More on redistricting

Last week, Jimmy Vielkind of the Times Union reported:

When LATFOR, the legislative panel charged with the controversial redistricting process, held its latest hearing Wednesday on Long Island, several witnesses drew attention to the area around Brentwood, which in contrast to wealthier communities in Suffolk County is denser and has a higher proportion of black and Latino residents.

The area is split among four Senate districts -- all occupied by Republicans.

According to researchers at the good-government group Common Cause, the neighborhood is one of the clearest examples of partisan gerrymandering. It illustrates a process called "cracking," in which certain pockets of voters -- often members of racial minorities -- are parceled off to several districts so their collective voting tendencies are diluted.

"When Hispanics march along Fifth Avenue in Brentwood in our annual parade they have a leg in one district and another in the adjacent district," said Assemblyman Phil Ramos, D-Central Islip. His district was created in the last round of redistricting, in 2002, from three other districts. He was the first Latino elected to the Legislature from Suffolk County; Latinos now comprise 14.9 percent of the voting-age population in the county.

While saying his election has helped steer more services to the area he represents -- school aid, a new state park -- Ramos said he believes courts are the best route to achieve minority representation. The federal Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination against racial or ethnic minorities in any electoral practice, including redistricting. The federal Department of Justice can sue to enforce its provisions, and three New York counties -- Brooklyn, Bronx and parts of Manhattan -- require pre-approval from the DOJ before implementing any electoral changes.

But Suffolk County lacks the requirement, as does Queens, which has seen an increase in its Asian-American population around Flushing, currently split into two districts represented by white senators -- and Monroe County, where majority-minority Rochester is split between two white senators.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat who is black, said a more independent process would produce better results. He accused Republicans who have long controlled the Senate as being "particularly masterful" at cracking in Suffolk, Nassau and Monroe counties.

A memo written in 2001 by a Senate Republican staffer -- recently recirculated by Senate Democrats -- referred to minority areas on Long Island as "politically undesirable."

Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union, previously wrote about the issue of redistricting. He does not present a flattering picture of our legislators.

Almost everybody in the Legislature -- 60 out of 62 senators, and 121 out of 150 Assembly members -- promised last year to support independent redistricting, rather than leaving it to the two-party legislative commission that has done the job before. But most of them lied: No independent redistricting plan emerged from the Legislature this year. So the same old system -- Democrats drawing lines favoring Democrats, Republicans drawing lines favoring Republicans -- is rolling toward an ugly finish.

Cuomo has said over and over that he will veto redistricting that isn't done by an independent group. Will he, really?

A veto could send redistricting to the federal courts, where delays caused by legal maneuvering could lead to months of political chaos. So a Cuomo veto might mess with his mantra: While it would be both predictable and disciplined, it would border on unreasonable.

Still, to not deliver on the veto threat would be to abandon a key piece of the reform agenda that Cuomo promised New Yorkers. And when you're as popular as Cuomo is, you can handle the sort of onslaught that might follow a veto.

Recently Cuomo has signaled that he is open to nonpartisan redistricting approved by the Legislature under some conditions -- for example, if it recognizes communities of interest, such as ethnic and cultural similarities, and if it is based on demographics, rather than incumbent legislators' political needs. That's just the sort of compromise suggested by Common Cause, the good government lobby.