Dawidziak: We need a do-over on districts

Every now and then something happens that restores your faith in representative government. Think of last year's bipartisan cooperation between the governor and legislative leaders, on a whole wide array of issues. Unfortunately, events that leave voters feeling cynical seem far more common. Such is the case with the long-awaited, recently released, new State Senate and Assembly district maps.

The product of the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment, while hardly surprising, was a disappointment. Critics suspected from the outset that incumbent protection and preserving party power -- for the Republicans in the Senate and the Democrats in the Assembly -- would be the top priorities. The fact that four of the six members of the task force are legislators -- with the other two appointed by legislators -- only strengthened that expectation. And the results confirmed critics' suspicions.

What makes this particularly galling is that a large majority of candidates in 2010 pledged to support an independent commission to draw the lines. Many of them ran championing redistricting reforms. But after the election, all talk of reform ceased. In fact, all talk of redistricting ceased. The silence was deafening.

That was, until the new proposed district lines were released. Then came a torrent of protest, with charges of gerrymandering -- especially since so many of the legislators had reneged on their promise to support an independent commission.

Looking at the new maps, one is struck by some of the outlandish shapes of some of the proposed districts. Of course, that's where we get the term "gerrymander" in the first place. In 1812, opponents of Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry protested the State Senate lines drawn to favor his party's candidates. Newspapers of the time compared the bizarre shape of one of these districts to a salamander. Hence the term gerrymander, to draw district lines to give partisan political advantage.

The party with the majority has a greater say in how the lines are drawn, and the temptation to use this power is too great to resist. This is particularly so when a party is defending a slim majority, as the Senate Republicans are. Placement of the lines will have a direct impact on who controls this legislative body for the next decade, and the proposed State Senate districts have gotten a lot of scrutiny.

But even an overwhelming majority, like the Democrats have in the Assembly, isn't a deterrent to seeking greater political advantage. Republican Assemb. Andrew Raia (who has purchased mailing lists from my firm), whose current district is primarily made up of the Town of Huntington, now has a district that stretches improbably from Fort Salonga on the north shore to Gilgo and Captree on the south. Similarly, Republican Assemb. Joseph Saladino, whose current district is centered in the southeast part of Nassau County, now has a district that would stretch from the tip of Eaton's Neck to the north to Massapequa in the south.

These new districts not only reek of partisan influence but they also don't make good government sense. Districts should be compact, contiguous and shouldn't divide communities. Under these new lines, for example, the Village of Northport will be split among three different Assembly Districts. The old comedian's lament was "Who writes this material?!" The voters should be asking, "Who drew these lines?!"

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who also pushed for an independent commission to draw the lines, has promised to veto the new districts as proposed. This threat should be enough to make the legislators go back to the drawing board and try to come up with fairer, more sensible lines. It might be too late to do it right, but it's not too late to do it better.

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.