Gothamist77%

New York Democrats set stage for voter referendum to join redistricting fight 16%

By Jimmy Vielkind0%

6/2/2026, 10:56:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.9% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 931 faulty-reasoning hits from 784 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,577 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

New York’s ruling Democrats would be allowed to draw new congressional districts in time for the 2028 elections under a proposed amendment to the State Constitution set for a vote this week. 
The amendment, introduced late Monday, would also remove the state’s prohibitions on drawing districts to favor incumbents or political parties. 
It would make it easier for lawmakers themselves to grab the redistricting pen from the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission if it fails to develop a map. 
Changes to the State Constitution must be adopted by two crops of successively elected legislators and then approved by voters in a popular referendum. 
The earliest that any changes could be on the ballot is 2027. 
Senate Deputy Majority Leader Mike Gianaris said the changes are needed because of mid-decade redistricting in other states. 
President Donald Trump kicked off that process last year when he urged Republican lawmakers in Texas to draw new lines that favor the GOP. 
Gianaris also cited a recent U.S. 
Supreme Court decision that said Louisiana districts drawn to encourage Black representation were “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” 
“The fact that there are states in the country that are expressly abusing the redistricting process, the fact that the Supreme Court has turned the Voting Rights Act on its head has created a very different environment,” Gianaris said Monday. 
If approved, the amendment would let New York join other Democrat-led states including California in adopting new maps favorable to that party. 
The Empire State would join the national redistricting wars at a time when control of Congress is up in the air, but not in time for this year’s general election. 
Republicans accused the Democrats of a power grab. 
Assembly Minority Leader Ed Ra of Nassau County said what’s happening elsewhere shouldn’t be a factor. 
“I completely reject the idea that somehow by gerrymandering a district in New York, it makes things better for a New Yorker because of something that happened in some other state,” Ra said. 
For decades, New York’s congressional map was worked out between Republicans who controlled the state Senate and Democrats who dominated the state Assembly. 
Federal judges would take over in the case of an impasse, as happened in 2012. 
In 2014 New York voters approved a new Independent Redistricting Commission to handle the process and added strict anti-gerrymandering provisions to the state Constitution. 
Unlike other states, the New York constitution explicitly says maps are to be drawn after the once-a-decade release of a new U.S. 
Census. 
Democrats controlled all the levers of New York’s government in 2022. 
When the Independent Redistricting Commission deadlocked, Democratic lawmakers passed a map that heavily favored their party. 
The state’s top court ruled it unconstitutional, and a court-appointed expert drew districts that in 2022 helped Republicans net three seats in New York and re-take the chamber majority. 
Democrats sued for a redo and won new lines in 2024 that observers said slightly favored the party. 
The amendment removes requirements that districts be “as compact as possible” but maintains that they maintain “communities of interest.” 
A section which says districts can’t be drawn to discourage competition or favor one political party would be deleted by the amendment. 
Members of Congress, some of whom previously served in the state Legislature, have been visiting the state Capitol in recent weeks to lobby state lawmakers for changes. 
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, sent his fellow U.S. 
Rep. 
Joe Morelle of Rochester to meet with Gov. 
Kathy Hochul. 
Morelle said he didn’t want Democrats to disarm and urged Gov. 
Hochul to do “everything we can.” 
Hochul, a Democrat, has said she wants to remove New York’s anti-gerrymandering provisions. 
“I don’t feel like I should be handcuffed in a fight for our democracy,” she said last month. 
On Monday, U.S. 
Rep. 
Mike Lawler, a Rockland County Republican, denounced the coming amendment. 
He said New York Democrats kicked off the mid-decade redistricting with their 2024 changes, which came in response to a court ruling. 
“Democrats in New York have tried multiple times, multiple times to change the maps, multiple times to get a partisan advantage in New York because they have absolute power and they think they can get away with it,” he said. 
Both Ra and Lawler said they would wage an intense campaign against any ballot initiative. 
“Obviously, this is a national fight,” Lawler said. 
“I would expect that there will be a lot of money poured in to defeat any effort by the Democrats. 
And I’m sure the Democrats will spend tens of millions of dollars trying to win the ballot initiative. 
That’s just a reality of where we are today.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 2.7%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.7%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.7%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.7%This article: 2.3%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 10.1%Jimmy Vielkind: 9.9%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect10.1%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.1%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.3%This article: 18.9%Jimmy Vielkind: 6.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 2.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.6%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 7.1%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error7.1%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.6%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias1.4%This article: 2.3%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.5%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.5%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.6%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.9%Jimmy Vielkind: 4.3%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization9.9%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.2%Jimmy Vielkind: 7.3%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.0%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.3%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 3.1%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.8%Jimmy Vielkind: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.8%This article: 5.1%Jimmy Vielkind: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jimmy Vielkind: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

784 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers35%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMike Gianaris • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMike Gianaris • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMike Gianaris • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEd Ra • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEd Ra • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Morelle • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMike Lawler • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kathy Hochul

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words6.5% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kathy Hochul: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.