political circles at the moment.

However, Mr. Favors said, the fact that Mr. Rangel has a real race against a Latino challenger, State Senator Adriano Espaillat, is a good thing for democracy.

"It's forcing people to form coalitions, which I think we've gone away from in New York," he said about redistricting generally, later adding, "Living in Harlem now, after redistricting it's 55% Latino, we've had a very competitive race that we haven't had in a while. We feel it's very important."

Mr. Favors also had harsh words for the New York Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, which took a firm position against the state legislative redistricting map and accused it of disenfranchising minority voters, yet saw the majority of its members in the State Assembly vote for the plan.

"The thing that probably hurt the most about that, is even though Hakeem Jeffries said we have to fight this by any means necessary, twenty members of the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic caucus voted for this map that disenfranchises African-Americans and Latinos in Long Island," he said. "This is fundamental to our government and who we are. If we can't get this group to intervene on behalf of people of color who are being disenfranchised, why have a black and Puerto Rican caucus? I think that's an issue that people don't want to deal with."

He also argued if the lawsuits against the state legislative maps are successful and the Legislature needs to pass a new plan, the minority caucus needs to be held accountable for again voting for a map that fragments minority communities and underpopulates urban districts.

"If these new maps have to are voted on again, communities of color are going to have to hold their feet to the fire, because this an issue that is non-negotiable."

Watch Mr. Favors' specific remarks by clicking here or the full event below:

Overall, the number of changes are extremely minimal. The only change in all of New York City is a slight shift along the Brooklyn waterfront between two Congressional Districts. There were also some technical changes Upstate, but these boundaries shifts are unlikely to significantly impact any of the ongoing races.

Click here to view the ruling.

View the changes and the final map below:

final map

"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:

Like the State Senate plan that the Senate Democrats released earlier today, the State Assembly plan appears to change very little from the draft maps. The official release on the State Government website, however, provides additional detail.

While the Senate Republicans' map appears to "decouple" a number of districts that had paired sitting Democratic incumbents like State Senators Mike Gianaris and José Peralta, the odd tentacle coming out of State Senator John Sampson's district to absorb State Senate candidate Lew Fidler's house appears to remain under the new proposal.

Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had originally called the maps "hyper-political" and vowed to veto them, has softened his language on the latest nearly-identical set of boundaries. Today, Mr. Cuomo said he saw "progress" on the new lines, which his staff members consulted with the Legislature on.

Click here to view the State Assembly maps or click here to view the State Senate maps.

Unsurprisingly, the Senate Republicans arguments seem to favor Republican incumbents' reelection chances. For example, with GOP Congressman Michael Grimm's new 11th district, they pushed for public housing to be removed from the seat and for ideologically conservative Orthodox voters in Midwood to be added instead.

"Traditionally, Marlboro Housing Development and Coney Island have been in the same Congressional district. The Proposed Plan, however, places Marlboro indistrict 11, and Coney Island in district 8. Moreover, the Proposed Plan splits Midwood between districts," they wrote. "To preserve the cores of existing districts and preserve communities ofinterest, Marlboro should be placed in district 8, and in exchange, all of Midwood should be located in District 11."

Their submission further fought for a district for GOP Congressman Bob Turner, who saw his district sliced up between neighboring districts. They wrote the court's map failed by "needlessly pairing incumbents Rep. Meeks and Rep. Turner and by creating an unnecessary open seat in light of this pairing (district 6)."

"At the same time, the Proposed Plan fails to respect communities of interest by dividing among a total of four districts (districts 5, 8, 9, and 10) traditional Russian and Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and traditional communities of interest in Far Rockaway Peninsula, Howard Beach, and Ozone Park, which also include substantial Jewish populations," they contended. "These are communities that were previously unified and should remain unified in Rep. Turner’s district."

How much significance their letter to the court will have is unknown, but it is unlikely the judge will significantly modify the map in response. However, as both the Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans have called the judge's map a "template," for their own negotiations, the Senate Majority's letter could indicate their redistricting wish list should a compromise map emerge from the Legislature.

Read the full letter below:

Mr. Greenfield compared the effort to create the district to efforts 500 years ago in "The Republic of Venice" where, "They created a specific neighborhood for Jews to live in. They told Jews ‘It would be good for you. Why don’t you want to live with everybody. We are going to separate you we are going to put you in a neighborhood."'

"They gave us a grand new name for that neighborhood," Mr. Greenfield continued. "They called it a ghetto."

Mr. Greenfield added that the new district was a "ghetto district" and the creation of it was "ghetto politics at its worst."

The district had been pushed by the powerful social service organization Agudath Israel and had been supported by Senate Majority Dean Skelos, who saw it as a chance to steal a Republican seat in the Democratic-heavy borough of Brooklyn.

(Or, at the very least, elect a conservative Democrat in the mold of Assemblyman Dov Hikind who would be able to work closely wth the Republicans.)

Many in the Jewish community, however, have felt that in the end, the measure would dilute the power of Jews in Albany, since instead of the six senators which now represent the neighborhood, there would be only one that did so.

Mr. Greenfield noted that if the district were created, he would likely win it since he represents most of the area in the City Council.

"Some people may even call it a "Super Greenfield district," he said, but he noted that it would in the end be bad for the Jews.

Take a look, video courtesy of Yeshiva World News:

“We’ve known from Day One that Matt Alexander is the only Democrat in this race with the necessary experience and abilities to beat Nan Hayworth. The news today is that he is the only remaining Democratic candidate who lives in the renumbered district, has raised money, and generated endorsements," said campaign spokesman T.J. Helmstetter. "It’s time to stop saying ‘when the lines are drawn’ and for Democrats and progressives everywhere to hit the ground running in this campaign."

But now Rich Becker, a Westchester County legislator and cardiologist who is winning the money race among the Democratic contenders, sent out a statement telling Mr. Alexander to, in essence, slow down and making his own case to be the nominee.

"As soon as we saw the maps at midnight last night, my wife and I began a search for a house in the any of the district’s proposed iterations," Mr. Becker said in a statement.  "Even though no lines are yet finalized, we are fully prepared to see this through. I am in this campaign to win it despite any attempts by special interests groups or Republican power brokers in Albany to disenfranchise the voters of the Hudson Valley by drawing the strongest Democratic candidate by far out of the district."

It is permissible to run in a district where one does not reside, but hometown loyalties--and the prospect of rather predictable opposition mailers--often dissuade candidates from actually trying it.

It is also worth noting that these maps are far from final, and Mr. Becker may yet find himself with Nan Hayworth as his Congresswoman.

Because these maps are independent of one another, they aren't as significant as they appear and might not be indicative of where the lines would lie for a compromise map between the two partisan bodies. Additionally, overly partisan gerrymanders are of limited use to the courts as they consider the many proposed options.

Due to New York's relative population loss, the state is required to shed two of its Congressional Districts. And, as expected, the Republican map only eliminates Democratic-held districts: one in Nassau County and retiring Congressman Maurice Hinchey's Upstate seat. Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel's district is also reconfigured to create a majority-Latino seat by combining with parts of the Bronx.

Both GOP Congressmen from New York City, Bob Turner and Michael Grimm, see their districts substantially strengthened in the Republican map as well.

The Democratic plan also eliminates Mr. Hinchey's district while simultaneously eliminating Mr. Turner's and possibly a Nassau County seat too. Overall, the map seems a tad less partisan than the Senate one, as it doesn't necessarily go for every opportunity to make swing districts more Democratic, at least in New York City.

View the new maps below or click here to view a larger version of the Senate GOP's proposal or here to view the Assembly Democrats' map for New York City.

(Additional maps and documents can be found here.)
Senate Gop Map

Defendant AssemblyMaj NYC Map 11X17

Updated: 7:44am with additional thoughts