good
government
main page

selected good gov't victories

Reform NY:

campaign finance

ethics & lobbying

legislative rules

freedom of information

redistricting

New York State Lacks Competitive Elections

Government is more than the sum of all interests; it is the paramount interest, the public interest. It must be the efficient, effective agent of a responsible citizenry, not the shelter of the incompetent and corrupt. -- Adlai Stevenson

New York State elections are incredibly one-sided. Incumbent state legislative candidates are re-elected at a staggering rate. Over the past 22 years, only 30 incumbents have been beaten in the general elections (1). In good economic times and bad, during changes in administrations in both Albany and Washington, incumbents overwhelmingly continue to win. Even the enormous political change in 1994, which led to the first Republican-controlled House of Representatives in decades, had no significant effect on incumbency in the New York State Legislature.

How can that be? Are New Yorkers so consistently happy with their state representatives that they continue to support them? Even when an incumbent retires, his or her replacement is almost always a member of the incumbent's political party. Is New York so uniquely politically polarized that citizens in all regions of the state vote like their neighbors?

In the 2002 election, incumbents overwhelmed challengers, with few incumbents losing in the general election (a total of five: Assemblyman Sanford [who was paired against an incumbent due to redistricting]; Assemblyman Dinga [also paired with an incumbent]; Senators Espada and Santiago [both of whom lost in the Democratic primary and ran on the Republican line]; and Senator Gentile). The average margin of victory in 2002 was 63 percent in the Senate and 56 percent in the Assembly.

In the 2002 election, in only 19 (5) of the 212 legislative districts was the minority enrollment party able to wrest control away from the opposing party. In the Assembly, the Democrats have 6 incumbents who win in districts with a Republican enrollment edge. The Assembly Republicans have been able to take 4 seats where there is a Democratic enrollment advantage (with one additional seat with a Democratic advantage won by a long-time Democrat who had lost the Democratic primary and ran on the Republican line in the general election - which he won. This Assemblymember will be seated as a Democrat in the Assembly).

In the Senate, the Republicans have taken 8 seats in which there is a Democratic enrollment edge - in some cases a substantial enrollment advantage. These eight seats allow Republicans to control the Senate.

REDISTRICTING DECISIONS LIMIT COMPETITIVENESS. How district lines are drawn has a dramatic effect on the lack of competitive elections. Only 25 of the 212 legislative districts (11 percent) have close enough enrollments that could allow frequent competitive elections.

Of the 62 state senate districts, 26 are drawn to give one political party an enrollment edge of 40,000 or more (all are Democratic enrollment-advantage districts); 17 grant an enrollment edge of between 20,000 and 40,000 (11 with Republican advantages). Normally, it would be extraordinarily difficult for minority party challengers to take on an incumbent in these districts. However, campaign finance advantages have helped Senate Republicans to take 7 of these Democrat-enrollment advantage districts (SD 11, 15, 22, 34, 35, 38, 56). Only 11 are "competitive districts," those in which the enrollment differences between the major parties is 13,000 or fewer (10 have Republican advantages, and all 11 have been won by Republicans). Each Senate district has roughly 300,000 constituents.

Differences in Major Party Enrollments -- Senate Districts (6)

In the 150 state assembly districts (with roughly 120,000 constituents), 68 grant an enrollment edge of 20,000 or more (63 are Democratic-advantage districts); 40 grant an enrollment edge of between 10,000 and 20,000 (26 are Republican-advantage districts). Only 14 are "competitive districts," those with enrollment differences of 5,000 or fewer (10 are Democratic-advantage districts).

Differences in Major Party Enrollments -- Assembly Districts (7)

Clearly, the vast majority of districts are drawn to benefit one party. In the Senate, Republicans - who control re-districting in that house - have "packed" as many Democrats in as few seats as possible. Republicans then draw as many districts as possible with Republican majorities. However, they only have majorities in 29 districts - campaign finance advantages help add seats.

In the Assembly, Democrats - who draw districts in that house - limit the size of majorities in "Republican" districts. Thus, Democrats are able to use their sizable campaign finance edge to keep the pressure on the Republican minority, making it difficult for them to mount serious challenges to Democratic "marginals."

Redistricting decisions play a critical role in having maintained Albany's legislative status quo for decades.

In the last 20 years, America has changed. Twenty years ago, the Shuttle, the Internet and "hip-hop" music were nowhere to be found. Yet, when it comes to majority party dominance, not much has changed. Since the Democrats took control of the Assembly in the 1970s - and redrew the maps in 1980 - the majority party margins have been incredibly consistent over time.

Party advantage in the state legislature 1980 through 2000 (8)

Redistricting reform is part of the solution to Albany's lack of competitive elections.

Competitive elections are the lifeblood of democracy. Only through the clash of ideas can voters intelligently understand complex public policies and think through the implications of policy alternatives. Competitive elections stimulate voter interest in elections and in state government generally. New York's policies that determine legislative districts and set campaign finance practices smother competitive elections - thus endangering democracy.

RECOMMENDATION: Create a nonpartisan redistricting commission to draft the state legislative and Congressional political boundaries for the 2012 elections.

New York State's redistricting process is incredibly partisan. The legislative leadership controls the drawing of district lines for each house. The Republican-controlled Senate draws its lines and the Democrat-controlled Assembly does the same. Both houses agree to the other's plan, and the legislation is sent to the Governor for his approval.

There are alternatives. Some states have a non-partisan redistricting system. The state of Iowa (13), for example, has a non-partisan system of redistricting that could be followed in New York in time for the 2012 changes. Civil service-like technicians make the first draft of the district lines. These staff are not allowed to consider incumbents' home addresses or to use the party affiliation of voters in considering district lines. The proposed district lines are sent to state lawmakers for approval or disapproval - the legislature is not permitted to amend the proposal. The courts are empowered to step in if there is no agreement.

According to observers, Iowa's elections have become more competitive. Janice McNelly, President of the Iowa League of Women Voters has estimated that one-third of all Iowa races were competitive and reported, "The nonpartisan commission on redistricting is no longer controversial. The process now has broad public and legislative support and has resulted in a more competitive electoral process." (14)

Organizations endorsing this paper:

Common Cause/NY
Contact: Rachel Leon, 212 564-4365

League of Women Voters/N.Y.S.
Contact: Barbara Bartoletti, 518 465-4162

New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)
Contact: Blair Horner, 518 436-0876

Reform New York:
Campaign Finance | Ethics & Lobbying | Legislative Rules | Freedom of Information | Redistricting

NYC Electionwatch: Heard it at the Board

Five Needed Steps Towards New Voting Machines

Big Apple's Big Spenders 

Who Represents Me?
how to reach your elected representatives

“Who Represents Me?” Now for Long Island