Similar Amendment Defeated Last Decade

The New York State constitutional amendment aiming to fix the state's redistricting procedures (Proposal 1), has come under fire for a year and a half from news editorials such as the Albany Times Union, The Post-Standard, and The Daily News. The amendment, hoping to cure gerrymandering ailments, creates a separate commission of legislators picked by various party leaders in Albany.

The criticism surrounds the picking of commissioners by party leaders. These editorials see this as a thinly-veiled attempt of legislators to secure their reelection bids by selecting commissioners based off political gain rather than independent civic duty. The word independent even had to be struck from the measure per a New York Supreme Court ruling last month.

The amendment certainly has its positives. Instead of the current solution of each House mapping their own districts, which politicizes the process, the commission would dictate instead of just advising with no teeth as it is set up presently. Opponents simply claim it is shifting virtually no political power to and from either party and either house; it is a different solution to the same problem.

Certainly, this would benefit the majority party. Drawing electoral maps gives the majority party a powerful institutional advantage because each district can be tailor-made to suit the politician rather than the other way around. This enticing incentive given to the incumbent means less campaigning: and less competition. With fewer competitive districts, the voters stand to lose the most. Whether this solution helps or hurts remains to be seen.

Ohio attempted something similar in 2005. Their commission would be chosen first by judges and the remainder by those selected, to ensure impartiality. The commission would use a mathematical formula to determine a district's competitiveness and plan a redesign. The measure was soundly defeated by a 30/70 margin. What does this say for New York's attempt?