Inadequate Maps: The Dispute Over Nassau’s Redistricting LAUREN FELDMAN

lfeldman@antonmediagroup.com

Prominent in the Nassau County legislators’ minds has been the question of 2023 redistricting. This process is a necessary evaluation of population and demographic shifts every ten years following the US census, and is meant to ensure fair and equal representation across Long Island’s districts. However, what constitutes “fair and equal” seems to vary depending on who you ask. As the public has witnessed, the Nassau County Legislature has had its hands full trying to design a reapportioned map that is both equitable and legal.

On Thursday, Feb. 16, the Legislature met to consider a newly proposed district map, following the tumultuous – and insufficient –proposals made earlier that month. Officially, these meetings have addressed the 33-23 Amendment: a Local Law to amend annex A of the County Government Law of Nassau County to describe the nineteen Legislative Districts based upon the 2020 federal census data, and any proposed amendments. This second meeting proposed a revised map, drawn up by Presiding Officer Richard J. Nicolello (R – New Hyde Park) and Misha Tseytlin, on behalf of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, to present a non-partisan reapportionment.

Tseytlin showed a map which prioritized structures outlined by the US Constitution, followed by Federal Law and State Law. The proposal adhered to the Supreme Court’s prohibition against racial gerrymandering. He explained, “Where racial considerations predominate over traditional criteria, this is a violation of the US Constitution. Put another way, if race is a predominant factor in the legislators’ decision to place a significant number of voters within (or without) a particular district, the decision is unconstitutional unless you can satisfy strict scrutiny.”

Tseytlin concluded that race was not a legal factor when determining the distribution of districts in Nassau County, or elsewhere.

Long Islanders hoping this new map would satisfy legal requirements and maintain district peace were sorely mistaken. Tseytlin was addressed with intense questions from many members of the Legislature, in particular Minority leader Kevan M. Abrahams (D –Freeport). Prior to the meeting, Abrahams addressed Nicolello in a letter, calling the revised proposal “an unlawful and extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the Municipal Home Rule Law and a violation of equal voting rights under Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York.” Most notably, he accused the proposal of failing to create five majority-minority districts and an Asian-American influence district, thereby diluting the voting power of minority communities across the county. present a counter-report. The first was Dr. Daniel Magleby, of Binghamton University. Dave Mejias, who led the Democratic Temporary Districting Advisory Commission (TDAC), was also called forward, although he was ultimately unable to speak during this portion of the meeting. for Nassau county. I did not get into the weeds.” Nicolello and the majority stand behind the work and research done by the Troutman Pepper team on their behalf.

Is the map perfect?

No. But perfection in drawing district lines is impossible.

Nicolello claimed that Mejias was not the expert brought in to discuss the minority report, and therefore was not allowed to inform the legislature of his findings alongside Dr. Magleby. This was met by some opposition, though eventually Mejias left the stand.

Democrat-proposed map, under the same software, did not present the same issue of gerrymandering.

Magleby stressed the importance of considering relevant elections when crafting district maps. He asserted that the map proposed by Tseytlin lacked proof of gerrymandering because it was based on gubernatorial election years, not on the years in which Nassau County legislators were elected. In other words, the map was created using years that were not significant to the legislative body of Long Island. Therefore, the map was not designed using relevant political data.

The finale of the redistricting saga occurred on Monday, Feb. 27. It was one item of many that were addressed, though certainly a highly-anticipated vote. Minority leader Abrahams inquired into the funding of the work done by Troutman Pepper on behalf of the majority. His purpose for doing so was to determine whether or not the research would be available for the minority caucus to view, or if it was privileged. Presiding officer Nicolello clarified that funding was produced from the county attorney’s budget, as opposed to the Republican TDAC commission or another source.

The map was also challenged by Legislator Joshua A. Lafazan for placing himself and Legislator Arnold W. Drucker, both Democrats, within the same district, an occurrence which Lafazan commented on with skepticism.

“It’s outrageous that Legislator Drucker and I – two Democrats who represent very large and distinct school districts and communities, Syosset and Plainview – are now in one district. And if this map passes, Arnie, who’s been a friend, and a mentor, and a big brother to me, is now in my district. This doesn’t have to be this way. I know we’ll hear from those who drew the map, ‘We don’t know where the incumbents live.’ But how many Republicans have been put in a district with another Republican?” He challenged the probability of the current map condensing two Democrats into one district but the same not occurring for the other party.

Presiding Officer Nicolello refuted these claims, citing the efforts of the Majority to ensure that communities of interest and disruptions to district cores were of key concern. “Is the map perfect?

No. But perfection in drawing district lines is impossible.”

The minority delegation then called up two individuals to

Dr. Magleby critiqued the refuted claims of racial gerrymandering present in the proposal. He described his own process of research, whereby computer software created county lines in a political jurisdiction without acknowledging partisanship, but considering other relevant factors. The result of this software suggested to Magleby that there was “extreme partisan gerrymandering” present in the Republicanproposed map. He argued that the

This was challenged by Abrahams, who stated that the county attorney serves the entire legislature, which should have enabled the minority equal access to the map proceedings. He questioned whether the minority had received all of the information that the majority was privy to. Nicolello assured that both sides were provided the same information, the results by Troutman Pepper. “The information that has been provided to us, the memos that have been provided to us, have been made part of the record.” He stated that anything further between himself and Troutman Pepper was protected under attorney-client privilege, and not a matter of public disclosure. When Abrahams inquired about the analysis done to achieve the Troutman Pepper results, the presiding officer stated that he did not examine the analysis itself; “I’m not a demographer. I am not someone who can read and understand the data that is being used by someone who is analyzing 50,000 variations of possible maps

Nicolello provided a closing statement before the vote. “Today’s vote is the culmination of many months of hearings, including the TDAC as well as the county Legislature. We have heard from numerous residents and fellow legislators, and we have made numerous changes based on the input of residents and legislators. Did we make every change? No. Is this map perfect? No. But perfection is impossible in redistricting. This map is a fair map, it provides for equal representation for all of our residents, it protects communities of interest as much as possible. And it does so while complying with all applicable federal and state laws, and legal requirements. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes to approve this map.” The meeting concluded with a vote on the amendment, which passed with a vote of 11-7.

Abrahams requested it be noted on the record that the map was voted in favor solely by the Republican party, and opposed solely by the Democratic party. It is possible that the map will be met with litigation in the near future, as the minority – and much of the public – remain adamant in its illegality.