2008-04-21 MTG Attachement
Ward Boundaries
and their effects on
Voter Representation
within the
Queensbury Town Board
J
~
,
I
~
A report and presentation by:
John B. Cozzens III
2 Treehouse Lane
Queensbury, NY 12804
submitted at the town board meeting of Monday, April 21, 2008.
Premise
It was in my quest to become involved with fairer voting practices and government
refonn that I became interested in redistricting. I wrote to Assemblywoman Teresa
Sayward asking how J could get involved, She suggested joining local groups that share
my interest. This suggestion prompted me to wonder what effect the current ward lines
in Queensbury have on voter representation within my local government.
Upon inquiry to the town clerk, I came to discover that the current ward Jines have been
in place and unchanged since 1985. I was infomled tbat the districts within each ward
have been altered, although these changes neither affect the representation each ward
receives nor the boundaries of each ward. I was additionally told that the federal census
of 2000 indicates the population of the town tor that year, but that there was no
breakdown by ward and, to the clerk's knowledge, the town had no such breakdown
either.
Warren County's Board of Elections (BDE), although it did not have a population
breakdown by ward, maintains voter registration data for the entire town of Queensbury.
each of its wards. and each district within each ward. BOE Republican Commissioner,
Mary Beth Casey. confirmed that the data shows only all persons registered and able to
legally vote for the years for which data is available on the HOE's website.
Although the town or county may have more specific infonnation as to the population
distribution than was available to me, it would seem no such data is readily available.
Still, J feel that having obtained registered voter population data is sufficiently relevant.
It is my belief that the population of non-registered residents in each ward is roughly
proponional when comparing one ward to another.
If for some reason, however, there exists a statistically significant disparity in percentage
of non-registered voters from one ward to the next, it is presumed due to a factor tied to
the individual voter's circumstances_ It is postulated that a significant school-aged
population could account for a higher instance of non-registered residents - in which case
the children's interests are represented by way of their parents or guardian. Also possible
is a substantial transient or seasonal residential population - whose interests in town
business are likely marginal or morc narrowly focused. In any case, a non-registered
citizen has made no indication as to his or her choice of councilman (lacking the legal
ability to vote for said candidate) and as such has indicated that his or her representation
within the town board either is not personalJy relevant or is not related to the individual
seekinglholding office_
I bave made reasonable efforts to seck and provide accurate data and interpretations.
Still, both asa fallible being and as one who is presenting this report out of a personal
interest rather than as a professional assignment, I teel 1 can make no warranties as to the
accuracy of this document's contents. However, for your consideration, I feel it would
suit my interests and reputation poorly to convey to the town board anything that may be
construed as fallacious, inaccurate, or strongly biased with regard to this subject. As
such, 1 hope that, should such an imperfection come to light that the reader keeps faith
th.at I had only good intentions when submitting this work.
2
Current Situation:
Disproportionate voter representation
Warren County's Board of Elections data for 2006 and 2007 provides the number of
registered voters for each ward and for each district in Queensbury. This data can be
used to compare the regi Slered voter populations of each ward to the others.
Using Table A below. we can see the difference in registered voter population between
wards for 2006 and the percentage of that difference in relation to the town's full
registered voter population by noting the value at which the ward in one fOW and the
other ward in one column intersect. For example, by selecting wards 1 and 2, one can
note a population difference of 31 voters, or 0.2 % of the town's total registered voter
population. It can be said that, for 2006, the difference in registered voter populations for
wards 1, 2, and 3 does not exceed 385 voters, or 2.2 %. The difference between the
registered voter population in ward 4 and the other three wards is no less than 2364
votent or 13.7 % (wards 3 and 4), and as high as 2749 ,roters, or 16.0 % (wards I and
4).
TABLE A
Absolute Difference in Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 31 385 2749
Ward 2 31 - 354 2718
Ward 3 385 354 2364
Ward 4 2749 2718 2364
Absolute Difference in Percentage of Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 0.2% 2.2% 16.0%
Ward 2 0.2% 2.1% 15.8%
Ward 3 2.2% 2.1% 13.7%
Ward 4 16.0% 15.8% 13.7%
Using Table B on the following page. we can see the difference in registered voter
population between wards Cor 2007 and the percentage of that difference in relation to the
town's full registered voter population by noting the value at which the ward in one row
and the other ward in one column intersect. For example, by selecting wards I and 2, one
can note a population difference of 115 voters, or 0.7 % of the town's total registered
voter population. It can be said that, for 2007, the difference in registered voter
populations for wards 1. 2, and 3 does not exceed 400 voters, or 2.3 %. The difference
between the registered voter population in ward 4 and the other three wards is no less
than 2387 voters. or 13.9 % (wards 3 and 4), and as high as 2787 voters, or 16.2 %
(wards 1 and 4).
3
TABLE B
Absolute Difference in Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 115 400 2787
Ward 2 -
115 285 2672
Ward 3 400 285 2387
Ward 4 2787 2672 2387
Absolute Difference in Percentage of Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 0.7% 2.3% 16.2%
--
Ward 2 0.7% 1.7% 15.6%
Ward 3 2.3% 1.7% 13.~k
--- --
Ward 4 16.2% 16.5% 13.9%
Effect on Voter Representation
Each ward is represented within the town board by one elected official ~ the councilman_
Because the number of registered voters in each ward varies. the representation within the
board of each registered voter depends upon the population ofhislher ward relative to the
other wards,
figures 1 & 2 (Oil page 5) depict the four wards and their registered voter populations as
a percentage of the town's registered voter population. Figure 1 shows 2006 data while
Figure 2 shows 2007 data. For both years, ward 4 had 36.4% - over one-third - of the
town's registered voters within its boundaries. Yet. ward 4 had no more voting power or
representation than ward I, which in 2007 contained just 20.2 % of the town's population
(and for both years was the least populated ward). Each ward is entitled to just one VOle
on the board despite significant differences in registered voter populations.
figures 3 & 4 (Oil page 6) illustrate the representation within the board of a voter of each
ward relative to the representation afforded a ward t voter. Figure 3 shows 2006 data
while Figure 4 shows 2007 data. In both figures, a ward I voter has, of course, 100% of
the representation relative to himself Ward 2 is relatively equal in registered voter
population compared to ward 1. as a voter there has 9~~ of the representation that a ward
1 votcr has in 2006 and 97% in 2007. Ward 3 has a slightly larger registered voter
population, and therefore a ward 3 voter only receives about 90% of the representation as
a ward I voter. By sharp contrast to all oftheseT a ward 4 voter only received about 56%
of the representation of a ward 1 voter tor both 2006 and 2007.
4
Figure 1
Pig.' Location of Registered Voters
ba~u:d on current ward lines. (2006)
V\llrd 4
38%
V\fJrd J
2JI'.(,
Figu re 2
"" Location of Registered Voters
basad on curmnt ward lines (2007)
WIld 3
23'!6
Note: The figures in the above charts have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.
5
Figu re 3
"".J Voter Representation on Town Board
based on ctlrrcnt ward nnM (2006)
1~
90%
80%
70%
6O'lEI
5CJ'll',
4O'l(,
30%
2CJ".(o
10%
~
W3rd 1
i'~I.i
- .,
,k: "..:
Ward 2
~.... ........1 ....{~:
1'fJ.f~" . ~'
/~-I~...:".~I
Ward 3
Figure 4
rill-I Voter Representation on Town Board
based on clJrrent ward nnes (2001)
100%
~
00%
70%
60%
50%
4ml>
3O"Jl,
20%
1m:;
0?Ii
Ward 1
f~~'
~': '': ;,11'
'[~. ,"
',' I H--"~~I
'. ~1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 4
I
I
-I
~
~
---I
6
The need to change
The Town of Queensbury has a functioning. representative government consistent with
the requirements set forth in the New York State Constitution and as prescnocd by New
York State law. To say that the town board is representative does not, however. assure
that it is equally or even fairly representative.
It is obvious aller viewing the 2006 and 2007 voter registration data for Queensbury that
the registered voter populations of each ward are of unequaL It is additionally apparent
that this inequity has created an elective governing body that is disproportior1stely
representative of the electors by whom it is voted into power. Such a body, then. does
not necessarily operate in a manner consistent with the disposition of the electorate, as is
the purpose of a representative republic as envisioned by the founders and embodied in
the spirit of our governing documents.
The Cozzens Plan: Redrawing Ward Lines
New York State Consolidated Law AnicIe 3, Section 20, requires:
"Every town of the first class shall have a [supervisor-
and] four town councilmen, unless the number of councilmen
shall have been increased to six or decreased to two as
provided by this chapter_H
Altering the number of councilmen would require a change in state Jaw; additionally, that
number is at no time an odd number. So although one could conceive of the town board
simply dividing ward 4 into two separate wards (each containing approximately 18% of
the registered voter population and therefore being closer to the populations of the town's
other wards), this action would not be permitted by current state law because it would
create a situation where there are 5 wards and, therefore, 5 councilmen.
Logically and legally bound to maintaining 4 councilmen and, thusly, 4 wards, the board
is faced with a decision. The town could ignore the need for change, maintain the same
ward lines, and by so doing continue to disenfranchise the electorate of Queensbury,
particularly that of ward 4. The town could, however, realize that changing the ward
lines can improve the equality and faimess of representation of the various wards within
the town board and begin discussing ways of accomplishing such a goal.
To say that solving the problem at hand is too diffiCtlIt or presents an opportunity for
gerrymandering does not make the necessity of the task at hand any less pertinent. I have
included for consideration a specific example of how the ward lines can be redrawn.
although only to demonstrate to the town board and electorate tbe ease with which a
solution can be procured. 1 have aJso included a suggested means by which the town
can decide how to redraw the lines, both now and in the future, yet minimize partisan
interference.
7
The sample line boundaries 1 have included with this plan feature three key benefits.
First, they bring the registered voter population of each ward dramatically closer to being
equal with every other, thus improving voter representation within the board. Secondly,
only the ward lines are altered. There is no change to the current district lines. This
allows for an accurate tally of the voter population tor 2006 and 2007, based on existing
BOE data., upon application of the new lines. Thirdly, all voters may continue utilizing
the polling stations they use now.
Figure 5 shows the ward and district boundaries as they exist today. These boundaries
would cxist until those board members clectcd in the next election take office. Figure 7
shows the wards after a possible redrawing of the ward lines. This is the ward structure
under which the next board would take office. Ideally, the voters would choose the
councilmen with respect to their new wards despite still being represented under their
former ward. Figure 6 features on optional transitional configuration. Such a transition
would allow for each ward to maintain a majority of the voting population that it had
during the previous election cycle. although doing so would cause a delay in providing
adequate remedy tor the disproportionate representation. If such a transition is used,
Figure 6 would be the ward boundaries under which the next board would operate,
whereas Figure 7 would be the ward boundaries for the board that follows that.
~
.
Fig. 5 - Current
J
.
,
J
Fig. 6 - Transitional
-.
I
.
J
j
Fig. 7 - Sample
Detailed information about the registered voter populations for each district and ward,
both current and in the sample proposed, is available in Tables E-H starting on page 14.
Highlights of the benefits of utilizing the sample in Figure 7 are discussed further on the
following pag~.
8
Registered V oterOistribution using Figure 7
Again utilizing Warren County's Board of Elections data for 2006 and 2007, the
registered voter populations of each ward can be compared to the others as they would
have existed under the ward boundaries presented in Figure 7.
Using Table C below, we can see the difference in registered voter population for 2006
and the percentage of that difference in relation to the town's population by noting the
value at which the ward in one row and the other ward in one column intersect, For
example, by selecting wards 1 and 3. one can note a population difference of 37 voters, or
0.2 % of the town's total registered voter population. It can be said that, for 2006, the
populations of all tour wards are relatively even, \'Irith a difference in registered voters
that does not exceed 242 voters, or 1.4 %.
Table C
Absolute Difference in Registered VOlers
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4-
Ward 1 242 37 164
Ward 2 242 205 78
Ward 3 37 205 127
Ward 4 164 78 127
Absolute Difference in Percentage of Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4-
Ward 1 1.4% 0.2% 1.0%
Ward 2 1.4% 1..2% 0.5%
Ward 3 0.2% 1.2% - 0.7%
Ward 4- 1.0% 0.5% 0.7%
Using Table D on the following page, we can see the difference in registered voter
population for 2007 and the percentage of that difference in relation to the tovm's
population by noting the value at which the ward in one row and the other ward in one
column intersect. For example, by selecting wards. 2 and 4. onc can note a population
difference of 18 voters, or 0.1 % of the town's total registered voter population, It can be
said that, for 2007, the populations of all four wards are relatively even, with a difference
in registered voters that does not exceed 156 voters, or 0.9 %.
9
Table D
Absolute Difference in Registered Voters
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 II 128 28 110
Ward 2 128 156 18
Ward 3 28 156 138
Ward 4 110 18 138
Absolute DIfference in Percentage of Registered Voters
Ward 1 Waro 2 Waro 3 Ward 4
Ward 1 I 0.7% 0.2% 0.6%
Ward 2 0.7% I 0.9% 0.1%
Ward 3 0.2% 0.9% 0.8%
Ward 4 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% ---
Effect on Voter Representation using Figure 7
The representation each registered voter receives in a given ward depends upon the
population ofhislher ward relative to the other wards.
Figures 8 & 9 (see page 1 J) depict the four wards as they would have existed under the
ward boundaries in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows 2006 data while Figure 9 shows 2007 data.
Each ward's registered voter populations are shown as a percentage of the town's
registered voter population. Each ward is entitled to one vote on the board, which is
consistent with the relatively equal division of the registered voter population amongst
the wards (24.2 - 2:5.6% per ward for 2006-2007),
Figures 10 & II (.5ee page 12) illustrate the representation of a voter of each ward
relative to the representation afforded a ward 2 voter. Figure 10 shows 2006 data while
Figure 11 shows 2007 data. in both figures, It ward 2 voter has, of course. 100% of the
representation relative to himself. In 2006, the voter with the least representation is a
ward 1 voter with 94.5% that ora ward 2 voter (a far CI)' from ward 4'5 56.1% of ward 1
under the current boundaries). In 2007, the voter with the least representation is a ward 3
voter with 96.4%. of the representation of a ward 2 voter (again, dramatically improved
Over ward 4'5 55,5% of ward I under the current boundaries).
A One-time Fix is Just That
The example of how lines could be redrawn is effectiye in creating four wards of nearly
equal registered voter population., thereby providing each registered voter with fair and
equal representation on the town board had it been in place for 2006 and 2007. However,
as the town's population continues to grow and shift, so too will the need to again adjust
the ward boundarie.s to ensure continued fair and equal representation. It stands to rcason
that the town should have in place a non-partisan mechanism by which this can be
accomplished now and in the future. One such mechanism is an Independent
Commission.
lO
Figure 8
PIal Location of Registered Voters
based on possible ward lines (2006)
Figure 9
PlU Location of Registered Voters
balSed on possible ward lines (2007)
Note: The figures in the above charts have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.
11
Figure 10
l'1~t. Voter Representation on Town Board
baled on possible ward lines (2006)
1 CIO'%
90% .
BD%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Figun 11
".." Voter Representation on Town Board
based on possible ward lines (2007)
100%
90%
&I'1Eo
7(W,
6O'l(,
50%
40%
30'%
20%
10'% .
0'%
Ward 1
Ward 2
'Nard 3
\Nard 4
Ward 4
I
-----I
I
I
12
Independent Commission
- l,lote: A Ithough the independent Commission (Ie) is pClrt oj The Cm;;:errs Plan for changing {he ....ard
boundaries, the details presented herein are intl!ruiltd (mly to be suggestive of a possible scenario for the
strucl1Jre and procedure fur said boc'.", in Qrder /0 convC'.v a sense of.mme to the reader, and shollld 110t be
cons/rued to nece.vsari{v repre.wnI tile specific structures and procedures by which Sllch a boc(v (/Ugh! to be
created mrd subsequently operoted. - .
The purpose of the Independent Commission (IC) is to allow for non-partisan, citizen-
driven modification of the ward boundaries in a setting absent of the direct intervention
of the board itself. The Ie's member composition could include three registered voters
from each ward to be appointed by the respective ward's councilman. From each ward
would be chosen onc rcgistered republican., one registered democrat, and one registered
independent. No such appointee shall be employed by or holding elected position in the
town, county, state, or federal government, nor be seeking office for any elected position
therein. The idea here is that the people drawing the lines don't have anything to
personally gain or lose by doing so.
The IC and town board will be responsible for recognizing when it is appropriate to
redraw the ward lines. The decision to redraw the lines would always be based on a pre-
established threshold having been exceeded. For example, whenever the inequity
between any two wards should exceed 5% of the town's registered population, a redraw
would be required. Certain requirements would be put in place to guide the
Commission's eftorts. Goals such as establishing a near-equal number of registered
voters per ward, continuity of wards and districts, a 'new' ward containing a majority of
voters from the 'fonner' ward, minimized division of neighborhoods/developments, and
so on.
The Ie would draft at least one plan that is approved by five-sixths of the Ie members,
andJor may draft two or more plans that are each approyed by at least half of the
republicans, at least half of the democrats, at least half of the independents, and at least
t'wo-thirds of the members from each ward. Approved drafts would be submitted to the
town board, requiring the board's approval of at least (but possibly more than) one such
plan. The town electorate would have the opportunity to acceptJreject a proposal by
means of referelldum. A proposal must receive morc votes for approval than rejection to
be enacted. If morc than onc draft shall have been approved by the board, the proposal
that has more acceptance votes than rejection votes shall prevail, except that if more than
one such proposal shall meet this criterion, then the proposal with the most approval
votes still meeting this criterion shall prevail.
Conclusion
The town of Queensbury has dramatically changed in the 23 years since the current ward
boundaries were established. While I realize that the board may not adopt my plan, either
in part or in whole, it is my hope that by presenting this information, the public and the
board will not only have become aware of the facts at hand., but that the board will take
immediate action to ensure that the voters are fairly and equally represented within the
town board, May the citizens of Queensbury see that it is so.
13
Table E - Current Ward Lines and Districts, 2006 data
Number of Registered Voters in Queensbury: 17193
114 Total: 4298.25
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
Ward total
I % of registered
I vote~
20.4% 20,6%
22.6% 36.4 ok
Voter representalion
on Board
1.000 O.g91
(l.90l 0561
Table F - Current Ward Lines and Districts, 2007 data
Number of Registered Voters in Queensbury: 17190
1/4 Total: 4297.6
Ward 1
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Dis1rict 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
Ward total 3472 3587 3872
---
% of reglstered 20.2% 20.9% 22.5%
voters
----
Voter representation 1 000 0.958 0697 0.555
on Board
14
Table G - Sample Ward Lines and Districts, 2006 data
Number of Registered Voters in Queensbury: 11.ll;!
1/4 Total: 4298.25
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
Ward 1
6
85
44
53
53
51
50
38
Ward 4
56 .
52
111
54
56
401
53
Ward total 4409 4167 4372 4245
- ----- - -
% of registered 25.6% 24.2% 25.4% 24.7%
voters
Voter represenlation 0.945 1.000 0.95'3 0982
on Board
Table II - Sample Ward Lines and Districts, 2007 data
Number of Registered Voters in Queensbury: 17190
1/4 Total: 4297.5
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
Ward 1
64
64
431
51
5
51
50
3S
Ward total 4350 4222 4378 4240
--.-- - -
% of registered 25.3% 24.6% 25.5% 24.7%
voters
- -- - - -
Voter represemallon O.9"7l 1.000 0.964 0996
on BO<1 rd
15
Primary Sources
Warren County Board of Elections Voter Affiliation by District (2007)
http://www.co.warren.ny.us/boeJvoterJaffiI07.htm
Warren County Board of Elections Voter Affiliation by District (2006)
http://vvww.co.warren.ny.uslboe/voterJaffi106 . htm
Town of Queensbury Election Ward Map
http://www.ql1eensbury.net/GIS/election _districts yolling_places.pdf
Laws of New \' ork
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.uslmenugetf.cgi?COMMONQUER Y =LA WS
Additional Sources
Queensbury Town Clerk's Office
Mary Beth Casey. Board of Elections for Warren County
16