UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x MARK A. FAVORS, et al.

, Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11-CV-5632 (DLI)(RR)(GEL)

-againstANDREW M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------x

ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Faced yet again with a dysfunctional state legislature, the federal judiciary in New York must now undertake the unwelcome obligation of creating a plan redrawing the States electoral districts for the United States Congress. Perry v. Perez, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 934, 940 (2012) (quoting Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 (1977)). The legislatures abdication of its responsibility, and the need for judicial intervention, have become an all-toofamiliar scenario in New York. In 1992, a three-judge court in this district, burdened with the same task, made the following observation: Ten years ago, legislative delay required a federal courts intervention to protect the people of the State of New York, and the same has happened this decade. We can only hope that the census of 2000 will not give birth to yet another judicial redistricting drama in 2002. Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Gantt, 796 F.Supp. 681, 696 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (PRLDEF) (three-judge court) (citing Flateau v. Anderson, 537 F.Supp. 257

-1-

(S.D.N.Y.) (three-judge court) (per curiam), appeal dismissed, 458 U.S. 1123 (1982)). Unfortunately, the Courts hope in PRLDEF would not be realized: the Census of 2000 did in fact give birth to yet another redistricting drama, see Rodriguez v. Pataki, No. 02 Civ. 618(RMB), 2002 WL 1058054 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2002) (Rodriguez I) (three-judge court) -- as did the Census of 2010, which produced the legislative stalemate that now threatens to disenfranchise New Yorkers and brings the parties before this Court. As a result of the 2010 Census, the number of congressional districts allotted to New York State was reduced from 29 to 27. The purpose of this Report and Recommendation is to present to the Three-Judge Panel presiding in this case the 27-district congressional redistricting plan (the Recommended Plan) formulated by the undersigned magistrate judge with the assistance of its redistricting consultant, Dr. Nathaniel Persily. Dr. Persilys affidavit and attachments (collectively referred to as Persily Affidavit or Persily Aff.) accompany this opinion and are incorporated by reference herein. As detailed in the discussion that follows, and in the Persily Affidavit, the Recommended Plan complies with all constitutional and statutory requirements, as well as with the terms of the Three-Judge Panels order charging this Court with the duty to prepare and propose a congressional redistricting plan for the State of New York. Furthermore, whatever its effects on the political process, the Recommended Plan was prepared according to neutral principles, pursuant to a process aimed at ensuring both the reality and appearance of judicial impartiality.

-2-

BACKGROUND I. The Instant Action On November 17, 2011, plaintiffs Mark A. Favors, Howard Leib, Lillie H. Galan, Edward A. Mulraine, Warren Schreiber, and Weyman A. Carey (Plaintiffs), registered voters in the State of New York, filed the instant voting rights action against defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York; Eric T. Schneiderman, as Attorney General of the State of New York1; Robert J. Duffy (Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York), as President of the New York State Senate; Dean G. Skelos, as Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore of the New York State Senate; John L. Sampson, as Minority Leader of the New York State Senate; Sheldon Silver, as Majority Leader of the New York State Assembly; Brian M. Kolb, as Minority Leader of the New York State Assembly; the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR)2; and the six members of LATFOR: Assemblyman John J. McEneny, Assemblyman Robert Oaks, Dr. Roman Hedges, State Senator Michael F. Nozzolio, State Senator Martin Malav Dilan, and Welquis R. Lopez (collectively, Defendants).3 See

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against the Attorney General on December 28, 2011, see Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntarily Dismissal (Dec. 28, 2011), Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Docket Entry (DE) #40, and the dismissal was granted on January 10, 2012. See Order (Jan. 10, 2012).
2

LATFOR is comprised of two members of the New York State Senate, two members of the New York State Assembly, and two appointed non-legislators, one selected by the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate and one selected by the Speaker of the State Assembly. See Memorandum and Order (Mar. 8, 2012) (3/8/12 M&O) at 4, DE #219. For ease of reference: (1) Governor Cuomo and Lt. Governor Duffy will be referred to as the Governor Defendants; (2) State Senator Skelos and LATFOR members Nozzolio and -3-

generally Complaint (Nov. 17, 2011) (Compl.), DE #1. Additionally, four sets of individuals have intervened in the matter as plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including: (1) Donna Kaye Drayton, Edwin Ellis, Aida Forrest, Gene A. Johnson, Joy Woolley, and Shelia Wright (the Drayton Intervenors); (2) Juan Ramos, Nick Chavarria, Graciela Heymann, Sandra Martinez, Edwin Roldan, and Manolin Tirado (the Ramos Intervenors); (3) Linda Lee, Shing Chor Chung, Jung Ho Hong, and Julia Yang (the Lee Intervenors); and (4) Linda Rose, Everet Mills, Anthony Hoffman, Kim Thompson-Werekoh, Carlotta Bishop, Carol Rinzler, George Stamatiades, Josephine Rodriguez, and Scott Auster (the Rose Intervenors). Their respective motions to intervene were granted as unopposed on February 14 and 21, 2012. See Order Granting Motions to Intervene (Feb. 14, 2012); Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Intervene (Feb. 21, 2012). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failure to adjust New Yorks state legislative and federal congressional districts in accordance with the results of the 2010 Census violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Count I); the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count II); Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (Count III); Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the New York State Constitution (Count IV); the

Lopez will be referred to collectively as the Senate Majority Defendants; (3) State Senator Sampson and State Senator and LATFOR member Dilan will be referred to collectively as the Senate Minority Defendants; (4) Assemblyman Silver and LATFOR members McEneny and Roman Hedges will be referred to collectively as the Assembly Majority Defendants; and (5) Assemblyman Kolb and LATFOR member Oaks will be referred to collectively as the Assembly Minority Defendants. -4-

New York Prisoner Reallocation Law4 (Count V); and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973(f) (Count VI), based on the failure to comply with the Prisoner Reallocation Law. See Compl. 106-155. Plaintiffs further seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants failure to adjust the malapportioned districts has deprived Plaintiffs and all citizens of New York equal protection and due process in violation of the United States Constitution (Count VII). See id. 156-158. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the current state and congressional districts invalid, declaring that Plaintiffs rights have been violated as alleged, appointing a Special Master to draw new districts in compliance with the law, ordering LATFOR to cooperate with the Special Master, ordering the redrawing of the district map, and awarding attorneys fees. See Compl. at 32-33. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs requested that the Honorable Dora L. Irizarry, the District Judge assigned to the case, convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284 and 42 U.S.C. 1973c. See Plaintiffs Letter to Judge Irizarry (Dec. 2, 2011), DE #2. Judge Irizarry subsequently ordered the parties to show cause why such a panel should not be convened. See Order to Show Cause (Dec. 6, 2011). While the Governor Defendants did not oppose the convening of a three-judge panel, a number of Defendants requested that the Court delay such empanelment until the resolution of dispositive motions. See Assembly Majority Defendants Response to Order to Show Cause (Dec. 8, 2011), DE #9; Assembly Minority

Plaintiffs have since voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, their claims under the New York Prisoner Reallocation Law. See Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Jan. 30, 2012), DE #66; Order (Feb. 1, 2012) (dismissing Counts V and VI of Plaintiffs Complaint). -5-

Defendants Response to Order to Show Cause (Dec. 9, 2011), DE #16; Defendant Oaks Response to Order to Show Cause (Dec. 9, 2011), DE #20. Events in the Northern District of New York, however, heightened the need for a three-judge panel. In United States of America v. New York, 10-CV-1214 (N.D.N.Y.) (Feb. 9, 2012), Exh. to Plaintiffs Letter (Feb. 10, 2012), DE #72, Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order that advanced the date for New Yorks congressional primary election as a means of ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1973ff-7, as amended by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, and ordered the candidate petitioning period for New Yorks congressional primary elections to begin on March 20, 2012. As a result of these developments, Judge Irizarry found it necessary to request a three-judge panel prior to deciding Defendants motions to dismiss. See Request to Appoint Three-Judge Panel and Special Master Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(b) (Feb. 13, 2012), DE #73. On February 14, 2012, Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit appointed two Second Circuit judges, the Honorable Reena Raggi and the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, to serve with Judge Irizarry on the three-judge panel (the Three-Judge Panel or the Panel). See Designation of Three-Judge Panel (Feb. 14, 2012), DE #74. On February 21, 2012, the Panel referred the task of creating a redistricting plan to the undersigned magistrate judge, and denied Defendants motions to dismiss with an opinion to follow.5 See Docket Entry Referral Order

That opinion was issued on March 8, 2012. See 3/8/12 M&O, DE #219. -6-

(Feb. 21, 2012). The Three-Judge Panel then held a hearing on February 27, 2012, at which it set forth procedures for the court-based redistricting process. See Minute Entry Regarding Hearing Before the Three-Judge Panel (Feb. 27, 2012) (2/27/12 Panel Minute Entry). The Panels rulings were outlined in a formal referral order issued the following day. See Order of Referral to Magistrate Judge (Feb. 28, 2012) (2/28/12 Order of Referral), DE #133. The Order limited the task before this Court to the redistricting of the States congressional districts, reserving for a later date the question of whether the Court must intervene to reapportion the State Senate and Assembly Districts. See id. at 2. In addition, the Panels Order delineated the responsibilities and powers of the undersigned magistrate judge. First, the Panel directed this Court to adhere to, and, to the extent possible, reconcile a number of guidelines, including: (a) divid[ing] the state into 27 congressional districts in accordance with the 2010 federal Census and applicable law; (b) creating districts that are substantially equal in population; (c) ensuring that the districts are compact, contiguous, respect political subdivisions, and preserve communities of interest; and (d) complying with 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) and with all other applicable provisions of the Voting Rights Act. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. Moreover, the Panel empowered the undersigned to consider other factors and proposals submitted by the parties, which, in the magistrate judges view, are reasonable and comport with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. Id. at 3. The Three-Judge Panel also authorized the undersigned to retain a redistricting consultant, Dr. Nathaniel Persily, Professor of Law at Columbia University, to assist in -7-

preparing the redistricting plan. The Panel directed LATFOR to cooperate fully in providing to the magistrate judge, and to any experts, technical advisors, or consultants assisting her, immediate and unrestricted access to information, data, facilities, and technical support, as well as any additional assistance that may facilitate and expedite the work of the magistrate judge. Id. at 4. The Panel instructed this Court, in preparing its redistricting plan, to consider any proposals, plans, and comments either already submitted or to be submitted by all parties and intervenors in the action, and authorized the undersigned to invite additional submissions, hold hearings, take testimony, and take whatever steps she deems reasonably necessary to develop the plan contemplated by this Order. Id. at 4. The undersigned was further authorized to recommend a new plan or to incorporate all or parts of extant or newly proposed plans submitted either by the parties or interested members of the public. Id. Finally, the Panel ordered this Court to submit its Report and Recommendation by March 12, 2012, ordered the parties to file any objections by noon on March 14, 2012, and set a hearing on the Report and Recommendation for March 15, 2012. Id. at 6. II. Developing the Proposed Plan Meanwhile, on February 27, 2012, at a proceeding immediately following the hearing before the Three-Judge Panel, this Court set a schedule for the parties to file their proposed redistricting plans and then to file responses or objections both to one anothers proposals and to the statewide plan released by a non-party, the public advocacy organization Common Cause

-8-

(the Common Cause Plan). See Minute Entry (Feb. 27, 2012), DE #129.6 In a subsequent order, this Court set forth detailed technical requirements for the submission of plans and proposals to the Court, and developed an online submission system to allow members of the public to file proposed plans and comments. See Order (Feb. 28, 2012) (2/28/12 Order), DE #134. Further, the Court arranged to have the docket made accessible free of charge and available to the public via the website of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The parties submitted their proposed redistricting plans on February 29, 2012, including four statewide redistricting plans and three partial plans. See Persily Aff. 61. The statewide plans included those of the Senate Majority Defendants, the Assembly Majority Defendants, the Assembly Minority Defendants, and the Rose Intervenors. See id. 63. The partial plans included those of the Lee Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Drayton Intervenors. See id. 64. The Ramos and Drayton plans were each modified versions of the Unity Plan, a nonpartisan plan created as a joint effort of four voting rights advocacy organizations for the protected groups of New York City. See Transcript of Public Hearing, March 5, 2012 (3/5/12 Tr.) at 24, DE #221. The Plaintiffs, the Governor Defendants, and the Senate Minority Defendants did not submit proposed plans to the Court. Non-parties were invited to submit proposed plans on or before March 2, 2012, see

Although not expressly addressed in the Panels Minute Entry, the Common Cause Plan had been referenced during the earlier hearing before the Panel. -9-

2/28/12 Order, and the Court received and considered thirteen non-party statewide plans7 and six non-party partial plans.8 See Persily Aff. 66-67. Additionally, parties and non-parties were directed to file any comments on the proposed plans including both the party plans and the Common Cause Plan on or before March 2, 2012. See 2/28/12 Order at 1-2. Eight sets of parties filed responses and objections.9 The public response, embodied in 61 comments submitted through the Courts online submission system, was voluminous, passionate, and thoughtful. See Order Regarding Public Submissions (Mar. 12, 2012), DE #222. At a four-hour public hearing convened by this Court on March 5, 2012, the parties advocated for their respective proposed plans and against the competing proposed plans. See Minute Entry (Mar. 5, 2012) (3/5/12 Minute Entry), DE #183; see generally 3/5/12 Tr.

The non-party statewide plans included those from Common Cause, as well as individuals Connor Allen, David Harrison, Michael Danish, Andrew C. White, Vincent Flynn, Elijah Reichlin-Melnick, Robert Silverstein, Philip Smith, David Gaskell, Jesse Laymon, Michael Fortner, and Adama D. Brown. See Persily Aff. 66; Order Regarding Public Submissions (Mar. 12, 2012), DE #222. The non-party partial plans included those from the Citizens Alliance for Progress, Concerned Citizens of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill, Keith L.T. Wright (Chairman of the New York County Democratic Committee), Representative Yvette D. Clarke (Congresswoman from New Yorks 11th Congressional District) the Orthodox Alliance for Liberty, and Ruben Diaz. See Persily Aff. 67; Order Regarding Public Submissions (Mar. 12, 2012), DE #222. See Assembly Majority Defendants Response to Proposed Redistricting Plans (Mar. 2, 2012), DE #165; Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Response to Parties Proposed Congressional Redistricting Plans(Mar. 2, 2012) (Pl. 3/2/12 Mem.), DE #166; Lee Intervenors Response to Congressional Redistricting Plans (Mar. 2, 2012), DE #167; Senate Majority Defendants Response to Proposed Congressional Redistricting Plans (Mar. 2, 2012), DE #170; Rose Intervenors Memorandum on Other Parties Proposed Maps (Mar. 2, 2012) (Rose 3/2/12 Mem.), DE #171; Assembly Minority Defendants Letter Responding to Proposed Congressional Districts (Mar. 2, 2012), DE #172; Ramos Intervenors Objections to Proposed CD Plans (Mar. 3, 2012), DE #173; Drayton Intervenors Letter to Court Regarding Congressional Maps (Mar. 3, 2012), DE #174. -10-

Additionally, the Court heard from nineteen members of the public, including one sitting Congresswoman, two town mayors, a sitting Assembly Committeeman, and numerous community leaders, public interest advocates, and concerned citizens.10 See 3/5/12 Minute Entry; 3/5/12 Tr. Taking the various viewpoints and suggested plans into account, the Court fashioned its own proposed plan (the Proposed Plan) with the assistance of its redistricting consultant, and publicly released that plan for comment on March 5, 2012, in the form of an Order to Show Cause why the Proposed Plan should not be recommended for adoption by the Three-Judge Panel. See Order to Show Cause (Mar. 5, 2012), DE #184. Thereafter, starting on March 6, 2012 and continuing to date, the parties and interested members of the public have responded to the Proposed Plan. As described more fully in the Persily Affidavit, of the parties, only the Senate Majority Defendants, the Rose Intervenors, the Ramos Intervenors, and the Drayton Intervenors submitted substantive responses to the Courts Order to Show Cause. See Persily Aff. 143-147.11 Approximately 400 non-party members of the public also filed comments

Nine speakers addressed issues related to the existing 12th Congressional District. See 3/5/12 Tr. at 120-35, 139-42. Four speakers advocated for preserving communities of interest within the existing 11th Congressional District, including that districts sitting Congresswoman, Representative Yvette D. Clarke. See id. at 17-23, 144-47, 154-58. Two speakers, representing separate Asian-American interest groups, advanced their support for the Unity Map. See id. at 135-44. Two sitting mayors, representing villages within the 18th Congressional District, requested that the Courts plan retain the town of Greenburgh within that district. See id. at 158-62. One individual argued on behalf of the Latino community in northern Manhattan, the Bronx, and Queens. See id. at 116-20. Finally, Sean Coffey, a representative of Common Cause, advocated adoption of the Common Cause Plan. See id. at 147-52.
11

10

The Assembly Majority Defendants, the Senate Minority Defendants, and the Assembly Minority Defendants each expressed no comment about the Proposed Plan. See Assembly -11-

on the Courts Proposed Plan, in the form of detailed replies, letters to the Court, and petitions, see id. 148-153, and countless concerned citizens have been telephoning the Courts chambers to express their views.12 After considering each of those objections, and balancing the need for each proposed modification against competing considerations, the Court modified its Proposed Plan where it deemed warranted. See generally Persily Aff. 154-159. The result of that process is the Courts Recommended Plan, which is attached to the Persily Affidavit at Appendix A. DISCUSSION As explained above, the Three-Judge Panel set forth detailed instructions in its Referral Order to guide this Court in the redistricting process. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3-4. First, the Recommended Plan must comport with the constitutional requirements of population equality and the Equal Protection Clause. See id. at 3. Second, the Recommended Plan must comply with the mandates of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, avoiding the twin ills of minority vote dilution and retrogression. See id. Third, the Recommended Plan must follow the traditional redistricting principles of compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions,

Majority Defendants Response to Order to Show Cause (Mar. 6, 2012) (Assembly Maj. Def. OTSC Resp.), DE #185; Senate Minority Defendants Response to Order to Show Cause (Mar. 6, 2012), DE #187; Assembly Minority Defendants Response to Order to Show Cause (Mar. 7, 2012) (Assembly Min. Def. OTSC Resp.), DE #193. No response was forthcoming from Plaintiffs, the Governor Defendants, or the Lee Intervenors. The written non-party responses included, but were not limited to, submissions on behalf of Voting Rights for All, discussing, inter alia, proposed districts in the Bronx and Manhattan; Hakeem Jeffries, Karim Camara, and Concerned Citizens of Fort Greene-Clinton Hill, discussing Proposed District 8; and Lincoln Restler, discussing Proposed District 7. See Persily Aff. 149-153. -1212

and preservation of communities of interest. See id. Lastly, the Plan may incorporate additional factors where appropriate and in accordance with the law. See id. This section of the Report and Recommendation will review the existing law with respect to each of these requirements, will measure the Recommended Plan against those factors, and will discuss the extent to which permissive factors were employed. Based on the analysis below, this Court respectfully recommends that the Three-Judge Panel adopt the Recommended Plan in its entirety. I. Constitutional Constraints on Redistricting A. Equal Population

Consistent with the Panels Order of Referral, the Recommended Plan satisfies the requirement of substantial population equality. Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides that the United States House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen . . . by the People of the several States, and that [r]epresentatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers. U.S. Const. art. I, 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that as nearly

as is practicable one mans vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as anothers. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964). As a result, courts must make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530-31 (1969). Indeed, a court-drawn plan is held to higher standards than a states own plan with respect to population equality. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 26 (1975). As such, a courts paramount objective when faced with the task of redrawing malapportioned congressional districts is to achieve absolute population equality. See Karcher -13-

v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 732 (1983) (citing, inter alia, White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 793 (1973)). Therefore, any variances in population between districts must be justified, and the Supreme Court has been loath to allow even de minimis variations in congressional redistricting plans. See Karcher, 462 US. at 731-32; White, 412 U.S. at 790 n.8; Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S. at 533. Based on the total New York population according to the 2010 Census, the ideal population for each of the new 27 congressional districts is 717,707.48 persons. See Persily Aff. 103. The increase from the 2000 Censuss ideal district population of 654,360 to the 2010 ideal of 717,707 required each district to gain population. See id. 104. Moreover, the extent of the population deviations varied considerably among the districts, from a population shortfall of 105,869 in Existing District 28 to a shortfall of only 4,195 in Existing District 8. See id. 105, Table I. In the Recommended Plan crafted by the Court, fourteen districts contain 717,707 persons, and thirteen districts contain 717,708 persons. See id. 106. Therefore, the Recommended Plan achieves zero deviation, and meets the constitutional standard of population equality. See id. B. Racial Gerrymandering

The Recommended Plan also comports with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits both intentional and excessive uses of race in redistricting. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 658 (1993). First, the Equal Protection Clause prevents state actors engaged in redistricting from purposefully discriminating against a racial group by diluting its vote. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 -14-

U.S. 55, 66 (1980). Second, the Supreme Court has held that a redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause where race is a predominant factor motivating [a] decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). Courts have held that race was a predominant factor in redistricting plans where traditional race-neutral districting principles were subordinated to considerations of race. Id. Additionally, courts in this district have applied these mandates to court-drawn plans. See PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 692. Here, the Recommended Plan neither purposefully dilutes the vote of citizens on account of race, nor does it contain any districts drawn predominantly on the basis of race. See Persily Aff. 107. Therefore, the Recommended Plan comports with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. II. Statutory Constraints on Redistricting: the Voting Rights Act The Three-Judge Panels Order of Referral directs that the Recommended Plan comply with 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) and with all other applicable provisions of the Voting Rights Act. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are designed to protect against two principal problems: minority vote dilution and retrogression in the electoral position of minorities. As explained below, the Recommended Plan complies with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, and neither retrogresses nor dilutes the vote of any citizens on account of race. See Persily Aff. 108. A. Section 2: Vote Dilution

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973, is designed to protect against, among other things, redistricting that has the effect of diluting the voting power of -15-

racial or language minority groups, which may occur through over-concentration (packing) or excessive dispersion (cracking) of those groups within or across voting districts. See Persily Aff. 17. Section 2 provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivisions are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C. 1973 (emphasis in original). Section 2 claims apply equally to state-drawn and court-drawn redistricting plans. See Rodriguez I, 2002 WL 1058054, at *4; PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 688. In order to determine whether there has been minority vote dilution in violation of Section 2, a court must analyze whether the plaintiff challenging the redistricting plan has met the multi-prong test set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). The Gingles

-16-

factors require a plaintiff to establish that, within a challenged district,13 (1) the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority14; (2) the minority group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it in the absence of special circumstances . . . usually to defeat the minoritys preferred candidate. Id. at 51. If a plaintiff fails to establish these factors, then compliance with Section 2 does not require the creation of a new majority-minority district. However, if a plaintiff establishes each of the three Gingles factors, the court must then determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the relevant minority group in the challenged district has less opportunity . . . to elect representatives of their choice, Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36 (quoting Section 2), taking into consideration a wide array of historical, political, and procedural factors. See Persily Aff. 20 n.1. One factor that cuts against a finding of improper vote dilution is proportionality, which occurs when minority groups constitute effective voting majorities in a number of . . . districts substantially proportional to their share in the population. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1024 (1994). Nevertheless, the mere fact of

13

Although the Gingles opinion itself dealt with only multi-member districts, the Supreme Court, in Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 40 (1993), extended the application of the Gingles test to single-member districting.
14

See Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 20 (2009) (requiring a minority group to constitute a majority of a potential district to establish a Section 2 claim). However, as explained in the Persily Affidavit, a Section 2 analysis raises challenging questions with respect to methods of classifying and measuring the size of minority groups. See Persily Aff. 24-32. To address this challenge, the Office of Management and Budget has set forth guidelines for civil rights enforcement, and the Supreme Court has applied an approach consistent with the those guidelines. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 473 n.1 (2003). -17-

proportionality with respect to one minority group does not insulate a state from a Section 2 challenge where, in seeking to achieve proportionality, a redistricting plan has the effect of diluting the voting strength of another minority group. See Persily Aff. 21. B. Section 5: Retrogression

Section 5 of the VRA requires certain covered jurisdictions to obtain advance clearance from either the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any change in a standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting. See 42 U.S.C. 1973c. The Supreme Court has held that a new municipal, state, or congressional redistricting plan qualifies as such a change. See Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 133 (1976); see also Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Rodriguez II) (three-judge court); Flateau, 537 F.Supp. at 261. In New York, legislatively enacted voting-related changes in three counties Bronx, Kings, and New York are covered by Section 5. See Rodriguez II, 308 F.Supp.2d at 358. However, Section 5 does not apply to court-drawn redistricting plans. See Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 691 (1971). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has instructed district courts to adhere to the standards set forth in Section 5 and the relevant caselaw when constructing new redistricting plans. See also Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 96 (1997) (citing McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 149 (1981)). By its terms, Section 5 requires that redistricting plans must neither have the purpose nor . . . the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account or race, or color, or [language minority]. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a). The purpose standard prohibits redistricting -18-

motivated by any discriminatory purpose (rarely applicable in the court-drawn setting), id. 1973c(c), while the effect standard prohibits changes that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Beer, 425 U.S. at 141. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006 further clarifies that [a]ny voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(b). In short, to determine whether retrogression has occurred, courts must ascertain whether a particular redistricting plan has the effect of diminishing [minorities] ability . . . to elect their preferred candidates of choice. Id. This requires the Court to compare the new plan with a benchmark plan. See Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 478 (1997). C. Analysis of the Recommended Plan

In formulating both its Proposed Plan and its Recommended Plan, the Court and its redistricting consultant reviewed and compared the racial data revealed in the 2010 Census, as well as the submissions and objections of parties and non-parties, and drew on Dr. Persilys personal expertise from prior redistricting efforts in New York. See Persily Aff. 109. With respect to Section 2 compliance, the Recommended Plan maintains the majority-minority

-19-

districts in the [e]xisting [p]lan, which was enacted by the state legislature in 2002 (the Existing Plan); however, given the loss of two districts, the need to reach population equality in every district, and the different rates of growth of different racial groups, some change in district demographic statistics was unavoidable. Id. 111. With respect to districts touching the three counties covered by Section 5, the Recommended Plan keeps the demographic composition of the districts largely the same . . . . Id. 115. As more fully explained in the Persily Affidavit, the Recommended Plan avoids retrogression and dilution in all three covered counties. First, in the Bronx, the Recommended Plan adds one more majority-Hispanic voting age population (VAP) congressional district to the states total, and otherwise retains substantially similar demographic compositions in the countys three additional districts. See Persily Aff. 116-118. Second, New York County retains two districts with significant minority populations, neither of which experiences retrogression or dilution under the Recommended Plan. See id. 119-121. Third, despite differential rates of population growth among racial and ethnic groups in Kings County (Brooklyn), the Recommended Plan is neither diluting nor retrogressive.15 See id. 122-126. Lastly, under the Recommended Plan, the districts in Queens County, which is not covered by Section 5, comply with Section 2 of the VRA, and now include Proposed District

15

Given the population shifts in Kings County, a few points deserve mention. Notably, all of the multi-district plans submitted to the Court -- including the Unity Map proffered by the Drayton, Lee, and Ramos Intervenors -- reflect districts with declines in minority population shares similar to the Recommended Plan. See Persily Aff. 122. However, although the Recommended Plans Proposed District 9 experienced a decrease from 57.5% to 55.0% Black VAP share, and Proposed District 8 experienced a decrease in its Black VAP share from 64.8% to 56.0%, both districts remain majority-Black, and any diminution in voting power is a product of differential rates in population growth. See id. -20-

6, a new compact district in central Queens that is majority-minority (at 60.1% minority VAP) and plurality-Asian (at 38.8% VAP). See id. 127-129. III. Traditional Redistricting Principles The Three-Judge Panel directed the Court to create districts that, to the extent possible, are compact, contiguous, respect political subdivisions, and preserve communities of interest. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. Furthermore, the Panel authorized the undersigned to consider other factors and proposals submitted by the parties, which, in the magistrate judges view, are reasonable and comport with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. Id. These traditional redistricting factors arise from two primary sources: state policy and caselaw involving charges of racial gerrymandering. First, with respect to state policy, the Supreme Court has held that whenever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution, . . . a district court should . . . honor state policies in the context of congressional reapportionment. White, 412 U.S. at 795. The Court defined state policy as the policies and preferences of the State, as expressed in statutory and constitutional provisions or in the reapportionment plans proposed by the state legislature. Id. The New York State Constitution requires that state senate districts be in as compact form as practicable, . . . and shall at all times consist of contiguous territory, and district lines generally should not divide counties, towns, or blocks. See N.Y. Const. art. III, 4. Assembly districts, too, must be of convenient and contiguous territory in as compact form as practicable. Id. 5. Further, New York State Election Law requires election districts, among other requirements, to be in compact form . . . . N.Y. Elec. Law 4-100(3)(a). And, while the state constitutional -21-

provisions are couched in terms of delineating districts for the two bodies of the state legislature, the New York Court of Appeals has made clear that the standards for State legislative and congressional apportionment are substantially the same. See Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 N.Y.2d 420, 428 (1972) (quoted in Diaz v. Silver, 978 F.Supp. 96, 127 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)). Second, violations of redistricting principles, such as the factors enumerated in the Panels 2/28/12 Order of Referral, may trigger charges of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. As stated above, a redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause where race was a predominant factor in redistricting decisions. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. Thus, where the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles . . . to racial considerations, a court will find that race was a predominant factor, and will subject the redistricting plan to strict scrutiny. Id. Federal courts in New York have recognized a number of these race-neutral redistricting principles, including (i) compactness, contiguity, and respect for pre-existing political subdivisions . . . ; and (ii) preservation of municipal boundaries, maintenance of the cores of existing districts, communities of interest, and political fairness. Rodriguez I, 2002 WL 1058054, at *4 (citing Miller, 515 U.S. at 918; PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 691). In drafting its Recommended Plan, the Court applied the mandatory redistricting factors set forth in the Three-Judge Panels 2/28/12 Order of Referral, and, where appropriate, applied the additional permissive factor of respecting district population cores. See Persily Aff. 130-142. The following subsections will review each principle in turn.

-22-

A.

Compactness

Compactness is a well-established, traditional redistricting criterion in New York State. Rodriguez I, 2002 WL 1058054, at *4; Diaz, 978 F.Supp. at 126-27; see also N.Y. Const. art. III, 4-5. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of compactness in redistricting. See, e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 962 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 905-06 (1996). Nevertheless, courts and experts alike have not accepted any single measure of compactness; [r]ather, compactness is an aesthetic as well as a geometric quality of districts, drawn from various tests. See Persily Aff. 38. Here, the Courts redistricting consultant applied eight different tests for compactness in analyzing the Recommended Plan. See id. 130, App. D. On the whole, in addition to avoiding irregular shapes, the districts in the Recommended Plan achieve compactness scores superior to the proposals submitted by the parties and to the Existing Plan. Id. 130. B. Contiguity

The second traditional redistricting principle the Panel directed this Court to consider is contiguity. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. The principle of maintaining district contiguity is well-established. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. at 647; PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 691. In brief, a district is contiguous when an individual may travel between any two points in a district without crossing through a second district. See Persily Aff. 43. However, the Supreme Court and courts in New York have also long noted that a body of water bisecting a district does not necessarily violate a states contiguity standard. See Lawyer v. Dept of Justice, 521 U.S. 567, 581 n.9 (1997) (recognizing a Florida state courts holding that a body of water did not violate contiguity); Schneider, 31 N.Y.2d at 430 (citation omitted). -23-

Here, all of the districts in the Recommended Plan are contiguous. See Persily Aff. 132; see also id. App. A. C. Respect for Political Subdivisions

The third factor outlined in the Order of Referral involves respecting existing political subdivisions. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. These subdivisions include the boundaries of counties, cities, towns, and villages. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 908; PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 687. The Supreme Court has noted the practical benefits both to constituents and their representatives of including whole political subdivisions within districts. See Bush, 517 U.S. at 974. In addition, avoiding splits within political subdivisions provides administrative benefits during elections. Id. Here, the Recommended Plan preserves, to the extent practicable, political subdivision boundaries in New York State. Indeed, the Recommended Plan splits fewer counties and towns than the Existing Plan, keeping six additional counties, and five additional towns, whole. See Persily Aff. 133-135, App. J. Therefore, the Recommended Plan shows sufficient respect for the political subdivisions of New York State. D. Preservation Communities of Interest

The fourth traditional redistricting principle that the Three-Judge Panel identified in its Referral Order was the preservation of communities of interest. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. Unlike the above-mentioned traditional redistricting principles, however, the New York State Constitution is silent on the issue of communities of interest. Nevertheless, courts in this Circuit have characterized the preservation of communities of interest as a legitimate goal in creating a district plan. See Diaz, 978 F.Supp. at 123; see also Rodriguez I, 2002 WL -24-

1058054, at *4. Likewise, the Supreme Court has recognized that respecting communities defined by actual shared interests is a traditional redistricting principle. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. A community of interest exists where residents share substantial cultural, economic, political, and social ties. Diaz, 978 F.Supp. at 123. Importantly, nothing in the law precludes the coexistence of distinct communities of interest. The identification of such communities presents a particularly complex challenge.16 In Miller v. Johnson, the Supreme Court noted that a state may recognize communities of interest based on racial makeup so long as the states action is directed toward some common thread of relevant interests. 515 U.S. at 920. Nevertheless, a states ability to consider race in defining communities of interest is cabined by equal protection concerns. Id. ([W]here the State assumes from a group of voters race that they think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls, it engages in racial stereotyping at odds with equal protection mandates.) (citing, inter alia, Shaw, 509 U.S. at 647). In short,

16

As Dr. Persily explained: Respecting communities of interest is both an essential and slippery consideration in redistricting processes. In one respect, redistricting is about representation of communities. Communities that are split between districts often view their voice as diminished. In another respect, arguments based on communities of interest can often be pretexts for incumbency or partisan-related considerations. Moreover, community boundaries are inherently amorphous, contested, shifting and conflicting. By respecting one communitys boundaries or some advocates conception of their community, a redistricting plan might conflict with other advocates conception of their community or with another communitys boundaries.

Persily Aff. 52-53 (numbering omitted). -25-

racial considerations may not be a predominant factor motivating redistricting decisions. Miller, 515 U.S. at 916. Of course, communities of interest need not be based on race, ethnicity, or nationality for example, courts have recognized communities of interest based on socioeconomic factors. See Lawyer, 521 U.S. at 581 (recognizing a community of interest where [e]vidence indicated that District 21 comprises a predominantly urban, low-income population, . . . whose white and black members alike share a similarly depressed economic condition . . . and interests that reflect it.) (internal citations omitted). The challenges of defining and accommodating communities of interest are particularly acute in a region as diverse and dynamic as New York City and its environs. Courts have noted the difficulties in defining single Black, Pan-Asian, and Latino communities of interest. See Diaz, 978 F.Supp. at 124-25. Moreover, in his presentation during the March 5th public hearing, Defendant Roman Hedges, of LATFOR, described the complexities encountered in drawing community-based districts in areas such as the Bronx and Queens, which are characterized by the expansion and overlapping nature of the Hispanic and Asian-American communities: There is a tension between expanding the Asian community and expanding the Hispanic community, you cant do both simultaneously . . . . And I think one thing that needs to be added . . . is [that] . . . the problem got a lot harder for a really, really positive good reason. We have a lot less residential segregation than we did ten years ago[, and] that makes districting by community . . . really hard. Thats even true for the black communities of New York. Theyre less residentially segregated than they were 10 years ago. Not as much as the Asians and Hispanic[s], but nevertheless, thats happening. Thats positive and it makes these tensions as you are drawing districts harder and harder.

-26-

3/5/12 Tr. at 84-85. With these challenges in mind, and recognizing the practical impossibility of accommodating all communities of interest, the Recommended Plan respects certain widely recognized, geographically defined communities. See Persily Aff. 137. In the Upstate regions, the Recommended Plan delineates coherent North Country and Southern Tier districts, and three compact districts surrounding the large metropolitan areas -- Buffalo, Rochester and the Capitol Cities area; it also creates a separate lower Hudson Valley district. See id. 138. In New York City, the Recommended Plan retains the Existing Plans separation of the East and West Sides of Manhattan, keeps Harlem whole, and keeps the South Bronx almost entirely within one district. See id. 139. Moreover, the Recommended Plan unites many Asian-American communities in Queens in Proposed District 6, and responding to suggestions concerning the Proposed Plan attempts to unite Fort Greene and Clinton Hill with similar communities of interest in Proposed District 8. See id. Finally, the Recommended Plan respects communities of interest in the Southern and Northern areas of Long Island. See id. 140. E. Other Factors

The Referral Order authorizes this Court to consider other factors . . . which . . . are reasonable and comport with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. In drafting the Recommended Plan, the Court took into account to the extent that it did not interfere with the Three-Judge Panels explicit directives the preservation of core constituencies. However, for the reasons stated below, the Court did not consider incumbency in the drafting process. -27-

1.

Core Constituencies

While not expressly outlined in the Panels Referral Order, a number of parties and non-parties have urged the Court to maintain the cores of existing districts. See Senate Majority Defendants Letter (Feb. 29, 2012) at 1-2 (Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let.), DE #145 at 1-2 (equating core preservation with incumbency protection); Rose Intervenors Mem. on Proposed Map and its Compliance with Redistricting Principles (Feb. 29, 2012) (Rose 2/29/12 Mem.), DE #141 at 13-14; Assembly Majority Defendants Mem. of Law (Mar. 2, 2012) (Assembly Maj. 3/2/12 Mem.) at 2, DE #153; Rose 3/2/12 Mem. at 5-6, DE #171; Letter of Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (Mar. 7, 2012), at 2-3, DE #222; Letter of Keith L.T. Wright (Mar. 7, 2012), at 2, DE #222. The parties and non-parties advocating for core protection proffered four primary justifications: (1) protecting incumbents, (2) preserving communities of interest, (3) deferring to past legislative decisions, and (4) deferring to state policy. Insofar as the first two justifications and their attendant challenges are discussed more fully elsewhere in this opinion, this subsection will focus on the justifications based on deference. a. Perry Deference

The first rationale in support of deference asks whether this Court, pursuant to Perry v. Perez, is required to adopt a least change approach when redistricting, under which it respects the cores of the districts set forth in the Existing Plan enacted ten years ago, long prior to the 2010 Census. In Perry v. Perez, the Supreme Court held that it was error for a district court to displace legitimate state policy judgments with the courts own preference by neglecting a recently enacted, but not DOJ-precleared, legislative redistricting plan. 132 S.Ct. at 941. In -28-

so holding, the Court stated that a district court should take guidance from the States recently enacted plan when drafting its own plan, since the states plan provides important guidance that helps ensure that the district court appropriately confined itself to drawing interim maps that comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, without displacing legitimate state policy judgments with the courts own preferences. Id. at 941. However, the Perry Court also distinguished its facts from those of Balderas v. Texas, where, as here, a three-judge court was faced with an unconstitutional existing congressional district plan and a legislature that had failed to enact a new plan. See id. at 943 (citing Balderas v. Texas, No 6:01cv158, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25740 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2001) (three-judge court) (per curiam), summarily affd, 536 U.S. 919 (2002)). In deciding that it would develop a plan based on neutral redistricting principles rather than confining itself to any existing plan, the lower court in Balderas noted that [f]ederal courts have a limited role in crafting a congressional redistricting plan where the State has failed to implement a plan, but that those limits are not to be found in the traces of the unconstitutional plan being replaced. Balderas, 2001 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 25740, at *11. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed Balderas, see 536 U.S. 919 (2002), and while its decision in Perry may have distinguished Balderas, it did not disapprove its reasoning. As Perry noted, the Balderas court much like the Court here was compelled to create its own plan because there was no recently enacted state plan to which the District Court could turn. Perry, 132 S.Ct. at 943. Here, as the Three-Judge Panel held in denying Defendants motions to dismiss, it is apparent that the 2010 census results have made the current plan unusable and violative of voters rights due to population reductions and shifts resulting in unequal districts. 3/8/12 -29-

M&O at 10, DE #219. Moreover, it is clear that there is no legislative redistricting plan in existence as to the congressional districts and none that will be forthcoming soon. Id. at 14. As such, where constitutional infirmities infect the entire Existing Plan, any deference other due under Perry and by extension to the cores of the Existing Districts does not apply in this case. b. Upham Deference

The second articulated justification for deference turns on whether core preservation is in fact one of the legislative policies to which the Court must defer under Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 40-43 (1982). As noted supra, the New York State Constitution requires state legislatures engaged in redistricting to create compact and contiguous districts that respect certain political subdivisions. See N.Y. Const. art. III 4-5. The New York State Constitution does not, however, mandate that new districts maintain the cores of prior districts. In any event, this Court is not persuaded that there is in fact a consistent state legislative policy of maintaining district cores. First, dramatic population shifts in the last 30 years have cost New York State a total of twelve congressional seats. Compare Flateau, 537 F.Supp. at 260 (noting New Yorks decline from 39 to 34 congressional representatives following the 1980 Census), with PRLDEF 796 F.Supp. at 684 (New Yorks congressional delegation was reduced from 34 to 31 members following the 1990 Census), Rodriguez I, 2002 WL 1058054, at *1 (noting New Yorks decline to 29 congressional representatives following the 2000 Census), and 3/8/12 M&O at 10 (noting New Yorks decline from 29 to 27 congressional representatives following the 2010 Census). Maintaining cores in the wake of such a decline is, practically speaking, -30-

extraordinarily difficult. As such, with each decennial redistricting process comes a new round of constitutionally required and significant changes to the existing lines. Second, the record suggests that, to the extent that there are in fact district cores, they are more likely the product of political deal-making an activity for which courts are illsuited17 than a conscious attempt to advance core preservation as a legislative policy. See, e.g., 3/5/12 Tr. at 81 (Defendant Hedges of LATFOR acknowledges that the existing district configurations in Upstate New York were the result of a political compromise in 2002 and not a policy of respecting the districts prior cores). Nevertheless, in the past, courts in this Circuit have recognized core preservation as a traditional redistricting principle. See Rodriguez I, 2002 WL 1058054, at *4 (citing PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 691). In this case, endeavoring to preserve the cores of the districts from the legislatively brokered 2002 plan was especially challenging, given various bizarrely shaped districts in the [E]xisting [P]lan, see Persily Aff. 59. Further, because core preservation is a permissive consideration, it was applied in the Recommended Plan only [t]o the extent doing so [did] not conflict with the other criteria identified in the [Panels] Order. See Persily Aff. 59. Despite the obstacles noted above, the Recommended Plan achieves substantial core preservation. Overall, one of the Recommended Plans districts is comprised of 90% of a prior district, five districts are comprised of between 80% and 90% of a prior district, seven districts are comprised of between 70% and 80% of a prior district, three districts are

17

The federal courts by contrast possess no distinctive mandate to compromise sometimes conflicting state apportionment policies in the peoples name. Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. at 415. -31-

comprised of between 60% and 70% of a prior district, four districts are comprised of between 50% and 60% of a prior district, and seven districts are comprised of less than 50% of a prior district. Id. 142. 2. Incumbency

In an argument echoed by the Rose Intervenors, the Senate Majority contends that incumbency protection is an appropriate factor for the Court to consider in drawing redistricting maps. Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let. at 1, DE #145; see Rose 3/2/12 Mem. at 4-5, DE #171. More specifically, those parties complain that the Proposed Plan circulated by the Court on March 5th violate[d] the New York redistricting principle of . . . respecting incumbentconstituent relationships, Rose Supplemental OTSC Response (Mar. 7, 2012) (Rose Sup. OTSC Resp.) at 3-4, DE #215, and resulted in two or more incumbents (or incumbent pairings) in each of several proposed districts. See id. at 5; see also Senate Majority OTSC Response (Mar. 7, 2012) (Sen. Maj. OTSC Resp.) at 2, DE #192.18 Plaintiffs, in contrast,

18

Although the Assembly Majority and Assembly Minority also advocated for protection of incumbents, see Assembly Maj. 3/2/12 Mem. at 5-8, DE #153; Assembly Minority Letter (Feb. 29, 2012) (Assembly Min. 2/29/12 Let.) at 3, DE #137, they thereafter did not object to the Courts recommending its Proposed Plan to the Three-Judge Panel. See Assembly Maj. Def. OTSC Rep., DE #185; Assembly Min. Def. OTSC Resp., DE #193. Several of the parties have used the terms incumbency protection and [p]reserv[ation of] the cores of existing districts interchangeably. See, e.g., Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let. at 1, DE #145. While those two concepts may be related, this Court declines to equate them. In fashioning the Recommended Plan, the Court attempted to respect the cores of existing districts, to the extent that doing so did not conflict with the factors specifically enumerated by the Three-Judge Panel and afforded greater weight in the caselaw. See generally supra pp. 2832. One may reasonably infer that, while the Courts Recommended Plan reportedly leaves several incumbents outside the boundaries of their existing districts, at least some of those incumbents reside near the fringes of those districts, not their geographical cores. -32-

have urged this Court to adopt the approach taken by Special Master (now Judge) Robert P. Patterson, Jr., in Flateau v. Anderson, No. 82 Civ. 0876 (VLB) (S.D.N.Y. 1982), and exclude considering incumbency in preparing its redistricting plans. Pl. 3/2/12 Mem. at 5, DE #166 (citing Flateau Special Master Report at 12-13, DE #100-8). The Referral Order of the Three-Judge Panel directed this Court to consider and reconcile certain enumerated criteria: equality in population among the districts, compactness, continguity, respect for political subdivisions, preservation of communities of interest, and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. The Panel then afforded this Court discretion to consider other factors -- such as incumbency -- if found to be reasonable and consistent with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. Id.; see also 2/27/12 Panel Minute Entry (Panel directs the parties to submit briefs to the magistrate judge on [t]he issue of incumb[e]ncy). The parties thereafter filed written submissions on incumbency, as did several members of the public, who lobbied for protection of their preferred incumbents. See, e.g., Assembly Min. 2/29/12 Let. at 3-4, DE #137; Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let. at 1-3, DE #145; Assembly Maj. 3/2/12 Mem. at 2-8, DE #153; Rose 3/2/12 Mem. at 4-5, DE #171; Rose Sup. OTSC Resp. at 1,3-5, DE #215. Additionally, the incumbency issue was a focal point of the March 5th hearing before this Court. See, e.g., 3/5/12 Tr. at 11-17, 56-62, 65-71, 76-78, 82, 88-90, 104, 106-07, 112-13, 115, 146-47, 148-51, 153. After considering and weighing all the competing legal and equitable arguments, the Court concluded that the creation of a redistricting plan that ignored incumbency would enhance both the reality and appearance of judicial impartiality, and would be entirely consistent with governing caselaw. Consequently, -33-

the Court did not obtain from LATFOR the addresses of any incumbents residences, see, e.g., Order (Mar. 1, 2012), and the Courts March 5th Proposed Plan, and the subsequently revised Recommended Plan, were both created without regard to incumbency.19 Admittedly, the Supreme Court has identified incumbency protection as a permissible factor in fashioning redistricting maps. See, e.g., Bush, 517 U.S. at 964 (recognizing incumbency protection, at least in the limited form of avoiding contests between incumbents, as a legitimate state goal) (internal quotation and alteration omitted); Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740 (describing the goal of avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives as one of a number of legitimate objectives that on a proper showing could justify minor population deviations); White, 412 U.S. at 791 ([T]he fact that district boundaries may have been drawn in a way that minimizes the number of contests between present incumbents does not in and of itself establish invidiousness.) (citation and internal quotation omitted).20 And courts in this Circuit have observed that the powerful role that seniority plays in the functioning of Congress makes incumbency an important and legitimate factor for a legislature to consider.

To this day, the Court does not know where incumbents live, except as reported (in general terms) in the parties submissions and in the media.
20

19

The parties urging incumbency protection also rely on language in a series of out-of-circuit cases. See Assembly Maj. 3/2/12 Mem. at 6-7, DE #153; Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let. at 2, DE #145; Colleton Cnty. Council v. McConnell, 201 F.Supp.2d 618, 647 (D.S.C. 2002) (threejudge court); Smith v. Clark, 189 F.Supp.2d 529, 545 (S.D. Miss. 2002) (three-judge court); Johnson v. Miller, 922 F.Supp. 1556, 1565 (S.D. Ga. 1995) (three-judge court), affd sub nom. Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington, 828 F.Supp. 684, 688 (D. Ariz. 1992) (three-judge court), affd mem., 507 U.S. 981 (1993); Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F.Supp. 859, 871 (W.D. Wis. 1992) (three-judge court); South Carolina State Conf. of Branches of NAACP v. Riley, 533 F.Supp. 1178, 118081 (D.S.C.) (three-judge court), affd mem., 459 U.S. 1025 (1982). -34-

Diaz, 978 F.Supp. at 123 (emphasis added); see also Rodriguez II, 308 F.Supp.2d at 370 (legislatively drawn plan reflected permissible policy of limiting incumbent pairing). Nevertheless, it does not follow that a court-drawn redistricting plan must -- or even should -take incumbency into account. Many factors, such as the protection of incumbents, that are appropriate in the legislative development of an apportionment plan have no place in a plan formulated by the courts. Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 769 F.2d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 1985). The advocates of incumbency protection describe it as state policy, 3/5/12 Tr. at 77, and a well-established, traditional districting principle in New York, Sen. Maj. 2/29/12 Let. at 1, DE #145, to which the Court should defer in preparing its own redistricting plan. Had the New York State Legislature done its job and passed its own redistricting plan, judicial deference would be paid. See Perry, 132 S.Ct. at 941; see also supra pp. 28-30. However, the state legislature has been stalemated since the 2010 Census, and the plan enacted in 2002 was found constitutionally infirm by the Three-Judge Panel. See 3/8/12 M&O at 10, DE #219. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Court simply steps into the shoes of the state legislators -- who, by tradition, regularly engage in the kinds of political dealmaking and partisan compromises that are incompatible with the role of a judicial officer. As Judge Patterson explained in refusing to consider continuity of constituencies and political fairness in crafting New Yorks congressional redistricting plan in 1982:

-35-

[W]hile considerations of political fairness may well be appropriate in approving a legislative plan, they may not be appropriate for a court fashioning its own apportionment plans, absent an articulated and rational basis in the statutes or Constitution. These considerations are not included in the Courts criteria and I have concluded that I should not use such a criterion as it may place the Court in the tenuous position of appearing to serve partisan political interests. For the same reason, while I recognize that some courts have made allowance for the protection of incumbents in drawing their plans, the plans I submit have not done so. Flateau Special Master Report, at 13-14, DE #100-8; see also Good v. Austin, 800 F.Supp. 557, 563 (E. & W.D. Mich. 1992) (three-judge court) (court directed Special Master to construct congressional redistricting plan without regard to incumbency). Furthermore, having analyzed the rationale for judicial unpairing of incumbents, the Court finds it to be overstated. Contrary to the arguments advanced to the Court, see, e.g., Assembly Maj. 3/2/12 Mem. at 7, DE #153; Assembly Min. 2/29/12 Let. at 3, DE #137, an incumbent whose residence happens to fall outside the judicially drawn boundaries of her congressional district will not be deprived of the opportunity to serve her constituents, nor will her constituents be deprived of the opportunity to vote for her (provided she decides to run). The only residency requirement for congressional candidates is that they reside within the state in which the district lies. See U.S. Const. art. I, 2; 3/5/12 Tr. at 57.21 Consequently, when, as a result of redistricting, an incumbent finds herself outside her old district and paired with another incumbent in a different district, the disappointed incumbent may nevertheless run for

21

Indeed, as noted in the Report and Plan of the Special Master in Rodriguez I, No. 02 Civ. 0618 (May 2002) at 16, at least one incumbent did not reside in her district even prior to the redistricting plan being drawn in that case. -36-

re-election in her former district. See 3/5/12 Tr. at 58. Accordingly, in the opinion of this judicial officer, courts need not and should not enter the political thicket in the service of preserving incumbent-constituent relationships and congressional seniority. To be sure, the proponents of incumbency protection are probably correct that people tend to want to live in the communities they represent. 3/5/12 Tr. at 59. But to make that argument, and to complain that the incumbent shouldnt be handicapped, id. at 67, reveal the concept of incumbency protection for what it is: an attempt to protect the position of the politician, rather than the right of the voters to re-elect a preferred incumbent. If, as the advocates of incumbency protection so urgently argue, incumbents have come to know and understand the concerns of their district, thereby forging relationships with constituents that are worth maintaining, see, e.g., Rose 2/29/12 Mem. at 12, DE #141; Assembly Min. 2/29/12 Let. at 3, DE #137, then an outdistricted representative should run for re-election on the basis of that relationship, and not on the particulars of her address. Unlike some parties to this action, who expressed concern that voters should not be put . . . in the position of having to weigh whether their interests will be adequately protected by an outdistricted incumbent, see 3/5/12 Tr. at 61, this Court trusts that voters can rationally decide whether to support an incumbent whose home happens to be in an adjoining district. Finally, in light of the diminishing number of districts, it is undisputed that some incumbent pairings are inevitable. See Assembly Min. 2/29/12 Let. at 3, DE #137; Rose 3/2/12 Mem. at 4, DE #171. Consequently, if the Court were inclined to consider incumbency, it would then have to decide which incumbents should be unpaired. No party

-37-

has proposed a neutral principle to guide the Court in making such a decision. On the contrary, different parties oppose different incumbent pairings. Not surprisingly, their challenges reflect partisan biases. Compare Rose Sup. OTSC Resp. at 5, DE #215 (complaining that the Proposed Plan of March 5th pair[s] incumbent Representatives Hochul and Higgins, two Democrats), with Sen. Maj. OTSC Resp. at 2, DE# 192 (complaining that Representative Turner, a Republican, is paired in the district of Representative Meeks, a Democrat); see also 3/5/12 Tr. at 113 (accusing adverse parties of making purely political choice as to whom to leave paired). In the course of the legislative line-drawing process, lawmakers plainly can and do protect their own; this judge is not convinced that courts should follow that tradition of political horse-trading. For all of these reasons, the Court has declined to exercise its discretion to consider incumbency in crafting its redistricting plan. IV. Balancing the Competing Interests In crafting its Recommended Plan, the Court has remained mindful of the sensitive and weighty nature of its obligation. See Connor, 431 U.S. at 415. Its primary focus, of course, is the law. The Plan must comport with the terms of the Panels mandate, and ensure compliance with the state and federal Constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, and applicable caselaw. See 2/28/12 Order of Referral at 3. Consistent with the Panels Order of Referral, the Court has also considered and attempted to reconcile the interests of New Yorks diverse and dynamic population. See id. at 4. This latter undertaking is usually and rightly left in the hands of the political branches. See Connor, 431 U.S. at 415. And yet, where, as here,

-38-

the legislature fails in its obligation to effectively protect the interests of the electorate, the Court is constrained to intervene in the redistricting process. Id. This Court undertook a number of steps in order to ensure a full, fair, and open process. First, the court docket was made available to the public free of charge. Second, the Court solicited public comment, which appeared in the form of non-party proposals, detailed objections to the Courts original Proposed Plan, and all manner of correspondence and other communications from interested members of the public. See Order Regarding Public Submissions (Mar. 12, 2012), DE #222.22 Third, the Court held a lengthy hearing at which parties and non-parties were given the opportunity to present their views. After reviewing all of these comments written and oral the Court formulated its Recommended Plan, and, where feasible, incorporated proposed revisions that enhanced the criteria identified by the Panel. See Persily Aff. 143-159. Nevertheless, having taken into consideration all of the party and non-party arguments, the Court remains unable to accommodate all competing interests. The complex and divergent communities of interest in New York complicate any effort to satisfy all requests. That is what makes the outpouring of responses over the course of the redistricting process both heartening and disheartening. It is heartening to see such a vocal and impassioned expression of a broad array of interests from New Yorkers. At the same time, it is disheartening to realize that, in the end, many concerned parties will be disappointed. The Persily Affidavit demonstrates the

Indeed, as of the filing of this Report and Recommendation, the Court continues to receive telephone calls from passionate voters from districts around the state. -39-

22

challenges in making adjustments to a redistricting plan in response to objections: The accommodation of any change [in the Courts original Proposed Plan] required the exercise of discretion as to how to offset the suggested change in a manner least likely to be found objectionable to other parties or members of the public. Accommodating any change required the addition and subtraction of individual census blocks between districts in order to maintain precise population equality. This can be quite difficult, especially in densely populated areas, where census blocks often contain hundreds or even thousands of people. Persily Aff. 156. Moreover, standing firm in its commitment to nonpartisanship, the Court remained vigilant in rejecting those objections that were more in the nature of political lobbying than in the nature of legal argument. PRLDEF, 796 F.Supp. at 695. Reconciling political arguments is not within the Courts ken, nor consistent with its institutional role. Finally, the Court re-emphasizes the vital importance of procedural fairness in courtdrawn redistricting. Here, the Court has opened its eyes and ears to the parties and public, and provided an opportunity for all interested individuals to have input into the redistricting process. In doing so, the Court aimed, as best as possible, to balance all the competing interests. This Court is confident that the process was fair and the result reasonable. CONCLUSION For the reasons detailed above, and in the accompanying Persily Affidavit, it is the recommendation of this Court that the Three-Judge Panel adopt the Recommended Plan as the congressional redistricting plan for the State of New York. Pursuant to the Three-Judge Panels 2/28/12 Order of Referral, any and all objections

-40-

to this Report and Recommendation must be filed electronically no later than noon on March 14, 2012, and hard copies must be forwarded forthwith to the chambers of each of the three judges. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter this Report and Recommendation and the Persily Affidavit and accompanying Appendices into the ECF system. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York March 12, 2012

ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-41-

AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR NATHANIEL PERSILY, J.D., PH.D.

Nathaniel Persily, first being duly sworn, deposes and says the following: 1. I am a citizen and resident of the State of New York. I am currently the

Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Columbia Law School, where I teach courses on election law, voting rights, redistricting and constitutional law. I am an expert in election law generally, and reapportionment and districting matters in particular. I have served as a special master or court-appointed expert to assist in drafting redistricting plans for the states of Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, and New York. I obtained Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Political Science from Yale University (1992), a Masters (1994) and Ph.D. (2002) in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School (1998). I have written over twenty articles on redistricting and election law, several of which have been cited by state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. My curriculum vitae is attached at Appendix K. BACKGROUND 2. On February 28, 2012, the Three-Judge Panel (the Court) composed of:

the Honorable Reena Raggi and the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, United States Circuit Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Honorable Dora I. Irizarry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, entered an Order referring the task of creating a new congressional redistricting plan for the State of New York to the Honorable Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York (the Magistrate Judge). See Order of Referral (Feb. 28, 2012) (2/28/12 Order or Order), Electronic Case Filing Document Entry (DE) #133. 1

3.

The 2/28/12 Order provided that the Magistrate Judge shall submit her

Report and Recommendation, along with her Recommended Plan (Recommended Plan), to the Court by March 12, 2012. 4. The 2/28/12 Order empowered the Magistrate Judge to retain appropriate

experts as reasonably may be necessary to accomplish her task within the time constraints imposed by the Order. To that end, the Order appointed me as an expert to assist the Magistrate Judge in formulating a redistricting plan. 5. I have reviewed the 2/28/12 Order appointing me and have prepared this

affidavit in accordance with the Orders instructions and the instructions I received from the Magistrate Judge. 6. The purposes of this affidavit are to inform the Court of the principles

used in the preparation of the Recommended Plan, and to present a description and analysis of the Recommended Plan that may aid the Court in evaluating it. 7. The data relied upon and analyzed here are of the kind usually relied upon

by experts in this field to render opinions on the nature of redistricting of congressional districts. 8. In fashioning the Recommended Plan, the Magistrate Judge and I drew

upon my background and experience, as well as a review of various materials relating to the demography and geography of New York. 9. We relied upon the data and materials collected and made available by the

New York Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), located at 250 Broadway, New York, New York.

10.

The Recommended Plan was developed using my personal computers.

The Recommended Plan was designed using Caliper Corporations Maptitude for Redistricting, with use of the Census Bureaus P.L. 94-171 data file as formatted by Caliper. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE RECOMMENDED PLAN 11. The Recommended Plan was prepared in adherence to applicable

constitutional requirements and Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 12. The Recommended Plan was prepared in accordance with the 2/28/12

Orders direction that the Magistrate Judge must adhere to, and, where possible, reconcile the following guidelines: a. The plan will divide the state into 27 congressional districts in accordance with the 2010 federal Census and applicable law. b. Districts shall be substantially equal in population.

c. Districts shall be compact, contiguous, respect political subdivisions, and preserve communities of interest. d. The plan shall comply with 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) and with all other applicable provisions of the Voting Rights Act. 2/28/12 Order at 3. 13. In addition to the guidelines identified in the above paragraph, the 2/28/12

Order stated that the Magistrate Judge may consider other factors and proposals submitted by the parties, which, in the magistrate judges view, are reasonable and comport with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. 2/18/12 Order at 3.

ELABORATION OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE RECOMMENDED PLAN Legal Requirements The Constitutional Requirement of One Person, One Vote 14. The Supreme Court has construed Article I, 2 of the Constitution to

require a strict rule of population equality. Under this requirement, colloquially referred to as one person, one vote, congressional districts must be equal as nearly as is practicable, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964), which means that the State [must] make a goodfaith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530-31 (1969). 15. For congressional plans, the Supreme Court has rejected population

deviations even well under one percent as violative of the one person, one vote rule. See, e.g., Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 730-31 (1983). Moreover, to the extent courts might permit some deviations from strict population equality in legislatively drawn plans based on a consistently applied state policy, see id. at 741 n.11, the Supreme Court has warned that courtdrawn plans must be held to an even stricter standard of equality. See Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 26 (1975) (A court-ordered plan, however, must be held to higher standards than a States own plan.). The Constitutional Prohibition on Racial Gerrymandering 16. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution (and, as applied to the federal government, the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment) prohibits both intentional race-based vote dilution and excessive use of race in the construction of districts. As with all forms of state action, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of the redistricting process purposefully to discriminate 4

against a racial group by diluting its vote. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Beyond that, the Supreme Court has read into the Equal Protection Clause an analytically distinct claim with respect to redistricting. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 652 (1993). Specifically, any district for which racial considerations serve as the predominant factor in its construction is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 17. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (2006) (the VRA),

protects against even unintentional race-based vote dilution, including in the redistricting process. Such dilution can occur either through overconcentration (packing) or excessive dispersion (cracking) of racial or language minority groups within or across voting districts. 18. Section 2 of the VRA provides:

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C. 1973. 5

19.

The Supreme Court has clarified the criteria for proving illegal vote

dilution under Section 2. In particular, it has required, as a threshold matter, that plaintiffs demonstrate the so-called Gingles prongs. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Gingles and its progeny limit Section 2 lawsuits to situations in which (1) the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) the minority group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable itin the absence of special circumstances . . . usually to defeat the minoritys preferred candidate. Id. at 50-51; see Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 20 (2009) (confirming that only communities that can form over 50% of a districts relevant population have viable Section 2 claims). 20. If the three Gingles factors are satisfied, the court must then determine

whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the racial minority has less opportunity . . . to elect representatives of their choice. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36 (quoting 42 U.S.C. 1973(b)). 1

Such an analysis can consider:

the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, antisingle shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process; the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals; the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs evidence to establish a violation are: whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members 6

21.

One factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis that undercuts a

finding of vote dilution is proportionality. The Supreme Court has defined proportionality as a situation in which minority groups constitute effective voting majorities in a number of . . . districts substantially proportional to their share in the population. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1024 (1994). Such proportionality is neither a requirement nor a safe harbor, however. A jurisdiction is not required to draw a proportional number of such districts nor is it immune from Section 2 liability simply by doing so. In particular, Section 2 may still be violated if, in ostensible pursuit of proportionality, a plan creates a district or districts with effective voting majorities of a particular minority group in a way that causes another minority group to lose its own effective voting majorities. 22. Section 2 does not require creating the maximum possible number of

majority-minority districts. See De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1017 (stating that [f]ailure to maximize majority-minority districts cannot be the measure of 2). Moreover, the Supreme Court has recently interpreted the compactness requirement of the first Gingles prong to be limited to situations in which the minority community is not only geographically compact, but also culturally similar. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 435 (2006) (LULAC), the Court found that the disparate needs and interests of [two distinct Texas Hispanic] populations, in addition to the enormous geographical distance separating them, meant that Section 2 did not require them to be grouped together in a single district. Thus, just as proportionality is not a fixed requirement, the construction of districts between geographically of the minority group; whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-38 (citing S. Rep. No. 97-417 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 206-07) (internal quotation marks and numbering omitted). 7

distant and culturally distinct minorities is also not mandatory. Moreover, creating such districts cannot be used to compensate for the failure to draw districts for communities with viable Section 2 claims. 23. The concept of cultural compactness overlaps somewhat with the

requirement of minority political cohesion. It, too, turns on whether the minority group generally supports the same candidates at the polls. If minority voters do not tend to vote for the same candidates, then no candidate of choice exists for the minority community, and therefore a new redistricting plan cannot be deemed to dilute their vote. 24. Because only communities that could comprise a majority of a potential

district have viable Section 2 claims, how one measures the size of a racial group can affect which communities may raise successful claims of vote dilution. 25. The 2010 Census, like its predecessors, allowed respondents to check off

more than one race on the census form. As a result, the Census has released redistricting data according to 63 different racial combinations for every level of geography. 26. For any given racial group, the estimates of its size will vary from a

minimum of only those respondents choosing the single race category and nothing else, to a maximum of all respondents choosing that race category and one or more other race categories. 27. The Census does not consider Hispanic to be a racial group, but it does

permit respondents to identify as Hispanic in addition to race. As a result, every racial group combination has two variationsHispanic and non-Hispanic. Thus, the total number of racial and ethnic combinations recognized by the Census is 126. 28. The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance on how to

reaggregate the Censuss racial combinations into a workable format for civil rights enforcement: 8

Federal agencies will use the following rules to allocate multiple race responses for use in civil rights monitoring and enforcement: Responses in the five single race categories are not allocated. Responses that combine one minority race and white are allocated to the minority race. Responses that include two or more minority races are allocated as follows: If the enforcement action is in response to a complaint, allocate to the race that the complainant alleges the discrimination was based on. If the enforcement action requires assessing disparate impact or discriminatory patterns, analyze the patterns based on alternative allocations to each of the minority groups.

Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Bull. No. 00-02, Guidance on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement (Mar. 9, 2000), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins_b00-02. 29. In its one consideration of this issue, the Supreme Court expressed

apparent agreement with this approach, saying that in a case [that] involves an examination of only one minority groups effective exercise of the electoral franchise . . . it is proper to look at all individuals who identify themselves as black. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 473 n.1 (2003) (emphasis in original). 30. The Department of Justice has followed the OMB guidance in its

enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. See Department of Justice, Guidance Concerning Redistricting and Retrogression Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, 66 Fed. Reg. 5412-5414 (Jan. 18, 2001). It has also clarified that [i]f there are significant numbers of responses which report Hispanics and one or more minority races (for example, Hispanics who list their race as Black/African-American), those responses will be

allocated alternatively to the Hispanic category and the minority race category. Id. at 5412-01. Thus, for Voting Rights Act purposes, all racial data must be considered, but the relevant categorization of individual responses may depend on the particular nature of a potential claim to be raised against a plan. 31. For purposes of the discussion, tables, and appendices that follow, racial

categories are designated with the following labels. NH White refers to Non-Hispanics who check off White but no other race on the census form. NH DOJ Black refers to Non-Hispanic Blacks who check off Black alone or Black in combination with White. NH DOJ Asian refers to Non-Hispanic Asians who check off Asian alone or Asian in combination with White. Black refers to any respondent who checks off Black, alone or in combination with another race. Asian refers to any respondent who checks off Asian, alone or in combination with another race. 32. These categorizations are used so as to maintain consistency between this

affidavit and the submissions of the parties. The inclusion of DOJ in the label tracks the categorization scheme used by the redistricting data providers to indicate data expressed according to Department of Justice guidelines. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 33. Section 5 of the VRA provides that certain jurisdictions (including three

counties in New Yorkthe Bronx, New York County, and Kings County) must preclear their redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Court-drawn redistricting plans are not subject to the Section 5 preclearance requirement. See Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 691 (1971) (A decree of the United States District Court is not within the reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.). The Supreme Court has instructed, however, that when drawing new congressional plans, district 10

courts should follow the appropriate Section 5 standards, including the body of administrative and judicial precedents developed in Section 5 cases. Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 96 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 34. Section 5 requires that redistricting plans neither have the purpose nor

will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [membership in a linguistic minority]. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a). The purpose standard targets voting changes motivated by any discriminatory purpose. Id. 1973c(c). The effect standard covers changes that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). 35. When Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the VRA in 2006, it added a

new subsection clarifying Section 5s substantive standard to include: Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(b) (2007) (emphasis added). Retrogression under Section 5 is established by comparing a proposed plan with the existing, or benchmark, plan. See Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 478 (1997). Whether a plan is retrogressive depends on an examination of all the relevant circumstances, and [n]o single statistic provides courts with a shortcut to determine whether a voting change retrogresses from the benchmark. Georgia, 539 U.S. at 479-80 (quoting De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1020-21). See also Department of Justice, Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470,

11

7471 (Feb. 9, 2011) (Although comparison of the census population of districts in the benchmark and proposed plans is the important starting point of any Section 5 analysis, additional demographic and election data in the submission is often helpful in making the requisite Section 5 determination.). However, substantial drops in a racial groups share of the voting age population in a district, if avoidable, can often signal likely retrogression. Districting Principles Mandated by the Courts Order Compactness 36. The 2/28/12 Order directed that the districts drawn by the Recommended

Plan shall be compact. 2/28/12 Order at 3. 37. Compactness is an important and commonly employed redistricting

principle. It is not, however, an independent requirement of federal law. Rather, the Supreme Court has referenced compactness in two contexts. The first concerns the smoking out of impermissible motive in a racial gerrymandering case. Non-compact districts with shapes unexplainable on grounds other than race may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 958-65 (1996); Miller, 515 U.S. at 917; Shaw, 509 U.S. at 642. Second, as discussed above, compactness of a minority community is a prerequisite for a Section 2 VRA claim. Only compact minority communities that could constitute a majority in a single member district have a potential entitlement to a district under Section 2. See LULAC, 548 U.S. at 443-44; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. Other than those two contexts, compactness is primarily relevant only in those states that have explicit compactness requirements in state law. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Law 2010, at 106-12 (2009) (identifying states with legal requirements of compactness, including New York for state legislative districts). 12

38.

Neither the courts nor political scientists have accepted any single measure

of compactness. Rather, compactness is an aesthetic as well as a geometric quality of districts. Thus, although there are objective measures of compactness, it is also the case that compactness, like beauty, can lie in the eye of the beholder. See Kurtis A. Kemper, Application of Constitutional Compactness Requirement to Redistricting, 114 ALR 5th 311 (2003) (comparing different courts treatment of state law compactness requirements). 39. Maptitude for Redistricting, the redistricting software used to formulate

the Recommended Plan, provides reports for eight different measures of compactness: the Reock, Schwartzberg, Perimeter, Polsby-Popper, Length-Width, Population Polygon, Population Circle, and Ehrenburg tests. See Caliper Corporation, Maptitude for Redistricting: Supplemental Users Guide, 117-19 (2010). The software users guide describes these tests as follows: Reock Test: The Reock test is an area-based measure that compares each district to a circle, which is considered to be the most compact shape possible. For each district, the Reock test computes the ratio of the area of the district to the area of the minimum enclosing circle for the district. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The Reock test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 2 Schwartzberg Test: The Schwartzberg test is a perimeter-based measure that compares a simplified version of each district to a circle, which is considered to be the most compact shape possible. This test requires the base layer that was used to create the districts. The base layer is used to simplify the district to exclude complicated coastlines. For each district, the Schwartzberg test computes the ratio of the perimeter of the simplified version of the district to the perimeter of a circle with the same area as the original district. The district is simplified by only keeping those shape points where three or more areas in the base layer come together. Water features and a E.C. Reock, Jr., Measuring Compactness as a Requirement of Legislative Apportionment, 5 Midwest J. of Pol. Sci. 70 (1961). 13
2

neighboring state also count as base layer areas. This measure is usually greater than or equal to 1, with 1 being the most compact. Unfortunately, the simplification procedure can result in a polygon that is substantially smaller than the original district, which can yield a ratio less than 1 (e.g., an island has a 0 ratio). The Schwartzberg test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 3 Perimeter Test: The perimeter test computes the sum of the perimeters of all the districts. The perimeter test computes one number for the whole plan. If you are comparing several plans, the plan with the smallest total perimeter is the most compact. 4 Polsby-Popper Test: The Polsby-Popper test computes the ratio of the district area to the area of a circle with the same perimeter: 4(pi)Area/(Perimeter squared). The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The Polsby-Popper test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 5 Length-Width Test: The length-width test computes the absolute difference between the width (east-west) and the height (north-south) of each district. The bounding box of a district is computed in longitude-latitude space, and the height and width of the box through the center point are compared. The total is divided by the number of districts to create the average length-width compactness. A lower number indicates better length-width compactness. This measure of compactness is designed for contiguous districts, since the bounding box encloses the entire district. 6 Population Polygon Test: The population polygon test computes the ratio of the district population to the approximate population of the convex hull of the district (minimum convex polygon which completely contains the district). The population of the convex hull is approximated by overlaying it with a base layer, such as Census Blocks. [Census Blocks are the smallest geographic units for which the Census distributes population data.] The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The population polygon test computes one

J.E. Schwartzberg, Reapportionment, Gerrymanders, and the Notion of Compactness, 50 Minn. L. Rev. 443 (1966).
4

H.P. Young, Measuring the Compactness of Legislative Districts, 13 Leg. Stud. Q. 105

(1988). Daniel D. Polsby & R.D. Popper, The Third Criterion: Compactness as a Procedural Safeguard Against Partisan Gerrymandering, 9 Yale L. & Poly Rev. 301 (1991).
6 5

See Iowa State Leg. Website, http://www.legis.state.ia.us/redist/june2001report.htm. 14

number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 7 Population Circle Test: The population circle test computes the ratio of the district population to the approximate population of the minimum enclosing circle of the district. The population of the circle is approximated by overlaying it with a base layer, such as Census Blocks. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The Population Circle test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 8 Ehrenburg Test: The Ehrenburg test computes the ratio of the largest inscribed circle divided by the area of the district. The measure is always between 0 and 1, with 1 being the most compact. The Ehrenburg test computes one number for each district and the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for the plan. 9 40. The compactness criterion is often in tension with the requirements of

federal law, such as the VRA, or the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. 41. Given the strange shape of some of New Yorks municipalities and

counties, as well as the presence of natural boundaries like coastline, districts that respect such boundaries will be somewhat noncompact both in appearance and by traditional measures. Contiguity 42. The 2/28/12 Order directed that the districts drawn by the Recommended

Plan shall be . . . contiguous. 2/28/12 Order at 3. 43. In general, a contiguous district may be defined as one in which it is

possible to travel from any one part of the district to any other part of the district without leaving

Thomas Hofeller & Bernard Grofman, Comparing the Compactness of California Congressional Districts Under Three Different Plans: 1980, 1982, and 1984, in Toward Fair and Effective Representation 281 (Bernard Grofman ed., 1990).
8 9

Id.

Y.S. Frolov, Measuring the Shape of Geographic Phenomena: A History of the Issue, 16 Soviet Geography 676 (1995). 15

the district. Contiguity is an important and commonly employed criterion in redistricting. See, e.g., Shaw, 509 U.S. at 647. 44. Some of New Yorks districts include islands or bodies of water that

prevent all parts of the district from being connected by land. The Supreme Court and the New York courts have held that districts that are contiguous only by water can satisfy the contiguity criterion. See, e.g., Lawyer v. Department of Justice, 521 U.S. 567, 581 n.9 (1997) (The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the presence in a district of a body of water, even without a connecting bridge and even if such districting necessitates land travel outside the district to reach other parts of the district, does not violate this Courts standard for determining contiguity under the Florida Constitution. (quoting In re Constitutionality of Senate Joint Resolution 2G, 597 So.2d 276, 280 (Fla. 1992)); Matter of Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 N.Y.2d 420, 430 (1972) ([T]he requirement of contiguity is not necessarily violated because a part of a district is divided by water.). Respect for Political Subdivisions 45. The 2/28/12 Order directed that the districts drawn by the Recommended

Plan shall . . . respect political subdivisions. 2/28/12 Order at 3. 46. Political subdivision boundaries include those of counties, cities, towns,

and villages. The Supreme Court and this Court have treated respect for such subdivision boundaries as a traditional principle of districting. See, e.g., Miller, 515 U.S. at 908; Puerto Rican Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Gantt, 796 F. Supp. 681, 687 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (PRLDEF). 47. The Census designates and provides data broken down according to the

boundaries of certain political subdivisions, including counties, Minor Civil Divisions, and 16

Census Designated Places (which may or may not coincide with a political subdivision boundary). 48. The Census defines Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs) as the primary

governmental or administrative divisions of a county in many states . . . . MCDs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas represent many different kinds of legal entities with a wide variety of governmental and/or administrative functions. MCDs include areas variously designated as barrios, barrios-pueblo, boroughs, charter townships, commissioner districts, election districts, election precincts, gores, grants, locations, magisterial districts, parish governing authority districts, plantations, purchases, reservations, supervisors districts, towns, and townships. . . . The MCDs in 12 states [including New York] also serve as general-purpose local governments that can perform the same governmental functions as incorporated places. See Census Geographic Terms and Concepts (Census Terms), available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/2010census/GTC_10.pdf. 49. The boroughs of New York City have an unusual status and

interrelationship that require them to be treated somewhat distinctively from counties elsewhere in the state when it comes to redistricting. First, New York City boroughs are counties contained within a city, rather than cities contained within one or more counties. Second, the boroughs are political entities each with its own government, while still being part of a larger political entity (i.e., New York City) that is not the state as a whole. Third, the boroughs share many historical links with one another. Fourth, subway lines tightly link the boroughs, serving as arteries of movement that have shaped the patterns of population settlement that help define New York Citys communities and that often cut across borough lines.

17

Preservation of Communities of Interest 50. The 2/28/12 Order directed that the districts drawn by the Recommended

Plan shall . . . preserve communities of interest. 2/28/11 Order at 3. 51. The Supreme Court and this Court have treated the preservation of

communities of interest as a traditional principle of districting. See, e.g., Miller, 515 U.S. at 916; PRLDEF, 796 F. Supp. at 687. 52. Respecting communities of interest is both an essential and slippery

consideration in redistricting processes. In one respect, redistricting is about representation of communities. Communities that are split between districts often view their voice as diminished. 53. In another respect, arguments based on asserted communities of interest

can often be pretexts for incumbency or partisan-related considerations. Moreover, community boundaries are inherently amorphous, contested, shifting and conflicting. By respecting one communitys boundaries or some advocates conception of their community, a redistricting plan might conflict with other advocates conception of their community or with another communitys boundaries. 54. In addition to testimony presented in redistricting-related hearings,

including through submissions by parties and the public to the court, information regarding communities of interest can be garnered through certain governmental and non-governmental sources. 55. For example, the Census provides data for Census Designated Places.

Census Designated Places (CDPs) . . . are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries usually are defined in cooperation with local or 18

tribal officials and generally updated prior to each decennial census. These boundaries, which usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity boundary, have no legal status, nor do these places have officials elected to serve traditional municipal functions. CDP boundaries may change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. See Census Terms. 56. In addition, New York City is divided into 59 community districts. As

the New York City Department of City Planning website explains: New York City's 59 community districts, established by local law in 1975, illustrate the remarkable diversity of the city's land uses and population. They range in size from less than 900 acres to almost 15,000 acres, and in population from fewer than 35,000 residents to more than 200,000. See Community District Profiles, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/lucds/cdstart.shtml. Given that community districts have their own boards and some political power, they could also be considered as political subdivisions. Those community districts are further divided into projection areas, which are very rough estimates of neighborhoods with a minimum population of 15,000 people. However, these projection areas are used principally for purposes of projecting population change, by neighborhood, over the next twenty years. See New York City Projection Areas, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/meta_pa.shtml. Presented in Appendix F are maps of the New York City community districts and projection areas.

19

Additional Considerations Not Mandated by the Courts Order 57. The 2/28/12 Order also provided that the Magistrate Judge may consider

other factors and proposals submitted by the parties, which, in the magistrate judges view, are reasonable and comport with the Constitution and applicable federal and state law. 2/28/12 Order at 2. 58. An additional principle that guides the Recommended Plan is a desire that

the process and decision-making be nonpartisan, even if the effect of a new redistricting plan will have inevitable and substantial effects for political parties and incumbents. Toward that end, at the Magistrate Judges direction, the Recommended Plan deliberately ignores political data, such as voter registration or election return data, as well as incumbent residence. Although avoiding incumbent pairings may be a redistricting principle traditionally followed by the Legislature when it draws lines, the Recommended Plan seeks to avoid picking favorites in its construction of districts. Therefore, the location of incumbent residences was not even added to the redistricting data considered in the construction of either the Recommended Plan or its predecessor, the Proposed Plan circulated by the Magistrate Judge on March 5. Moreover, congressional candidates, unlike candidates for the state legislature, are not legally required to live in a district in order to run from it. Thus, drawing districts around incumbent residences is less important in the congressional context than in other redistricting contexts. 59. To the extent doing so does not conflict with the other criteria identified in

the 2/28/12 Order, the Recommended Plan respects the population cores of prior districts. Following this criterion can be quite challenging for many of the bizarrely shaped districts in the state. A gallery of the most bizarrely shaped districts in the existing plan (Existing Plan) is provided in Appendix G. Moreover, given that the state is losing two districts and that every 20

district is currently underpopulated, significant shifts among districts are inevitable in order to comply with the requirement of one person, one vote. CONSIDERATION OF REDISTRICTING MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 60. The Magistrate Judge directed parties to submit any proposals, plans, and

comments by February 29, 2012; responses thereto, and submissions by non-parties, were due by March 2, 2012. A public hearing was held on March 5, 2012, at the United States Courthouse at 225 Cadman Plaza, Brooklyn, New York. The redistricting materials and testimony presented by interested parties in advance of, at, and after the hearing were reviewed and evaluated by me and by the Magistrate Judge. 61. The parties submitted to the Magistrate Judge a total of four statewide

redistricting plans and three partial plans. The Magistrate Judge and I considered those plans and other submissions made to the Magistrate Judge by non-parties, as well as testimony presented at the hearing. For the reasons set out below, the Recommended Plan does not adopt any of the submitted plans in their entirety. 62. The four statewide plans submitted by parties are the plans of (1)

Defendants Dean G. Skelos (as Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore of the Senate of the State of New York), Michael F. Nozzolio (as member of LATFOR), and Welquis R. Lopez (as member of LATFOR) (hereinafter the Senate Majority Plan); (2) Defendants Sheldon Silver (as Speaker of the Assembly of the State of New York), John McEneny (as member of LATFOR), Roman Hedges (as member of LATFOR) (hereinafter the Assembly Majority Plan); (3) Defendant Brian M. Kolb (as Minority Leader of the Assembly of the State of New York)

21

(hereinafter the Assembly Minority Plan); and (4) Plaintiff-Intervenors Linda Rose, et al. (hereinafter the Rose Plan). 63. After carefully reviewing the Senate Majority, Assembly Majority,

Assembly Minority, and Rose Plans, as well as the parties and others responses to those plans, the Magistrate Judge and I decided to reject those plans and draft our own. Each of those plans could fairly be characterized (and was characterized by the other parties) as attempting to gain partisan advantage through the redistricting process. Adopting any such plan would violate the principle of nonpartisanship that undergirds the Recommended Plan. 64. The three partial plans submitted by parties are the plans of (1) Plaintiff-

Intervenors Linda Lee, et al. (hereinafter the Lee-AALDEF Plan); (2) Plaintiff-Intervenors Juan Ramos, et al. (hereinafter the Ramos Plan); (3) Plaintiff-Intervenors Donna Kaye Drayton, et al. (hereinafter the Drayton-Unity plan). 65. Partial and individual district plans cannot be adopted wholesale while

fulfilling the requirement that we create a plan of 27 districts. Furthermore, especially with respect to proposed individual districts, a proposal cannot be inserted into a plan while ignoring the population needs of surrounding districts. Moreover, adopting an individual district proposal risks ignoring the necessary tradeoffs between districts, and can raise VRA problems if one districts configuration leads to race-based dilution or retrogression in another district. Nevertheless, careful consideration was given to each proposal submitted by the parties. 66. Non-party members of the public submitted a total of thirteen statewide

redistricting plans: the Common Cause, Connor Allen, David Harrison, Michael Danish, Andrew C. White, Vincent Flynn, Elijah Reichlin-Melnick, Robert Silverstein, Philip Smith, David Gaskell, Jesse Laymon, Michael Fortner and Adama D. Brown plans. After careful 22

review of those plans, it was determined that they all violated the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote, and that many risked violating the VRA. 67. Non-party members of the public submitted a total of six partial plans.

They are from the Citizens Alliance for Progress, Concerned Citizens of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill, Keith L.T. Wright, Yvette D. Clarke, the Orthodox Alliance for Liberty, and Ruben Diaz. For the same reasons the partial plans of the parties were rejected but given consideration, these plans were accorded the same treatment. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICTS IN THE RECOMMENDED PLAN 68. Districts in the Recommended Plan, and any plan for New York State, can

be divided into three regions: Long Island, New York City, and Upstate. See Appendix A (Maps of Regions and Individual Districts in Recommended Plan); Appendix B (Existing Congressional Districts). Long Island 69. Under the Existing Plan, Long Island has approximately 4.2 districts. To

adjust for the loss of two districts and population shifts, it can only sustain 3.95 districts. 70. District 1, as it exists in a corner, is one of the least changed districts in the

Recommended Plan. Its northwestern border is adjusted to achieve population equality. 71. Existing Districts 2, 3, and 5, however, are consolidated (mostly into the

Recommended Plans Proposed Districts 2 and 3) to address the population shortfall on Long Island. They are consolidated in an east-west direction, such that Proposed District 2 extends along Southern Long Island and Proposed District 3 extends along Northern Long Island.

23

72.

Existing District 4 is kept largely intact in Proposed District 4, but extends

southeast so as to compensate for the loss of population on its western boundary to Proposed District 5. New York City 73. New York City currently has approximately 12.2 districts (eleven full

districts and parts of two others). Due to population shortfalls, it should have 11.66 districts. 74. Almost all of the Proposed Districts for New York City retain a majority

of the population of a prior district. See Appendix E (Core Constituency Report). The exceptions are Proposed District 6 and Proposed District 16. Staten Island 75. Beginning in another corner, Staten Island, Proposed District 11 largely

mirrors Existing District 13, but its Brooklyn component is adjusted in order to achieve population equality (both for Proposed District 11 and the adjacent districts). Brooklyn 76. The Proposed Brooklyn Districts (7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) are largely based on

their current configurations (but with new numbers), with a few notable exceptions. 77. Existing District 9 is taken out of Brooklyn and becomes a Queens-based

district (Proposed District 6). Its Brooklyn areas (as well as the Queens neighborhoods of Ozone Park and Howard Beach) are largely transferred to Existing District 10 to form Proposed District 8 (which also picks up the Coney Island area from Existing District 8). 78. The borders of Existing Districts 10, 11, and 12 are rearranged in order to

achieve population equality for Proposed Districts 7, 8, and 9.

24

79.

Existing District 14 (Proposed District 12) now includes a portion of

Brooklyn (namely Greenpoint and East Williamsburg, currently in Existing District 12) in order to bring that district up to population equality and to maintain compactness. Queens 80. In Queens, Proposed District 5 largely retains the borders of Existing

District 6, but it extends both southwest through the Rockaways (into Existing District 9) and east into the Long Island-based Existing District 4. 81. Above Proposed District 5 is Proposed District 6, which contains much of

the Central Queens portion of Existing District 9, but extends north and east to pick up neighborhoods in Existing Districts 5 and 7. 82. The remaining area between Proposed District 6 and the Queens-Nassau

County border is in Proposed District 3, most of which territory was in the Nassau-Queens districtExisting District 5in the Existing Plan. 83. Proposed District 14 is modeled on Existing District 7. The Bronx-based

territory and population it cedes to Proposed District 15 are made up by extending Proposed District 14 somewhat farther south into Queens. 84. Proposed District 12, as previously noted, is a Manhattan, Queens, and

now Brooklyn district (with 77% of its population coming from Existing District 14). To compensate for the Queens-based population it loses to Proposed District 14, it extends south into Brooklyn (as previously described) to pick up Greenpoint and East Williamsburg. Manhattan 85. Like their counterparts in the Existing Plan (i.e., Existing Districts 8, 12,

14 and 15), Proposed Districts 7, 10, 12, and 13 straddle Manhattan and other boroughs. 25

86.

Proposed District 12 (Existing District 14) extends both south and west

into territory held by Existing Districts 8 and 12 (although the hook at the bottom of Existing District 14 in Manhattan is largely eliminated in population trades between Proposed District 12 and Proposed District 7). 87. Proposed District 10, which contains a substantial Brooklyn section, as

described above, moves north into Morningside Heights to pick up the requisite population from Existing District 15. The east and west sides of Manhattan remain (for the most part) in different districts, as under the Existing Plan. 88. Proposed District 13 (largely based on the Harlem-based Existing District

15) loses its small Queens-based section (which included Rikers Island) and moves into the North Bronx section connected to the Marble Hill-Inwood neighborhood, which is part of New York County but is adjoined to the Bronx. That area of the Bronx is currently shared between Existing Districts 16 and 17. Bronx 89. Proposed District 13s incursion into the Bronx pushes Existing District 16

farther southeast, into Existing District 7, which is why Proposed District 14 must extend farther into Queens than Existing District 7. 90. With the exception of the territory now taken from it by Proposed District

13, Existing District 17s Bronx portion remains largely intact. Upstate 91. The area of Upstate New York (loosely defined to include every county

north of the Bronx) currently contains approximately 12.5 districts. Because of population shortfalls, it deserves 11.66 districts, according to the 2010 Census. Moreover, due to the 26

bizarre shape and location of many of the districts in Upstate New York, many of which do not have population cores (or have multiple cores), the Recommended Plan faced a challenge in reconciling the Existing Districts with the Courts order that districts shall be compact, contiguous, respect political subdivisions, and preserve communities of interest. 2/28/12 Order at 3. 92. Such is the case with Existing District 17, which connects the

northwestern Bronx and southeastern Westchester to a substantial share of Rockland County through a narrow corridor in western Westchester. That District is reconfigured into Proposed District 16, which includes the Bronx section of the Existing District and the geographically proximate towns in Westchester. As a result, Existing District 18 is reconfigured (as Proposed District 17) to include all of Rockland County and additional towns in northern Westchester. 93. Existing District 19 remains largely intact in Proposed District 18. It

unifies Orange County by extending northwest, and captures almost all of Poughkeepsie in Dutchess County. 94. Proposed District 19 represents a combination of the cores of Existing

Districts 20 and 22 in the Hudson Valley. Existing District 22 extended from Northern Orange County west through portions of Delaware, Broome, and Tioga Counties, with a finger capturing Ithaca in Tompkins County. Existing District 20 ran up the Hudson River into the North Country, but also west into Greene, Delaware and Otsego Counties. Proposed District 19 is a compact district that extends from the southern portion of Dutchess County not contained in Proposed District 18, north to Rensselaer and northwest to Schoharie, Otsego and Delaware Counties (with a small intrusion into Broome County in order to bring it to population equality).

27

95.

With the exception of Schoharie County, which it loses to Proposed

District 19, Proposed District 20 remains largely the same as Existing District 21. To compensate for the loss of Schoharie County, Proposed District 20 goes into Saratoga County to pick up Saratoga Springs. (It also loses about half of Montgomery County.) It remains, however, a Capitol Cities District, centered around Albany, Schenectady, Troy and Rensselaer. 96. Proposed District 21 retains the North Country core of Existing District 23.

However, it gains the portions of Existing Districts 20 and 24 that intruded into the North Country and loses the portions of Madison, Oneida and Oswego Counties that it previously held, which are transferred to Proposed District 22. 97. Besides those additions, Proposed District 22 extends south to gain

Chenango and Cortland Counties, almost all of Broome County, and a small part of southern Tioga County. 98. Proposed District 23 is the Southern Tier District, mostly resembling

Existing District 29. But it is somewhat more southern-oriented than the Existing District, and it extends west to include Chautauqua and east to include Tompkins, Seneca and most of Tioga Counties. It also loses its northern extension into Monroe County. 99. Proposed District 24 is modeled on Existing District 25. It also extends

south to Cayuga County and north into part of Oswego County to acquire the necessary population. 100. The Western New York districts (Proposed Districts 25, 26 and 27)

presented a particular challenge in reconciling Existing District configurations with the Courts order concerning compactness and respect for political subdivision lines. Moreover, Existing District 28 is not only narrow and dual-cored (or perhaps coreless, stretching from portions 28

of Buffalo to portions of Rochester through a long and narrow land bridge across northwestern New York), but it also has the largest population shortfall (105,869) of any Existing District in the state. Furthermore, Existing District 27 is the second most underpopulated in the state, needing to pick up 88,436 people. 101. As is clear from the district configurations, Proposed Districts 25 and 26

are adopted from the plan submitted by Common Cause. Those configurations represent compact districts that encompass the Rochester metropolitan area (Proposed District 25) and the Buffalo/Niagara Falls area (Proposed District 26), respectively. 102. Proposed District 27, as a consequence, retains (but unifies) most of the

counties in Existing District 26, while going east to pick up about half of Ontario County.

LEGAL EVALUATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN Constitutional Requirements One Person, One Vote 103. The 2010 Census determined the population of New York to be

19,378,102. Following the 2010 Census, the number of congressional districts allotted to New York was reduced from 29 to 27. Therefore, the ideal population per congressional district is 717,707.48. A zero deviation congressional plan for New York would consist of 14 districts with a population of 717,707 and 13 districts with a population of 717,708. 104. The Magistrate Judge and I reviewed census data on the population

demography of New York for both 2000 and 2010, broken down into various units including counties and present congressional lines. This analysis demonstrated that relative to the ideal population for each of the 27 districts, each of the existing 29 congressional districts was 29

underpopulated. After the 2000 Census, one person, one vote required 654,360 people per congressional district. No district grew enough over the past ten years so as to reach the required 717,707 people that one person, one vote requires for redistricting after the 2010 Census. 105. The extent of the population deviations varied considerably between

districts, from a population shortfall of 105,869 in Existing District 28 to a shortfall of just 4,195 in Existing District 8. Table I presents the deviations for all Existing Districts. Table I. Population Deviations in Existing New York Congressional Districts District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Population 705559 679893 645508 663407 670130 651764 667632 713512 660306 677721 632408 672358 686525 652681 639873 693819 678558 674825 699959 683198 679193 679297 664245 657222 668869 674804 629271 611838 663727 Deviation -12148 -37814 -72199 -54300 -47577 -65943 -50075 -4195 -57401 -39986 -85299 -45349 -31182 -65026 -77834 -23888 -39149 -42882 -17748 -34509 -38514 -38410 -53462 -60485 -48838 -42903 -88436 -105869 -53980 30 % Deviation -1.69 -5.27 -10.06 -7.57 -6.63 -9.19 -6.98 -0.58 -8.00 -5.57 -11.88 -6.32 -4.34 -9.06 -10.84 -3.33 -5.45 -5.97 -2.47 -4.81 -5.37 -5.35 -7.45 -8.43 -6.80 -5.98 -12.32 -14.75 -7.52

106.

The Recommended Plan achieves zero deviation. Fourteen districts

have a population of 717,707 and 13 districts have a population of 717,708. See Appendix C (detailing the demographic composition of districts in the Recommended Plan). Racial Gerrymandering 107. The Recommended Plan does not intentionally dilute the vote of citizens

on account of race, nor is any district in the Recommended Plan drawn with race as its predominant factor. Voting Rights Act Requirements 108. The Recommended Plan was prepared with strict adherence to the

requirements of Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and neither retrogresses nor dilutes the votes of any citizens on account of race. Moreover, the Recommended Plan achieves compliance with the VRA without making race the predominant factor in the construction of any districts. 109. To ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the VRA, the

Magistrate Judge and I reviewed the racial and other characteristics of the 29 Existing Districts, based on data from the 2010 Census. I have also reviewed racial and other characteristics of the 27 districts contained in the Recommended Plan, and of the plans submitted by the parties and non-parties to the Magistrate Judge. Based on my experience as part of the team that drew the 2002 Special Masters Plan for New York, I was also intimately familiar with the racial demographics of earlier New York districting plans. 110. Although federal courts need not submit plans that they draw for

preclearance, the Recommended Plan aspires to comply and indeed, does comply with the 31

nonretrogression requirement of Section 5 of the VRA. Specifically, the Recommended Plan does not diminish the ability of citizens on account of race, color, or linguistic minority to elect candidates of their choice. 111. The Recommended Plan also complies with the requirement of Section 2

of the VRA that proscribes dilution of votes on account of race or language minority status. The Recommended Plan maintains the majority-minority districts in the Existing Plan, even where (as a result of relative population decline and the need to add adjacent residents to achieve population equality) some alteration in the demographic composition of the districts was unavoidable. Because of the loss of two districts, the need to reach population equality in every district, and the different rates of growth of different racial groups, some change in district demographic statistics was unavoidable. 112. Any district that touches one of the three covered New York counties

(Bronx, Manhattan, Kings) would be subject to a retrogression analysis under Section 5, were a plan submitted for preclearance. In the covered counties, the plan may not diminish the ability of citizens, on account of race, to elect their preferred candidates. 113. The racial and ethnic data for all districts in the Existing and

Recommended Plan are provided in Appendix C. 114. Of course, the ability and opportunity of groups to elect their preferred

candidates are affected by more than the simple racial breakdown of their existing and new districts. Still, racial data provide the starting point for any retrogression and dilution analysis. Significant decreases in a groups racial percentage in a district, for example, could raise concerns about retrogression.

32

115.

In districts touching the counties covered by Section 5, therefore, the

Recommended Plan keeps the demographic composition of the districts largely the same, to the extent possible given disparate rates of population growth. Of course, shifts among the protected districts, and between them and districts in uncovered counties, are inevitable given the need to comply with one person, one vote and to achieve compactness and contiguity. Bronx County 116. The racial and ethnic composition of the Existing and Proposed Districts

in Bronx County, according to both total population and voting age population, is presented in Table II below. For ease of explanation, the description of VRA compliance is focused on voting age population (VAP), but all population statistics were considered (as were the various ways one can categorize racial groups). 117. Under both the Existing Plan and the Recommended Plan, the Bronx

encompasses all or part of four districts. All four have substantial minority populations. 118. The only notable change from the Existing Plan concerns Harlem-based

Existing District 15 and its analog in the Recommended Plan, Proposed District 13. Both the Black and Hispanic shares of the population in that district increase as a result of moving part of that Harlem-based district into the northern Bronx. The Hispanic VAP share increases from 43.8% to 52.7%, and the Black VAP share increases from 34.1% to 35.7%. (The NH DOJ Black VAP share increases from 26.9% to 27.4%.) The Recommended Plan therefore adds one more majority-Hispanic VAP congressional district in the state. Otherwise, the Recommended Plans Proposed Districts in the Bronx remain roughly the same in terms of their demographic composition as the Existing Districts in that borough.

33

Table II. Demographic Breakdown of Existing and Proposed Districts for the Bronx
A. Population
District % NH White 07 15 16 17 20.7% 20.9% 2.4% 37.2% % Black 21.5% 34.6% 39.0% 34.6%

Existing Plan
% NH DOJ Black 16.6% 26.9% 28.1% 30.4% % Asian 17.4% 5.3% 2.3% 5.6% % NH DOJ Asian 16.5% 4.6% 1.6% 5.0% % Hispanic Origin 44.4% 46.1% 66.5% 25.6% % Minority Population 79.3% 79.1% 97.6% 62.8%

Recommended Plan
District % NH White 13 14 15 16 12.2% 24.9% 2.3% 39.3% % Black 35.9% 13.0% 40.0% 34.5% % NH DOJ Black 27.0% 9.6% 29.2% 30.8% % Asian 4.9% 17.1% 2.5% 5.5% % NH DOJ Asian 4.2% 16.2% 1.8% 4.9% % Hispanic Origin 55.1% 47.5% 65.3% 23.3% % Minority Population 87.8% 75.1% 97.7% 60.7%

B. Voting Age Population

Existing Plan
District 07 15 16 17 % NH White VAP 22.9% 23.0% 2.8% 38.0% % Black VAP 21.0% 34.1% 38.8% 34.5% % NH DOJ Black VAP 16.6% 26.9% 28.5% 30.7% % Asian VAP 17.5% 5.6% 2.5% 5.8% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 16.7% 5.0% 1.8% 5.2% % Hispanic Origin VAP 42.1% 43.8% 65.5% 24.2% % Minority VAP 77.1% 77.0% 97.2% 62.0%

Recommended Plan
District 13 14 15 16 % NH White VAP 14.1% 27.4% 2.7% 41.6% % Black VAP 35.7% 12.9% 39.8% 33.8% % NH DOJ Black VAP 27.4% 9.9% 29.6% 30.6% % Asian VAP 5.1% 17.0% 2.6% 5.3% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 4.4% 16.1% 1.9% 4.8% % Hispanic Origin VAP 52.7% 45.0% 64.3% 21.4% % Minority VAP 85.9% 72.6% 97.3% 58.4%

New York County 119. As shown in Table III below, New York County currently includes two

districts with substantial minority populations: Existing Districts 12 and 15. Their analogs in the Recommended Plan are Proposed Districts 7 and 13.

34

120.

The nonretrogression (and lack of dilution) in Harlem-based Proposed

District 13 is discussed above, as this district crosses from New York County into the Bronx. 121. Proposed District 7, like Existing District 12, extends from Manhattan

through Brooklyn and Queens. It is a plurality Hispanic district with a substantial Asian population as well. It increases from 70.2% minority to 71.6% minority VAP. Its Hispanic, Asian and Black VAP shares stay almost exactly the same (41.5%, 20.6% and 12.3%, respectively). Table III. Demographic Breakdown of Existing and Proposed Districts for New York County
A. Population
District % NH White 08 12 14 15 66.5% 26.8% 65.7% 20.9% % Black 5.9% 12.4% 6.0% 34.6%

Existing Plan
% NH DOJ Black 4.8% 8.4% 4.8% 26.9% % Asian 16.3% 19.4% 14.9% 5.3% % NH DOJ Asian 15.9% 18.6% 14.3% 4.6% % Hispanic Origin 11.8% 44.6% 13.7% 46.1% % Minority Population 33.5% 73.2% 34.3% 79.1%

Proposed Plan
District % NH White 07 10 12 13 27.8% 65.3% 67.0% 12.2% % Black 12.7% 5.2% 6.2% 35.9% % NH DOJ Black 8.6% 4.0% 4.9% 27.0% % Asian 19.6% 17.9% 13.9% 4.9% % NH DOJ Asian 18.8% 17.4% 13.4% 4.2% % Hispanic Origin 43.1% 12.2% 13.3% 55.1% % Minority Population 72.2% 34.7% 33.0% 87.8%

35

B. Voting Age Population

District 08 12 14 15 % NH White VAP 67.2% 29.8% 67.5% 23.0% % Black VAP 5.7% 11.6% 5.6% 34.1%

Existing Plan
% Asian VAP 16.3% 19.8% 14.5% 5.6% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 15.9% 19.1% 14.0% 5.0% % Hispanic Origin VAP 11.3% 41.4% 12.7% 43.8% % Minority VAP 32.8% 70.2% 32.5% 77.0%

% NH DOJ Black VAP 4.7% 8.1% 4.6% 26.9%

Proposed Plan
District 07 10 12 13 % NH White VAP 28.4% 65.4% 68.6% 14.1% % Black VAP 12.3% 5.4% 5.8% 35.7% % NH DOJ Black VAP 8.6% 4.2% 4.7% 27.4% % Asian VAP 20.6% 17.9% 13.7% 5.1% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 19.8% 17.4% 13.2% 4.4% % Hispanic Origin VAP 41.5% 11.9% 12.3% 52.7% % Minority VAP 71.6% 34.6% 31.4% 85.9%

Brooklyn (Kings County) 122. Because of the relatively large population shortfalls in the majority-

minority (particularly majority-Black) districts in Brooklyn, significant decline in the minority population shares in such districts is inevitable. This is demonstrated by the fact that all submitted multidistrict plans (including the Unity Plan submitted by a civil rights coalition) propose districts with substantial drops in Black population shares in the relevant areas. 123. was discussed above. 124. Because Existing Districts 10 and 11 needed to add roughly 40,000 and The nonretrogression in Proposed District 7 relative to Existing District 12

85,000 people respectively, and because no district can be drawn that maintains the Black population shares in those districts, they naturally experience a decline in such shares. Moreover, the requirement that all districts in Brooklyn gain population necessarily leads to alterations in the configurations of those districts relative to one another.

36

125.

The core of Existing District 11 is now Proposed District 9. As shown in

the Table IV, the District drops from 57.5% Black VAP to 55.0% Black VAP. Similarly, the 64.8% Black VAP share in Existing District 10 decreases to 56.0% in Proposed District 8. 126. However, Proposed Districts 8 and 9 both remain majority-Black (and

significantly majority-minority) districts. Therefore, neither District results in dilution according to Section 2, and any diminution in Blacks ability to elect their preferred candidates is simply the result of differential rates of population growth. (To reiterate, all proposals received in this litigation reflect comparable drops in their racial minority population.)

Table IV. Demographic Breakdown of Existing and Proposed Districts for Kings County A. Population

Existing Plan
District % NH White 08 09 10 11 12 13 66.5% 57.0% 18.3% 25.6% 26.8% 62.3% % Black 5.9% 6.1% 64.0% 58.0% 12.4% 8.6% % NH DOJ Black 4.8% 4.6% 58.7% 53.5% 8.4% 7.1% % Asian 16.3% 20.2% 4.4% 6.5% 19.4% 14.0% % NH DOJ Asian 15.9% 19.3% 3.9% 5.9% 18.6% 13.6% % Hispanic Origin 11.8% 17.2% 17.2% 13.2% 44.6% 16.1% % Minority Population 33.5% 43.0% 81.7% 74.4% 73.2% 37.7%

Recommended Plan
District % NH White 07 08 09 10 11 12 27.8% 22.4% 29.7% 65.3% 64.2% 67.0% % Black 12.7% 57.9% 55.3% 5.2% 8.7% 6.2% % NH DOJ Black 8.6% 52.9% 51.2% 4.0% 7.2% 4.9% % Asian 19.6% 5.4% 6.7% 17.9% 12.4% 13.9% % NH DOJ Asian 18.8% 4.8% 6.2% 17.4% 11.9% 13.4% % Hispanic Origin 43.1% 18.0% 11.3% 12.2% 15.7% 13.3% % Minority Population 72.2% 77.6% 70.3% 34.7% 35.8% 33.0%

37

B. Voting Age Population

Existing Plan
District 08 09 10 11 12 13 % NH White VAP 67.2% 58.8% 17.5% 26.7% 29.8% 65.1% % Black VAP 5.7% 5.8% 64.8% 57.5% 11.6% 7.6% % NH DOJ Black VAP 4.7% 4.4% 59.8% 53.2% 8.1% 6.4% % Asian VAP 16.3% 19.8% 4.6% 6.4% 19.8% 13.8% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 15.9% 19.1% 4.1% 5.9% 19.1% 13.4% % Hispanic Origin VAP 11.3% 16.0% 16.6% 12.5% 41.4% 14.2% % Minority VAP 32.8% 41.2% 82.5% 73.3% 70.2% 34.9%

Recommended Plan
District 07 08 09 10 11 12 % NH White VAP 28.4% 25.2% 30.4% 65.4% 66.9% 68.6% % Black VAP 12.3% 56.0% 55.0% 5.4% 7.7% 5.8% % NH DOJ Black VAP 8.6% 51.6% 51.1% 4.2% 6.5% 4.7% % Asian VAP 20.6% 5.3% 6.6% 17.9% 12.2% 13.7% % NH DOJ Asian VAP 19.8% 4.8% 6.1% 17.4% 11.8% 13.2% % Hispanic Origin VAP 41.5% 16.6% 10.7% 11.9% 13.9% 12.3% % Minority VAP 71.6% 74.8% 69.6% 34.6% 33.1% 31.4%

Queens 127. Although Queens is not a covered county under Section 5, it does contain

a significant minority population. Thus, some discussion of Section 2 VRA issues is warranted with respect to the Queens districts not already discussed. Data for Proposed Districts 7, 12, and 14 are presented above because they cross over into covered counties. 128. Existing District 6 is a majority-Black VAP district with a Black VAP

share of 54.6% (NH DOJ Black VAP of 49.9%), which is maintained in Proposed District 5. 129. Proposed District 6, a central Queens District with a core that formerly

was the top of the Existing T-shaped District 9, (a district that was 58.8% Non-Hispanic White VAP), is now a compact district in the center of Queens. It is majority-minority (60.1% minority VAP) and plurality-Asian (38.8% VAP).

38

Additional Requirements of the 2/28/12 Court Order Compactness 130. The Recommended Plan contains compact districts. In fact, by all but one

compactness score (the length-width score), the average compactness scores of the Recommended Plan are superior to the proposals submitted by the parties and to the Existing Plan. See Appendix D. 131. Recognizing that, as mentioned above, compactness is also an aesthetic

concept, it is worth noting that the districts in the Recommended Plan generally do not appear irregular to the naked eye. The one exception may be Proposed Districts 10 and 7, which are irregularly shaped in their current forms, and in most of the submitted plans. Contiguity 132. All of the districts in the Recommended Plan are contiguous. Respect for Political Subdivision Lines 133. The Recommended Plan respects the boundaries of New Yorks political

subdivisions. It splits fewer counties and towns than the Existing Districts. 134. The Recommended Plan keeps 42 of the states 62 counties whole. A list

of the counties by district is provided at Appendix I. The Existing Plan, in contrast, keeps only 36 counties whole six fewer than the Recommended Plan. 135. The Recommended Plan also keeps 895 of the states 970 towns (or

MCDs) together. The Recommended Plan splits five fewer towns than the Existing Plan. A list of towns assigned by district is provided at Appendix J.

39

Communities of Interest 136. The Recommended Plan attempts to respect communities of interest. Of

course, given the extreme time limitations, a court-drawn plan is inevitably hindered in its ability to weigh the validity, salience, and relative importance of different community-based arguments. Moreover, districts of over 717,000 people inevitably include more than one community of interest, and must sometimes group together quite different or conflicting communities in order to achieve population equality. 137. Nevertheless, certain widely recognized, geographically-defined

communities are respected in the Recommended Plan. 138. In Upstate New York, the Plan creates coherent North Country and

Southern Tier districts. It creates three compact districts surrounding the large metropolitan areasBuffalo, Rochester and the Capitol Cities area. It also creates a lower Hudson Valley district. 139. In New York City, the Recommended Plan maintains the separation of the

East and West sides of Manhattan. Unlike several proposals, it also keeps Harlem whole, even while joining Harlem with parts of the Bronx in order to achieve population equality. The South Bronx, however, is kept almost completely contained within a single district. Proposed District 6 is contained wholly within Queens and unites many of Queens Asian communities in a compact district. Proposed District 8, in response to suggestions concerning the initial draft Proposed Plan, attempts to unite Fort Greene and Clinton Hill with similar communities of interest in Brooklyn. 140. Finally, Proposed Districts 2 and 3 respect the communities of interest in

Southern and Northern Long Island, respectively. 40

Respecting the Cores of Existing Districts 141. Although the constitutional, statutory, and court-ordered criteria required

considerable departures from the Existing Plan, the Recommended Plan respects the cores of most Existing Districts. A Core Constituency Report, detailing which districts have which cores, is provided at Appendix E. 142. Overall, one of the Recommended Plans districts is comprised of 90% of

a prior district, five districts are comprised of between 80% and 90% of a prior district, seven districts are comprised of between 70% and 80% of a prior district, three districts are comprised of between 60% and 70% of a prior district, four districts are comprised of between 50% and 60% of a prior district, and seven districts are comprised of less than 50% of a prior district.

CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED PLAN 143. Following the March 5, 2012 hearing, the Magistrate Judges Proposed

Plan was released for comment. The Magistrate Judge directed the parties and interested members of the public to show cause, by the morning of March 7, 2012, why the Proposed Plan should not be presented to the Court as the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Among the parties, the Senate Majority defendants, the Rose and the Drayton Plaintiff-Intervenors, and the Ramos Plaintiff-Intervenors, each submitted responses to the Magistrate Judges Order to Show Cause. 144. a. The objections of the Senate Majority Defendants include the following: They argue that the Proposed Plans Long Island districts (which are retained in the Recommended Plan) fail to respect the cores of current districts and the communities of interest that have formed around them. 41

Specifically, they contend that Long Island districts have traditionally run north-south, and that the Proposed Plan needlessly flips Districts 2 and 3 to run east-west along Long Islands northern and southern shores. They further object to dividing the town of Smithtown between the Proposed Plans Districts 1 and 3, suggesting that it be kept entirely within District 1. b. They argue that the Proposed Plans District 5 fails to preserve the core of the prior district and creates a conflict between incumbents by pairing Representatives Meeks and Turner, and by creating an unnecessary open seat in the Proposed Plans District 6. They further contend that the Proposed Plan fails to respect communities of interest by dividing among four different districts (the Proposed Plans Districts 5, 8, 9, and 10) traditional Russian and Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn and traditional communities of interest in Far Rockaway Peninsula, Howard Beach, and Ozone Park. Finally, they argue that the Proposed Plans District 5 is not compact and fails to respect political subdivisions by crossing into Nassau County. c. They argue that Marlboro Housing Development and Coney Island are communities of interest and have traditionally been in the same district. Thus, they object to placing the former in the Proposed Plans District 11 and the latter in its District 8. As a remedy, they argue that Marlboro should be placed in District 8 and, in exchange, all of Midwood should be placed in District 11.

42

d.

They argue that the Proposed Plans District 19 fails to respect the traditional core of that District and the communities of interest that have formed around it. Specifically, they argue that it should include communities in the Hudson Valley that were traditionally part of this District, including Warren, Washington, and Saratoga Counties.

e.

They argue that the Proposed Plans Districts 23 and 27 fail to respect political subdivisions by splitting several towns in Wyoming and Livingston Counties. They contend that Wyoming and Livingston Counties should be located entirely within District 27, and that part of Erie County should then be included within District 23.

145. a.

The objections of the Rose Plaintiff-Intervenors include the following: They argue that Representative Israel, who is the incumbent in Proposed District 3, has long represented the communities of Wyandanch, Babylon, and Brentwood in central Long Island, and thus that the Proposed Plan errs by including those communities in its District 2, where Representative King is the incumbent. They further argue that the growing AfricanAmerican populations in these communities have strong ties to the sizable African-American population in Huntington Station, and that the growing Hispanic population in these areas has a well-established working relationship with Representative Israel. Thus, they argue that these communities should be transferred from the Proposed Plans District 2 to Proposed District 3. Populations could then be equalized, they argue, by

43

transferring communities historically represented by Representative King, like Old Bethpage, from the Proposed Plans District 3 to District 2. b. Although the proposal submitted by the Rose Plaintiff-Intervenors to the Magistrate Judge reflected a similar division, they object that the Proposed Plans Districts 4 and 5 divide Nassau County. Specifically, they argue that Nassau County border cities should be kept with their Nassau County neighbors, with whom they share local government services like schools and public safety systems. Thus, they suggest that the Proposed Plans District 5 should be wholly contained in Queens County, while District 4 should extend westward to the Nassau County line. c. They object that the Proposed Plans Districts 16 and 17 radically redraw Existing Districts 17 and 18 in ways that fail to respect the cores of the Existing Districts. They argue that the areas of Rockland County presently represented by Representative Engel should be placed in the Proposed Plans District 16 and that areas in Westchester County presently represented by Representative Lowey should be placed in Proposed Plans District 17. They further object to the fact that the latter district divides six towns, and argue that several of those towns could be made whole by preserving more of Existing District 18. d. They argue that the Proposed Plans District 21 makes unnecessary changes to Existing District 23 without respecting other districting principles. They object to the removal of Madison, Oswego, and much of Oneida Counties from this District, and to the inclusion of Saratoga, 44

Warren, and Washington Counties, which, they contend, have nothing in common with the North Country counties in the District. They urge that Madison, Oswego, and preferably also Oneida Counties be returned to the Proposed Plans District 21 from District 22, and that Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties be returned to the Proposed Plans District 19, where they have been historically located. e. They argue that the Proposed Plans Districts 26 and 27 involve unnecessarily large changes that pair incumbent Representatives Kathy Hochul and Brian Higgins, and that the Proposed Plans District 27 should be returned to a shape more similar to Existing District 26 and should be drawn to include Representative Hochuls residence. 146. a. The objections of Drayton Plaintiff-Intervenors include the following: They contend that Ozone Park and Howard Beach are communities of interest and should be included in the Proposed Plans District 5 and removed from Proposed District 8, and that they should not be joined with the East New York area of Brooklyn. b. They argue that the Proposed Plans District 8 is a traditional VRA district . . . that was created for Black voters, and that the areas of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, downtown Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, and Williamsburg should all be included within this District. c. They contend that the Proposed Plans District 9 covers the original VRA district . . . that was created for Black voters in Brooklyn, and that it should honor the east-west orientation of North Brooklyn and the 45

Southeast orientation of the Black communities in Central Brooklyn below Atlantic Avenue. Specifically, they urge that the Brownsville and Flatlands areas should be moved into the Proposed Plans District 9, while the Cobble Hill and Fort Greene areas should be moved to Proposed District 8. d. With respect to the Plans Proposed District 16, they argue that Rye, Scarsdale, and Eastchester should be removed and that the Mount Pleasant areas should be added. 147. The Ramos Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a response objecting to the Proposed

Plans District 7 on the ground that Greenpoint and Central/Eastern Williamsburg are a single community of interest and should be included in their entirety within this District. They further suggest that this addition be offset by removing from this District a section of South Williamsburg. 148. Almost 400 non-party members of the public responded to the Magistrate

Judges Order to Show Cause. Those responses were reviewed and have been made part of the public record. The following is a summary of a representative sample of those responses. 149. A non-party coalition called Voting Rights for All submitted a series of

responses, arguing that certain features of the Proposed Plans treatment of Proposed Districts 12, 13, 14, and 15 do not adequately respect communities of interest, including the AfricanAmerican, Hispanic and Dominican-American communities. Among those responses was a submission by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, objecting to the Proposed Plans District 9 on the ground that it does not preserve the core of the prior district, does not maintain communities of interest, does not achieve compactness, and violates the Constitution and the VRA. She 46

proposes that the District be reconfigured to unite the Canarsie, Flatlands, Remsen-VillageRugby, East Flatbush, Erasmus, Brownsville, Ocean Hill, and Crown Heights communities. Another submission, from Carl E. Heastie, contends that African-American communities in the Proposed Plans District 15 should be joined with African-American communities in Proposed District 14, and that the change should be offset by reconfiguring the Proposed Plans District 13 to reflect the commonalities within the communities of Harlem, Spanish Harlem, and the Bronx. 150. Non-parties Hakeem Jeffries and Karim Camara submitted separate

responses, arguing that the Proposed Plans District 8 wrongly excludes the traditionally AfricanAmerican communities of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill and wrongly includes heavily white neighborhoods such as Gerritson Beach, Gravesend and Georgetown in Brooklyn, and Ozone Park, Howard Beach, and Woodhaven in Queens. A similar response was received from a nonparty coalition called Concerned Citizens of Fort Greene-Clinton Hill, arguing that the communities of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville, East New York, and Canarsie are communities of interest that should be maintained within the same district. A group of 365 concerned citizens affiliated with the Brown Memorial Baptist Church submitted a petition and a series of letters voicing the same concerns. 151. Non-party Lincoln Restler submitted a response arguing that all of the

communities of the north side of Williamsburg and Greenpoint are communities of interest that should be included within the Proposed Plans District 7. 152. Non-party David M. Pollock submitted a response on behalf of the Jewish

Community Relations Council of New York, raising concerns that the traditional Russian and Jewish communities of southern Brooklyn are divided among the Proposed Plans Districts 8, 9, 10, and 11. 47

153.

Non-party David Nir submitted a response arguing that certain aspects of

the Proposed Plan do not adequately respect political subdivisions. CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PLAN 154. Determining which, if any, of the parties and the publics suggested

changes to the Proposed Plan should be implemented and incorporated into the Recommended Plan presented a considerable challenge. Given our goal that the Recommended Plan be, and appear to be, nonpartisan and incumbent-blind, the formulation of neutral principles to evaluate which suggestions to accept proved quite difficult. 155. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge and I decided to make (and did make)

only those changes that furthered the requirements of the Courts 2/28/12 Order. See Appendix H (Changes Made to Proposed Plan). However, to ensure that any such alterations did not degrade the underlying features of the plan or cause cascading population changes likely to trigger a new round of objections, we made such changes only when doing so was possible by means of obvious population swaps between two adjoining districts. 156. It should also be recognized that, perhaps given time constraints, no

submission provided complete and precise remedies for the problems it claimed to identify in the Proposed Plan. Therefore, if implemented by itself, each change would result in a violation of the constitutional requirement of population equality. The accommodation of any change thus required the exercise of discretion as to how to offset the suggested change in a manner least likely to be found objectionable to other parties or members of the public. Accommodating any change required the addition and subtraction of individual census blocks between districts in order to maintain precise population equality. This can be quite difficult, especially in densely populated areas, where census blocks often contain hundreds or even more than a thousand 48

people. Therefore, even some small suggested changes could not be accommodated without major reconfigurations of districts. 157. All the accepted changes can be justified on the basis of reducing

violations of county boundaries or respecting communities of interest. However, community-ofinterest arguments that were tied to incumbent-related goalssuch as preserving the relationship between a community and an incumbent were not credited, given the Recommended Plans aim of remaining incumbent-blind. We also did not make changes that were based merely on respecting the cores of prior districts or reducing town splits, as we could not distinguish those from pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents. 158. to the Proposed Plan: a. The borders of Proposed Districts 8 and 9 were adjusted in order to place Fort Greene and Clinton Hill in Proposed District 8 for community-ofinterest reasons. The southern end of Proposed District 9 was expanded to compensate for the loss of population and adjustments were made along the border with Proposed District 8. b. The borders of Proposed Districts 23 and 27 were adjusted to unite Livingston and Wyoming Counties in Proposed District 27. The split of Ontario County was reoriented to compensate for the population loss. c. Genesee County was united by placing the errant zero-population block assigned to Proposed District 25 in Proposed District 27. 159. All other suggested changes could not be justified according to criteria in Based on the above-described criteria, the following changes were made

the Courts 2/28/12 Order, would likely entail violations of the Constitution or VRA, appeared 49

Recommended Congressional District Plan New York State

Long Island

New York City

Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens Detail

Harlem-Bronx Detail

Westchester

Upstate

District 1

District 2

District 3

10

District 4

11

District 5

12

13

District 6

14

District 7

15

District 8

16

District 9

17

District 10

18

District 11

19

District 12

20

District 13

21

District 14

22

District 15

23

District 16

24

District 17

25

District 18

26

District 19

27

District 20

28

District 21

29

District 22

30

District 23

31

District 24

32

District 25

33

District 26

34

District 27

35

Existing Congressional Districts New York State

Long Island

New York City

Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens Detail

Harlem-Bronx Detail

Westchester

Upstate

District 1

District 2

District 3

10

District 4

11

District 5

12

District 6

13

District 7

14

District 8

15

District 9

16

District 10

17

District 11

18

District 12

19

District 13

20

District 14

21

District 15

22

District 16

23

District 17

24

District 18

25

District 19

26

District 20

27

District 21

28

District 22

29

District 23

30

District 24

31

District 25

32

District 26

33

District 27

34

District 28

35

District 29

36

New York State

Population Analysis
Existing Plan Population Data
District 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Population Deviation 705,559 679,893 645,508 663,407 670,130 651,764 667,632 713,512 660,306 677,721 632,408 672,358 686,525 652,681 639,873 693,819 678,558 674,825 699,959 683,198 679,193 679,297 664,245 657,222 668,869 674,804 629,271 611,838 663,727 (12,148) (37,814) (72,199) (54,300) (47,577) (65,943) (50,075) (4,195) (57,401) (39,986) (85,299) (45,349) (31,182) (65,026) (77,834) (23,888) (39,149) (42,882) (17,748) (34,509) (38,514) (38,410) (53,462) (60,485) (48,838) (42,903) (88,436) (105,869) (53,980) NH White 549,622 427,517 521,145 346,690 239,098 66,024 138,025 474,727 376,576 124,232 161,819 180,232 427,737 429,004 133,839 16,867 252,685 402,801 532,570 625,172 538,105 499,797 609,374 588,521 553,205 602,856 533,394 355,768 596,845 % NH White 77.9% 62.9% 80.7% 52.3% 35.7% 10.1% 20.7% 66.5% 57.0% 18.3% 25.6% 26.8% 62.3% 65.7% 20.9% 2.4% 37.2% 59.7% 76.1% 91.5% 79.2% 73.6% 91.7% 89.5% 82.7% 89.3% 84.8% 58.1% 89.9% Black 40,905 79,290 23,649 137,774 36,485 357,358 143,468 42,353 40,523 433,989 366,816 83,254 58,987 39,279 221,582 270,278 234,688 76,498 53,279 21,969 76,207 76,463 21,536 31,817 66,528 32,165 43,150 196,803 27,457 % Black 5.8% 11.7% 3.7% 20.8% 5.4% 54.8% 21.5% 5.9% 6.1% 64.0% 58.0% 12.4% 8.6% 6.0% 34.6% 39.0% 34.6% 11.3% 7.6% 3.2% 11.2% 11.3% 3.2% 4.8% 9.9% 4.8% 6.9% 32.2% 4.1% NH DOJ Black 34,726 68,594 19,837 125,946 27,949 324,625 110,572 33,967 30,516 398,097 338,401 56,715 48,786 31,517 172,177 195,157 206,160 64,996 44,455 19,310 67,709 65,669 19,022 28,278 60,395 29,364 38,009 184,825 25,125 % NH DOJ Black 4.9% 10.1% 3.1% 19.0% 4.2% 49.8% 16.6% 4.8% 4.6% 58.7% 53.5% 8.4% 7.1% 4.8% 26.9% 28.1% 30.4% 9.6% 6.4% 2.8% 10.0% 9.7% 2.9% 4.3% 9.0% 4.4% 6.0% 30.2% 3.8% Asian 26,764 36,416 36,440 50,594 228,574 103,683 116,460 116,376 133,099 29,798 41,043 130,538 96,242 97,221 34,052 15,668 37,992 50,027 27,765 11,711 27,998 26,082 7,425 12,938 20,350 18,301 10,622 15,841 19,474 % Asian 3.8% 5.4% 5.6% 7.6% 34.1% 15.9% 17.4% 16.3% 20.2% 4.4% 6.5% 19.4% 14.0% 14.9% 5.3% 2.3% 5.6% 7.4% 4.0% 1.7% 4.1% 3.8% 1.1% 2.0% 3.0% 2.7% 1.7% 2.6% 2.9% NH DOJ Asian 25,106 33,977 34,455 46,899 223,028 86,530 109,929 113,380 127,393 26,284 37,542 125,328 93,050 93,512 29,740 11,128 34,014 47,216 25,719 10,965 26,070 24,235 6,726 12,245 19,296 17,487 9,938 14,507 18,639 % NH DOJ Asian 3.6% 5.0% 5.3% 7.1% 33.3% 13.3% 16.5% 15.9% 19.3% 3.9% 5.9% 18.6% 13.6% 14.3% 4.6% 1.6% 5.0% 7.0% 3.7% 1.6% 3.8% 3.6% 1.0% 1.9% 2.9% 2.6% 1.6% 2.4% 2.8% Hispanic Origin 88,929 142,795 65,105 134,080 171,534 123,718 296,455 84,098 113,658 116,576 83,338 299,572 110,301 89,610 295,284 461,580 173,550 152,802 90,050 21,706 36,619 80,967 16,965 22,002 25,785 18,564 39,076 47,118 15,085 % Hispanic Origin 12.6% 21.0% 10.1% 20.2% 25.6% 19.0% 44.4% 11.8% 17.2% 17.2% 13.2% 44.6% 16.1% 13.7% 46.1% 66.5% 25.6% 22.6% 12.9% 3.2% 5.4% 11.9% 2.6% 3.3% 3.9% 2.8% 6.2% 7.7% 2.3% Minority % Minority Population Population 155,937 252,376 124,363 316,717 431,032 585,740 529,607 238,785 283,730 553,489 470,589 492,126 258,788 223,677 506,034 676,952 425,873 272,024 167,389 58,026 141,088 179,500 54,871 68,701 115,664 71,948 95,877 256,070 66,882 22.1% 37.1% 19.3% 47.7% 64.3% 89.9% 79.3% 33.5% 43.0% 81.7% 74.4% 73.2% 37.7% 34.3% 79.1% 97.6% 62.8% 40.3% 23.9% 8.5% 20.8% 26.4% 8.3% 10.5% 17.3% 10.7% 15.2% 41.9% 10.1%

New York State

Voting Age Population Analysis
Existing Plan Voting Age Population Data
D is t ric t P o pula t io n D e v ia t io n N H Whit e VA P % N H Whit e VA P B la c k V A P % B la c k VA P N H D OJ B la c k V A P % N H D OJ B la c k V A P A s ia n V A P % A s ia n VA P N H D OJ A s ia n V A P % N H D OJ A s ia n V A P H is pa nic O rigin V A P % H is pa nic O rigin V A P M ino rit y P o p. V A P % M ino rit y P o p. V A P VA P % VA P

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

705,559 679,893 645,508 663,407 670,130 651,764 667,632 713,512 660,306 677,721 632,408 672,358 686,525 652,681 639,873 693,819 678,558 674,825 699,959 683,198 679,193 679,297 664,245 657,222 668,869 674,804 629,271 611,838 663,727

(12,148) (37,814) (72,199) (54,300) (47,577) (65,943) (50,075) (4,195) (57,401) (39,986) (85,299) (45,349) (31,182) (65,026) (77,834) (23,888) (39,149) (42,882) (17,748) (34,509) (38,514) (38,410) (53,462) (60,485) (48,838) (42,903) (88,436) (105,869) (53,980)

432,487 333,813 411,873 277,891 196,884 54,411 119,273 392,666 308,748 87,432 130,271 158,594 347,780 385,516 118,432 13,870 191,757 316,020 407,889 497,310 440,525 410,907 476,677 469,706 439,298 479,037 431,665 298,740 468,824

80.0% 65.4% 82.3% 54.8% 36.9% 11.0% 22.9% 67.2% 58.8% 17.5% 26.7% 29.8% 65.1% 67.5% 23.0% 2.8% 38.0% 61.7% 77.7% 92.5% 82.2% 76.7% 92.3% 91.1% 85.4% 90.4% 87.5% 63.2% 91.1%

27,634 55,588 16,627 101,030 29,321 270,738 109,173 33,479 30,349 323,676 280,526 61,918 40,553 31,959 175,477 189,034 174,100 56,565 37,991 15,409 50,037 51,229 16,123 21,016 41,535 22,464 27,739 132,653 18,352

5.1% 10.9% 3.3% 19.9% 5.5% 54.6% 21.0% 5.7% 5.8% 64.8% 57.5% 11.6% 7.6% 5.6% 34.1% 38.8% 34.5% 11.1% 7.2% 2.9% 9.3% 9.6% 3.1% 4.1% 8.1% 4.2% 5.6% 28.1% 3.6%

24,085 48,878 14,299 93,303 22,943 247,229 86,438 27,320 23,338 299,049 259,647 43,171 34,345 26,061 138,500 138,923 155,029 49,288 32,687 13,770 45,427 45,191 14,439 18,992 38,382 20,848 25,042 126,440 17,077

4.5% 9.6% 2.9% 18.4% 4.3% 49.9% 16.6% 4.7% 4.4% 59.8% 53.2% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 26.9% 28.5% 30.7% 9.6% 6.2% 2.6% 8.5% 8.4% 2.8% 3.7% 7.5% 3.9% 5.1% 26.8% 3.3%

19,528 25,757 26,708 37,199 183,383 79,185 91,242 95,053 104,231 23,088 31,023 105,397 73,461 82,994 29,002 11,970 29,197 35,802 19,051 7,975 20,443 21,065 5,339 8,813 14,606 13,740 7,130 12,236 13,827

3.6% 5.0% 5.3% 7.3% 34.3% 16.0% 17.5% 16.3% 19.8% 4.6% 6.4% 19.8% 13.8% 14.5% 5.6% 2.5% 5.8% 7.0% 3.6% 1.5% 3.8% 3.9% 1.0% 1.7% 2.8% 2.6% 1.4% 2.6% 2.7%

18,574 24,212 25,401 34,786 179,409 66,004 86,736 92,796 100,117 20,728 28,622 101,647 71,476 80,144 25,826 8,767 26,408 33,998 17,869 7,528 19,201 19,884 4,940 8,379 14,013 13,234 6,738 11,502 13,313

3.4% 4.7% 5.1% 6.9% 33.6% 13.3% 16.7% 15.9% 19.1% 4.1% 5.9% 19.1% 13.4% 14.0% 5.0% 1.8% 5.2% 6.6% 3.4% 1.4% 3.6% 3.7% 1.0% 1.6% 2.7% 2.5% 1.4% 2.4% 2.6%

60,657 98,503 45,444 94,784 128,819 90,107 219,181 65,851 84,277 83,170 60,828 220,316 75,778 72,447 225,509 319,376 122,304 107,770 61,360 14,633 23,247 53,267 11,567 14,360 15,736 11,941 24,069 29,388 9,711

11.2% 19.3% 9.1% 18.7% 24.1% 18.2% 42.1% 11.3% 16.0% 16.6% 12.5% 41.4% 14.2% 12.7% 43.8% 65.5% 24.2% 21.1% 11.7% 2.7% 4.3% 9.9% 2.2% 2.8% 3.1% 2.3% 4.9% 6.2% 1.9%

108,297 176,264 88,563 229,542 337,329 441,490 401,624 191,834 216,661 412,245 357,567 372,963 186,345 185,993 396,770 473,359 312,684 195,797 116,781 40,284 95,193 124,551 39,494 46,145 75,034 50,651 61,878 173,910 45,629

20.0% 34.6% 17.7% 45.2% 63.1% 89.0% 77.1% 32.8% 41.2% 82.5% 73.3% 70.2% 34.9% 32.5% 77.0% 97.2% 62.0% 38.3% 22.3% 7.5% 17.8% 23.3% 7.7% 8.9% 14.6% 9.6% 12.5% 36.8% 8.9%

540,784 510,077 500,436 507,433 534,213 495,901 520,897 584,500 525,409 499,677 487,838 531,557 534,125 571,509 515,202 487,229 504,441 511,817 524,670 537,594 535,718 535,458 516,171 515,851 514,332 529,688 493,543 472,650 514,453

76.6% 75.0% 77.5% 76.5% 79.7% 76.1% 78.0% 81.9% 79.6% 73.7% 77.1% 79.1% 77.8% 87.6% 80.5% 70.2% 74.3% 75.8% 75.0% 78.7% 78.9% 78.8% 77.7% 78.5% 76.9% 78.5% 78.4% 77.3% 77.5%

Final Recommended Plan Population Data

District 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Population Deviation 717,707 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,707 717,707 717,707 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NH White 559,216 474,087 520,257 438,201 87,210 276,674 199,422 160,708 213,133 468,849 460,939 480,998 87,781 178,916 16,628 282,195 453,200 515,237 619,581 571,257 657,318 640,383 645,865 600,803 517,028 512,994 665,367 % NH White 77.9% 66.1% 72.5% 61.1% 12.2% 38.5% 27.8% 22.4% 29.7% 65.3% 64.2% 67.0% 12.2% 24.9% 2.3% 39.3% 63.1% 71.8% 86.3% 79.6% 91.6% 89.2% 90.0% 83.7% 72.0% 71.5% 92.7% Black 41,285 77,254 25,914 111,015 394,985 34,937 90,838 415,768 396,901 37,292 62,291 44,339 257,440 93,228 286,955 247,578 83,160 76,357 39,215 77,152 24,873 34,832 27,256 68,090 123,676 140,436 21,483 % Black 5.8% 10.8% 3.6% 15.5% 55.0% 4.9% 12.7% 57.9% 55.3% 5.2% 8.7% 6.2% 35.9% 13.0% 40.0% 34.5% 11.6% 10.6% 5.5% 10.7% 3.5% 4.9% 3.8% 9.5% 17.2% 19.6% 3.0% NH DOJ Black 35,028 66,365 21,984 100,679 359,527 26,595 61,582 379,751 367,614 28,623 51,711 35,436 193,971 69,083 209,309 220,772 72,398 64,781 33,657 68,544 22,024 30,685 24,015 61,820 112,807 132,611 19,527 % NH DOJ Black 4.9% 9.2% 3.1% 14.0% 50.1% 3.7% 8.6% 52.9% 51.2% 4.0% 7.2% 4.9% 27.0% 9.6% 29.2% 30.8% 10.1% 9.0% 4.7% 9.6% 3.1% 4.3% 3.3% 8.6% 15.7% 18.5% 2.7% Asian 27,912 25,618 102,013 44,747 99,952 280,299 140,569 38,445 47,736 128,577 88,831 100,078 35,287 122,736 17,598 39,119 47,857 25,333 12,716 31,389 7,815 18,066 16,250 18,884 28,349 24,930 8,388 % Asian 3.9% 3.6% 14.2% 6.2% 13.9% 39.1% 19.6% 5.4% 6.7% 17.9% 12.4% 13.9% 4.9% 17.1% 2.5% 5.5% 6.7% 3.5% 1.8% 4.4% 1.1% 2.5% 2.3% 2.6% 3.9% 3.5% 1.2% NH DOJ Asian 26,212 23,218 98,445 41,487 82,361 273,284 134,718 34,339 44,177 125,191 85,617 96,202 30,030 116,053 12,724 35,282 45,024 23,216 11,639 29,344 7,080 17,129 15,484 17,825 26,713 23,682 7,862 % NH DOJ Asian 3.7% 3.2% 13.7% 5.8% 11.5% 38.1% 18.8% 4.8% 6.2% 17.4% 11.9% 13.4% 4.2% 16.2% 1.8% 4.9% 6.3% 3.2% 1.6% 4.1% 1.0% 2.4% 2.2% 2.5% 3.7% 3.3% 1.1% Hispanic Origin 89,996 146,899 69,818 128,863 135,807 130,260 309,480 129,299 80,893 87,284 112,509 95,669 395,607 341,030 468,530 167,082 139,884 106,389 45,276 37,646 19,164 22,475 22,770 26,238 53,456 38,894 15,704 % Hispanic Origin 12.5% 20.5% 9.7% 18.0% 18.9% 18.1% 43.1% 18.0% 11.3% 12.2% 15.7% 13.3% 55.1% 47.5% 65.3% 23.3% 19.5% 14.8% 6.3% 5.2% 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% 3.7% 7.4% 5.4% 2.2% Minority % Minority Population Population 158,491 243,621 197,450 279,507 630,498 441,033 518,285 557,000 504,575 248,859 256,769 236,709 629,926 538,792 701,080 435,512 264,508 202,470 98,127 146,451 60,389 77,325 71,842 116,904 200,679 204,713 52,340 22.1% 33.9% 27.5% 38.9% 87.8% 61.5% 72.2% 77.6% 70.3% 34.7% 35.8% 33.0% 87.8% 75.1% 97.7% 60.7% 36.9% 28.2% 13.7% 20.4% 8.4% 10.8% 10.0% 16.3% 28.0% 28.5% 7.3%

Final Recommended Plan Voting Age Population Data

D is t ric t P o pula t io n D e v ia t io n N H Whit e VA P % N H Whit e VA P B la c k V A P % B la c k VA P N H D OJ B la c k V A P % N H D OJ B la c k V A P A s ia n V A P % A s ia n VA P N H D OJ A s ia n V A P % N H D OJ A s ia n V A P H is pa nic O rigin V A P % H is pa nic O rigin V A P M ino rit y P o p. V A P % M ino rit y P o p. V A P VA P % VA P

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

717,707 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,708 717,707 717,708 717,707 717,707 717,707 717,707 717,707

0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

439,875 375,286 409,297 348,839 72,407 233,637 154,948 138,637 167,980 380,577 372,868 436,174 78,365 155,606 13,744 227,664 343,479 397,239 499,618 466,923 515,936 510,469 512,419 477,265 421,707 425,015 522,322

80.0% 68.8% 74.0% 63.3% 13.3% 39.9% 28.4% 25.2% 30.4% 65.4% 66.9% 68.6% 14.1% 27.4% 2.7% 41.6% 64.1% 74.3% 87.9% 82.6% 92.1% 90.7% 91.1% 86.2% 75.9% 75.1% 93.5%

27,868 54,033 18,906 81,822 297,738 27,833 67,216 308,239 303,679 31,293 42,860 36,720 198,832 73,558 200,765 184,755 61,466 52,352 27,573 50,554 18,850 22,273 17,798 42,885 80,814 96,047 15,566

5.1% 9.9% 3.4% 14.8% 54.6% 4.8% 12.3% 56.0% 55.0% 5.4% 7.7% 5.8% 35.7% 12.9% 39.8% 33.8% 11.5% 9.8% 4.9% 8.9% 3.4% 4.0% 3.2% 7.7% 14.5% 17.0% 2.8%

24,276 47,195 16,442 75,073 272,480 21,762 46,621 283,915 282,107 24,513 36,427 29,806 152,626 56,048 149,259 167,182 54,591 45,711 24,246 45,891 16,926 20,012 15,978 39,592 75,240 91,849 14,373

4.4% 8.7% 3.0% 13.6% 50.0% 3.7% 8.6% 51.6% 51.1% 4.2% 6.5% 4.7% 27.4% 9.9% 29.6% 30.6% 10.2% 8.5% 4.3% 8.1% 3.0% 3.6% 2.8% 7.2% 13.5% 16.2% 2.6%

20,288 18,440 75,027 32,700 76,440 226,954 112,237 29,268 36,302 104,008 67,740 87,187 28,551 96,554 13,164 28,846 34,939 17,566 9,014 22,673 5,467 13,273 13,039 13,681 20,731 18,777 5,579

3.7% 3.4% 13.6% 5.9% 14.0% 38.8% 20.6% 5.3% 6.6% 17.9% 12.2% 13.7% 5.1% 17.0% 2.6% 5.3% 6.5% 3.3% 1.6% 4.0% 1.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.5% 3.7% 3.3% 1.0%

19,312 16,915 72,579 30,613 62,976 221,876 108,052 26,505 33,870 101,501 65,719 84,136 24,754 91,829 9,782 26,230 33,127 16,341 8,353 21,353 5,073 12,678 12,512 13,072 19,791 18,044 5,259

3.5% 3.1% 13.1% 5.6% 11.5% 37.9% 19.8% 4.8% 6.1% 17.4% 11.8% 13.2% 4.4% 16.1% 1.9% 4.8% 6.2% 3.1% 1.5% 3.8% 0.9% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 3.6% 3.2% 0.9%

61,359 101,316 49,834 91,013 98,048 99,854 226,498 91,155 58,803 69,131 77,469 78,141 293,076 255,942 324,816 116,919 99,851 69,988 30,648 23,886 13,463 14,324 14,888 16,212 33,482 24,153 10,131

11.2% 18.6% 9.0% 16.5% 18.0% 17.1% 41.5% 16.6% 10.7% 11.9% 13.9% 12.3% 52.7% 45.0% 64.3% 21.4% 18.6% 13.1% 5.4% 4.2% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.9% 6.0% 4.3% 1.8%

109,984 170,243 143,868 202,522 472,912 351,695 390,195 411,697 383,723 201,207 184,619 199,846 478,244 413,075 491,222 319,337 192,483 137,553 68,751 98,583 44,003 52,039 50,082 76,401 133,822 140,561 36,210

20.0% 31.2% 26.0% 36.7% 86.7% 60.1% 71.6% 74.8% 69.6% 34.6% 33.1% 31.4% 85.9% 72.6% 97.3% 58.4% 35.9% 25.7% 12.1% 17.4% 7.9% 9.3% 8.9% 13.8% 24.1% 24.9% 6.5%

549,859 545,529 553,165 551,361 545,319 585,332 545,143 550,334 551,703 581,784 557,487 636,020 556,609 568,681 504,966 547,001 535,962 534,792 568,369 565,506 559,939 562,508 562,501 553,666 555,529 565,576 558,532

76.6% 76.0% 77.1% 76.8% 76.0% 81.6% 76.0% 76.7% 76.9% 81.1% 77.7% 88.6% 77.6% 79.2% 70.4% 76.2% 74.7% 74.5% 79.2% 78.8% 78.0% 78.4% 78.4% 77.1% 77.4% 78.8% 77.8%

Plan Name: Plan Type: Date: Time: Administrator:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN 3/11/2012 1:53:54PM

Measures of Compactness
3/11/2012
Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev. N/A N/A

5,035.28
N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.12 0.70 0.42 0.13

1.32 3.04 1.75 0.44

0.10 0.55 0.35 0.12

0.18 116.04 12.42 22.87

0.33 0.98 0.70 0.20

0.14 0.91 0.46 0.22

0.12 0.60 0.37 0.14

DISTRICT

Reock

Schwartzberg

Perimeter

PolsbyPopper

Length-Width

Population Polygon

Population Circle

Ehrenburg

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

0.37 0.45 0.44 0.58 0.29 0.42 0.20 0.32 0.35 0.12 0.47 0.45 0.26 0.32 0.70 0.45 0.51 0.38 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.28 0.51 0.58 0.36 0.55

1.45 1.46 1.43 1.45 1.93 1.67 3.04 2.22 1.79 3.02 1.44 1.77 1.85 2.06 1.32 1.59 1.43 1.72 1.82 1.67 1.41 2.01 1.70 1.43 1.34 1.56 1.65

231.31 95.59 99.87 69.27 77.29 32.67 44.54 54.23 25.32 52.80 55.45 26.39 23.79 49.00 19.72 59.86 108.38 239.40 624.81 214.66 671.85 555.22 567.64 324.32 167.18 88.92 455.81

0.46 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.26 0.35 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.10 0.47 0.32 0.29 0.23 0.55 0.38 0.47 0.31 0.26 0.34 0.46 0.21 0.31 0.44 0.55 0.37 0.32

30.41 5.14 11.62 3.46 2.10 3.18 2.81 0.80 2.32 10.40 3.87 1.39 1.93 1.65 0.46 5.42 3.77 22.73 5.27 3.54 30.33 29.97 116.04 0.18 10.92 3.49 22.04

0.75 0.89 0.74 0.77 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.33 0.76 0.39 0.76 0.76 0.62 0.53 0.90 0.82 0.92 0.66 0.41 0.91 0.89 0.55 0.67 0.89 0.98 0.96 0.33

0.74 0.59 0.28 0.55 0.14 0.42 0.27 0.27 0.42 0.15 0.61 0.46 0.42 0.21 0.79 0.42 0.56 0.34 0.33 0.81 0.31 0.41 0.23 0.58 0.91 0.83 0.32

0.32 0.57 0.52 0.49 0.18 0.29 0.13 0.41 0.36 0.12 0.58 0.36 0.17 0.22 0.53 0.45 0.60 0.40 0.36 0.43 0.53 0.25 0.23 0.39 0.38 0.41 0.28

Comparison of Compactness Scores in Recommended Plan and Party Proposals

Reock Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.13 0.53 0.36 0.10 Recommended 0.12 0.70 0.42 0.13 Skelos
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity

Silver
As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.11 0.59 0.37 0.10

0.17 0.55 0.39 0.10

0.18 0.60 0.37 0.10

0.20 0.63 0.39 0.11

0
Schwartzberg Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 1.40 3.53 2.12 0.49 Recommended 1.32 3.04 1.75 0.44
As s e m bly M ino rity

Party Proposals
Skelos
S e na te M a jo rity

Silver
As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 1.50 3.94 2.20 0.59

1.32 3.67 2.03 0.58

1.30 3.46 2.13 0.54

1.23 3.34 1.99 0.53

Party Proposals
Perimeter Sum Existing 6,870.87 Recommended 5,035.28
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 6,373.18

5,576.24

6,029.88

5,786.63

Party Proposals
Polsby-Popper Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.07 0.49 0.24 0.11 Recommended 0.10 0.55 0.35 0.12
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.06 0.43 0.23 0.10

0.07 0.55 0.28 0.13

0.08 0.57 0.25 0.12

0.08 0.59 0.29 0.13

Party Proposals
Length-Width Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.38 77.48 14.46 20.13 Recommended 0.18 116.04 12.42 22.87
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.29 53.05 10.49 13.05

0.54 62.61 10.99 14.44

0.07 84.90 14.92 22.55

0.07 38.43 9.33 11.02

Party Proposals
Population Polygon Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.26 0.96 0.63 0.18 Recommended 0.33 0.98 0.70 0.20
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.24 0.86 0.63 0.18

0.27 0.95 0.65 0.22

0.25 0.96 0.64 0.18

0.21 0.89 0.65 0.20

Party Proposals
Population Circle Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.11 0.72 0.39 0.15 Recommended 0.14 0.91 0.46 0.22
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.11 0.78 0.40 0.17

0.13 0.86 0.45 0.20

0.14 0.88 0.41 0.17

0.11 0.78 0.45 0.19

Party Proposals
Ehrenburg Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Existing 0.12 0.62 0.34 0.13 Recommended 0.12 0.60 0.37 0.14
As s e m bly M ino rity S e na te M a jo rity As s e m bly M a jo rity

Rose 0.12 0.59 0.33 0.12

0.15 0.58 0.32 0.13

0.17 0.59 0.35 0.13

0.17 0.66 0.35 0.15

Core Constituencies Report

Sunday, March 11, 2012
Population [18+_Pop]
Printed for

12:34PM

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 01 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 01 Dist. 02

694,501 (96.77%) 23,206 (03.23%)

532,330 (96.81%) 17,529 (03.19%)

Total, and % Population

549,859 (76.61%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 02 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 02 Dist. 03

378,332 (52.71%) 339,376 (47.29%)

283,544 (51.98%) 261,985 (48.02%)

Total, and % Population

545,529 (76.01%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 03 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 01 Dist. 02 Dist. 03 Dist. 04 Dist. 05 Dist. 06

11,058 (01.54%) 278,355 (38.78%) 167,819 (23.38%) 1,972 (00.27%) 237,355 (33.07%) 21,148 (02.95%)

8,454 (01.53%) 209,004 (37.78%) 130,535 (23.60%) 1,482 (00.27%) 186,916 (33.79%) 16,774 (03.03%)

Total, and % Population

553,165 (77.07%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 04 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 03 Dist. 04 Dist. 05

138,313 (19.27%) 579,171 (80.70%) 224 (00.03%)

107,916 (19.57%) 443,290 (80.40%) 155 (00.03%)

Total, and % Population

551,361 (76.82%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 05 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 04

82,264 (11.46%)

62,661 (11.49%)

Page 1

Population

[18+_Pop]

Dist. 05 Dist. 06 Dist. 09

18,535 (02.58%) 577,232 (80.43%) 39,677 (05.53%)

15,186 (02.78%) 436,532 (80.05%) 30,940 (05.67%)

Total, and % Population

545,319 (75.98%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 06 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 05 Dist. 06 Dist. 07 Dist. 09 Dist. 12

270,603 (37.70%) 40,461 (05.64%) 58,610 (08.17%) 330,253 (46.02%) 17,780 (02.48%)

223,462 (38.18%) 32,343 (05.53%) 46,984 (08.03%) 268,658 (45.90%) 13,885 (02.37%)

Total, and % Population

585,332 (81.56%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 07 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 08 Dist. 09 Dist. 10 Dist. 11 Dist. 12 Dist. 14

11,966 (01.67%) 51,276 (07.14%) 84,354 (11.75%) 46,115 (06.43%) 510,767 (71.17%) 13,229 (01.84%)

9,540 (01.75%) 38,527 (07.07%) 52,511 (09.63%) 38,080 (06.99%) 395,516 (72.55%) 10,969 (02.01%)

Total, and % Population

545,143 (75.96%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 08 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 06 Dist. 08 Dist. 09 Dist. 10 Dist. 11 Dist. 12

12,923 (01.80%) 68,123 (09.49%) 83,099 (11.58%) 532,651 (74.22%) 3,545 (00.49%) 17,367 (02.42%)

10,252 (01.86%) 55,503 (10.09%) 66,720 (12.12%) 402,293 (73.10%) 2,900 (00.53%) 12,666 (02.30%)

Page 2

Population

[18+_Pop]

Total, and % Population

550,334 (76.68%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 09 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 09 Dist. 10 Dist. 11

112,328 (15.65%) 60,716 (08.46%) 544,664 (75.89%)

88,293 (16.00%) 44,873 (08.13%) 418,537 (75.86%)

Total, and % Population

551,703 (76.87%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 10 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 08 Dist. 09 Dist. 11 Dist. 12 Dist. 13 Dist. 14 Dist. 15

495,656 (69.06%) 19,461 (02.71%) 38,084 (05.31%) 1,220 (00.17%) 58,043 (08.09%) 6,334 (00.88%) 98,910 (13.78%)

401,182 (68.96%) 13,470 (02.32%) 28,321 (04.87%) 1,117 (00.19%) 46,084 (07.92%) 5,997 (01.03%) 85,613 (14.72%)

Total, and % Population

581,784 (81.06%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 11 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 08 Dist. 09 Dist. 13

65,014 (09.06%) 24,212 (03.37%) 628,482 (87.57%)

50,645 (09.08%) 18,801 (03.37%) 488,041 (87.54%)

Total, and % Population

557,487 (77.68%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 12 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 08 Dist. 12 Dist. 14 Dist. 15

72,753 (10.14%) 88,811 (12.37%) 553,704 (77.15%) 2,439 (00.34%)

67,630 (10.63%) 78,762 (12.38%) 487,242 (76.61%) 2,386 (00.38%)

Page 3

Population

[18+_Pop]

Total, and % Population

636,020 (88.62%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 13 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 14 Dist. 15 Dist. 16 Dist. 17

4,082 (00.57%) 527,433 (73.49%) 89,011 (12.40%) 97,181 (13.54%)

3,456 (00.62%) 416,479 (74.82%) 64,034 (11.50%) 72,640 (13.05%)

Total, and % Population

556,609 (77.55%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 14 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 05 Dist. 07 Dist. 12 Dist. 14 Dist. 15 Dist. 16 Dist. 17

143,413 (19.98%) 451,381 (62.89%) 36,413 (05.07%) 75,332 (10.50%) 11,091 (01.55%) 0 (00.00%) 78 (00.01%)

108,494 (19.08%) 355,948 (62.59%) 29,611 (05.21%) 63,845 (11.23%) 10,724 (01.89%) 0 (00.00%) 59 (00.01%) 568,681 (79.24%)

Total, and % Population

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 15 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 07 Dist. 15 Dist. 16

112,900 (15.73%) 0 (00.00%) 604,808 (84.27%)

81,771 (16.19%) 0 (00.00%) 423,195 (83.81%)

Total, and % Population

504,966 (70.36%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 16 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 07 Dist. 17 Dist. 18

44,741 (06.23%) 356,074 (49.61%) 316,892 (44.15%)

36,194 (06.62%) 272,947 (49.90%) 237,860 (43.48%)

Total, and % Population

547,001 (76.22%)

Page 4

Population

[18+_Pop]

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 17 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 17 Dist. 18 Dist. 19

225,225 (31.38%) 350,702 (48.86%) 141,781 (19.75%)

158,795 (29.63%) 269,084 (50.21%) 108,083 (20.17%)

Total, and % Population

535,962 (74.68%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 18 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 18 Dist. 19 Dist. 20 Dist. 22

7,231 (01.01%) 526,450 (73.35%) 12,152 (01.69%) 171,874 (23.95%)

4,873 (00.91%) 392,469 (73.39%) 9,315 (01.74%) 128,135 (23.96%)

Total, and % Population

534,792 (74.51%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 19 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 19 Dist. 20 Dist. 21 Dist. 22 Dist. 24

31,728 (04.42%) 316,580 (44.11%) 50,651 (07.06%) 268,534 (37.42%) 50,215 (07.00%)

24,118 (04.24%) 251,242 (44.20%) 39,730 (06.99%) 212,223 (37.34%) 41,056 (07.22%)

Total, and % Population

568,369 (79.19%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 20 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 20 Dist. 21

120,672 (16.81%) 597,036 (83.19%)

93,921 (16.61%) 471,585 (83.39%)

Total, and % Population

565,506 (78.79%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 21 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 20 Dist. 21

233,794 (32.58%) 31,506 (04.39%)

183,116 (32.70%) 24,403 (04.36%)

Page 5

Population

[18+_Pop]

Dist. 23 Dist. 24

442,863 (61.71%) 9,544 (01.33%)

344,947 (61.60%) 7,473 (01.33%)

Total, and % Population

559,939 (78.02%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 22 -- 717,708 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 22 Dist. 23 Dist. 24

165,449 (23.05%) 144,499 (20.13%) 407,760 (56.81%)

132,383 (23.53%) 111,530 (19.83%) 318,595 (56.64%)

Total, and % Population

562,508 (78.38%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 23 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 22 Dist. 24 Dist. 26 Dist. 27 Dist. 29

73,440 (10.23%) 119,967 (16.72%) 231 (00.03%) 134,905 (18.80%) 389,164 (54.22%)

62,717 (11.15%) 93,862 (16.69%) 193 (00.03%) 105,459 (18.75%) 300,270 (53.38%)

Total, and % Population

562,501 (78.37%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 24 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 23 Dist. 24 Dist. 25

76,883 (10.71%) 69,736 (09.72%) 571,088 (79.57%)

59,694 (10.78%) 54,865 (09.91%) 439,107 (79.31%)

Total, and % Population

553,666 (77.14%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 25 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 25 Dist. 26 Dist. 28 Dist. 29

97,781 (13.62%) 144,968 (20.20%) 276,014 (38.46%) 198,944 (27.72%)

75,225 (13.54%) 112,737 (20.29%) 211,077 (38.00%) 156,490 (28.17%)

Page 6

Population

[18+_Pop]

Total, and % Population

555,529 (77.40%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 26 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 26 Dist. 27 Dist. 28

146,072 (20.35%) 303,834 (42.33%) 267,801 (37.31%)

117,643 (20.80%) 239,823 (42.40%) 208,110 (36.80%)

Total, and % Population

565,576 (78.80%)

Plan: FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN, District 27 -- 717,707 Total Population

From Plan: NY Congress benchmark
Dist. 26 Dist. 27 Dist. 28 Dist. 29

383,533 (53.44%) 190,532 (26.55%) 68,023 (09.48%) 75,619 (10.54%)

299,115 (53.55%) 148,261 (26.54%) 53,463 (09.57%) 57,693 (10.33%)

Total, and % Population

558,532 (77.82%)

Page 7

New York City Community Districts

Manhattan Community Districts

Brooklyn Community Districts

Queens Community Districts

The Bronx Community Districts

Staten Island Community Districts

New York City Projection Areas1

Magnified maps of individual neighborhoods on following pages are provided just for illustrative purposes.

Manhattan Projection Areas

Brooklyn Projection Areas

Queens Projection Areas

10

The Bronx Projection Areas

11

Staten Island Projection Areas

12

13

Noncompact Districts in Existing Plan

Current 8th District Current 3rd District

Current 12th

Current 9th

Current 17th

Current 28th

Current 22nd

Current 20th

Changes Made From Proposed Plan to Recommended Plan

(Red dotted lines indicate district boundaries in Proposed Plan; black solid lines indicate districts in Recommended Plan)

1. Changes Between Proposed Districts 8 and 9

2. Changes Between Proposed Plans Districts 23 and 27.

3. Changes Between Proposed Plans Districts 25 and 27

Plan Name: Plan Type: Administrator:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts

Sunday March 11, 2012 12:55 PM 42

Number of subdivisions not split:

County

Number of subdivisions split into more than one district:

County 20

Number of subdivision splits which affect no population:

County 0

Split Counts
County Cases where an area is split among 2 Districts: 13 Cases where an area is split among 3 Districts: 2 Cases where an area is split among 4 Districts: 3 Cases where an area is split among 6 Districts: 1 Cases where an area is split among 7 Districts: 1

County Split Counties : Bronx NY Bronx NY Bronx NY Bronx NY Broome NY Broome NY Dutchess NY Dutchess NY Erie NY Erie NY Herkimer NY Herkimer NY Kings NY Kings NY Kings NY Kings NY

District 13 14 15 16 19 22 18 19 26 27 21 22 07 08 09 10 Page 1

Population 186,192 238,807 717,708 242,401 2,311 198,289 177,398 120,090 635,963 283,077 9,544 54,975 504,422 670,533 717,708 298,907

Plan Name: Plan Type: County

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: District 11 12 25 27 19 20 02 03 04 05 07 10 12 13 26 27 23 27 22 24 03 05 06 07 08 12 14 19 20 20 21 01 02 03 22 23 16 17 18 23 27 Population 248,978 64,152 717,707 26,637 15,613 34,606 182,328 357,232 717,708 82,264 97,777 418,801 537,780 531,515 81,744 134,725 44,942 62,989 45,226 76,883 120,212 635,444 717,707 115,508 47,175 115,775 478,901 64,349 95,080 129,091 90,516 717,707 535,380 240,263 11,085 40,040 475,306 406,021 67,786 231 41,924

Split Counties (continued): Kings NY Kings NY Monroe NY Monroe NY Montgomery NY Montgomery NY Nassau NY Nassau NY Nassau NY Nassau NY New York NY New York NY New York NY New York NY Niagara NY Niagara NY Ontario NY Ontario NY Oswego NY Oswego NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Rensselaer NY Rensselaer NY Saratoga NY Saratoga NY Suffolk NY Suffolk NY Suffolk NY Tioga NY Tioga NY Westchester NY Westchester NY Westchester NY Wyoming NY Wyoming NY

Page 2

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User:

Communities of Interest - County Subdivision

Sunday, March 11, 2012 2:14 PM

County Subdivision

District

Population

Adams NY Addison NY Afton NY Alabama NY Albany NY Albion NY Albion NY Alden NY Alexander NY Alexandria NY Alfred NY Allegany NY Allegany NY Allen NY Alma NY Almond NY Altona NY Amboy NY Amenia NY Amherst NY Amherst NY Amity NY Amsterdam NY Amsterdam NY Ancram NY Andes NY Andover NY Angelica NY Annsville NY Antwerp NY Arcade NY Arcade NY Arcadia NY Argyle NY

21 23 22 27 20 22 27 27 27 21 23 23 23 23 23 23 21 22 19 26 27 23 20 20 19 19 23 23 22 21 23 27 24 21

5,143 2,595 2,851 1,869 97,856 2,073 8,468 10,865 2,534 4,061 5,237 8,004 1,020 448 842 1,633 2,887 1,263 4,436 114,504 7,862 2,308 18,620 5,566 1,573 1,301 1,830 1,403 3,012 1,846 231 3,974 14,244 3,782

Page 1

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Arietta NY Arkwright NY Ashford NY Ashland NY Ashland NY Athens NY Attica NY Au Sable NY Auburn NY Augusta NY Aurelius NY Aurora NY Austerlitz NY Ava NY Avoca NY Avon NY Babylon NY Bainbridge NY Baldwin NY Ballston NY Ballston NY Bangor NY Barker NY Barre NY Barrington NY Barton NY Batavia NY Batavia NY Bath NY Beacon NY Bedford NY Beekman NY Beekmantown NY Belfast NY Bellmont NY Bennington NY Benson NY Benton NY Bergen NY Berkshire NY Berlin NY

21 23 23 19 23 19 27 21 24 22 24 27 19 22 23 27 02 22 23 20 21 21 22 27 23 23 27 27 23 18 18 19 21 23 21 27 21 23 27 23 19

304 1,061 2,132 784 1,695 4,089 7,702 3,146 27,687 2,020 2,792 13,782 1,654 676 2,264 7,164 213,603 3,308 832 8,619 1,157 2,224 2,732 2,025 1,681 8,858 6,809 15,465 12,379 15,541 17,335 14,621 5,545 1,663 1,434 3,359 192 2,836 3,120 1,412 1,880

Page 2

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Berne NY Bethany NY Bethel NY Bethlehem NY Big Flats NY Binghamton NY Binghamton NY Birdsall NY Black Brook NY Bleecker NY Blenheim NY Blooming Grove NY Bolivar NY Bolton NY Bombay NY Boonville NY Boston NY Bovina NY Boylston NY Bradford NY Brandon NY Brant NY Brasher NY Bridgewater NY Brighton NY Brighton NY Bristol NY Broadalbin NY Bronx NY Bronx NY Bronx NY Bronx NY Brookfield NY Brookhaven NY Brooklyn NY Brooklyn NY Brooklyn NY Brooklyn NY Brooklyn NY Brooklyn NY Broome NY

20 27 19 20 23 22 22 23 21 21 19 18 23 21 21 22 27 19 22 23 21 27 21 22 21 25 27 21 13 14 15 16 22 01 07 08 09 10 11 12 19

2,794 1,765 4,255 33,656 7,731 4,942 47,376 221 1,497 533 377 18,028 2,189 2,326 1,357 4,555 8,023 633 549 855 577 2,065 2,512 1,522 1,435 36,609 2,315 5,260 186,192 238,807 717,708 242,401 2,545 486,040 504,422 670,533 717,708 298,907 248,978 64,152 973

Page 3

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Brownville NY Brunswick NY Brutus NY Buffalo NY Buffalo NY Burke NY Burlington NY Burns NY Busti NY Butler NY Butternuts NY Byron NY Cairo NY Caledonia NY Callicoon NY Cambria NY Cambridge NY Camden NY Cameron NY Camillus NY Campbell NY Canaan NY Canadice NY Canajoharie NY Canandaigua NY Canandaigua NY Canandaigua NY Candor NY Caneadea NY Canisteo NY Canton NY Cape Vincent NY Carlisle NY Carlton NY Carmel NY Caroga NY Caroline NY Carroll NY Carrollton NY Castile NY Catharine NY

21 19 24 26 27 21 19 23 23 24 19 27 19 27 19 27 21 22 23 24 23 19 27 19 23 27 27 23 23 23 21 21 19 27 18 21 23 23 23 27 23

6,263 11,941 4,464 261,310 0 1,465 1,140 1,180 7,351 2,064 1,786 2,369 6,670 4,255 3,057 5,839 2,021 4,934 945 24,167 3,406 1,710 1,664 3,730 0 10,020 10,545 5,305 2,542 3,391 10,995 2,777 1,948 2,994 34,305 1,205 3,282 3,524 1,297 2,906 1,762

Page 4

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Catlin NY Cato NY Caton NY Catskill NY Cattaraugus NY Cattaraugus NY Cattaraugus NY Cayuta NY Cazenovia NY Centerville NY Champion NY Champlain NY Charleston NY Charlotte NY Charlton NY Chateaugay NY Chatham NY Chautauqua Lake NY Chautauqua NY Chazy NY Cheektowaga NY Chemung NY Chenango NY Cherry Creek NY Cherry Valley NY Chester NY Chester NY Chesterfield NY Chili NY Cicero NY Cincinnatus NY Clare NY Clarence NY Clarendon NY Clarkson NY Clarkson NY Clarkstown NY Clarksville NY Claverack NY Clay NY Clayton NY

23 24 23 19 23 23 27 23 22 23 21 21 20 23 20 21 19 23 23 21 26 23 22 23 19 18 21 21 25 24 22 21 27 27 25 27 17 23 19 24 21

2,618 2,537 2,179 11,775 38 314 1,833 556 7,086 822 4,494 5,754 1,373 1,729 4,133 2,155 4,128 0 4,464 4,284 88,226 2,563 11,252 1,118 1,223 11,981 3,355 2,445 28,625 31,632 1,056 105 30,673 3,648 6,547 189 84,187 1,161 6,021 58,206 5,153

Page 5

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Clermont NY 19 Clifton NY 21 Clifton Park NY 20 Clinton NY 19 Clinton NY 21 Clymer NY 23 Cobleskill NY 19 Cochecton NY 19 Coeymans NY 20 Cohocton NY 23 Cohoes NY 20 Colchester NY 19 Colden NY 27 Coldspring NY 23 Colesville NY 22 Collins NY 27 Colonie NY 20 Colton NY 21 Columbia NY 22 Columbus NY 22 Concord NY 27 Conesus NY 27 Conesville NY 19 Conewango NY 23 Conklin NY 22 Conquest NY 24 Constable NY 21 Constantia NY 22 Copake NY 19 Corinth NY 21 Corning NY 23 Corning NY 23 Cornwall NY 18 Cortland NY 22 Cortlandt NY 17 Cortlandville NY 22 County subdivisions not defined NY 21 County subdivisions not defined NY 22 County subdivisions not defined NY 23 County subdivisions not defined NY 24 County subdivisions not defined NY 24

1,965 751 36,705 4,312 737 1,698 6,625 1,372 7,418 2,561 16,168 2,077 3,265 663 5,232 6,601 81,591 1,451 1,580 975 8,494 2,473 734 1,857 5,441 1,819 1,566 4,973 3,615 6,531 11,183 6,270 12,646 19,204 41,592 8,509 0 0 0 0 0

Page 6

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

County subdivisions not defined NY 24 County subdivisions not defined NY 25 County subdivisions not defined NY 26 County subdivisions not defined NY 27 County subdivisions not defined NY 27 County subdivisions not defined NY 27 Coventry NY 22 Covert NY 23 Covington NY 27 Coxsackie NY 19 Crawford NY 18 Croghan NY 21 Crown Point NY 21 Cuba NY 23 Cuyler NY 22 Danby NY 23 Dannemora NY 21 Dansville NY 23 Danube NY 22 Darien NY 27 Davenport NY 19 Day NY 21 Dayton NY 23 De Kalb NY 21 De Peyster NY 21 De Witt NY 24 Decatur NY 19 Deerfield NY 22 Deerpark NY 18 Delaware NY 19 Delhi NY 19 Denmark NY 21 Denning NY 19 Deposit NY 19 DeRuyter NY 22 Diana NY 21 Dickinson NY 21 Dickinson NY 22 Dix NY 23 Dover NY 19 Dresden NY 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 1,655 2,154 1,232 8,918 9,316 3,093 2,024 3,243 980 3,329 4,898 1,842 1,039 3,158 2,965 856 1,886 2,434 998 25,838 353 4,273 7,901 2,670 5,117 2,860 551 1,712 1,589 1,709 823 5,278 3,864 8,699 652

Page 7

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Dryden NY Duane NY Duanesburg NY Dunkirk NY Dunkirk NY Durham NY Eagle NY East Bloomfield NY East Fishkill NY East Fishkill NY East Greenbush NY East Hampton NY East Otto NY East Rochester NY Eastchester NY Easton NY Eaton NY Eden NY Edinburg NY Edmeston NY Edwards NY Elba NY Elbridge NY Elizabethtown NY Ellenburg NY Ellery NY Ellicott NY Ellicottville NY Ellington NY Ellisburg NY Elma NY Elmira NY Elmira NY Enfield NY Ephratah NY Erin NY Erwin NY Esopus NY Esperance NY Essex NY Evans NY

23 21 20 23 23 19 27 27 18 19 20 01 23 25 16 21 22 27 21 19 21 27 24 21 21 23 23 23 23 21 27 23 23 23 21 23 23 19 19 21 27

14,435 174 6,122 12,563 1,318 2,725 1,192 3,634 29,027 2 16,473 21,457 1,062 6,587 32,363 2,336 5,255 7,688 1,214 1,826 1,156 2,370 5,922 1,163 1,743 4,528 8,714 1,598 1,643 3,474 11,317 29,200 6,934 3,512 1,682 1,962 8,037 9,041 2,076 671 16,356

Page 8

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Exeter NY Fabius NY Fairfield NY Fallsburg NY Farmersville NY Farmington NY Fayette NY Fenner NY Fenton NY Fine NY Fishkill NY Fleming NY Florence NY Florida NY Floyd NY Forestburgh NY Forestport NY Fort Ann NY Fort Covington NY Fort Edward NY Fowler NY Frankfort NY Franklin NY Franklin NY Franklinville NY Freedom NY Freetown NY Fremont NY Fremont NY French Creek NY Friendship NY Fulton NY Fulton NY Gaines NY Gainesville NY Galen NY Gallatin NY Galway NY Gardiner NY Gates NY Geddes NY

19 24 22 19 23 27 23 22 22 21 18 24 22 20 22 19 22 21 21 21 21 22 19 21 23 23 22 19 23 23 23 19 24 27 27 24 19 21 19 25 24

987 1,964 1,627 12,870 1,090 11,825 3,929 1,726 6,674 1,512 22,107 2,636 1,025 2,696 3,819 819 1,535 6,190 1,676 6,371 2,202 7,636 2,411 1,140 2,990 2,405 757 1,381 1,008 906 2,004 1,442 11,896 3,378 2,182 4,290 1,668 3,545 5,713 28,400 17,118

Page 9

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Genesee Falls NY Genesee NY Geneseo NY Geneva NY Geneva NY Geneva NY Genoa NY Georgetown NY German Flatts NY German NY Germantown NY Gerry NY Ghent NY Gilboa NY Glen Cove NY Glen NY Glens Falls NY Glenville NY Gloversville NY Gorham NY Goshen NY Gouverneur NY Grafton NY Granby NY Grand Island NY Granger NY Granville NY Great Valley NY Greece NY Green Island NY Greenburgh NY Greenburgh NY Greene NY Greenfield NY Greenport NY Greenville NY Greenville NY Greenwich NY Greenwood NY Greig NY Groton NY

27 23 27 23 23 23 24 22 22 22 19 23 19 19 03 20 21 20 21 23 18 21 19 24 26 23 21 23 25 20 16 17 22 21 19 18 19 21 23 21 23

438 1,693 10,483 3,291 0 13,261 1,935 974 13,258 370 1,954 1,905 5,402 1,307 26,964 2,507 14,700 29,480 15,665 4,247 13,687 7,085 2,130 6,821 20,374 538 6,669 1,974 96,095 2,620 20,790 67,610 5,604 7,775 4,165 4,616 3,739 4,942 801 1,199 5,950

Page 10

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Grove NY Groveland NY Guilderland NY Guilford NY Hadley NY Hague NY Halcott NY Halfmoon NY Hamburg NY Hamden NY Hamilton NY Hamlin NY Hamlin NY Hammond NY Hampton NY Hamptonburgh NY Hancock NY Hannibal NY Hanover NY Hardenburgh NY Harford NY Harmony NY Harpersfield NY Harrietstown NY Harrisburg NY Harrison NY Hartford NY Hartland NY Hartsville NY Hartwick NY Hastings NY Haverstraw NY Hebron NY Hector NY Hempstead NY Hempstead NY Hempstead NY Henderson NY Henrietta NY Herkimer NY Hermon NY

23 27 20 22 21 21 19 20 27 19 22 25 27 21 21 18 19 24 23 19 22 23 19 21 21 17 21 27 23 19 22 17 21 23 02 04 05 21 25 22 21

548 3,249 35,303 2,922 2,048 699 258 21,535 56,936 1,323 6,690 2 9,043 1,191 938 5,561 3,224 4,854 7,127 238 943 2,206 1,577 5,709 437 27,472 2,269 4,117 609 2,110 9,450 36,634 1,853 4,940 79,135 598,358 82,264 1,360 42,581 10,175 1,108

Page 11

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Highland NY Highlands NY Hillsdale NY Hinsdale NY Holland NY Homer NY Hoosick NY Hope NY Hopewell NY Hopkinton NY Horicon NY Hornby NY Hornell NY Hornellsville NY Horseheads NY Hounsfield NY Howard NY Hudson NY Hume NY Humphrey NY Hunter NY Huntington NY Hurley NY Huron NY Hyde Park NY Hyde Park NY Independence NY Indian Lake NY Inlet NY Ira NY Irondequoit NY Ischua NY Islip NY Islip NY Italy NY Ithaca NY Ithaca NY Jackson NY Jamestown NY Jasper NY Java NY

19 18 19 23 27 22 19 21 23 21 21 23 23 23 23 21 23 19 23 23 19 03 19 24 18 19 23 21 21 24 25 23 01 02 23 23 23 21 23 23 27

2,530 12,492 1,927 2,168 3,401 6,405 6,924 403 3,747 1,077 1,389 1,706 8,563 4,151 19,485 3,466 1,467 6,713 2,071 687 2,732 203,264 6,314 2,118 1,563 20,008 1,167 1,352 333 2,206 51,692 859 13,766 321,777 1,141 30,014 19,930 1,800 31,146 1,424 2,057

Page 12

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Jay NY Jefferson NY Jerusalem NY Jewett NY Johnsburg NY Johnstown NY Johnstown NY Junius NY Keene NY Kendall NY Kent NY Kiantone NY Kinderhook NY Kingsbury NY Kingston NY Kingston NY Kirkland NY Kirkwood NY Knox NY Kortright NY La Grange NY La Grange NY Lackawanna NY LaFayette NY Lake George NY Lake Luzerne NY Lake Pleasant NY Lancaster NY Lansing NY Lapeer NY Laurens NY Lawrence NY Le Ray NY Le Roy NY Lebanon NY Ledyard NY Lee NY Leicester NY Lenox NY Leon NY Lewis NY

21 19 23 19 21 21 21 23 21 27 18 23 19 21 19 19 22 22 20 19 18 19 26 24 21 21 21 27 23 22 19 21 21 27 22 24 22 27 22 23 21

2,506 1,410 4,469 953 2,395 7,098 8,743 1,471 1,105 2,724 13,507 1,350 8,498 12,671 889 23,893 10,315 5,857 2,692 1,675 7,254 8,476 18,141 4,952 3,515 3,347 781 41,604 11,033 767 2,424 1,826 21,782 7,641 1,332 1,886 6,486 2,200 9,122 1,365 854

Page 13

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Lewis NY Lewisboro NY Lewiston NY Lexington NY Leyden NY Liberty NY Lima NY Lincklaen NY Lincoln NY Lindley NY Lisbon NY Lisle NY Litchfield NY Little Falls NY Little Falls NY Little Valley NY Livingston NY Livonia NY Lloyd NY Locke NY Lockport NY Lockport NY Lodi NY Long Beach NY Long Lake NY Lorraine NY Louisville NY Lowville NY Lumberland NY Lyme NY Lyndon NY Lyons NY Lyonsdale NY Lysander NY Macedon NY Machias NY Macomb NY Madison NY Madrid NY Maine NY Malone NY

21 18 27 19 21 19 27 22 22 23 21 22 22 22 22 23 19 27 19 24 27 27 23 04 21 21 21 21 19 21 23 24 21 24 24 23 21 22 21 22 21

1,382 12,411 16,262 805 1,785 9,885 4,305 396 2,012 1,967 4,102 2,751 1,513 1,587 4,946 1,740 3,646 7,809 10,863 1,951 20,529 21,165 1,550 33,275 711 1,037 3,145 4,982 2,468 2,185 707 5,682 1,227 21,759 9,148 2,375 906 3,008 1,735 5,377 14,545

Page 14

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Malta NY Mamakating NY Mamaroneck NY Manchester NY Manhattan NY Manhattan NY Manhattan NY Manhattan NY Manheim NY Manheim NY Manlius NY Mansfield NY Marathon NY Marbletown NY Marcellus NY Marcy NY Marilla NY Marion NY Marlborough NY Marshall NY Martinsburg NY Maryland NY Masonville NY Massena NY Mayfield NY McDonough NY Mechanicville NY Mendon NY Mentz NY Meredith NY Mexico NY Middleburgh NY Middlebury NY Middlefield NY Middlesex NY Middletown NY Middletown NY Milan NY Milford NY Milo NY Milton NY

20 19 16 23 07 10 12 13 21 22 24 23 22 19 24 22 27 24 19 22 21 19 19 21 21 22 20 27 24 19 22 19 27 19 23 18 19 19 19 23 21

14,765 12,085 29,156 9,395 97,777 418,801 537,780 531,515 2,552 782 32,370 808 1,967 5,607 6,210 8,982 5,327 4,746 8,808 2,131 1,433 1,897 1,320 12,883 6,495 886 5,196 9,152 2,378 1,529 5,197 3,746 1,441 2,114 1,495 28,086 3,750 2,370 3,044 7,006 18,575

Page 15

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Mina NY Minden NY Minerva NY Minetto NY Minisink NY Mohawk NY Moira NY Monroe NY Montague NY Montezuma NY Montgomery NY Montour NY Mooers NY Moravia NY Moreau NY Morehouse NY Moriah NY Morris NY Morristown NY Mount Hope NY Mount Kisco NY Mount Morris NY Mount Pleasant NY Mount Vernon NY Murray NY Nanticoke NY Naples NY Naples NY Napoli NY Nassau NY Nelson NY Neversink NY New Albion NY New Baltimore NY New Berlin NY New Bremen NY New Castle NY New Castle NY New Hartford NY New Haven NY New Haven NY

23 19 21 24 18 20 21 18 21 24 18 23 21 24 21 21 21 19 21 18 17 27 17 16 27 22 23 27 23 19 22 19 23 19 22 21 17 18 22 22 24

1,106 4,297 809 1,659 4,490 3,844 2,934 39,912 78 1,277 22,606 2,308 3,592 3,626 14,728 86 4,798 1,878 1,974 7,018 10,877 4,465 43,724 67,292 4,988 1,672 1,208 1,294 1,248 4,789 1,980 3,557 1,972 3,370 2,682 2,706 15,290 2,279 22,166 2,260 596

Page 16

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

New Hudson NY New Lebanon NY New Lisbon NY New Paltz NY New Rochelle NY New Scotland NY New Windsor NY Newark Valley NY Newburgh NY Newburgh NY Newcomb NY Newfane NY Newfield NY Newport NY Newstead NY Niagara Falls NY Niagara Falls NY Niagara NY Nichols NY Nichols NY Niles NY Niskayuna NY Norfolk NY North Castle NY North Castle NY North Collins NY North Dansville NY North East NY North Elba NY North Greenbush NY North Harmony NY North Hempstead NY North Hempstead NY North Hudson NY North Norwich NY North Salem NY North Tonawanda NY Northampton NY Northumberland NY Norway NY Norwich NY

23 19 19 19 16 20 18 23 18 18 21 27 23 22 27 26 27 27 22 23 24 20 21 17 18 27 27 19 21 20 23 03 04 21 22 18 26 21 21 22 22

781 2,305 1,114 14,003 77,062 8,648 25,244 3,946 29,801 28,866 436 9,666 5,179 2,302 8,594 50,176 17 8,378 2,161 364 1,194 21,781 4,668 6,889 4,952 3,523 5,538 3,031 8,957 12,075 2,267 140,247 86,075 240 1,783 5,104 31,568 2,670 5,087 762 3,998

Page 17

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Norwich NY Nunda NY Oakfield NY Ogden NY Ogdensburg NY Ohio NY Oil Springs NY Oil Springs NY Olean NY Olean NY Olive NY Oneida NY Oneonta NY Oneonta NY Onondaga Nation NY Onondaga NY Ontario NY Oppenheim NY Orange NY Orangetown NY Orangeville NY Orchard Park NY Orleans NY Orwell NY Osceola NY Ossian NY Ossining NY Oswegatchie NY Oswego NY Oswego NY Otego NY Otisco NY Otsego NY Otselic NY Otto NY Ovid NY Owasco NY Owego NY Owego NY Oxford NY Oyster Bay NY

22 27 27 25 21 21 23 23 23 23 19 22 19 19 24 24 24 21 23 17 27 27 21 22 21 27 17 21 24 24 19 24 19 22 23 23 24 22 23 22 02

7,190 3,064 3,250 19,856 11,128 1,002 0 1 1,963 14,452 4,419 11,393 13,901 5,229 468 23,101 10,136 1,924 1,609 49,212 1,355 29,054 2,789 1,167 229 789 37,674 4,397 18,142 7,984 3,115 2,541 3,900 1,054 808 2,311 3,793 8,924 10,959 3,901 103,193

Page 18

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Oyster Bay NY Palatine NY Palermo NY Palmyra NY Pamelia NY Paris NY Parish NY Parishville NY Parma NY Patterson NY Pavilion NY Pawling NY Peekskill NY Pelham NY Pembroke NY Pendleton NY Penfield NY Perinton NY Perry NY Perrysburg NY Persia NY Perth NY Peru NY Petersburgh NY Pharsalia NY Phelps NY Philadelphia NY Philipstown NY Piercefield NY Pierrepont NY Pike NY Pinckney NY Pine Plains NY Pitcairn NY Pitcher NY Pittsfield NY Pittsford NY Pittstown NY Plainfield NY Plattekill NY Plattsburgh NY

03 19 24 24 21 22 22 21 25 18 27 19 17 16 27 27 25 25 27 23 23 21 21 19 22 23 21 18 21 21 27 21 19 21 22 19 25 19 19 19 21

190,021 3,240 3,664 7,975 3,160 4,411 2,558 2,153 15,633 12,023 2,495 8,463 23,583 12,396 4,292 6,397 36,242 46,462 4,616 1,626 2,404 3,646 6,998 1,525 593 7,072 1,947 9,662 310 2,589 1,114 329 2,473 846 803 1,366 29,405 5,735 915 10,499 11,870

Page 19

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Plattsburgh NY Pleasant Valley NY Plymouth NY Poestenkill NY Poland NY Pomfret NY Pompey NY Poospatuck NY Port Jervis NY Portage NY Porter NY Portland NY Portville NY Potsdam NY Potter NY Poughkeepsie NY Poughkeepsie NY Poughkeepsie NY Pound Ridge NY Prattsburgh NY Prattsville NY Preble NY Preston NY Princetown NY Providence NY Pulteney NY Putnam NY Putnam Valley NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queens NY Queensbury NY Ramapo NY Randolph NY Rathbone NY Reading NY Red Hook NY

21 19 22 19 23 23 24 01 18 27 27 23 23 21 23 18 18 19 18 23 19 22 22 20 21 23 21 18 03 05 06 07 08 12 14 21 17 23 23 23 19

19,989 9,672 1,804 4,530 2,356 14,965 7,080 324 8,828 884 6,771 4,827 3,730 16,041 1,865 42,122 32,736 1,219 5,104 2,085 700 1,393 1,044 2,115 1,995 1,285 609 11,809 120,212 635,444 717,707 115,508 47,175 115,775 478,901 27,901 126,595 2,602 1,126 1,707 11,319

Page 20

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Red House NY Redfield NY Remsen NY Rensselaer NY Rensselaerville NY Rhinebeck NY Richfield NY Richford NY Richland NY Richmond NY Richmondville NY Ridgeway NY Riga NY Ripley NY Riverhead NY Rochester NY Rochester NY Rockland NY Rodman NY Rome NY Romulus NY Root NY Rose NY Roseboom NY Rosendale NY Rossie NY Rotterdam NY Roxbury NY Royalton NY Rush NY Rushford NY Russell NY Russia NY Russia NY Rutland NY Rye NY Rye NY Rye NY Salamanca NY Salamanca NY Salem NY

23 22 22 20 20 19 19 23 22 27 19 27 25 23 01 19 25 19 21 22 23 19 24 19 19 21 20 19 27 27 23 21 21 22 21 16 16 17 23 23 21

38 550 1,929 9,392 1,843 7,548 2,388 1,172 5,718 3,361 2,610 6,780 5,590 2,415 33,506 7,313 210,565 3,775 1,176 33,725 4,316 1,715 2,369 711 6,075 877 29,094 2,502 7,660 3,478 1,150 1,856 2,225 362 3,060 15,720 7,614 38,314 481 5,815 2,715

Page 21

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Salina NY Salisbury NY Sand Lake NY Sandy Creek NY Sanford NY Sanford NY Sangerfield NY Santa Clara NY Saranac NY Saratoga NY Saratoga Springs NY Sardinia NY Saugerties NY Savannah NY Scarsdale NY Scarsdale NY Schaghticoke NY Schaghticoke NY Schenectady NY Schodack NY Schodack NY Schoharie NY Schroeppel NY Schroon NY Schuyler Falls NY Schuyler NY Scio NY Scipio NY Scott NY Scriba NY Sempronius NY Seneca Falls NY Seneca NY Sennett NY Seward NY Shandaken NY Sharon NY Shawangunk NY Shelby NY Sheldon NY Shelter Island NY

24 21 19 22 19 22 22 21 21 21 20 27 19 24 16 17 19 20 20 19 20 19 24 21 21 22 23 24 22 24 24 23 23 24 19 19 19 19 27 27 01

33,710 1,958 8,530 3,939 2,311 96 2,561 345 4,007 5,674 26,586 2,775 19,482 1,730 16,937 229 7,675 4 66,135 5,787 7,007 3,205 8,501 1,654 5,181 3,420 1,833 1,713 1,176 6,840 895 9,040 2,721 3,595 1,763 3,085 1,846 14,332 5,319 2,409 2,392

Page 22

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Sherburne NY Sheridan NY Sherman NY Sherrill NY Shinnecock NY Sidney NY Skaneateles NY Smithfield NY Smithtown NY Smithtown NY Smithville NY Smyrna NY Sodus NY Solon NY Somers NY Somerset NY South Bristol NY South Valley NY Southampton NY Southeast NY Southold NY Southport NY Spafford NY Sparta NY Spencer NY Springfield NY Springport NY Springwater NY St. Armand NY St. Johnsville NY St. Regis Mohawk NY Stafford NY Stamford NY Stanford NY Stark NY Starkey NY Staten Island NY Stephentown NY Sterling NY Steuben NY Stillwater NY

22 23 23 22 01 19 24 22 01 03 22 22 24 22 18 27 27 23 01 18 01 23 24 27 23 19 24 27 21 19 21 27 19 19 22 23 11 19 24 22 20

4,048 2,673 1,653 3,071 662 5,774 7,209 1,288 80,802 36,999 1,330 1,280 8,384 1,079 20,434 2,662 1,590 264 56,790 18,404 21,968 10,940 1,686 1,624 3,153 1,358 2,367 2,439 1,548 2,631 3,228 2,459 2,267 3,823 757 3,573 468,730 2,903 3,040 1,100 3,129

Page 23

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Stillwater NY Stockbridge NY Stockholm NY Stockport NY Stockton NY Stony Creek NY Stony Point NY Stratford NY Stuyvesant NY Sullivan NY Summerhill NY Summit NY Sweden NY Syracuse NY Taghkanic NY Taylor NY Theresa NY Thompson NY Throop NY Thurman NY Thurston NY Ticonderoga NY Tioga NY Tompkins NY Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Torrey NY Trenton NY Triangle NY Troupsburg NY Troy NY Truxton NY Tully NY Tupper Lake NY Turin NY Tuscarora Nation NY Tuscarora NY Tusten NY

21 22 21 19 23 21 17 21 19 22 24 19 25 24 19 22 21 19 24 21 23 21 23 19 26 26 27 27 27 23 22 22 23 20 22 24 21 21 27 23 19

5,158 2,103 3,665 2,815 2,248 767 15,059 610 2,027 15,339 1,217 1,148 14,175 145,170 1,310 523 2,905 15,308 1,990 1,219 1,350 5,042 4,871 1,247 73,567 15,130 34 0 483 1,282 4,498 2,946 1,291 50,129 1,133 2,738 5,971 761 1,152 1,473 1,515

Page 24

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Tuxedo NY Tyre NY Tyrone NY Ulster NY Ulysses NY Unadilla NY Union NY Union Vale NY Urbana NY Utica NY Van Buren NY Van Etten NY Varick NY Venice NY Vernon NY Verona NY Vestal NY Veteran NY Victor NY Victory NY Vienna NY Villenova NY Virgil NY Volney NY Waddington NY Wales NY Wallkill NY Walton NY Walworth NY Wappinger NY Ward NY Warren NY Warrensburg NY Warsaw NY Warwick NY Washington NY Waterford NY Waterloo NY Watertown NY Watertown NY Watervliet NY

18 23 23 19 23 19 22 19 23 22 24 23 23 24 22 22 22 23 27 24 22 23 22 24 21 27 18 19 24 18 23 22 21 27 18 19 20 23 21 21 20

3,624 981 1,597 12,327 4,900 4,392 56,346 4,877 2,343 62,235 13,185 1,557 1,857 1,368 5,408 6,293 28,043 3,313 14,275 1,660 5,440 1,110 2,401 5,926 2,266 3,005 27,426 5,576 9,449 27,048 368 1,143 4,094 5,064 32,065 4,741 8,423 7,642 4,470 27,023 10,254

Page 25

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Watson NY Waverly NY Wawarsing NY Wawayanda NY Wayland NY Wayne NY Webb NY Webster NY Wells NY Wellsville NY West Almond NY West Bloomfield NY West Monroe NY West Seneca NY West Sparta NY West Turin NY West Union NY Westerlo NY Western NY Westfield NY Westford NY Westmoreland NY Westport NY Westville NY Wethersfield NY Wheatfield NY Wheatland NY Wheeler NY White Creek NY White Plains NY Whitehall NY Whitestown NY Willet NY Williamson NY Williamstown NY Willing NY Willsboro NY Wilmington NY Wilna NY Wilson NY Wilton NY

21 21 19 18 23 23 21 25 21 23 23 27 22 26 27 21 23 20 22 23 19 22 21 21 27 27 27 23 21 17 21 22 22 24 22 23 21 21 21 27 21

1,881 1,022 13,157 7,266 4,102 1,041 1,807 42,641 674 7,397 334 2,466 4,252 44,711 1,255 1,524 312 3,361 1,951 4,896 868 6,138 1,312 1,819 883 18,117 4,775 1,260 3,356 56,853 4,042 18,667 1,043 6,984 1,277 1,228 2,025 1,253 6,427 5,993 16,173

Page 26

Plan: Plan Type:

County Subdivision

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

District

Administrator: User:
Population %

Windham NY Windsor NY Winfield NY Wirt NY Wolcott NY Woodbury NY Woodhull NY Woodstock NY Worcester NY Worth NY Wright NY Yates NY Yonkers NY York NY Yorkshire NY Yorktown NY Yorktown NY

19 22 22 23 24 18 23 19 19 21 19 27 16 27 23 17 18

1,703 6,274 2,086 1,111 4,453 11,353 1,719 5,884 2,220 231 1,539 2,559 195,976 3,397 3,913 35,914 167

County Subdivisions -- listed by District

District 01
Brookhaven NY East Hampton NY Islip NY (part) Poospatuck NY Riverhead NY Shelter Island NY Shinnecock NY Smithtown NY (part) Southampton NY Southold NY
Population %

486,040 21,457 13,766 324 33,506 2,392 662 80,802 56,790 21,968
717,707
Population %

District 01 Totals

District 02
Babylon NY Hempstead NY (part) Islip NY (part) Oyster Bay NY (part)

213,603 79,135 321,777 103,193

Page 27

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User:

District 02 Totals

717,708
Population %

District 03
Glen Cove NY Huntington NY North Hempstead NY (part) Oyster Bay NY (part) Queens NY (part) Smithtown NY (part)

26,964 203,264 140,247 190,021 120,212 36,999

717,707
Population %

District 03 Totals

District 04
Hempstead NY (part) Long Beach NY North Hempstead NY (part)

598,358 33,275 86,075

717,708
Population %

District 04 Totals

District 05
Hempstead NY (part) Queens NY (part)

82,264 635,444
717,708
Population %

District 05 Totals

District 06
Queens NY (part)

717,707
717,707
Population %

District 06 Totals

District 07
Brooklyn NY (part) Manhattan NY (part) Queens NY (part)

504,422 97,777 115,508

717,707
Population %

District 07 Totals

District 08
Brooklyn NY (part) Queens NY (part)

670,533 47,175
717,708

District 08 Totals

Page 28

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User:

District 09
Brooklyn NY (part)

Population

717,708
717,708
Population %

District 09 Totals

District 10
Brooklyn NY (part) Manhattan NY (part)

298,907 418,801
717,708
Population %

District 10 Totals

District 11
Brooklyn NY (part) Staten Island NY

248,978 468,730
717,708
Population %

District 11 Totals

District 12
Brooklyn NY (part) Manhattan NY (part) Queens NY (part)

64,152 537,780 115,775

717,707
Population %

District 12 Totals

District 13
Bronx NY (part) Manhattan NY (part)

186,192 531,515
717,707
Population %

District 13 Totals

District 14
Bronx NY (part) Queens NY (part)

238,807 478,901
717,708
Population %

District 14 Totals

District 15
Bronx NY (part)

717,708
717,708
Population %

District 15 Totals

District 16
Bronx NY (part)

242,401 Page 29

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 32,363 20,790 29,156 67,292 77,062 12,396 15,720 7,614 16,937 195,976
717,707
Population %

Eastchester NY Greenburgh NY (part) Mamaroneck NY Mount Vernon NY New Rochelle NY Pelham NY Rye NY Rye NY (part) Scarsdale NY (part) Yonkers NY

District 16 Totals

District 17
Clarkstown NY Cortlandt NY Greenburgh NY (part) Harrison NY Haverstraw NY Mount Kisco NY Mount Pleasant NY New Castle NY (part) North Castle NY (part) Orangetown NY Ossining NY Peekskill NY Ramapo NY Rye NY (part) Scarsdale NY (part) Stony Point NY White Plains NY Yorktown NY (part)

84,187 41,592 67,610 27,472 36,634 10,877 43,724 15,290 6,889 49,212 37,674 23,583 126,595 38,314 229 15,059 56,853 35,914
717,708
Population %

District 17 Totals

District 18
Beacon NY Bedford NY Blooming Grove NY Carmel NY Chester NY

15,541 17,335 18,028 34,305 11,981

Page 30

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 12,646 9,316 7,901 29,027 22,107 13,687 4,616 5,561 12,492 1,563 13,507 7,254 12,411 28,086 4,490 39,912 22,606 7,018 2,279 25,244 29,801 28,866 4,952 5,104 12,023 9,662 8,828 42,122 32,736 5,104 11,809 20,434 18,404 3,624 27,426 27,048 32,065 7,266 11,353 167

Cornwall NY Crawford NY Deerpark NY East Fishkill NY (part) Fishkill NY Goshen NY Greenville NY Hamptonburgh NY Highlands NY Hyde Park NY (part) Kent NY La Grange NY (part) Lewisboro NY Middletown NY Minisink NY Monroe NY Montgomery NY Mount Hope NY New Castle NY (part) New Windsor NY Newburgh NY Newburgh NY North Castle NY (part) North Salem NY Patterson NY Philipstown NY Port Jervis NY Poughkeepsie NY (part) Poughkeepsie NY Pound Ridge NY Putnam Valley NY Somers NY Southeast NY Tuxedo NY Wallkill NY Wappinger NY Warwick NY Wawayanda NY Woodbury NY Yorktown NY (part)

Page 31

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User:

District 18 Totals

717,707
Population %

District 19
Amenia NY Ancram NY Andes NY Ashland NY Athens NY Austerlitz NY Beekman NY Berlin NY Bethel NY Blenheim NY Bovina NY Broome NY Brunswick NY Burlington NY Butternuts NY Cairo NY Callicoon NY Canaan NY Canajoharie NY Carlisle NY Catskill NY Chatham NY Cherry Valley NY Claverack NY Clermont NY Clinton NY Cobleskill NY Cochecton NY Colchester NY Conesville NY Copake NY Coxsackie NY Davenport NY Decatur NY Delaware NY Delhi NY Denning NY

4,436 1,573 1,301 784 4,089 1,654 14,621 1,880 4,255 377 633 973 11,941 1,140 1,786 6,670 3,057 1,710 3,730 1,948 11,775 4,128 1,223 6,021 1,965 4,312 6,625 1,372 2,077 734 3,615 8,918 2,965 353 2,670 5,117 551 Page 32

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,712 8,699 2,725 2 1,826 9,041 2,076 987 12,870 819 2,411 1,381 1,442 1,668 5,713 1,954 5,402 1,307 2,130 4,165 3,739 258 1,323 3,224 238 1,577 2,110 2,530 1,927 6,924 6,713 2,732 6,314 20,008 1,410 953 8,498 889 23,893 1,675 8,476 Page 33

Deposit NY Dover NY Durham NY East Fishkill NY (part) Edmeston NY Esopus NY Esperance NY Exeter NY Fallsburg NY Forestburgh NY Franklin NY Fremont NY Fulton NY Gallatin NY Gardiner NY Germantown NY Ghent NY Gilboa NY Grafton NY Greenport NY Greenville NY Halcott NY Hamden NY Hancock NY Hardenburgh NY Harpersfield NY Hartwick NY Highland NY Hillsdale NY Hoosick NY Hudson NY Hunter NY Hurley NY Hyde Park NY (part) Jefferson NY Jewett NY Kinderhook NY Kingston NY Kingston NY Kortright NY La Grange NY (part)

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 2,424 805 9,885 3,646 10,863 2,468 12,085 5,607 8,808 1,897 1,320 1,529 3,746 2,114 3,750 2,370 3,044 4,297 1,878 4,789 3,557 3,370 2,305 1,114 14,003 3,031 4,419 13,901 5,229 3,115 3,900 3,240 8,463 1,525 2,473 1,366 5,735 915 10,499 9,672 4,530 Page 34

Laurens NY Lexington NY Liberty NY Livingston NY Lloyd NY Lumberland NY Mamakating NY Marbletown NY Marlborough NY Maryland NY Masonville NY Meredith NY Middleburgh NY Middlefield NY Middletown NY Milan NY Milford NY Minden NY Morris NY Nassau NY Neversink NY New Baltimore NY New Lebanon NY New Lisbon NY New Paltz NY North East NY Olive NY Oneonta NY Oneonta NY Otego NY Otsego NY Palatine NY Pawling NY Petersburgh NY Pine Plains NY Pittsfield NY Pittstown NY Plainfield NY Plattekill NY Pleasant Valley NY Poestenkill NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,219 700 11,319 7,548 2,388 2,610 7,313 3,775 1,715 711 6,075 2,502 8,530 2,311 19,482 7,675 5,787 3,205 1,763 3,085 1,846 14,332 5,774 1,358 2,631 2,267 3,823 2,903 2,815 2,027 1,148 1,310 15,308 1,247 1,515 12,327 4,392 4,877 5,576 4,741 13,157 Page 35

Poughkeepsie NY (part) Prattsville NY Red Hook NY Rhinebeck NY Richfield NY Richmondville NY Rochester NY Rockland NY Root NY Roseboom NY Rosendale NY Roxbury NY Sand Lake NY Sanford NY (part) Saugerties NY Schaghticoke NY (part) Schodack NY (part) Schoharie NY Seward NY Shandaken NY Sharon NY Shawangunk NY Sidney NY Springfield NY St. Johnsville NY Stamford NY Stanford NY Stephentown NY Stockport NY Stuyvesant NY Summit NY Taghkanic NY Thompson NY Tompkins NY Tusten NY Ulster NY Unadilla NY Union Vale NY Walton NY Washington NY Wawarsing NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 868 1,703 5,884 2,220 1,539

717,708
Population %

Westford NY Windham NY Woodstock NY Worcester NY Wright NY

District 19 Totals

District 20
Albany NY Amsterdam NY Amsterdam NY Ballston NY (part) Berne NY Bethlehem NY Charleston NY Charlton NY Clifton Park NY Coeymans NY Cohoes NY Colonie NY Duanesburg NY East Greenbush NY Florida NY Glen NY Glenville NY Green Island NY Guilderland NY Halfmoon NY Knox NY Malta NY Mechanicville NY Mohawk NY New Scotland NY Niskayuna NY North Greenbush NY Princetown NY Rensselaer NY Rensselaerville NY Rotterdam NY Saratoga Springs NY

97,856 18,620 5,566 8,619 2,794 33,656 1,373 4,133 36,705 7,418 16,168 81,591 6,122 16,473 2,696 2,507 29,480 2,620 35,303 21,535 2,692 14,765 5,196 3,844 8,648 21,781 12,075 2,115 9,392 1,843 29,094 26,586 Page 36

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 4 66,135 7,007 3,129 50,129 8,423 10,254 3,361

717,708
Population %

Schaghticoke NY (part) Schenectady NY Schodack NY (part) Stillwater NY (part) Troy NY Waterford NY Watervliet NY Westerlo NY

District 20 Totals

District 21
Adams NY Alexandria NY Altona NY Antwerp NY Argyle NY Arietta NY Au Sable NY Ballston NY (part) Bangor NY Beekmantown NY Bellmont NY Benson NY Black Brook NY Bleecker NY Bolton NY Bombay NY Brandon NY Brasher NY Brighton NY Broadalbin NY Brownville NY Burke NY Cambridge NY Canton NY Cape Vincent NY Caroga NY Champion NY Champlain NY Chateaugay NY

5,143 4,061 2,887 1,846 3,782 304 3,146 1,157 2,224 5,545 1,434 192 1,497 533 2,326 1,357 577 2,512 1,435 5,260 6,263 1,465 2,021 10,995 2,777 1,205 4,494 5,754 2,155 Page 37

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 4,284 3,355 2,445 105 5,153 751 737 1,451 1,566 6,531 0 3,093 2,024 4,898 856 2,434 998 2,860 1,709 823 652 174 2,336 1,214 1,156 1,163 1,743 3,474 1,682 671 1,512 6,190 1,676 6,371 2,202 1,140 3,545 14,700 15,665 7,085 6,669 Page 38

Chazy NY Chester NY Chesterfield NY Clare NY Clayton NY Clifton NY Clinton NY Colton NY Constable NY Corinth NY County subdivisions not defined NY Croghan NY Crown Point NY Dannemora NY Day NY De Kalb NY De Peyster NY Denmark NY Diana NY Dickinson NY Dresden NY Duane NY Easton NY Edinburg NY Edwards NY Elizabethtown NY Ellenburg NY Ellisburg NY Ephratah NY Essex NY Fine NY Fort Ann NY Fort Covington NY Fort Edward NY Fowler NY Franklin NY Galway NY Glens Falls NY Gloversville NY Gouverneur NY Granville NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 7,775 4,942 1,199 2,048 699 1,191 938 5,709 437 2,269 1,853 1,360 1,108 403 1,077 1,389 3,466 1,352 333 1,800 2,506 2,395 7,098 8,743 1,105 12,671 3,515 3,347 781 1,826 21,782 854 1,382 1,785 4,102 711 1,037 3,145 4,982 2,185 1,227 Page 39

Greenfield NY Greenwich NY Greig NY Hadley NY Hague NY Hammond NY Hampton NY Harrietstown NY Harrisburg NY Hartford NY Hebron NY Henderson NY Hermon NY Hope NY Hopkinton NY Horicon NY Hounsfield NY Indian Lake NY Inlet NY Jackson NY Jay NY Johnsburg NY Johnstown NY Johnstown NY Keene NY Kingsbury NY Lake George NY Lake Luzerne NY Lake Pleasant NY Lawrence NY Le Ray NY Lewis NY Lewis NY Leyden NY Lisbon NY Long Lake NY Lorraine NY Louisville NY Lowville NY Lyme NY Lyonsdale NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 906 1,735 14,545 2,552 1,433 12,883 6,495 18,575 809 2,934 78 3,592 14,728 86 4,798 1,974 2,706 436 4,668 8,957 240 2,670 5,087 11,128 1,002 1,924 2,789 229 4,397 3,160 2,153 3,646 6,998 1,947 310 2,589 329 846 11,870 19,989 16,041 Page 40

Macomb NY Madrid NY Malone NY Manheim NY (part) Martinsburg NY Massena NY Mayfield NY Milton NY Minerva NY Moira NY Montague NY Mooers NY Moreau NY Morehouse NY Moriah NY Morristown NY New Bremen NY Newcomb NY Norfolk NY North Elba NY North Hudson NY Northampton NY Northumberland NY Ogdensburg NY Ohio NY Oppenheim NY Orleans NY Osceola NY Oswegatchie NY Pamelia NY Parishville NY Perth NY Peru NY Philadelphia NY Piercefield NY Pierrepont NY Pinckney NY Pitcairn NY Plattsburgh NY Plattsburgh NY Potsdam NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,995 609 27,901 1,176 877 1,856 2,225 3,060 2,715 1,958 345 4,007 5,674 1,654 5,181 1,548 3,228 5,158 3,665 767 610 2,905 1,219 5,042 5,971 761 2,266 4,094 4,470 27,023 1,881 1,022 1,807 674 1,524 1,312 1,819 3,356 4,042 2,025 1,253 Page 41

Providence NY Putnam NY Queensbury NY Rodman NY Rossie NY Russell NY Russia NY (part) Rutland NY Salem NY Salisbury NY Santa Clara NY Saranac NY Saratoga NY Schroon NY Schuyler Falls NY St. Armand NY St. Regis Mohawk NY Stillwater NY (part) Stockholm NY Stony Creek NY Stratford NY Theresa NY Thurman NY Ticonderoga NY Tupper Lake NY Turin NY Waddington NY Warrensburg NY Watertown NY Watertown NY Watson NY Waverly NY Webb NY Wells NY West Turin NY Westport NY Westville NY White Creek NY Whitehall NY Willsboro NY Wilmington NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 6,427 16,173 231

717,707
Population %

Wilna NY Wilton NY Worth NY

District 21 Totals

District 22
Afton NY Albion NY Amboy NY Annsville NY Augusta NY Ava NY Bainbridge NY Barker NY Binghamton NY Binghamton NY Boonville NY Boylston NY Bridgewater NY Brookfield NY Camden NY Cazenovia NY Chenango NY Cincinnatus NY Colesville NY Columbia NY Columbus NY Conklin NY Constantia NY Cortland NY Cortlandville NY County subdivisions not defined NY (part) Coventry NY Cuyler NY Danube NY Deerfield NY DeRuyter NY Dickinson NY Eaton NY

2,851 2,073 1,263 3,012 2,020 676 3,308 2,732 4,942 47,376 4,555 549 1,522 2,545 4,934 7,086 11,252 1,056 5,232 1,580 975 5,441 4,973 19,204 8,509 0 1,655 980 1,039 4,273 1,589 5,278 5,255

Page 42

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,627 1,726 6,674 1,025 3,819 1,535 7,636 757 974 13,258 370 5,604 2,922 6,690 943 9,450 10,175 6,405 10,315 5,857 767 1,332 6,486 9,122 396 2,012 2,751 1,513 1,587 4,946 3,008 5,377 782 1,967 8,982 2,131 886 5,197 1,672 1,980 2,682 Page 43

Fairfield NY Fenner NY Fenton NY Florence NY Floyd NY Forestport NY Frankfort NY Freetown NY Georgetown NY German Flatts NY German NY Greene NY Guilford NY Hamilton NY Harford NY Hastings NY Herkimer NY Homer NY Kirkland NY Kirkwood NY Lapeer NY Lebanon NY Lee NY Lenox NY Lincklaen NY Lincoln NY Lisle NY Litchfield NY Little Falls NY Little Falls NY Madison NY Maine NY Manheim NY (part) Marathon NY Marcy NY Marshall NY McDonough NY Mexico NY Nanticoke NY Nelson NY New Berlin NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 22,166 2,260 2,302 2,161 1,783 762 3,998 7,190 11,393 1,167 1,054 8,924 3,901 4,411 2,558 593 803 1,804 1,393 1,044 550 1,929 5,718 33,725 362 3,939 96 2,561 3,420 1,176 4,048 3,071 1,288 1,330 1,280 1,079 757 1,100 2,103 15,339 523 Page 44

New Hartford NY New Haven NY (part) Newport NY Nichols NY (part) North Norwich NY Norway NY Norwich NY Norwich NY Oneida NY Orwell NY Otselic NY Owego NY (part) Oxford NY Paris NY Parish NY Pharsalia NY Pitcher NY Plymouth NY Preble NY Preston NY Redfield NY Remsen NY Richland NY Rome NY Russia NY (part) Sandy Creek NY Sanford NY (part) Sangerfield NY Schuyler NY Scott NY Sherburne NY Sherrill NY Smithfield NY Smithville NY Smyrna NY Solon NY Stark NY Steuben NY Stockbridge NY Sullivan NY Taylor NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 4,498 2,946 1,133 56,346 62,235 5,408 6,293 28,043 5,440 2,401 1,143 4,252 1,951 6,138 18,667 1,043 1,277 6,274 2,086
717,708
Population %

Trenton NY Triangle NY Truxton NY Union NY Utica NY Vernon NY Verona NY Vestal NY Vienna NY Virgil NY Warren NY West Monroe NY Western NY Westmoreland NY Whitestown NY Willet NY Williamstown NY Windsor NY Winfield NY

District 22 Totals

District 23
Addison NY Alfred NY Allegany NY Allegany NY Allen NY Alma NY Almond NY Amity NY Andover NY Angelica NY Arcade NY (part) Arkwright NY Ashford NY Ashland NY Avoca NY Baldwin NY Barrington NY Barton NY

2,595 5,237 8,004 1,020 448 842 1,633 2,308 1,830 1,403 231 1,061 2,132 1,695 2,264 832 1,681 8,858 Page 45

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 12,379 1,663 2,836 1,412 7,731 221 2,189 855 1,180 7,351 945 3,406 0 5,305 2,542 3,391 3,282 3,524 1,297 1,762 2,618 2,179 38 314 556 822 1,729 0 4,464 2,563 1,118 1,161 1,698 2,561 663 1,857 11,183 6,270 0 2,154 3,243 Page 46

Bath NY Belfast NY Benton NY Berkshire NY Big Flats NY Birdsall NY Bolivar NY Bradford NY Burns NY Busti NY Cameron NY Campbell NY Canandaigua NY (part) Candor NY Caneadea NY Canisteo NY Caroline NY Carroll NY Carrollton NY Catharine NY Catlin NY Caton NY Cattaraugus NY Cattaraugus NY Cayuta NY Centerville NY Charlotte NY Chautauqua Lake NY Chautauqua NY Chemung NY Cherry Creek NY Clarksville NY Clymer NY Cohocton NY Coldspring NY Conewango NY Corning NY Corning NY County subdivisions not defined NY Covert NY Cuba NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 3,329 1,842 1,886 3,864 14,435 12,563 1,318 1,062 4,528 8,714 1,598 1,643 29,200 6,934 3,512 1,962 8,037 1,090 3,929 2,990 2,405 1,008 906 2,004 1,693 3,291 0 13,261 1,905 4,247 538 1,974 801 5,950 548 7,127 2,206 609 4,940 2,168 3,747 Page 47

Danby NY Dansville NY Dayton NY Dix NY Dryden NY Dunkirk NY Dunkirk NY East Otto NY Ellery NY Ellicott NY Ellicottville NY Ellington NY Elmira NY Elmira NY Enfield NY Erin NY Erwin NY Farmersville NY Fayette NY Franklinville NY Freedom NY Fremont NY French Creek NY Friendship NY Genesee NY Geneva NY Geneva NY Geneva NY Gerry NY Gorham NY Granger NY Great Valley NY Greenwood NY Groton NY Grove NY Hanover NY Harmony NY Hartsville NY Hector NY Hinsdale NY Hopewell NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,706 8,563 4,151 19,485 1,467 2,071 687 1,167 859 1,141 30,014 19,930 31,146 1,424 4,469 1,471 1,350 11,033 1,365 1,967 1,740 1,550 707 2,375 9,395 808 1,495 7,006 1,106 2,308 1,208 1,248 1,972 781 3,946 5,179 364 2,267 0 1 1,963 Page 48

Hornby NY Hornell NY Hornellsville NY Horseheads NY Howard NY Hume NY Humphrey NY Independence NY Ischua NY Italy NY Ithaca NY Ithaca NY Jamestown NY Jasper NY Jerusalem NY Junius NY Kiantone NY Lansing NY Leon NY Lindley NY Little Valley NY Lodi NY Lyndon NY Machias NY Manchester NY Mansfield NY Middlesex NY Milo NY Mina NY Montour NY Naples NY (part) Napoli NY New Albion NY New Hudson NY Newark Valley NY Newfield NY Nichols NY (part) North Harmony NY Oil Springs NY Oil Springs NY Olean NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 14,452 1,609 808 2,311 10,959 1,626 2,404 7,072 2,356 14,965 4,827 3,730 1,865 2,085 1,285 2,602 1,126 1,707 38 1,172 2,415 4,316 1,150 481 5,815 1,833 9,040 2,721 2,673 1,653 264 10,940 3,153 3,573 2,248 1,350 4,871 1,282 1,291 1,473 981 Page 49

Olean NY Orange NY Otto NY Ovid NY Owego NY (part) Perrysburg NY Persia NY Phelps NY Poland NY Pomfret NY Portland NY Portville NY Potter NY Prattsburgh NY Pulteney NY Randolph NY Rathbone NY Reading NY Red House NY Richford NY Ripley NY Romulus NY Rushford NY Salamanca NY Salamanca NY Scio NY Seneca Falls NY Seneca NY Sheridan NY Sherman NY South Valley NY Southport NY Spencer NY Starkey NY Stockton NY Thurston NY Tioga NY Torrey NY Troupsburg NY Tuscarora NY Tyre NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,597 4,900 2,343 1,557 1,857 3,313 1,110 368 7,642 4,102 1,041 7,397 334 312 4,896 1,260 1,228 1,111 1,719 3,913
717,707
Population %

Tyrone NY Ulysses NY Urbana NY Van Etten NY Varick NY Veteran NY Villenova NY Ward NY Waterloo NY Wayland NY Wayne NY Wellsville NY West Almond NY West Union NY Westfield NY Wheeler NY Willing NY Wirt NY Woodhull NY Yorkshire NY

District 23 Totals

District 24
Arcadia NY Auburn NY Aurelius NY Brutus NY Butler NY Camillus NY Cato NY Cicero NY Clay NY Conquest NY County subdivisions not defined NY (part) County subdivisions not defined NY County subdivisions not defined NY De Witt NY Elbridge NY Fabius NY

14,244 27,687 2,792 4,464 2,064 24,167 2,537 31,632 58,206 1,819 0 0 0 25,838 5,922 1,964

Page 50

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 2,636 11,896 4,290 17,118 1,935 6,821 4,854 2,118 2,206 4,952 1,886 1,951 5,682 21,759 9,148 32,370 6,210 4,746 2,378 1,659 1,277 3,626 596 1,194 468 23,101 10,136 18,142 7,984 2,541 3,793 3,664 7,975 7,080 2,369 33,710 1,730 8,501 1,713 6,840 895 Page 51

Fleming NY Fulton NY Galen NY Geddes NY Genoa NY Granby NY Hannibal NY Huron NY Ira NY LaFayette NY Ledyard NY Locke NY Lyons NY Lysander NY Macedon NY Manlius NY Marcellus NY Marion NY Mentz NY Minetto NY Montezuma NY Moravia NY New Haven NY (part) Niles NY Onondaga Nation NY Onondaga NY Ontario NY Oswego NY Oswego NY Otisco NY Owasco NY Palermo NY Palmyra NY Pompey NY Rose NY Salina NY Savannah NY Schroeppel NY Scipio NY Scriba NY Sempronius NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 3,595 7,209 8,384 1,686 2,367 3,040 1,217 145,170 1,990 2,738 13,185 1,368 1,660 5,926 9,449 6,984 4,453
717,707
Population %

Sennett NY Skaneateles NY Sodus NY Spafford NY Springport NY Sterling NY Summerhill NY Syracuse NY Throop NY Tully NY Van Buren NY Venice NY Victory NY Volney NY Walworth NY Williamson NY Wolcott NY

District 24 Totals

District 25
Brighton NY Chili NY Clarkson NY (part) County subdivisions not defined NY East Rochester NY Gates NY Greece NY Hamlin NY (part) Henrietta NY Irondequoit NY Ogden NY Parma NY Penfield NY Perinton NY Pittsford NY Riga NY Rochester NY Sweden NY Webster NY

36,609 28,625 6,547 0 6,587 28,400 96,095 2 42,581 51,692 19,856 15,633 36,242 46,462 29,405 5,590 210,565 14,175 42,641

Page 52

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User:

District 25 Totals

717,707
Population %

District 26
Amherst NY (part) Buffalo NY (part) Cheektowaga NY County subdivisions not defined NY (part) Grand Island NY Lackawanna NY Niagara Falls NY (part) North Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY West Seneca NY

114,504 261,310 88,226 0 20,374 18,141 50,176 31,568 73,567 15,130 44,711
717,707
Population %

District 26 Totals

District 27
Alabama NY Albion NY Alden NY Alexander NY Amherst NY (part) Arcade NY (part) Attica NY Aurora NY Avon NY Barre NY Batavia NY Batavia NY Bennington NY Bergen NY Bethany NY Boston NY Brant NY Bristol NY Buffalo NY (part) Byron NY Caledonia NY Cambria NY

1,869 8,468 10,865 2,534 7,862 3,974 7,702 13,782 7,164 2,025 6,809 15,465 3,359 3,120 1,765 8,023 2,065 2,315 0 2,369 4,255 5,839 Page 53

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 1,664 10,020 10,545 2,994 2,906 1,833 30,673 3,648 189 3,265 6,601 8,494 2,473 0 0 0 1,232 3,158 1,192 3,634 7,688 2,370 11,317 16,356 11,825 3,378 2,182 438 10,483 3,249 56,936 9,043 4,117 3,401 2,057 2,724 41,604 7,641 2,200 16,262 Page 54

Canadice NY Canandaigua NY (part) Canandaigua NY Carlton NY Castile NY Cattaraugus NY Clarence NY Clarendon NY Clarkson NY (part) Colden NY Collins NY Concord NY Conesus NY County subdivisions not defined NY County subdivisions not defined NY County subdivisions not defined NY (part) Covington NY Darien NY Eagle NY East Bloomfield NY Eden NY Elba NY Elma NY Evans NY Farmington NY Gaines NY Gainesville NY Genesee Falls NY Geneseo NY Groveland NY Hamburg NY Hamlin NY (part) Hartland NY Holland NY Java NY Kendall NY Lancaster NY Le Roy NY Leicester NY Lewiston NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 4,305 7,809 20,529 21,165 5,327 9,152 1,441 4,465 4,988 1,294 9,666 8,594 17 8,378 3,523 5,538 3,064 3,250 1,355 29,054 789 2,495 4,292 6,397 4,616 1,114 884 6,771 3,361 6,780 7,660 3,478 2,775 5,319 2,409 2,662 1,590 1,624 2,439 2,459 34 Page 55

Lima NY Livonia NY Lockport NY Lockport NY Marilla NY Mendon NY Middlebury NY Mount Morris NY Murray NY Naples NY (part) Newfane NY Newstead NY Niagara Falls NY (part) Niagara NY North Collins NY North Dansville NY Nunda NY Oakfield NY Orangeville NY Orchard Park NY Ossian NY Pavilion NY Pembroke NY Pendleton NY Perry NY Pike NY Portage NY Porter NY Richmond NY Ridgeway NY Royalton NY Rush NY Sardinia NY Shelby NY Sheldon NY Somerset NY South Bristol NY Sparta NY Springwater NY Stafford NY Tonawanda NY

Plan: Plan Type:

FINAL RECOMMENDED PLAN

Administrator: User: 0 483 1,152 14,275 3,005 5,064 2,466 1,255 883 18,117 4,775 5,993 2,559 3,397
717,707

Tonawanda NY Tonawanda NY Tuscarora Nation NY Victor NY Wales NY Warsaw NY West Bloomfield NY West Sparta NY Wethersfield NY Wheatfield NY Wheatland NY Wilson NY Yates NY York NY

District 27 Totals

Summary Statistics

Number of County Subdivision not split Number of County Subdivision split

895 75

Number of County Subdivision split in two Number of County Subdivision split in three Number of County Subdivision split in four Number of County Subdivision split in five Number of County Subdivision split in six Number of County Subdivision split in seven Number of County Subdivision split in eight Number of County Subdivision split in nine Number of County Subdivision split in ten Number of County Subdivision split in eleven Total number of splits

63 6 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 181

Page 56

3/11/2012

NATHANIEL PERSILY
Columbia Law School 435 West 116th Street New York, NY 10027

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL CHARLES KELLER BEEKMAN PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR OF LAW NEW YORK, NY 2008 present 2007 2008

Courtesy Appointment: Department of Political Science (2007 present). Courses: Constitutional Law; Advanced Constitutional Law: The Political Process; Freedom of Expression; Contemporary Issues in Law and Politics; Redistricting and Gerrymandering. Service: Lateral Appointments Committee Chair (2010-2012), Curriculum Committee Chair (2009-2010), Advisory Committee Chair (2008-2009), Intellectual Life Committee; Resources and Development Committee, Committee on Professional Development. Center for Law and Politics: Founding Director. DrawCongress.org : Founder. Instructor in University of Amsterdam Summer Program, July 2011. PHILADELPHIA, PA 2005 2007 2001 2005

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR OF LAW ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW

Secondary Appointment: Department of Political Science (2003-2007). Courses: Law and the Political Process; Contemporary Issues in Law and Politics; Constitutional Law, First Amendment. Service: Tenure and Promotion Committee, Judicial Clerkship Committee, Nominations Committee, Committee on Academic Standing; Advisor to Journal of Constitutional Law and American Constitution Society; Coordinator of Faculty Retreat and Legal Studies Workshop; Supervisor to student seminar on state constitutional law. Teaching Award: Winner of the Robert A. Gorman Award for Excellence in Teaching.

3/11/2012 VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS HARVARD LAW SCHOOL SIDLEY AUSTIN VISITING PROFESSOR STANFORD LAW SCHOOL NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

Fall 2007 Spring 2006 Fall 2004

OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE REDISTRICTING CONSULTANT Consultant to Redistricting Commission of 2011 Prince Georges County Upper Marlboro, MD Consultant to redistricting commission of Prince Georges County, Maryland, concerning County Council Districts. Consultant to the Chief Justice of Puerto Rico 2011 San Juan, PR Consultant to Chief Justice Federico Hernndez Denton during the process of redistricting of districts for the Senate and House of Representatives of Puerto Rico.

SPECIAL MASTER OR COURT APPOINTED EXPERT Special Master for Redistricting of Connecticut Congressional Districts Jan.-Feb. 2012 Hartford, CT

Appointed by Supreme Court of Connecticut to draw states Congressional districts, pursuant to In Re Petition of Reapportionment Commission, Ex. Rel., No. SC 18907. Plan adopted Feb. 12, 2012. Redistricting of Georgia General Feb.-March 2004 Assembly Atlanta, GA Appointed by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to draw districts for Georgia House of Representatives and Senate. Plan adopted in Larios v. Cox, 314 F.Supp.2d 1357 (N.D.Ga., 2004). Redistricting of Maryland State June 2002 Legislative Districts Annapolis, MD Appointed by Maryland Court of Appeals to draw Court plan for 2002 state legislative districts. Plan adopted in In re Legislative

3/11/2012 Redistricting of State, 805 A.2d 292 (Md. 2002).

Redistricting of New York May-June 2002 Congressional Districts New York, NY Pursuant to Rodriguez v. Pataki, 2002 WL 1058054 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), appointed by Special Master Frederick B. Lacey to draw plan for New York States congressional districts, later superseded by state legislatures plan.

EXPERT WITNESS California State Senate 2002-2003 Redistricting Litigation Sacramento, CA Served as an expert to evaluate the 2002 California Senate and Congressional redistricting plans concerning those plans compliance with state constitutional provisions requiring respect for political subdivisions and geographic regions.

OUTSIDE COUNSEL Bethlehem Area Unified School District

2008 Bethlehem, PA Consultant to school district in settlement concerning lawsuit alleging vote dilution in school district boundaries. 2002 Miami, Florida Consultant to Miami-Dade County in litigation involving the 2000 redistricting process and challenges to the structure of local government.

Miami-Dade County Attorneys Office

ASSOCIATE COUNSEL 1999-2001 Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law New York, NY LAW CLERK The Honorable David S. Tatel U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit LEGAL EXTERN The Honorable John T. Noonan U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit GRADUATE STUDENT INSTRUCTOR & RESEARCH ASSISTANT Professor Nelson Polsby Institute of Governmental Studies, U.C. Berkeley 1998-1999 Washington, DC

June-August 1996 San Francisco, CA

1994-1995 Berkeley, CA

3/11/2012

EDUCATION STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D. with Distinction, 1998 President, Volume 50, Stanford Law Review. U.C. BERKELEY, M.A., 1994; Ph.D. in Political Science, 2002 Recipient of the Edith Pence and Jacob Javits Scholarships. Thesis Title: When Political Parties Go to Court. Thesis Committee: Nelson Polsby, Bruce Cain, Raymond Wolfinger, Robert Post. HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM, 1992-1993 Raoul Wallenberg & Rotary Foundation Scholar. YALE UNIVERSITY, B.A. & M.A. in Political Science, 1992 Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, Distinction in the Major, Recipient of the Haas Prize, Richard Sewall Cup, and Frank M. Patterson Prize for the finest senior project in American Politics. PUBLICATIONS The 2000 Congressional Redistricting Process in Retrospect: How Biased and How Competitive? (work in progress) (with Jason Kelly). Public Opinion and Bush v. Gore: Ten Years Later, (work in progress) (with Amy Semet and Stephen Ansolabehere). Taking Politics as Markets (Too) Seriously, (work in progress) (with Edward Rock). Profiling Originalism, 111 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 356 (2011) (with Jamal Greene and Stephen Ansolabehere). Measuring Election System Performance, 13 NYU JOURNAL POLITICS 445 (2011) (with Stephen Ansolabehere).
OF

LAW

AND

The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 755 (2011). Foreword: The Legacy of Bush v. Gore in Public Opinion and American Law, 23 ST. THOMAS LAW REVIEW 325 (2011). Celebrating the Tenth Anniversary of the 2000 Election Controversy: What the World Can Learn from the Recent History of Election Dysfunction in the United States, 44 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 85 (2010). Partisanship, Public Opinion, and Redistricting, in 9 ELECTION LAW JOURNAL 325 (2010); reprinted in RACE, REFORM, AND REGULATION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS: RECURRING PUZZLES IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (Heather Gerken, et al. eds.) (2011) (with Joshua Fougere and Stephen Ansolabehere). 4

3/11/2012 Race, Region, and Vote Choice in the 2008 Election: Implications for the Future of the Voting Rights Act, 123 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1385 (2010) (with Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart). Court Decisions and Trends in Support for Same-Sex Marriage (with Patrick J. Egan), POLLING REPORT, Aug. 17, 2009. Fig Leaves and Tea Leaves in the Supreme Courts Recent Election Law Decisions, 2008 SUPREME COURT REVIEW 89 (2009). Defacing Democracy?: The Changing Nature and Rising Importance of AsApplied Challenges in the Supreme Courts Recent Election Law Decisions, 93 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1644 (2009) (with Jennifer Rosenberg). The Constitutional Relevance of Alleged Legislative Dysfunction, 117 YALE LAW JOURNAL POCKET PART 256 (2008). Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements, 121 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1737 (2008) (with Stephen Ansolabehere). PUBLIC OPINION AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY (Oxford University Press, 2008) (edited with Jack Citrin & Patrick Egan). Eat Dessert First, 5 THE FORUM (2007) The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act, 117 YALE LAW JOURNAL 174 (2007). Political Questions and Political Cases: The Evolving Justifications for Judicial Involvement in Politics, in Nada Mourtada-Sabbah & Bruce E. Cain, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). Strict in Theory, Loopy in Fact, 105 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW FIRST IMPRESSIONS 43 (2006). The Place of Competition in American Election Law, in MICHAEL MCDONALD & JOHN SAMPLES EDS., THE MARKETPLACE OF DEMOCRACY (Brookings Inst. Press 2006). Options and Strategies for Renewal of the Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, in THE FUTURE OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 255, 257 (David L. Epstein, et al. eds., 2006); reprinted and revised in, 49 HOWARD LAW JOURNAL 717 (2006). Forty Years in the Political Thicket: Evaluating Judicial Oversight of Redistricting Since Reynolds v. Sims, in Thomas Mann & Bruce E. Cain eds., PARTY LINES: COMPETITION, PARTISANSHIP, AND CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING (Brookings Inst. Press, 2005). The Law of American Party Finance, in Keith Ewing & Samuel Issacharoff, PARTY FUNDING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCING IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE (Hart, 2005).

3/11/2012 When Judges Carve Democracies: A Primer on Court-Drawn Redistricting Plans, 73 GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1131 (2005). Regulating Democracy through Democracy: The Use of Direct Legislation in Election Law Reform, 78 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 997 (2005) (with Melissa Cully Anderson). Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When Public Opinion Determines Constitutional Law, 153 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 119 (2004) (with Kelli Lammie). Soft Parties and Strong Money, 3 ELECTION LAW JOURNAL 315 (2004). Contested Concepts in Campaign Finance, 6 UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 118 (2003).
OF

PENNSYLVANIA

The Search for Comprehensive Descriptions and Prescriptions in Election Law, 35 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW 1511 (2003). Suing the Government in Hopes of Controlling It: The Evolving Justifications for Judicial Involvement in Politics, 5 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 607 (2003). In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Gerrymanders, 115 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 593 (2002). Soft Money and Slippery Slopes, 1 ELECTION LAW JOURNAL 401 (2002). The Legal Implications of a Multiracial Census, in Joel Perlmann & Mary Waters, THE NEW RACE QUESTION (Russell Sage Press, 2002). The Complicated Impact of One Person One Vote on Political Competition and Representation, 80 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 1299 (2002) (with Thad Kousser & Patrick Egan). The Blanket Primary in the Courts: The History and Precedent of California Democratic Party v. Jones, in VOTING AT THE POLITICAL FAULT LINE: CALIFORNIAS EXPERIMENT WITH THE BLANKET PRIMARY (Bruce E. Cain & Elisabeth Gerber eds.) (University of California Press, 2002). Candidates v. Parties: The Constitutional Constraints on Primary Ballot Access Laws, 88 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 2181 (2001). Toward a Functional Defense of Political Party Autonomy, 76 N.Y.U. LAW REVIEW 750 (2001). The Right to Be Counted, 53 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1077 (2001) (reviewing PETER SKERRY, COUNTING ON THE CENSUS? (2000)). Color by Numbers: Race, Redistricting, and the 2000 Census, 85 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 899 (2001). THE REAL Y2K PROBLEM: CENSUS 2000 DATA AND REDISTRICTING TECHNOLOGY (Brennan Center 2000) (Editor and Contributor).

3/11/2012 The Legal Status of Political Parties: A Reassessment of Competing Paradigms, 100 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 775 (2000) (with Bruce Cain). The Right to Bail in International Extradition Proceedings, 34 STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 407 (1998). The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative, Referendum and Recall Developed in the American West, 2 MICHIGAN LAW & POLICY REVIEW 11 (1997). The Parliamentary Option for California Government, in CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN CALIFORNIA: MAKING STATE GOVERNMENT MORE EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIVE (Bruce E. Cain & Roger G. Noll eds.) (IGS Press 1995) (with Bruce Cain). CONGRESSIONAL AND OTHER TESTIMONY Redistricting and the 2010 Census: Enforcing Section 5 of the VRA, United States Commission on Civil Rights (Feb. 3, 2010). United States v. Stevens: The Supreme Courts Decision Invalidating the Crush Video Statute, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (May 26, 2010). Voter Registration: Assessing Current Problems, Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 111th Cong. (March 11, 2009). Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 5 Preclearance, Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (May 17, 2006). The States Choice of Voting Systems Act: Hearing on H.R. 1173 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (Sept. 23, 1999). U.S. SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEFS Brief for Nathaniel Persily, et al., Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (2009) (No. 08-322). Brief for Nathaniel Persily et al., Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (No. 07-689). Brief Amicus Curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law in Support of Appellees, Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) (No. 01-714). Brief Amicus Curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law in Support of Respondents, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (No. 00-949).

3/11/2012

BAR, EDITORIAL BOARD, AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS Member of the New York and United States Supreme Court Bars. Editorial Board, Election Law Journal and The Forum. American Law Institute, Advisor, Principles of Election Law. United Nations Roster of Electoral Experts. American Political Science Association, Advisory Committee to Law and Political Process Study Group. Advisory Committee, Electoral Institute, Veracruz, Mexico. AEI-Brookings Election Reform Task Force.

RECENT SPEECHES AND PAPER PRESENTATIONS

Drawing Lines in Shifting Sands, Stanford Law and Policy Review Symposium , Palo Alto, CA, Jan. 28, 2012. Judges and Redistricting, Yale Law and Policy Review Symposium, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, Oct. 22, 2011. Bush v Gore, 10 Years Later: Election Administration in the United States, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, Cal Tech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Laguna Beach, CA, April 16-17, 2011. Race, Party and Community Representation in the Redistricting Process, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, Feb. 25, 2011. The Causes of Party Polarization in Congress, HARVARD JOURNAL OF LEGISLATION Symposium, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Feb. 24, 2011. Politics and the Roberts Court, EMORY LAW JOURNAL Thrower Symposium, Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA, Feb. 10, 2011. The 2010 Census and Election, Columbia Law School Federalist Society, Feb 9, 2011. The Shifting Sands of Redistricting Law: Unanswered Questions for the 2010 Cycle, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Harbor, MD, Jan 23, 2011. The Constitutional Politics of the Tea Party Movement, Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Jan. 6, 2011. Profiling Originalism, Law, Economics, and Organization Workshop, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT, Dec. 9, 2010; University of Chicago Law School Faculty Workshop, Chicago, IL, Nov. 11, 2010; George Washington University Law School Faculty Workshop, Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 2010. The Tenth Anniversary of Bush v. Gore, Columbia Law School Alumni Breakfast Series, Greenberg Traurig, New York, NY, Dec. 2, 2010. Bush v. Gore: A Decade Later, ST. THOMAS LAW REVIEW Symposium, Miami, FL, Nov. 12-13, 2010. Redistricting 2011: Decisions of a Decade, Council of State Governments Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Providence, RI, Dec. 5, 2010.

3/11/2012
Expert Witnesses in Redistricting, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Airlie Conference Center, Warrenton, VA Oct. 9, 2010. Citizens United, UNC First Amendment Law Review, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, Oct. 8, 2010. Redistricting Cases Since the Last Census, National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting Task Force, Providence, RI, Sept. 26, 2010. American Law Institute Conference on Election Law, Philadelphia, PA, June 10, 2010. United We Stand, United We Fall?, Panel Discussion on Citizens United v. FEC, Stanford Law School Alumni Event, Waldorf Astoria, May 4, 2010. Voting and Democratic Participation, Conference on Acknowledging Race in a Post-Racial Era, Cardozo Law School, New York, NY. Apr. 30, 2010. The Law of Democracy in the Age of Obama and Roberts, Columbia Law Alumni Association, Ropes and Gray, LLP, Boston, MA, April 13, 2010. The Law of the Census, Indiana Law Review Conference on the Law of Democracy, Indiana Law School, Indianapolis, IN, April 9, 2010. A Closer Look at Key Decisions Since 2000, National Conference of State Legislatures Redistricting Task Force, Austin, TX, Mar. 26, 2010. Race and the Law in the Age of Obama and Roberts, 2010 Edward Brodsky Legal Conference, Anti Defamation League, New York Times Building, March 4, 2010 (moderator). Taking Politics as Markets (Too) Seriously, The Past Present and Future of Election Law: A Symposium Honoring the Work of Daniel Lowenstein, UCLA Law School, Los Angeles, CA, Jan. 29, 2010. The Redistricting Experience Tales from the Field, Redistricting Reform & Voting Rights - Identifying Common Ground and Challenges, Warren Institute, UCDC, Washington, DC, Nov. 10, 2010. Democracia Electoral, Hacia Una Nueva Agenda, Electoral Institute of Veracruz, Veracruz, Mexico, October 15-16, 2009. Election Law in the Age of Obama and Roberts, Stone Agers Luncheon, St. Regis Hotel, New York, NY, Sept. 30, 2009. Race, Region and Vote Choice in the 2008 Election, The Ohio State Moritz College of Law Faculty Workshop, Columbus, OH, Sept. 23, 2009. Originalism in the American Mind, James Goold Cutler Lecture, William and Mary Law School, Williamsburg, VA, Sept. 17, 2009. Gay Marriage, the Courts and Direct Democracy, Roundtable at American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, Sept. 4, 2009. Reflections on the Supreme Courts Recent Voting Rights Cases, New America Foundation, Washington, DC, June 30, 2009 New Developments in the Meaning of the Voting Rights Act, National Conference of State Legislatures Redistricting Task Force, San Francisco, CA, June 14, 2009. Voter Registration Reform, AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project, Washington, DC, June 2, 2009. The Meaning of the Voting Rights Act in the Age of Obama, Stanford Law School Faculty Workshop, Stanford, CA, Mar. 18, 2009. Election 2008: Looking Back and Moving Forward, American Friends of the Hebrew University, New York, NY, Mar. 17, 2009; Columbia Law Alumni and Admittee Event, Washington, DC Mar. 17, 2009.

3/11/2012
Election Administration Issues in the 2008 Election, Tobin Project/ALI Elections Scholarship Conference, Duke Law School, Durham, NC, Feb. 27, 2009. The Associational Rights of Political Parties: Recent Cases and Reform Efforts, New York Bar Association, Election Law Committee, New York, NY, March 26, 2009. Fig Leaves and Tea Leaves in the Supreme Courts Recent Election Law Decisions, University of Miami Law Review Symposium, Miami, FL, Jan. 4, 2009; University of Minnesota Law School Public Law Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, Jan. 6, 2009. Redistricting War Stories, American Mathematics Society, Washington, DC, Jan. 8, 2009. Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Election Law, Ezra Stiles College Masters Tea and Fellows Dinner, Yale University, New Haven CT, Oct. 30, 2008. Litigation in the 2008 Election, New York State Bar Association Committee on Minorities in the Profession, New York, NY, Oct. 28, 2008. The Crawford Decision and the Future of Voter Identification, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Oct. 16, 2008. Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, Oct. 3, 2008. Defacing Democracy: The Rising Importance and Salience of As-Applied Challenges in the Roberts Court, Rutgers-Camden Law School, Camden, NJ, Sept., 22, 2008; Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, Oct. 17, 2008. The Law and Politics of the 2008 Election, Columbia Alumni Association of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Oct. 15, 2008; New York Alumni Event, New York, NY, Oct. 7, 2008. Litigating the 2008 Election, Connecticut Bar Association, District of Connecticut Bench-Bar Conference, Sept. 19, 2009. Improving our Elections: Future Research and Reform, Carnegie Foundation, New York, NY, Sept. 18, 2008. Legal Issues in the 2008 Election, Cardozo Law School, Mar. 26, 2008. Voting Rights, Voter Fraud and Election Administration, Harvard Journal on Legislation conference on Voices on Voting: Election Law in 2008, Cambridge, MA, Mar. 6, 2008. Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder, Columbia Law School, Feb. 26, 2008; University of Chicago Law School, Mar. 4, 2008. The New Voting Rights Act, Journal of Law and Politics, University of Virginia Law School, Charlottesville, VA, Feb. 23, 2008. Redistricting in Democratic Theory, Byron White Center Symposium on Reapportioning Colorado, Old Supreme Court Chambers, Colorado State Capitol, Denver, CO, Jan. 25, 2008. Preview of the 2008 Election Campaign, Election Law Society, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Oct. 10, 2007; Columbia Law School Alumni Association, Nov. 8, 2007. Preliminary Results from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (with Stephen Ansolabehere), Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA Apr. 6, 2007. The Implications of the 2003 Texas Redistricting Controversy, Symposium on Lines in the Sand, University of Texas Law School, Austin, TX, March 2, 2007. Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, Symposium on Positive Approaches to Constitutional Law and Theory, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA, Feb. 24, 2007.

10

3/11/2012
The Implications of the 2006 Elections for Legal Debates over Partisan Gerrymandering, NYU Annals of American Law Conference, New York University Law School, New York, NY, Feb. 23, 2007. The Promises and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act, Faculty Workshop, Columbia Law School, New York, NY, Jan. 11, 2007; USC Center on Law and Politics, Los Angeles, CA, Apr. 10, 2007; Northwestern Law School, Chicago, IL, Apr. 17, 2007; Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Oct. 4, 2007. Nonpartisanship, Competition and Minority Voting Rights, UNC Center for Civil Rights, Chapel Hill, NC, Feb. 3, 2006; Humphrey Inst., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Apr. 25, 2006. The Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Washington, DC, Mar. 9, 2006. The Place of Competition in American Election Law, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, Mar. 9, 2006. Public Funding of Election Campaigns: Options for Reform and Questions for Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Jan. 28, 2006. Gay Marriage, Public Opinion and the Courts, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Sept. 1, 2005; Emory Law School Faculty Workshop, Sept. 21, 2005; University of Michigan Law School Faculty Workshop, Nov. 16, 2005; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jan. 2, 2006; Bar Ilan Law School, Jan. 3, 2006; Tel Aviv Law School, Jan. 5, 2006; Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, Feb. 24, 2006, Stanford Law School Faculty Workshop, March 22, 2006; Columbia Law School Faculty Workshop, June 13, 2006; Northwestern Law School, April 17, 2007. Options and Strategies for Renewal of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, Conference on Lessons From the Past, Prospects for the Future: Honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Yale University, April 23, 2005; Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, June 24, 2006; Howard Law School, Branton Symposium, Oct. 28, 2005. New Politics, Conference on The Constitution in 2020, American Constitution Society, Yale Law School, Apr. 9, 2005. Constitutional Issues in the Terry Schiavo Case, Penn Law School, Mar. 29, 2005. Regulating Democracy Through Democracy, Conference on The Impact of Direct Democracy, Initiative and Referendum Institute, U.C. Irvine, Irvine, CA, Jan. 15, 2005. Conflicts of Interest in Comparative Perspective, University of Trento, Trento, Italy, Sept. 17, 2004. Partisan Gerrymandering after Vieth v. Jubelirer and The Constitutionality of

Counting the Overseas Population, National Conference of State Legislatures, Salt Lake City, UT, July 20-21, 2004.
Money, Elections and Political Equality: Campaign Finance After McConnell, American Constitution Society, Washington, DC, June 19, 2004. Homeland Security and Civil Liberties, Joint Conference Sponsored by U.S. Army War College and Penn Law School, June 18, 2004 (conference organizer). Understanding McConnell v. FEC, Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University, May 27, 2004. Redistricting Georgia, Ad Hoc Workshop, Penn Law School, April 22, 2004. Forty Years in the Political Thicket: Evaluating Judicial Oversight of Redistricting Since Baker v. Carr, The Brookings Institution, Apr. 16, 2004.

11

3/11/2012
American Election Law, The Moscow School for Political Studies, National Constitution Center, March 26, 2004. The Constitutional Law of American Elections, Fels School of Government, University of Pennsylvania, March 11, 2004. American Election Law, Penn Law Board of Overseers, Penn Club of New York, March 12, 2004. The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, U.S. Census Bureau, March 4, 2004. Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance, Southwestern Law School, Feb. 23, 2004; American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, Sept. 3, 2004, Boalt Hall School of Law, Berkeley, CA, Sept. 7, 2004, Seton Hall Law School, Oct. 29, 2004, NYU Law School, Nov. 15, 2004. The Law of Democracy, Conference Organizer and Panelist, Penn Law Review, Feb. 6-7, 2004. Redistricting Controversies, Dianne Rehm Show, National Public Radio, Dec. 4, 2003. Judging in the Current Era, American Constitution Society, Penn Law School, Nov. 18, 2003 (moderated panel of four federal judges). Panel on Appointment of Federal Judges, Penn Law Public Interest Program, Oct. 29, 2003. Recent Supreme Court Decisions, Chestnut Hill Academy, Sept. 2003. McConnell v. FEC: Understanding the Decision and Its Implications, Penn Law, May 15, 2003 (conference organizer and speaker). The Law and Technology of the Redistricting Process, Columbia Law School, Feb. 6, 2003; NYU School of Law, Sept. 30, 2002. The Effect of the BCRA on State Political Parties, National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, Dec. 12, 2002. American Election Law, Speech to visiting election officials from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Sponsored by the Carter Center, National Committee on U.S. Chinese Relations, Womens Campaign International. Fels School of Government, Nov. 3, 2002. In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Gerrymanders, National Conference of State Legislatures (Washington, DC, Dec. 12, 2002); University of Miami Law School, (Oct. 25, 2002); University of Pennsylvania Department of Political Science (Oct. 10, 2002); Rutgers-Camden Law School (Sept. 9, 2002); University of Pennsylvania Law School (Aug. 15, 2002). Parties, Money and Corruption, The Funding of Political Parties Workshop, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London, July 5-6, 2002. Redistricting New York, University of Pennsylvania Law School Ad Hoc workshop, Summer 2002. The Law and Technology of the 2000 Redistricting Process, Harvard Law School, Apr. 22, 2002. Strategies for Election Reform and their Legal Consequences, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, Feb. 25, 2002. The Political Impact of One Person, One Vote, Symposium on Baker v. Carr, University of North Carolina Law School, Chapel Hill, NC, Nov. 2-4, 2001. Understanding and Complying with Bush v. Gore, Election Law Task Force of the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Press Club, May 9, 2001.

12

3/11/2012
Multiraciality and the 2000 Census, Brennan Center at NYU Law School, May 4, 2001. Latino Representation and the 2000 Redistricting Process, National Meeting of the Latino Law Students Association, Columbia Law School, Mar. 2, 2001. The Law, Politics, and Technology of the 2000 Redistricting Process, Eagleton Institute of Public Affairs, Rutgers University, Dec. 18, 2000. The Legal Regulation of Party Primaries, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, Sept. 1, 2000.

Selected Media Appearances and Interviews

Television: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, Bloomberg, CNNfn. Radio: NPR, CBS Radio, ABC Radio, BBC Radio, Voice of America. Newspapers and Wire Services: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Times, Houston Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Miami Herald, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Detroit Free Press, Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, McClatchy, Knight Ridder, Gannett, Associated Press, United Press International. Other periodicals: The New Yorker, The New Republic, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call.

13