1 1 2 -------------------------------------------------X 3 PUBLIC MEETING 4 CITY OF NEW YORK 2022-2023 5 DISTRICTING COMMISSION 6 -------------------------------------------------X 7 August 11, 2022 10:04 a.m. 8 9 10 RACIAL BLOC VOTING SEMINAR 11 Held Virtually via Zoom 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Court Reporter: STEPHANIE O'KEEFFE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 Dr. John Flateau, Executive Director 4 Joseph Maligno, Deputy Executive Director 5 Dennis Walcott, Chair 6 Yovan Samuel Collado, Commissioner 7 Hon. Marilyn Go, Commissioner 8 Kevin Hanratty, Commissioner 9 Msgr. Kevin Sullivan, Commissioner 10 Maf Misbah Uddin, Commissioner 11 Michael Schnall, Commissioner 12 Kristen Johnson, Commissioner 13 Marc Wurzel, Commissioner 14 Darrin Porcher, Commissioner 15 Lisa Sorin, Commissioner 16 Marie Mateo, Commissioner 17 18 Presenter 19 Dr. Lisa Handley 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 CHAIR WALCOTT: I just want to, 3 before we ask for the roll call, to 4 report that pursuant to the Governor's 5 Emergency Executive Order on COVID-19 6 protocol, we are meeting -- convening 7 this all-virtual public meeting. So, 8 it's a pleasure to welcome all of you, 9 both to Commissioners, to our 10 fantastic staff, and to the public, 11 who is watching as well. 12 My name is Dennis Walcott, and I 13 have the honor to be the chair, but 14 more importantly, just one of fifteen 15 members of the Commission. 16 And with that being said, I'd 17 like to call on our Deputy Executive 18 Director, Joseph Maligno, to give the 19 roll call, please. 20 MR. MALIGNO: Good morning, 21 everyone. I'm going to conduct the 22 roll call now. 23 Dennis Walcott? 24 CHAIR WALCOTT: Present. 25 MR. MALIGNO: Yovan Samuel 4 1 2 Collado? 3 MR. COLLADO: Present. 4 MR. MALIGNO: Honorable Marilyn 5 Go? 6 MS. GO: Present. 7 MR. MALIGNO: Kevin Hanratty? 8 MR. HANRATTY: Present. 9 MR. MALIGNO: Maria Mateo? 10 (No response.) 11 MR. MALIGNO: Joshua Schneps? 12 (No response.) 13 MR. MALIGNO: Lisa Sorin? 14 (No response.) 15 MR. MALIGNO: Monsignor Kevin 16 Sullivan? 17 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: Present. 18 MR. MALIGNO: Kai-Ki Wong? 19 (No response.) 20 MR. MALIGNO: Maf Misbah Uddin? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. MALIGNO: Michael Schnall? 23 MR. UDDIN: Present. Present. 24 MR. SCHNALL: I'm present, too. 25 MR. MALIGNO: So that was 5 1 2 present for Michael Schnall and Maf 3 Uddin? 4 MR. UDDIN: Yes. 5 MR. SCHNALL: Yes. 6 MR. MALIGNO: Kristen Johnson? 7 MS. JOHNSON: Present. 8 MR. MALIGNO: Gregory 9 Kirschenbaum? 10 (No response.) 11 MR. MALIGNO: Mark Wurzel? 12 MR. WURZEL: Present. 13 MR. MALIGNO: Darrin Porcher? 14 MR. PORCHER: Present. 15 MR. MALIGNO: That is the end of 16 roll call. 17 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, sir. 18 And all of you have received the 19 minutes beforehand, if there are any 20 foundations for corrections, we'll 21 entertain that. If not, can we have a 22 motion to -- 23 MR. UDDIN: So moved. 24 CHAIR WALCOTT: So moved. 25 Is there a second? 6 1 2 MR. PORCHER: Second the motion. 3 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, 4 Doctors. There is a second. 5 All those in favor, please say 6 aye. 7 (Chorus of ayes.) 8 Any opposition? 9 If not, it is passed that we 10 accept the minutes. 11 (Reporter asks for clarity.) 12 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you for 13 clarifying, Court Reporter. 14 MR. UDDIN: This is Maf Uddin. 15 MR. PORCHER: And it was Darrin 16 Porcher that seconded the motion. 17 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you very 18 much. 19 Any time I go too fast, or we go 20 too fast, please let us know because 21 also, we are having, as usual, our 22 meeting transcribed. So, again, thank 23 you for asking the question. 24 With this, I would like to turn 25 it over to our great Executive 7 1 2 Director, Dr. John Flateau, because 3 this is a very unique meeting, and 4 we're excited to have people watching 5 us on YouTube, as well, in addition to 6 the commissioners. 7 And then at the end of the 8 presentation, we will have the 9 opportunity for the commissioners to 10 have Q&A, and while the presentation 11 is taking place and also Dr. Flateau 12 is talking, if we can mute our mics, 13 so that way we don't have any 14 background noise. 15 With that being said, Dr. 16 Flateau, the floor is yours. 17 DR. FLATEAU: Thank you, Chair 18 Walcott and Districting Commission. 19 The Districting Commission, at 20 its July 15th meeting, approved the 21 public release of the preliminary 22 plan. The Commission utilized several 23 inputs, including legal guidance 24 framed by the federal voting rights 25 laws, state laws, City Charter, census 8 1 2 data, other research, five public 3 hearings, and other inputs, to assist 4 the Commission in producing the 5 preliminary plan. 6 A very important research tool 7 which also assists the Commission's 8 important City Council redistricting 9 work is known as Racial Bloc Voting 10 analysis, or RBV. This Racial Bloc 11 Voting methodology uses statistical 12 regression analyses and diagnostics on 13 the preliminary plan maps and 14 districts, as well as on subsequent 15 draft maps, to ensure that proposed 16 New York City Council districts are 17 constructed to be in compliance with 18 voting rights and other important 19 requirements. 20 Our Districting Commission is 21 fortunate to, again retain a national 22 expert on RBV analysis. A renowned 23 social scientist, Dr. Lisa Handley, 24 PhD, who also served as the 2013 25 Districting Commissioner's expert, 9 1 2 providing this similar research and 3 guidance for New York City's very same 4 current City Council districts; she 5 ably assisted by Sid Parker, our own 6 senior data manager. 7 Dr. Handley is statistically 8 analyzing five years of voting 9 patterns of more than 150 municipal 10 and state elections for this ongoing 11 RBV analysis. 12 Jeff Wice, the Commission's 13 special counsel for redistricting, a 14 national expert who advised the 2013 15 Commission as well, he is now advising 16 our Commission on federal, state, and 17 local redistricting and voting rights 18 laws, along with the New York City Law 19 Department and our general counsel, 20 Grace Pyun. 21 I have academic training in this 22 field as well and have served on a 23 number of redistricting commissions. 24 I'm honored to serve as your executive 25 director with our great Commission 10 1 2 staff on this important work. 3 At this time, I am pleased to 4 present Dr. Lisa Handley, PhD, who 5 will now conduct, for our Commission 6 and for the public, an information 7 seminar on Racial Bloc Voting analysis 8 and its application to the New York 9 City Council redistricting process. 10 Dr. Handley. 11 DR. HANDLEY: Good morning. Can 12 you hear me? 13 DR. FLATEAU: Yes. 14 DR. HANDLEY: I would like to 15 share my screen because I have lots of 16 statistics to show you but -- I'm only 17 teasing. 18 You have a very challenging task 19 in front of you, and I want to spend a 20 little bit of time today talking about 21 one bit of it. 22 (Whereupon, a document was 23 displayed on the share screen for 24 all parties to view.) 25 Can you see my screen? Yes. 11 1 2 What I want to talk about is how 3 to determine if any redistricting plan 4 that you draw, any proposed plan 5 complies with the Voting Rights Act or 6 not. 7 When you have a whole lot of 8 redistricting criteria that you have 9 to balance, and this slide shows some 10 of these, but this is not an equal 11 balancing act. Some of these are more 12 important than others. Some are going 13 to get you in federal court if you 14 don't comply. 15 So the triangle behind this list 16 is meant to show that some things, 17 like the U.S. Constitution and the 18 Federal Voting Rights Act trump some 19 things below that, like the New York 20 City Charter. And, in fact, near the 21 top of that triangle is the Federal 22 Voting Rights Act of 1965. 23 Now, you also have to pay 24 attention to all of these other 25 criteria, but the only one that's 12 1 2 going to actually trump it is going to 3 be equal population. So, for example, 4 you couldn't draw districts that did 5 not comply with equal population in 6 order to create minority districts or 7 districts that would elect 8 minority-preferred candidates. But 9 you can't say, we're going to, for 10 example, keep this community of 11 interest intact, if doing so would 12 violate the Voting Rights Act. 13 So here are the criteria that 14 you have to pay attention to. And 15 again, a particularly important one is 16 complying with the Federal Voting 17 Rights Act, that you cannot dilute 18 minority votes. And now this is also 19 incorporated into New York State law 20 with the recently passed John Lewis 21 Voting Rights Act. 22 So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 23 used to have more sections than it 24 does now. Section 2 is the section 25 that we're going to pay attention to 13 1 2 today. It prohibits any voting 3 standard practice or procedure, 4 including a redistricting plan, that 5 results in the denial or dilution of 6 minority voting strength. 7 The section that the Superior 8 Court held as unconstitutional not 9 very long ago was Section 5. When I 10 was involved with New York 11 redistricting ten years ago, not only 12 did you have to make sure that the 13 plan complied with section 2 or you 14 would be sued, you had to submit the 15 plan to the Department of Justice 16 because three New York City boroughs 17 were actually covered by Section 5, 18 and the Justice Department would have 19 to pre-approve them before you could 20 put them into place. 21 So ten years ago, we drew plans, 22 you chose the plan, we submitted it, 23 and we had to wait for the Justice 24 Department to give the okay before you 25 could actually enact it. This time, 14 1 2 you don't have that process to go 3 through. But, of course, if you don't 4 comply with section 2 of the Voting 5 Rights Act, you will -- at least, you 6 can be sued and you can lose. 7 Now, one important thing about 8 Section 2 is that it looks at the 9 effect of the plan and not the intent 10 behind the drawers of the plan. So 11 you can put into place a plan that you 12 don't intend will discriminate, but if 13 it has the effect of discriminating 14 against voters, it will be declared 15 illegal. 16 Same is true of voters. You may 17 have voters that vote differently, but 18 it doesn't mean that they're 19 prejudiced and they're not willing to 20 vote for other people. You don't have 21 to show that for people of other 22 racial or ethnic groups. You just 23 have to show that by voting for the 24 candidates that they do support, this 25 means that the candidates that are 15 1 2 preferred by minority -- by minority 3 voters are defeated. 4 So a redistricting plan that 5 violates the Voting Rights Act is one 6 that either cracks or packs or 7 submerges a geographically 8 concentrated minority community across 9 districts. 10 Now, in the upper right-hand 11 corner is an example of a District 12 that cracks a minority community. You 13 see the pink, the salmon color, is a 14 geographically concentrated minority 15 community. And what's happened is, 16 the lines have been drawn in such a 17 way that the community is spread 18 across five districts so that they 19 never make up more than 35 percent of 20 a district and, therefore, cannot 21 elect a candidate of choice in any of 22 these districts. 23 The example below that, is an 24 example of the plan that packs a 25 community into a single district. Now 16 1 2 in this particular example, it created 3 a district that's a hundred percent 4 pink, and so they will be able -- this 5 district will be able to elect the 6 pink candidate of choice, but they 7 will have no impact on any of the 8 other districts. And this minority 9 community is probably large enough to 10 be able to elect the candidates of 11 choice in two communities, but it was 12 not drawn that way. They were packed 13 into a single community, so they could 14 only elect one candidate of choice. 15 Now, these examples are examples 16 that we have seen over and over again. 17 We end up in court a lot of times with 18 exactly this kind of situation. 19 Okay. In 1982, the Voting 20 Rights Act of 1965 was amended. And 21 it was amended to make it clear that 22 the intent of the line drawers didn't 23 matter, what only mattered was the 24 effect of the plan and whether it 25 diluted minority votes. Whether it 17 1 2 was intentional or not. 3 In 1986, a Supreme Court case 4 called Thornburg v. Gingles actually 5 told us how to determine if a plan 6 diluted minority votes in a way that 7 violated section 2. And the Superior 8 Court put out what's called the three 9 prong test. 10 First, the minority group must 11 be sufficiently large and 12 geographically compact to form a 13 majority in a single-member district. 14 Second, the minority group must be 15 politically cohesive. Third, whites 16 must vote as a bloc to usually defeat 17 minority-preferred candidates. 18 So, in terms of the first prong, 19 what that has meant over time in court 20 cases that followed Thornburg, we now 21 know that by sufficiently large, we 22 mean the group must be able to make 23 up, if you're talking about black 24 votes, 50 percent of the black voting 25 age population. You can create 18 1 2 another -- a district or another 3 district that had at least 50 percent 4 black voting age population. With 5 Hispanics, we think it's citizen 6 voting age population. The 5th 7 Circuit has not decreed that, but, for 8 example, the 9th Circuit and the 5th 9 Circuit have both said, it's not 10 voting age population, it's citizen 11 voting age population. 12 Geographically compact, well, 13 you don't have to draw a district that 14 strings across the state, but we don't 15 really have a definition of 16 geographically compact, other than the 17 old inner ocular case, let's look at 18 it and make sure that it doesn't look 19 funny. 20 By minority group being 21 politically cohesive, meaning the 22 minority group, if given a district, 23 would actually support the same 24 candidate, it wouldn't make sense to 25 create a district in which the 19 1 2 minority group wasn't cohesive and 3 wouldn't support a single candidate. 4 So it means that they are voting for 5 the same candidate. 6 And finally, in terms of white 7 bloc voting, what we mean is, they 8 don't have to bloc vote for a single 9 nother (sic) candidate, they just have 10 to not support the minority-preferred 11 candidate in such a way that the 12 minority-preferred candidate is always 13 losing. 14 So how do we know these things? 15 What we do is a racial bloc voting 16 analysis. A racial bloc voting 17 analysis is a way to estimate the 18 voting patterns of white voters and 19 minority voters to determine if the 20 minority voters are politically 21 cohesive and determine if whites are 22 bloc voting against this. 23 So this is what I did here in 24 New York. This is what I did ten 25 years ago. This is what I do in 20 1 2 hundreds of jurisdictions across the 3 country. I do a racial bloc voting 4 analysis, and estimate how white 5 voters and minority voters are voting. 6 What's required is two pieces of 7 information. Again, we don't know 8 from the ballot, the race of the 9 voter. So we need to do some 10 analyses, and do it at an advocate 11 level. We look at election precincts 12 or, what are called election districts 13 here in New York. And we're going to 14 look at patterns across election 15 districts. 16 We need to know the racial 17 composition of these election 18 districts, and we need to know the 19 voting patterns of these election 20 districts. And we're gong to look for 21 patterns across these election 22 districts or precincts. 23 The easiest way to do this would 24 be something called homogenous 25 precinct analysis. And this is, we 21 1 2 would look at precincts that we know, 3 for example, all of the voters are 4 black voters or all of the voters are 5 Hispanic voters or all of the voters 6 are white voters or all of the voters 7 are Asian voters, and we would compare 8 who they're supporting in any 9 particular election and see if there's 10 differences. 11 And I always do this kind of 12 analysis, but first of all, most 13 precincts aren't homogeneous. And 14 second of all, voters who live in 15 these overwhelmingly one-race 16 precincts might vote differently than 17 voters who live in more integrated 18 precincts. 19 So here are the two statistical 20 techniques that are used. Now, these 21 have been used since the 1980s and 22 1990s. Ecological regression analysis 23 was developed, actually, in the 1970s. 24 And it was used by the expert in the 25 Thornburg v Gingles in 1982. So it's 22 1 2 been around for a long time. 3 And ecological inference was 4 developed in the 1990s and has gone 5 through various iterations. And both 6 of these are well accepted by the 7 courts. Any voting rights case will 8 include this kind of statistical 9 analysis. Ecological simply means 10 that we're not doing -- looking at, 11 like, individual surveys, we're 12 looking at an area. In this case, a 13 precinct. 14 Okay. So these are the two 15 kinds of analysis that I did, and I'm 16 going to explain them. 17 The first one, the one that's 18 been around the longest, is ecological 19 regression. Now, this is a county in 20 Georgia. And this is the election in 21 2021, the runoff, that included 22 Raphael Warnock. 23 Now, in Georgia, we actually 24 know turnout by race. Here, in New 25 York City, we do not. So, here in New 23 1 2 York City, that horizontal access 3 would not be "proportion black 4 turnout." It would be "proportion 5 black of the voting age population." 6 But Georgia, we can get a lot closer 7 to the data because they actually 8 collect registration data. When you 9 go register to vote, you indicate your 10 race, and then we can go back and look 11 at the voter list to see the 12 proportion of blacks that -- the black 13 voters that turned out in any given 14 election. 15 Each of these points on this 16 diagram are election precincts. So, 17 for example, this point would be an 18 election precinct in which about 25 19 percent of the turnout was -- or about 20 30 percent of the turnout was black 21 voters and about 40 percent of the 22 vote went for Warnock. 23 So, you can see a clear pattern 24 here, I presume. You can see that, as 25 the proportion of black turnout 24 1 2 increases, the proportion of votes for 3 Warnock increases dramatically. And 4 we're going to use that pattern to 5 estimate how many whites voted for 6 Warnock and how many black voters 7 voted for Warnock. 8 Okay. So, this was the standard 9 up until Gary King, a professor at 10 Harvard, developed a new methodology 11 called ecological inference. The main 12 reason that he did that was, there is 13 a problem with ecological regression, 14 in that, if voting is very polarized, 15 as in this particular example, you can 16 get estimates of, say, negative five 17 percent of whites voting for Warnock 18 and a hundred and five percent of 19 blacks voting for Warnock. So this, 20 obviously didn't happen, and we would 21 tend to round them down and say a 22 hundred percent and zero percent. But 23 Gary King came up with a new method 24 that avoided that problem altogether, 25 and that's called ecological 25 1 2 inference. And this is a lot more 3 complicated. 4 This is called a tomographic 5 plot. Here, instead of every point 6 being a precinct, these lines are 7 precincts. And it's showing you every 8 possible, conceivable relationship 9 given the number of black voters and 10 the votes for Warnock that could have 11 occurred and produced that particular 12 result in that particular in the 13 particular -- in that particular 14 precinct. 15 So, all of these lines are 16 precincts, or election districts as 17 you call them here. And then we do a 18 fancy thing calling maximum likelihood 19 statistics to come up with the 20 strongest grouping of where the 21 estimates are likely to be. And you 22 can see along this line (indicating), 23 this is where the heaviest 24 concentration of this tomographic plot 25 occurred we can estimate that Warnock 26 1 2 go between 80 and hundred percent of 3 black votes using this process. 4 So when I do this analysis, 5 typically what I do is, I report the 6 results of both methodologies because 7 they both approach the question 8 slightly differently. And I also 9 actually use homogenesis precinct as 10 well because these are three different 11 methods and presumably, they're going 12 to come up with estimates very close 13 together. 14 Now, if they don't come up with 15 estimates very close together, we 16 think that we don't really know who 17 voted and we -- who voted for who, and 18 we say it's inconclusive. But when 19 you come up with estimates like this, 20 you can see that the estimate for this 21 county is, using ecological 22 regression, 94.9, using ecological 23 inference, 94.4 percent of black 24 voters supporting Warnock. While, in 25 terms of white voters, you can see 27 1 2 that 23.5 percent and 25.5 percent. 3 So our estimate doesn't matter exactly 4 the percentage, we can just clearly 5 see from this that black voters are 6 strongly supportive of Warnock and 7 white voters are strongly in support 8 of his white opponent, I forgot 9 Loeffler's first name, but his white 10 opponent. So this contest is racially 11 polarized. In this instance, black 12 voters and white voters supported 13 different candidates. 14 Now, this happens to be a county 15 in which Warnock won. In fact, you 16 remember Warnock won the state. 17 So we also have to pay attention 18 to, not only the voting patterns, but 19 is the black preferred candidate 20 winning or losing. 21 This is what I've been doing for 22 the last few months here in New York 23 City, looking at hundreds of contests 24 to determine -- here in Georgia, there 25 are two racial groups that you're 28 1 2 interested in. You're interested in 3 whites and blacks. It's more 4 complicated in New York because we 5 have all -- there are six protected 6 groups -- five protected groups under 7 the Voting Rights Act, and three of 8 them are here. You have Hispanics, 9 you have black voters and you have 10 Asian voters. We have to pay 11 attention to what all of those voters 12 are doing. So this is a very complex 13 statistical problem to figure out, not 14 only how each group is voting in each 15 of these elections, okay. 16 Okay. Back in 2013 -- or 2012, 17 I think in this analysis, I determined 18 that voting was polarized. That black 19 voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters, 20 and white voters typically voted for 21 different candidates. It wasn't 22 necessarily true in the general 23 election, although, it is true, for 24 example, in Staten Island, and Queens, 25 and some areas of Brooklyn. But it's 29 1 2 almost always true in the Democratic 3 primary, that each of these groups 4 prefer different voters -- different 5 candidates. 6 What that means is, if you have 7 polarized voting, then you have to 8 make sure that you create districts 9 that give minority voters an 10 opportunity to elect their candidates 11 of choice. And if they already exist, 12 and you have quite a number of them 13 here in New York City, they should be 14 maintained so that they continue to 15 allow minority voters to elect their 16 candidates of choice. 17 Now, I look at each group 18 individually, but in some areas, and 19 in particular in general elections, 20 you will find, for example, that 21 blacks and Hispanics might vote 22 similar. But each group is considered 23 separately, and then, at the end of 24 the process, you might consider 25 whether you're going to draw what's 30 1 2 called a coalition district or not. 3 But, typically, you have to show that, 4 let's say, a coalition district is 5 going to be a black and Hispanic 6 district. You have to show -- for it 7 to be required by the Voting Rights 8 Act, you have to show that black 9 voters and Hispanic voters typically 10 support the same candidates. 11 Okay. So in 2013, as I said, 12 voting was polarized and you did have 13 to create, or maintain, minority 14 districts. This was done. The plan 15 was submitted to the Department of 16 Justice. And it was precleared, and 17 you did not get sued. And you want to 18 do the same thing this time around, I 19 assume. 20 How do we tell if a district is 21 going to provide minority voters with 22 an opportunity to elect? The first 23 thing you can't do is say, "Okay. I'm 24 just going to create all these fifty 25 percent bloc voting age population 31 1 2 districts" because sometimes you 3 don't -- well, first of all, it 4 violates the Constitution. In a case 5 in 2015, that was called racial 6 gerrymandering. You have to look at 7 each district individually, and you 8 have to look -- you have to do a 9 district-specific functional analysis 10 and actually look at voting patterns 11 in that district to determine if the 12 candidates choice of minority voter 13 should be elected. So, you're not 14 going to work with an arbitrary 15 demographic target like fifty percent 16 black voting age population. 17 And this is a good thing 18 because, it turns out, for example, 19 in -- in the state of Ohio, turns out 20 that if you're in northern Ohio, if 21 you're up near Cleveland, you don't 22 need a 50-percent district, you could 23 have a 45-percent district because you 24 have enough white voters who are 25 willing to vote for black candidates, 32 1 2 that candidate will get elected. But 3 if you're in Southern Ohio, down near 4 Cincinnati, it turns out that you 5 would need a 50-percent. 6 And sometimes, like in a case I 7 worked on in Arkansas, 50 percent is 8 not enough if black turnout is 9 depressed and virtually no whites will 10 vote for a black candidate, sometimes 11 you need 55 percent. 12 So, we want to take into account 13 things like turnout -- the relative 14 rates of turnout. And we want to look 15 at how much white crossover voting we 16 might expect, or how much voting of 17 any of the groups we might expect for 18 the candidates of choice. 19 So, what I've done through this 20 racial bloc voting analysis is, I have 21 identified what are called bellwether 22 elections. And these bellwether 23 elections will help us to determine if 24 the proposed districts will actually 25 elect minority-preferred candidate. A 33 1 2 bellwether election is a racially 3 polarized election in which white 4 voters preferred a different candidate 5 than if we were looking at creating 6 black BAP districts and black voters 7 supported. And we're going to take 8 this previous election and we're going 9 to see what would happen in that 10 previous election -- in that previous 11 polarized election under the new 12 proposed district boundaries. We want 13 to see if the candidate preferred by 14 black voters or Hispanic voters 15 actually carries that district, and we 16 want to see that across a series of 17 elections. And if the black voters 18 are successful in electing their black 19 preferred candidate over time and over 20 these series of elections, we can 21 assume that we have a district that 22 will provide black voters with an 23 opportunity to elect their candidates 24 of choice. 25 And again, this doesn't 34 1 2 necessarily mean that it's a black 3 voting age population district of 50 4 percent, it might be less, it might be 5 more. 6 Now, if you want to bring a 7 section to suit, if a plaintiff group 8 wants to sue, they have to show that 9 they could draw an additional -- I'm 10 going to use black voters as the 11 example here, but a district that has 12 at least a black voting age population 13 of 50 percent. But you don't have to 14 draw districts that are 50 percent. 15 You just have to draw districts that 16 are opportunity districts. 17 So with black voters, 18 sometimes -- in fact, quite often, it 19 doesn't have to be 50 percent. On the 20 other hand, with Hispanic voters, it 21 turns out, it quite often needs to be 22 more than 50 percent. 23 So, that's what we're going to 24 be doing here. That's what we've been 25 doing. What I've been doing is doing 35 1 2 the racial bloc voting analysis. 3 Determining if voting is polarized. 4 And then, taking these bellwether 5 elections, looking at whether the 6 candidates of choice of each of these 7 groups are winning the proposed 8 district. 9 That is all I have. And I would 10 look to answer your questions, if you 11 have any. 12 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, 13 Doctor, much appreciated. 14 With that being said, if we can 15 put it up to our Commission for 16 questioning. And also, Doctor, if you 17 can -- there you go, we can see you. 18 Commissioners, the floor is 19 yours. 20 Judge. 21 MS. GO: What was your role in 22 helping review the maps that were 23 created and released in July? 24 DR. HANDLEY: What I did was -- 25 at this point the racial bloc voting 36 1 2 analysis hadn't been completed. But 3 using the information that I had, I 4 used some bellwether elections to 5 determine if we had effective minority 6 districts or not. 7 CHAIR WALCOTT: Judge, do you 8 want to follow-up? 9 MS. GO: Now that you have 10 completed your analysis, would your 11 review be different at this point? 12 DR. HANDLEY: It would be more 13 detailed. 14 MS. GO: And is there a report 15 that you made? 16 DR. HANDLEY: I will be writing 17 a report, yes. 18 MS. GO: Okay. 19 CHAIR WALCOTT: Yeah, the 20 process will be, Judge and the 21 Commissioners and the audience, that 22 we will be receiving a report, and so 23 we'll let folks know when the report 24 is complete. But that will be the 25 next step in the process as well. 37 1 2 Other Commissioners? 3 MS. JOHNSON: Hi there. I 4 wonder if you can answer this 5 question, though. How many years back 6 did you look when looking at 7 bellwether elections? 8 DR. HANDLEY: To 2017. So, we 9 have 2017 and 2021, when we're talking 10 about citywide and borough-wide 11 contests. I also looked at a couple 12 of contests that occurred in 2019 and 13 2022. But the furthest back I went 14 was 2017. 15 CHAIR WALCOTT: Commissioner 16 Johnson, follow-up? 17 MS. JOHNSON: Not right now. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIR WALCOTT: Alright. Also, 20 just for the individual who is 21 transcribing, with any commissioner, 22 can you identify yourself, so that way 23 she can record it efficiently. 24 So prior to that was Judge Go. 25 And this is Commissioner Johnson. 38 1 2 Other commissioners? 3 MR. UDDIN: Yes, Mr. Chair, I 4 have raised my hand. 5 CHAIR WALCOTT: Jump on in, sir. 6 MR. UDDIN: Okay. Good morning. 7 This is Maf Uddin. 8 Dr. Lisa Handley, thank you very 9 much. It's a very good presentation. 10 And I think we have learned more than 11 what we knew until we had the district 12 analysis before. 13 So, now, in your explanation on 14 tomographic plot, based on the Georgia 15 election, Warnock, you know, 16 re-election, I understand that. I 17 don't know how important for us to 18 know what black people votes majority 19 or not for their own candidate. 20 The important part that I think 21 you mentioned, or that I understood it 22 right is this, you said that the black 23 voting district are voting for black 24 candidate, we must try to maintain 25 that district. In our situation that 39 1 2 we have experienced, that in order to 3 accommodate additional census-related 4 population within that district, it 5 will be difficult to maintain such. 6 Is it that we must, or it is 7 also allowable that in some places, 8 you may have to increase non-black 9 population in this case, or bring down 10 within that district, black population 11 to accommodate other districts' 12 numbers? Those things are allowable, 13 or those things are not allowable as 14 far as your explanation was concerned? 15 DR. HANDLEY: You are not 16 required to draw a district if it's 17 impossible to draw the district. If 18 the district would have to be 19 extremely strange in shape, for 20 example, or if you were losing 21 population. For example, in Alaska, 22 where they're losing Alaskan Native 23 population in general, but it's moving 24 into Anchorage and it's hard to draw 25 districts. If you can't draw a 40 1 2 district, you can't maintain the same 3 number of districts, then, of course, 4 you don't have to. You can't. The 5 law does not require you to drew 6 strange non-contiguous districts in 7 order to do that. 8 If population is shifting in 9 such a way that you're losing 10 population and you cannot maintain a, 11 say, an Asian district in South 12 Manhattan because you're gaining white 13 population and losing Asian 14 population, then you just can't do it. 15 I mean, it is -- the law isn't going 16 to require you to do something it's 17 not possible to do. At least not 18 possible without creating strange, you 19 know, noncontiguous districts. It's 20 just not going to be required. 21 On the other hand, New York City 22 has been -- has lost a little white 23 population, lost a little black 24 population, and the Asian population 25 has grown enormously. And I should 41 1 2 probably leave this up to the lawyers, 3 but you -- I feel that you are going 4 to be obliged to draw at least one, if 5 not two, Asian districts to recognize 6 this demographic shift in the increase 7 in the Asian population. 8 MR. UDDIN: So, I think that the 9 way I now got the clearance from your 10 answer, so, so far the way we are, you 11 know, plotting, or doing this, we are 12 almost following all the rules and 13 regulations that you mentioned. 14 And of course I agree with you 15 and we always -- all did that more 16 than half 629,000 are Asian 17 population. If there would have been 18 new district creation, there would 19 have been at least two Asian districts 20 so -- and I think that is why in our 21 draft, we are have one Brooklyn, 22 district was almost 57 percent of 23 Asian district was there, which was 24 not there before. 25 So the issue that was my concern 42 1 2 that I think we have heard some of the 3 complaints that the -- especially 4 where there is people has been 5 electing they own people, own 6 minority, ethnic-based people are now, 7 with this accommodation of the 8 increased population, has shifted 9 their district, either it has 10 increased or it has decreased. 11 So that is the concern, I think, 12 that we will be addressing the way you 13 just answered, that wherever possible, 14 we will do that, wherever not 15 possible, we must do the way you just 16 gave the answers. 17 Thank you very much. 18 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, 19 Commissioner. 20 Other commissioners? 21 MR. SCHNALL: Dr. Handley, I 22 have a follow-up for you. 23 CHAIR WALCOTT: Michael Schnall. 24 MR. SCHNALL: Yes. Hi. Mike 25 Schnall, representing Staten Island. 43 1 2 So following Maf's questioning 3 about the South Brooklyn District. 4 There was a District 38, which had -- 5 it had a plurality of Latino voters 6 but -- and slightly less percentage of 7 Asian voters. They voted for a Latino 8 elected official. 9 When you look at District 1 in 10 Manhattan, it has a plurality, or even 11 a majority of Asian voters and yet, 12 they elected a Latino elected official 13 in 2021. Prior to that, had elected 14 an Asian elected official. 15 How do you deal with a community 16 that is in inconsistent in the way in 17 which they vote? Meaning, you talked 18 about black communities overwhelmingly 19 voting for black candidates. But if a 20 community, like the Asian community, 21 sometimes votes for Asian candidates, 22 sometimes votes for white candidates, 23 sometimes votes for Latinos or others, 24 how does that square up with this 25 analysis? 44 1 2 DR. HANDLEY: Well, first I have 3 to correct you about District 38. 4 What you're describing is not correct. 5 District 38 was a plurality Hispanic 6 district when it was drawing, but it 7 is now plurality Asian district. 8 And the candidate who was 9 elected is supported by Hispanics, but 10 not by Asians. 11 MR. SCHNALL: I apologize. 12 Thank you for correcting me. 13 DR. HANDLEY: So, but it -- when 14 you're drawing a district, you want to 15 make sure that the group that you're 16 incorporating in the district is 17 cohesive. So, let's say you decide 18 that you wanted to draw a Hispanic 19 district, but you know in this 20 particular area, Hispanics are Puerto 21 Rican and they support a different set 22 of candidates, and another area where, 23 they're -- let's say they're Latinos 24 from Mexico and they support a 25 different -- you would want to try and 45 1 2 keep those districts as separate 3 districts, if you could. 4 I mean, it is true that groups 5 will vote differently. I mean, not 6 all the black voters across the state 7 will support all black candidates. 8 MR. SCHNALL: And generally, I 9 mean, I think the work of the 10 Commission reflects this, that the 11 vast majority of the districts that we 12 drew adhered to the -- or close to the 13 existing lines that were drawn back in 14 2012/2013. 15 Do you see other instances 16 across the country, in your 17 experience, where districts are drawn 18 from whole cloth to create a majority 19 of an ethnic group, or is the majority 20 of the work to tinker with the lines 21 to increase the plurality or the 22 majority? 23 DR. HANDLEY: There are examples 24 of both across the country, and 25 sometimes it's good and sometimes it's 46 1 2 bad. 3 Let's say, for example, you had 4 a plan in place that didn't recognize 5 the number of black voters in the 6 state, and you redrew that plan and it 7 still didn't recognize the black 8 voters and it wouldn't have been a 9 good idea to adhere to the old lines. 10 But in another example, let's say the 11 population shifted, I gave Alaska as 12 an example, they're maintaining -- it 13 didn't matter what you did, whether 14 you redrew it or whether you stayed to 15 the old lines as closely as possible, 16 just tinkering around the edges to 17 meet one person/one vote, you weren't 18 going to get another Alaskan Native 19 district. 20 So, you know, the circumstances 21 change, but you cannot use typing the 22 current districts as closely aligned 23 with the previous district as an 24 excuse not to meet the Voting Rights 25 Act. That's what you cannot do. 47 1 2 MR. SCHNALL: Right. However, 3 to your point, if a district like 38 4 has a plurality or even a majority of 5 Asian voters, it is not required of us 6 to get them over 50 percent, right? 7 We can -- the requirement is not 50 8 percent plus one. The requirement is 9 a demographic that allows them to vote 10 for the candidate that they'd like to 11 likely win, not guarantee that they 12 have over 50 percent and guarantee 13 that their candidate wins; am I right 14 on that? 15 DR. HANDLEY: You are right. 16 But the Asian voters are not electing 17 their candidate of choice in 38, 18 they're not. So that's not a good 19 example. 20 MR. SCHNALL: But you said in 21 New York, we don't have the type of 22 data that they provided in Georgia, so 23 we don't know, in fact, that Asian 24 voters are not voting. We can't know 25 if Asian voters are voting for Latino 48 1 2 candidates, black candidates, white 3 candidates, or Asian candidates. We 4 do know who wins, but we don't know 5 the make up of the voters who actually 6 voted, correct? 7 DR. HANDLEY: The whole point of 8 this was to tell you exactly what 9 you -- we do know. That's what I did. 10 I did an estimation, and I can tell 11 you that Asian voters did not support 12 the representative in District 38. 13 This analysis is done all the 14 time. In Georgia, you have turnout by 15 race, but in most jurisdictions, you 16 don't. You have what you have here 17 and that's voting age population. 18 So what I have done here is an 19 analysis of voting patterns. I can 20 tell you how Asians are voting and who 21 they're supporting. I can tell you 22 who blacks are -- black voters are 23 supporting, I can tell you who 24 Hispanic voters are supporting. 25 That's the whole purpose of the 49 1 2 analysis that I just did. 3 MR. SCHNALL: Okay. Great. 4 Thank you. I appreciate your time and 5 your expertise and looking forward to 6 your report. 7 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you for 8 the questions. 9 Other commissioners? 10 MS. SORIN: If I may, it's Lisa 11 Sorin. How are you? 12 CHAIR WALCOTT: Ms. Sorin, 13 Commissioner. 14 MS. SORIN: Please forgive me, I 15 am a little bit confused. So the 16 analysis will be released when? 17 I guess, backtracking my 18 question, how do we know that when we 19 drew the lines, based on so many 20 conversations maintaining the 21 percentages as we saw based on the 22 census, that we followed the law based 23 on your analysis? Does it mean we go 24 back to the drawing board if your 25 analysis doesn't match the work that 50 1 2 we all did because we may not have 3 followed the law based on the 4 analysis? 5 I guess I'm a bit confused as 6 to, if we were doing it based on the 7 census demographics, communities of 8 interest, and keeping within the 9 percentages, which took many hours, if 10 your analysis contradicts what we have 11 done, do we then go back to the 12 drawing board and start from scratch 13 and re-educate our residents about 14 what we may have done wrong? 15 It's a loaded question, I know. 16 DR. HANDLEY: I see no need to 17 go back to the drawing board and start 18 all over again. I think there is room 19 for improvement. But I also think 20 that you're not only going to get 21 input from me, but you're going to get 22 input from the community, and so 23 you're going to, most likely, change 24 some of the plan anyway. But I don't 25 see a whole lot of, let's start all 51 1 2 over from scratch, kind of effort in 3 this. 4 MS. SORIN: Okay. I guess, the 5 reason I say is because I have heard 6 the rumblings of some elected or 7 residents who say we may not have 8 followed the regulations as they're 9 supposed to be. You know, whether 10 it's frustration, or personal 11 frustration or legality, but they use 12 the word legal, right, or the 13 transparency and used the fact of the 14 chaos that happened at the State. 15 So I guess my personal concern, 16 and I can imagine -- I don't want to 17 speak for my colleagues, my other 18 Commissioners, but I guess it would 19 concern me that if we didn't know a 20 piece that we may not have been 21 following legally, right, based on the 22 analysis, that it would concern me 23 that we didn't have all the 24 information prior to drawing the 25 lines. 52 1 2 And I may be wrong. This is 3 really coming from an area of not 4 totally understanding why we're 5 listening to -- and please forgive me, 6 it's not meant for -- listening to 7 something so drastically important 8 after the first draft has been 9 released. And, you know, maybe there 10 is not an answer, but I -- you know, 11 I'm really trying to understand the 12 process for the best interest of the 13 residents. 14 We're being asked to participate 15 in these community meetings, and I 16 just want to make sure that the 17 information we have, as commissioner 18 and as residents, really falls within 19 the guideline of everything we have 20 committed to our residents, that we 21 are crossing our Ts and dotting our 22 Is. 23 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: May I ask a 24 clarifying question? Because I 25 thought in the review sections, we 53 1 2 were told by the map drawers that they 3 were presenting the lines to Dr. 4 Handley for her input, that we were in 5 compliance, not saying definitive baa, 6 baa, baa, but that they did comply. 7 At least that's what I heard being 8 said by the guys drawing the lines. 9 Did I mishear that? 10 DR. HANDLEY: You did not. I 11 did a preliminary review of the 12 boundaries. I did it for three plans. 13 And it is my belief that you selected 14 the best of the three plans. But I 15 think that there is room for 16 improvement, not just in terms of 17 Voting Rights Act compliance but you 18 probably want to include it in other 19 ways as well. 20 MS. SORIN: Thank you for that 21 clarifying question, and thank you so 22 much, Dr. Handley. 23 CHAIR WALCOTT: If I may just 24 interject for a second because I think 25 the clarifying question and 54 1 2 Commissioner Sourin's question were 3 outstanding questions. 4 I think we had a solid 5 foundation based on both the input 6 from Dr. Handley, as well as from our 7 legal team as well. 8 I think, as we have stated a 9 number of times both internally, as 10 well as externally, as it being a 11 preliminary draft plan, it allows us 12 to adjust accordingly. But I think 13 the foundation was there that put us 14 in, both the legal compliance, but 15 also in the compliance of what the 16 doctor just articulated in her 17 presentation. 18 But obviously, there's always 19 room for improvement, and there will 20 be room for improvement, and as a 21 result, I think, of the feedback from 22 the public, which includes our elected 23 officials, we will factor those 24 decisions in because people really do 25 have -- which is the whole point of 55 1 2 the process, great feedback as far as, 3 well, you didn't include this or you 4 need to include that. But I think, 5 based on what Dr. Handley just said, 6 that foundation had been applied to a 7 variety of scenarios, and as a result 8 of that, that was what the vote was 9 based on. 10 So, that's my interpretation of 11 the step-by-step process that we 12 undertook and the next phase of what 13 we'll be doing starting next week. 14 Other commissioners? 15 MR. COLLADO: Hi, this is 16 Commissioner Collado. Thank you, Dr. 17 Handley for your presentation. I just 18 have a quick clarifying question for 19 your analysis. 20 I know that it's primarily -- 21 it's a racial analysis, but are there 22 any other factors that are considered 23 when you determine that, for instance, 24 the Asian community is not electing 25 their candidate of choice in the 56 1 2 certain district? 3 DR. HANDLEY: No. It's a 4 statistical analysis that only looks 5 at voting patterns based on race or 6 ethnicity. So, for example, the 7 quality of the candidates or the 8 amount of money the candidates spend 9 are not considered in the analysis. 10 MR. COLLADO: Understood. 11 What about, are there any other 12 factors intrinsic to the voting 13 population, maybe age or income, that 14 may be considered, or no? 15 DR. HANDLEY: Not in this 16 analysis, no. It literally is just 17 the demographic composition of the 18 precincts and the voting patterns. 19 MR. COLLADO: Understood. Thank 20 you. 21 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: A follow-up 22 question to that, from one of the 23 things you said, Dr. Handley, the 24 analysis is based upon those, what, 25 five categories according to the 57 1 2 Voting Rights Act of groups; am I 3 correct on that? 4 DR. HANDLEY: The Voting Rights 5 Act recognizes certain protected 6 groups -- 7 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: Right. 8 DR. HANDLEY: And those voters 9 are black voters, Hispanic voters, 10 Asian voters, Alaska Native, and 11 American Indian. Those are the groups 12 that are protected. 13 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: Right. 14 You -- let me use an example far away, 15 and you mentioned it a little bit, but 16 there isn't any ability -- or there 17 isn't any requirement and there -- 18 whether or not there is an ability to 19 do the analysis for subgroups within 20 those groups. So, for example, you 21 mentioned Mexicans voting one way, et 22 cetera. According to the Voting 23 Rights Act, and what the analysis -- 24 I'm going to use a completely 25 non-professional term, it doesn't make 58 1 2 any difference. Because there's not a 3 sub-protection under that. And let me 4 give you an example far away from 5 home. It doesn't matter whether you 6 are Puerto Rican or Cuban in Florida, 7 it's all considered Hispanic? 8 DR. HANDLEY: There was a court 9 case in Florida in which this became 10 an issue because the factors that -- 11 what the State of Florida wanted to do 12 is draw an extra Hispanic district in 13 Dade County for Hispanics who lived in 14 Tampa. But, in fact, they're not 15 cohesive. Hispanics was lived in 16 Tampa were Puerto Rican or old Mexican 17 and they were Democrats, and Hispanics 18 who lived in Florida -- in south 19 Florida were Republican, and they 20 weren't cohesive. So it made no sense 21 to draw the extra district down in 22 Dade County for Hispanics up in Tampa 23 where you couldn't draw a district. 24 They weren't geographically 25 concentrated. 59 1 2 So it is -- you do sometimes 3 take that into account, into whether 4 the group is cohesive or not. And 5 there, there is a big difference 6 between those groups, and it comes out 7 that they just simply aren't 8 politically cohesive, so you wouldn't 9 be drawing a district in Dade County 10 for Hispanics who voted very 11 differently up in Tampa. 12 CHAIR WALCOTT: Monsignor, 13 follow-up? 14 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: So, let me 15 be a little precise, in that -- but is 16 that -- but in terms of the protected 17 categories, there's no distinction? 18 DR. HANDLEY: That's correct. 19 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: That's all 20 I wanted to know. 21 DR. HANDLEY: Well, let me -- 22 that is true in terms of the federal 23 Voting Rights Act. I am not sure what 24 the John Lewis Voting Rights Act -- 25 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: Okay. 60 1 2 DR. HANDLEY: -- has to say 3 about this issue. 4 MONSIGNOR SULLIVAN: Okay. 5 Good. Thank you. 6 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you. 7 Commissioners, further 8 questions? 9 MS. JOHNSON: Hi. This is 10 Commissioner Johnson. Just a quick 11 follow-up to that. 12 Is it that -- Dr. Handley, is it 13 that the lack of political 14 cohesiveness that you talked about in 15 those two different Hispanic 16 communities in Florida, that would be 17 reflected, though, in the racial bloc 18 voting analysis, right? 19 DR. HANDLEY: That is correct 20 because it was area-specific. I mean, 21 if I had done it statewide, it 22 wouldn't show, but it's area -- 23 This is how, for example, you 24 could tell if, say, Mexican Hispanics 25 were located in one district, they 61 1 2 were geographically concentrated in 3 one district and you had a 4 different -- and you had Cuban 5 Hispanics in another, you could tell 6 the voting patterns were different 7 because they were geographically 8 separate, but that's the only way you 9 could tell. 10 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. 11 CHAIR WALCOTT: Other 12 commissioners? 13 Judge, please, Judge Go. 14 MS. GO: This is Marilyn Go. 15 You had mentioned that there are 16 six protected groups under the state 17 law. 18 And does your analysis cover the 19 other three non-minority groups? 20 DR. HANDLEY: You don't have 21 enough Native Americans, and you don't 22 have enough Alaskan Natives, so those 23 two groups, I didn't analyze. You 24 couldn't do an analysis and, you 25 couldn't draw a district for those two 62 1 2 groups, for American Indians or 3 Alaskan Natives. 4 MS. GO: And related to that is 5 the question of defining the critical 6 mass for having a community of 7 interest, what would be the numbers 8 that you would put to that? 9 DR. HANDLEY: Community of 10 interest is a totally different 11 concept; although, of course, many of 12 these communities that we're looking 13 at their voting habits are communities 14 of interest. But, you know, you can 15 have a community of interest that's 16 quite small and not large enough to be 17 a district but might want to be intact 18 within a district. 19 So there is a relationship 20 between communities of interest and 21 the work that I do, in that some of 22 these are all communities of interest, 23 but communities of interest is a much 24 broader term that also would cover 25 groups that aren't covered by the 63 1 2 Voting Rights Act. 3 CHAIR WALCOTT: Judge, 4 follow-up? 5 DR. HANDLEY: You don't have to 6 have a certain number in order to 7 create a district for them. In fact, 8 you don't have to create a district 9 for them, you might just keep them 10 intact as opposed to, you wouldn't 11 want to divide them. 12 MS. GO: Okay. And from your 13 research, I mean, is it fair to say 14 that communities of interest tend to 15 be geographically clustered? I'm just 16 trying to get a handle on what we need 17 to be looking at in mapping? 18 DR. HANDLEY: So communities of 19 interest aren't necessarily 20 geographically concentrated, but if 21 you're mapping, those are the only 22 communities of interest that you can 23 take into account because you're 24 drawing maps. So if it's, you know, 25 dispersed across the city in a way 64 1 2 that you couldn't draw a district, you 3 know, there's nothing that you can do 4 about them in terms of creating a 5 district. 6 MS. GO: And for us, and this is 7 just from pure ignorance and 8 technological awkwardness in dealing 9 with the software, how do you locate 10 these communities of interest on -- I 11 mean, where is the data for this, if 12 there is any? 13 DR. HANDLEY: That is not 14 something that I can tell from these 15 voting -- from the analysis that I do, 16 other than saying, for example, you 17 know, black voters here are definitely 18 a politically cohesive community of 19 interest. 20 But if you want communities of 21 interest beyond that, mostly this 22 comes from the public hearings. 23 Although, there are demographers and 24 geographers out there that might be 25 putting together communities of 65 1 2 interest maps that are looking at 3 something beyond with a broader 4 definition, broader strokes that I'm 5 looking at it. But often, it just 6 comes from the community itself. And 7 the community will come into a hearing 8 and say, "We're a community of 9 interest. Here is where we're 10 located. This is why we're a 11 community of interest." But I'm 12 afraid that my analysis won't really 13 help with that. 14 CHAIR WALCOTT: Can we take a 15 second, especially since I know we 16 have the public as a part of this 17 discussion as well, for definitions 18 itself? 19 So, when we talk about, say, for 20 example, opportunity districts or 21 community of interest, can you just 22 take us through a little bit of 23 overview of how that's defined? 24 And, also, one of my questions, 25 towards the end of year presentation, 66 1 2 I heard you mention a distinction 3 between black and Hispanic voters, and 4 I think some like to meet threshold 5 levels, are you talking about 50 6 percent or more than 50 percent? 7 Can you do a deeper dive into 8 that type of question? And also just 9 from your vantage point of what you 10 studied and what's part of your 11 purview, any type of definitions that 12 people may need to have, including, 13 say for example, me and maybe other 14 commissioners as well, in addition to 15 the public. 16 DR. HANDLEY: Okay. I'll start 17 with majority/minority districts. So 18 a majority district -- a 19 majority/minority district means 20 typically that you have a district 21 that's at least 50 percent black in 22 voting age population. Or, if you're 23 dealing with Hispanics, the courts, 24 for example, the 9th and the 5th 25 districts have said because the number 67 1 2 of non-citizens is higher for this 3 group, we're actually going to not 4 look at voting age population, we're 5 going to look at citizen voting age 6 population. So, typically, when you 7 say majority black district, you're 8 talking about a district that's at 9 least 50 percent black in voting age 10 population, or 50 percent Hispanic in 11 citizen voting age population. So 12 that's one. 13 Now, it might be different than 14 a minority opportunity district. A 15 minority opportunity district might be 16 more than that or it might be less 17 than that, and it will depend on the 18 voting patterns of not just the 19 minority group, but, say the other 20 groups within the district. So a 21 black opportunity district, you have 22 more than one here in New York City, 23 that is clearly not majority black and 24 voting age population, but is 25 consisting electing the black 68 1 2 preferred candidate. So that would be 3 a black opportunity district, that is 4 what the Voting Rights Act encourages 5 you the draw not -- but you have to 6 show that you -- if you're going to 7 challenge a plan, you have to show 8 that you can draw a black voting age 9 population district. But the remedy 10 might not be a 50 percent black voting 11 age population district, it might 12 actually be a 45 percent. So, that's 13 the -- they're not necessarily the 14 same, you've got a majority district, 15 you've got an opportunity district. 16 And the other thing I'm going to 17 talk about is the coalition district. 18 And this is a district that -- well, 19 you have a coalition district, at 20 least one that I can think of and that 21 in Staten Island, where no minority 22 group is predominant. It's only when 23 you combine all three groups that you 24 get a 50 percent plus district, but it 25 consistently elects a candidate this 69 1 2 is supported by all three minority 3 groups, so it's a coalition district. 4 I never heard the term community 5 of interest district used, but 6 clearly, you want to take communities 7 of interest into account when you're 8 drawing districts, and it may be the 9 case that that community of interest 10 predominates in that group. So, I'm 11 thinking, for example, when we were 12 drawing districts in Michigan, there 13 was a big Arab American population 14 that's not protected by the Voting 15 Rights Act, but was large enough to 16 create a district and that became a 17 community of interest district drawn 18 for a group that was not protected by 19 the Voting Rights Act. 20 I think that covers you 21 questions. 22 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you. 23 Further questions from the 24 commissioners? 25 MR. UDDIN: Mr. Chair, I just 70 1 2 want to make a comment because I think 3 I am feeling good about Dr. Handley's 4 presentation. 5 It clearly indicates that 6 commissioners, whatever they draft 7 map, we have submitted, we have 8 followed U.S. Constitution, Voting 9 Rights Act of 1965, and later amended 10 New York State Law, and New York City 11 Charter very well. I think we got an 12 A. Now we'll be shooting for A plus. 13 Thank you very much. 14 CHAIR WALCOTT: Wow, you're a 15 tough grader, but I appreciate the A, 16 I think there would be some saying 17 that we didn't achieve the A level 18 yet. 19 But, I think, in all 20 seriousness, the goal is to have this 21 as a part of the process, to make sure 22 that we are more educated as far as 23 the details of what Dr. Handley 24 provided us in her presentation, but 25 also to share with the community, as 71 1 2 suggested by commissioners, that we 3 have that opportunity to do that. 4 And with that being said, we 5 still have a lot of work to do. 6 And I will take us, as a group, 7 back to, I think, the opening of the 8 doctor, when she, I'm paraphrasing, 9 basically said she doesn't envy our 10 task moving forward in that, there are 11 a lot of variables that we have to 12 deal with, and as I've said publicly, 13 we're dealing with the city of Memphis 14 being relocated into New York City 15 within the same 51 council districts. 16 And I think that's what the challenge 17 is as we take the next step, which 18 will take place starting next week 19 with the hearings that will be, first 20 in Queens and also listening to both 21 the public and the commissioners in 22 moving the meetings to later in the 23 afternoon/evening hours, as well as 24 one on Sunday. So we encourage people 25 to spread the word. 72 1 2 I don't want to monopolize, but 3 again, to the commissioners or to 4 staff, are there any other questions 5 for the doctor? 6 MS. JOHNSON: Hi. Commissioner 7 Johnson here. 8 CHAIR WALCOTT: Yeah, go ahead. 9 MS. JOHNSON: Dr. Handley, 10 correct me if I'm wrong, but for the 11 last time, was it 2013 -- 2012/2013, 12 you did this for New York City you -- 13 the Commission was working with a 14 10 percent deviation, and so now we're 15 working with 5 percent. 16 How does that impact your 17 particular analysis, if at all? I'm 18 curious. 19 DR. HANDLEY: That's a very good 20 question. 21 It does not impact the way that 22 I do my analysis. But what would be a 23 curious question would be, what if you 24 could draw a minority district, if you 25 were allowed a 10 percent deviation, 73 1 2 but State law requires you to have 3 only a five percent deviation? And 4 I'm going to leave it up to lawyers to 5 answer that question. 6 But that's the only way I could 7 see it impacting what I do is, does it 8 make it harder to draw minority 9 districts. 10 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. 11 MR. SCHNALL: Mike Schnall here 12 again. Just a quick follow-up, Dr. 13 Handley. 14 When you provide your analysis 15 to the Commission, do you do it as an 16 analysis of the drafted lines that we 17 presented in juxtaposition to the 18 existing lines from the previous 19 district, or are you just looking at 20 what we redrew in totality? 21 DR. HANDLEY: That is a little 22 complicated, and the reason why it's 23 complicated is the racial bloc voting 24 analysis I've done is off of previous 25 elections, so that's off of the 74 1 2 districts that are in place now. And 3 then when I look at proposals, I'm 4 looking to take those voting patterns 5 and apply them to a new situation. 6 And so in a way, I'm doing both. 7 MR. SCHNALL: Right. Thank you. 8 CHAIR WALCOTT: Please, go 9 ahead. 10 MS. GO: Marilyn Go again. 11 I'm just curious, you did make 12 the comment you thought the set of 13 maps that the Commission voted to move 14 forward was the best but two questions 15 related to that. 16 One, is, you know, because of 17 the way it's drawn and the state 18 5 percent deviation, it does affect 19 the size of the council districts 20 outside of Staten Island, and would 21 that affect your analysis? 22 Secondly, you know, would you be 23 prepared, I mean, we're going to be 24 having another session with you to 25 talk about any suggestions you have 75 1 2 for improvements to the map because, 3 as you know, there has been a lot of 4 feedback from certain sectors about 5 the map, so there has to be 6 consideration of their views, too? 7 Anyway, I'll let you answer 8 first before I follow up. 9 DR. HANDLEY: So, at this point 10 my review of the preliminary plan was 11 based on what I knew about the current 12 plan and preliminary plan and two 13 other alternatives. One thing I'm 14 here in New York today to do is to 15 explore other possibilities because, 16 at this point I've only reacted to 17 maps that have been drawn, and I'm 18 curious about what's possible that 19 hasn't been presented in a map. So I 20 am going to look at that today. 21 I think -- I'm afraid I don't -- 22 I don't know if I've answered your 23 entire question or not. 24 MS. GO: And you know, by 25 focusing, by having three districts 76 1 2 wholly contained in Staten Island and 3 having the 5 percent deviation under 4 State law, would your analysis of the 5 Voting Rights Act -- would your Voting 6 Rights Act analysis and 7 appropriateness districts drawn change 8 if we were -- if the other boroughs 9 weren't subject to the very minimum 10 variation that they're currently 11 subject to under the present maps 12 presented. 13 DR. HANDLEY: I think that's an 14 excellent question. 15 What I can tell you at this 16 point is that keeping Staten Island 17 intact certainly did not hurt 18 coalition district that's within 19 Staten Island. What I don't know is, 20 if you crossed to one of the boroughs 21 and therefore were able to decrease -- 22 increase the amount of deviation in 23 other five boroughs -- the other four 24 boroughs, that would help you draw 25 minority districts or not. I don't 77 1 2 know the answer to that, but that is 3 something that needs to be explored 4 because if, in fact, it meant that 5 these very rigid deviations in the 6 other four boroughs meant you couldn't 7 draw a minority district, that would 8 be a problem. I don't know the answer 9 to that. It may not be a problem. It 10 maybe, you know, keeping Staten Island 11 intact might be a problem for a 12 different reason, but it might not be 13 for the Voting Rights Act, and I don't 14 know the answer to that. 15 I do know it isn't a problem for 16 coalition district on Staten Island, 17 but I don't know what the implications 18 are for the possibilities of, say an 19 Asian district in Queens or keeping a 20 Hispanic district in Brooklyn. I 21 don't know. 22 MS. GO: I guess my concern is 23 because all of the other districts are 24 larger than the districts of Staten 25 Island, and in particular, the black 78 1 2 districts in Brooklyn. We are talking 3 about percentages that are just barely 4 over 50 percent. You know, I would -- 5 I'm just curious, and we could -- you 6 know, you may not be prepared to 7 answer this, but I just want to make 8 sure that having the proper deviations 9 will protect the minority communities 10 in the other boroughs because there is 11 no question that Staten Island 12 district 49 has a coalition voting 13 bloc, but that coalition will still 14 hold if the Staten Island -- that 15 district were larger and there was a 16 crossover, and I think, just based on 17 my look at where the population is 18 located in Staten Island. 19 Anyway, it's half question and 20 half preaching and hoping we'll get 21 more answers from you. 22 DR. HANDLEY: I think that's an 23 excellent question, and I think it is 24 something that needs to be explored. 25 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, 79 1 2 Judge. 3 As we wrap up, any final 4 questions to Dr. Handley? 5 John, would you like to give any 6 type of closing remarks before we 7 close out this session? 8 DR. FLATEAU: I would just say 9 that this is going to be an ongoing 10 dialogue with our experts on the 11 quantitative side, social science 12 side, and as well, legal experts that 13 are working with us, along with the 14 commissioners, and our input from New 15 Yorkers to help solve these puzzles 16 and bring us a new set of council 17 districts for new New Yorkers. 18 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, John. 19 Commissioners, let me thank you. 20 And since this is a formal meeting, if 21 there aren't any further questions, 22 can I have a motion to adjourn. 23 MS. SORIN: Motion. Lisa. 24 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, Lisa. 25 MR. PORCHER: Motion, second. 80 1 2 Darrin Porcher. 3 CHAIR WALCOTT: Thank you, Dr. 4 Porcher. 5 All those in favor to adjourn? 6 (Chorus of ayes.) 7 CHAIR WALCOTT: Any opposition? 8 (No response.) 9 Thank you for an excellent 10 session. Doctor, thank you also for 11 an excellent presentation and we look 12 forward to future discussions. 13 All the best. 14 Thank you all. 15 (Time Noted: 11:24 a.m.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: 4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 5 6 I, STEPHANIE O'KEEFFE, a Reporter 7 and Notary Public within and for the State of New 8 York, do hereby certify that the within is a true 9 and accurate transcript of the proceedings taken on 10 August 11, 2022. 11 I further certify that I am not 12 related to any of the parties to this action by 13 blood or marriage, and that I am in no way 14 interested in the outcome of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 16 set my hand this 11th day of August, 2022. 17 18 _signature_ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25