Judge Hears Battle over Ballot Language on Redistricting Amendment

NEW YORK, NY (09/12/2014)(readMedia)-- Today, Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY and Neil Steiner, a litigation partner in the New York office of Dechert LLP, appeared in Albany Supreme Court to offer oral arguments opposing the Board of Election's misleading ballot language for Proposition 1. The ballot proposal would amend the New York State Constitution to establish a redistricting commission which advocates say is not independent..

On September 3rd the Board of Elections submitted a request to dismiss the petition (attached), which implicitly acknowledges that the commission is not designed to be independent (pg 7).

In response, petitioners submitted a rebuttal to the Board (attached), which highlights that:

"they admit that the purpose is to protect the minority party in each house. By definition, favoritism towards the minority party is not independent. Thus, if Respondents want the commission approved, voters are entitled to know, and Respondents are required by law to share, the true purpose of the Redistricting Amendment." (pg 2-3).

Judge Patrick McGrath is expected to issue an order next week.

Background

On August 1st, the Board of Elections reviewed sample language submitted by the Attorney General. Commissioner Andrew Spano submitted edits on behalf of Citizens Union and the League of Women voters, which was approved despite objections from Common Cause/NY Executive Director, Susan Lerner, who was at the meeting. The language proposed by Commission Spano and adopted by the Board (additions to the Attorney General's recommendation with asterisks, and subtractions in capitals) is as follows:

"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 an independent 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*; ESTABLISHES THE LEGISLATURE AS THE DEFAULT REDISTRICTING BODY IF THE COMMISSIO N'S PLAN IS NOT LEGISLATIVELY ENACTED; 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?"

According to Commissioner Spano, the sticking point was the word "default", in describing how the maps will ultimately be determined. The Commission ignored Common Cause/NY's objection to the description of the legislatively-appointed commission as "independent." Rather, a coalition of good government advocates (including Common Cause/NY, NYPIRG, and EffectiveNY), civil rights groups, and environmentalists had previously called for neutral language and submitted a suggested 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 ten years pursuant to stated criteria with final approval by the Legislature. Shall the amendment be approved?"