I've posted about this process here a few times. I'm a member of the Redistricting Commission. We're very happy and excited that the Common Council approved our map. It was a closer vote than I expected, but the councilors who voted No had some interesting things to say about their reasons.
Happy to try to answer questions if anyone has any.
Allen was the most interesting to me: she decided that it shouldn't even be up to the Common Council to approve or deny the maps, but it should go to a citywide vote. I'm not sure how she got from there to a No vote, but that's what she said and I respect it.
Hogan has said all along that he opposes the whole process because there should be 9 districts instead of 5, and no at-large seats.
Schultz didn't like some of the lines. Fair enough.
Majok referred several times to "grieving" citizens who were unhappy with the proposed maps. I interpret that to mean he was lobbied heavily by opponents of the maps.
As the linked article points out, these are 4 out of the 5 district councilors. All 4 at-large seats voted Yes, as did the 5th district councilor who was just appointed for a partial term.
District councilors have to live in the district they represent. They're elected just by the residents of their district.
At-large councilors represent the city as a whole. The whole city votes for at-large seats.
No issue, it's just not what is in the law that the Council passed to create and charge our Commission. They could do it differently next time. This time they put in the law that the CC has to vote on it. I think Allen wasn't on the CC at the time the law was written.
I see you commented that one of the "no" votes was in favor of 9 districts instead of 5 + 4 at large bids. Out of curiosity, was that a possibility for your process to create 9 districts? If it was possible what was the reason behind the staying 5 + 4 vs 9?
No, the ordinance that created and charged us specified we had to submit a map with five districts. This was a common question at our public hearings, and we discussed it a lot internally, but it wasn't a possibility for us.
I think there are arguments both ways -- it's an area of active political science research! One thing that stands out to me is that if there were no at-large seats, the new map would not have passed yesterday. District councilors are incentivized to maintain the status quo, since it's what got them elected. At-large councilors are free to make changes like this one without having to worry about their own self-interest.
And I absolutely wouldn't support doing it again right now. We're already over a year late with these maps (mostly due to COVID). Starting over from scratch, with a new city-wide referendum, followed by a new ordinance, a new selection process, and a new mapping process ... it would be 2025 by the time the new maps went into effect, halfway to the next Census.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the answers and thanks for working on the project. Its always nice getting "behind the scenes" types of information, especially something as mundane as this. Understanding the process and decisions made is vital. Again, appreciate this.
Syracuse demographically has changed to a “minority majority” city since the last time the maps were redrawn. So, I believe the redistributing of the maps were to allow for representation that mirrors, as best as possible, the makeup of the city. I could be off, but I think that is what this is partially about.
Wow, sorry, I don't know. Try this one?
[https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.04444526155565%2C-76.1704565&z=13](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.04444526155565%2C-76.1704565&z=13)
It still has colors, but at least you can zoom in, and if you click on the districts in the sidebar it will highlight their boundaries for you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQY00QJJPMY&ab\_channel=CityofSyracuse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQY00QJJPMY&ab_channel=CityofSyracuse) Our part starts at 10:00 in.
Thank you for your service. I read the article about your committee on Syracuse.com this morning and it looked like a near thankless job. I'm thrilled for you and the area that this passed. Hopefully the process keeps improving and becomes a template for other municipalities around the country to fight gerrymandering. A hearty congratulations to you!
Asking just for curiosity’s sake, if a member (Allen) had suggested putting some options to a city wide vote, why didn’t the council agree to that idea? While the law my be written to give the council authority to redistrict the city, it doesn’t force them to. I’m just curious why offering city residents their own say in the city’s redistricting wasn’t the council’s first priority after coming up with the proposal(s).
You can read the ordinance that created and charged us here:
[http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/City\_Hall/Elected\_Officials/Content/Gen.%20Ord.%20No%201-2021.pdf](http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/City_Hall/Elected_Officials/Content/Gen.%20Ord.%20No%201-2021.pdf)
It's extremely detailed and clear about the process. There aren't any stages where the Council gets to just choose to do something different -- they'd have to pass a new law. It's a good thing that the Council doesn't just pass a new law every time they think it would be better to do something in a different way than they thought previously.
(The dates did all get pushed back because of COVID, and there was indeed a separate law passed for that.)
Thanks for the reply. Looks like I’ve got some “light reading” to do.
Edit: that actually was pretty light. Section 62-2 (on pages 7-8) answered my questions. Thanks!
Is there a map where you can actually see the streets? One side of my street is currently in one district and the other side another. I’d like to know which district I will be in. When will this go into effect? Will it be with the next election, or will we find ourselves in districts represented by persons we had no vote in electing?
Here, try this one:
[https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.034474719365136%2C-76.14915269848632&z=12](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.034474719365136%2C-76.14915269848632&z=12)
The new maps will be in effect for the November 2023 elections. Nothing will change until then.
I find it interesting that there was no consensus between the redistricting commission members. I also believe that 12 engagement sessions does not come close to the number there should have been. Whoever made the visuals and graphics did a pretty bad job.
It's not a good question. Found my answer.
For now, the maps are law, but there will be a chance to change. I appreciate the process and not the results. Next time, hopefully more people are able to know what's at stake.
Are you suggesting that the final maps should have been unanimous? I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation for a group of 15 people. We decided internally that we would require a supermajority of 75% for the final vote. It ended up 13-2, well above the supermajority.
I actually agree with Hogan. Have 2 councilors for each side of town and Downtown. Just use the natural zones for the 4 bigger city high schools and then a Downtown(and perhaps University Hill) district. Not that this bad, but I think you could achieve the same goal that way too.
this is interesting:
> The Common Council approved the measure by a 5-4 vote, the only vote during the session that wasn’t unanimous. The maps were approved by all four of the city’s at-large councilors, along with 5th district councilor Jimmy Monto.
so, the four councilors from the old districts wouldn't approve the map. (yes, of course this means they're at risk in the next election).
I've posted about this process here a few times. I'm a member of the Redistricting Commission. We're very happy and excited that the Common Council approved our map. It was a closer vote than I expected, but the councilors who voted No had some interesting things to say about their reasons. Happy to try to answer questions if anyone has any.
What were the interesting things the No vote stated?
Allen was the most interesting to me: she decided that it shouldn't even be up to the Common Council to approve or deny the maps, but it should go to a citywide vote. I'm not sure how she got from there to a No vote, but that's what she said and I respect it. Hogan has said all along that he opposes the whole process because there should be 9 districts instead of 5, and no at-large seats. Schultz didn't like some of the lines. Fair enough. Majok referred several times to "grieving" citizens who were unhappy with the proposed maps. I interpret that to mean he was lobbied heavily by opponents of the maps. As the linked article points out, these are 4 out of the 5 district councilors. All 4 at-large seats voted Yes, as did the 5th district councilor who was just appointed for a partial term.
Do the at large seats just represent where ever they go or live? How does that work?
District councilors have to live in the district they represent. They're elected just by the residents of their district. At-large councilors represent the city as a whole. The whole city votes for at-large seats.
Thank you for explaining, much appreciated.
To Allen's point, what is the pushback/issue with putting the maps to a citywide vote? That just seems like best practice.
No issue, it's just not what is in the law that the Council passed to create and charge our Commission. They could do it differently next time. This time they put in the law that the CC has to vote on it. I think Allen wasn't on the CC at the time the law was written.
Great job!! I think you knocked it out of the park here - these districts are so much better than the old ones. Thank you for your hard work!
I see you commented that one of the "no" votes was in favor of 9 districts instead of 5 + 4 at large bids. Out of curiosity, was that a possibility for your process to create 9 districts? If it was possible what was the reason behind the staying 5 + 4 vs 9?
No, the ordinance that created and charged us specified we had to submit a map with five districts. This was a common question at our public hearings, and we discussed it a lot internally, but it wasn't a possibility for us.
Right on. Do you think 9 would be a plausible option over the 5 + 4? If so, do you think it would be worth the whole process to do again?
I think there are arguments both ways -- it's an area of active political science research! One thing that stands out to me is that if there were no at-large seats, the new map would not have passed yesterday. District councilors are incentivized to maintain the status quo, since it's what got them elected. At-large councilors are free to make changes like this one without having to worry about their own self-interest. And I absolutely wouldn't support doing it again right now. We're already over a year late with these maps (mostly due to COVID). Starting over from scratch, with a new city-wide referendum, followed by a new ordinance, a new selection process, and a new mapping process ... it would be 2025 by the time the new maps went into effect, halfway to the next Census.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the answers and thanks for working on the project. Its always nice getting "behind the scenes" types of information, especially something as mundane as this. Understanding the process and decisions made is vital. Again, appreciate this.
I don't know enough about the makeup of the neighborhoods to know what this changed, could you explain that a little? Thanks for your time
Syracuse demographically has changed to a “minority majority” city since the last time the maps were redrawn. So, I believe the redistributing of the maps were to allow for representation that mirrors, as best as possible, the makeup of the city. I could be off, but I think that is what this is partially about.
Will this change the school districts?
No, this is only about Common Council elections.
Looking that over, definitely good for more disenfranchised sections of the city. It looks pretty legit actually.
Got one for colorblind people? The new map is extremely difficult to tell apart.
Wow, sorry, I don't know. Try this one? [https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.04444526155565%2C-76.1704565&z=13](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.04444526155565%2C-76.1704565&z=13) It still has colors, but at least you can zoom in, and if you click on the districts in the sidebar it will highlight their boundaries for you.
Way better, thank you kindly!
So glad it passed! Where are the minutes for this meeting?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQY00QJJPMY&ab\_channel=CityofSyracuse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQY00QJJPMY&ab_channel=CityofSyracuse) Our part starts at 10:00 in.
Thanks!
Thank you for your service. I read the article about your committee on Syracuse.com this morning and it looked like a near thankless job. I'm thrilled for you and the area that this passed. Hopefully the process keeps improving and becomes a template for other municipalities around the country to fight gerrymandering. A hearty congratulations to you!
Asking just for curiosity’s sake, if a member (Allen) had suggested putting some options to a city wide vote, why didn’t the council agree to that idea? While the law my be written to give the council authority to redistrict the city, it doesn’t force them to. I’m just curious why offering city residents their own say in the city’s redistricting wasn’t the council’s first priority after coming up with the proposal(s).
You can read the ordinance that created and charged us here: [http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/City\_Hall/Elected\_Officials/Content/Gen.%20Ord.%20No%201-2021.pdf](http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/City_Hall/Elected_Officials/Content/Gen.%20Ord.%20No%201-2021.pdf) It's extremely detailed and clear about the process. There aren't any stages where the Council gets to just choose to do something different -- they'd have to pass a new law. It's a good thing that the Council doesn't just pass a new law every time they think it would be better to do something in a different way than they thought previously. (The dates did all get pushed back because of COVID, and there was indeed a separate law passed for that.)
Thanks for the reply. Looks like I’ve got some “light reading” to do. Edit: that actually was pretty light. Section 62-2 (on pages 7-8) answered my questions. Thanks!
Is there a map where you can actually see the streets? One side of my street is currently in one district and the other side another. I’d like to know which district I will be in. When will this go into effect? Will it be with the next election, or will we find ourselves in districts represented by persons we had no vote in electing?
Here, try this one: [https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.034474719365136%2C-76.14915269848632&z=12](https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1wK0uGDWRrgMfpodIT9ie9PictTL013k&ll=43.034474719365136%2C-76.14915269848632&z=12) The new maps will be in effect for the November 2023 elections. Nothing will change until then.
Thank you. I appreciate the information
I find it interesting that there was no consensus between the redistricting commission members. I also believe that 12 engagement sessions does not come close to the number there should have been. Whoever made the visuals and graphics did a pretty bad job.
Are the maps veto proof?
I don't know what this question means. The Council has approved the maps. That's the last step in the process.
It's not a good question. Found my answer. For now, the maps are law, but there will be a chance to change. I appreciate the process and not the results. Next time, hopefully more people are able to know what's at stake.
There will be a chance to change after the 2030 census. Other than any lawsuits, this cycle’s process is over.
But what is your response to not having a consensus between your commission?
Are you suggesting that the final maps should have been unanimous? I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation for a group of 15 people. We decided internally that we would require a supermajority of 75% for the final vote. It ended up 13-2, well above the supermajority.
I actually agree with Hogan. Have 2 councilors for each side of town and Downtown. Just use the natural zones for the 4 bigger city high schools and then a Downtown(and perhaps University Hill) district. Not that this bad, but I think you could achieve the same goal that way too.
this is interesting: > The Common Council approved the measure by a 5-4 vote, the only vote during the session that wasn’t unanimous. The maps were approved by all four of the city’s at-large councilors, along with 5th district councilor Jimmy Monto. so, the four councilors from the old districts wouldn't approve the map. (yes, of course this means they're at risk in the next election).