In Hoffman v. Independent Redistricting Commission, New York Democrats argued that the judge who originally threw out last year’s legislative maps did not mean that maps drawn by an appointed special master would be used for the next 10 years.
A little history: After the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) couldn’t agree on congressional lines in 2022, the Legislature took it upon itself to create new maps. Republicans challenged these maps and won. State courts ruled it was inappropriate for the Legislature to intervene.
Finally, a special master from Carnegie Mellon University drew the new congressional maps.
According to former Republican U.S. Rep. John Faso, “everyone assumed” the special master maps would remain in place for 10 years.
“What the Democrats are trying to do, both nationally and here in the state, they want the equivalent of a mulligan. They want a renewal,” Faso told Capital Tonight. “Their rationale, both on a legal basis and a policy basis, is ridiculous.”
Faso notes that maps drawn by special masters in the past are used for 10 years.
New York Law School Assistant Professor and Senior Fellow Jeff Wice, who attended arguments in the Hoffman case last week, told Capital Tonight that he believes there is still some life left in the case for Democrats.
“There were five judges on the appellate division court. But unlike the judge last year who ruled against the plaintiffs, I thought today’s court was a little more…kind.” , said Wice. “Although not all judges participated in the conversation, they were receptive.”
See more from Wice here.
Faso, who also attended the discussions, did not see it that way.
“It seemed clear to us that the argument went pretty well for the Republican side,” he said.
Specifically, Faso said the judges were “very skeptical” of both the claim and its chance.
“They’re asking for what’s called a mandamus, which is an order for a government body to do something. So they’re trying to say, ‘The Independent Redistricting Commission, you should reconstitute yourself to redraw these lines and compel- you to do it because you didn’t do your job last year.’ But the judges were very skeptical of that argument because you had to present it in four months and they didn’t bring (the case) in four months” , Faso argued.
The question, according to Faso, seems to be when did the clock start ticking?
“I think when this case is decided, the judges might say, ‘no, you’re out of luck because you didn’t bring this case in time,'” Faso said.
It is unclear when the appellate division will rule on the case.
