August 14, 2025 • 14 mins
Aug. 14, 2025- In a Dispatches from Planet Albany excerpt we hear from Assemblyman Micah Lasher, a Manhattan Democrat, who makes the case for increasing New York's Democrats in Congress by tweaking the congressional boundaries before the next census.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
This is WCNIS the Capitol press Room, and we're going
to share an excerpt from an upcoming edition of the
Dispatches from Planet Albany Podcasts, where we talked with Assembly
Member Micah Lasher, a Manhattan Democrat who is joining with
some of his New York Democratic colleagues, including Governor Kathy Hochel,
to make the case for New York to update its
constitution so that it can participate in mid decade redistricting
(00:28):
as part of an effort to grow New York's Democratic
congressional delegation in response to what's happening in red states
like Texas. So the argument behind this amendment is that
New York Democrats want to have the same flexibility to
redraw boundaries if states with GOP control are going to
redraw their lines mid decade. But the constitutional language that
has been floated this summer in New York doesn't address
(00:51):
language in the constitution prohibiting lines from basically being drawn
to help a particular candidate or political party. So without
addressing that aspect of things, how does drawing new lines, say,
prior to the census, potentially help New York Democrats grow
their presence in DC?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I think as a practical matter, there is a view
that because of the long and twisty road that we
went down to get the last round of congressional lines,
there was a small sea conservativism in drawing those lines
that went beyond even what would have been even beyond
the limitations provided in those provisions of the Constitution. So
(01:33):
I think there is a view that there is change
that could be made with the maps that exist today
while still living by the principles that exist within the
state constitution around the fair configuration of districts. At the
same time, as a basic principle here, I do think
we have to look at what other states are doing
(01:54):
and not unilaterally disarm. That is certainly the principle behind
the idea that we should be able to do a
mid decade redistricting if other states are doing so, and
I think at a certain point you have to ask
the same question about what other constraints you're imposing on
yourself as a state if other states are not doing so.
As I said, I think in an ideal world, we'd
be able to balance the need to compete on a
(02:18):
level playing field with other states with holding on to
some of the values embodied and those principles in the
state Constitution. But these are the conversations that are going
to have to occur in the months ahead.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
We'll walk me through how you think whoever draws the maps,
whether it's mid decade or in the normal process, can
get around this language. I'm going to read it for listeners.
Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition, or for
the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular
candidates or political parties. I mean that seems pretty straightforward.
(02:52):
And unless a court is going to bend over backwards,
and maybe that's what you're banking on, it doesn't seem
like there's a lot of wiggle. So how do you
envision getting around that.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
There's no one set of maps that are handed down
like tablets on SINAI. You know, there is by definition
a certain amount of judgment and discretion that is inherent
in the process of drawing political districts.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Sure, but it's kind of like pornography, you know when
you see it. And if there's a district that connects,
like Westchester to Long Island, that sure looks like pornography
to me.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I think that if we maintain the current principles of
the state Constitution. Yes, that would put some constraints on
how aggressive a redistricting could be. But as I said,
I think that the existing maps and the constraints that
existed on the final set of lines that passed into
(03:48):
law went well beyond what's in the state Constitution. There
was a because there had been so much sturm and
drang over the redistricting process the last time. When the
final round came, I think there was a judgment of
let's not even come close to the line of acceptability.
Let's draw maps that we are going to know for
(04:10):
certain are not going to go even through another round
of litigation, let alone lose another round of litigation. So
I think there is room for improvement to the existing
maps within the principles that are in the state Constitution.
But as I said, I think we do need to
have an honest conversation about what it means to continue
to impose on New York constraints and principles that have
(04:32):
been eviscerated by the Supreme Court when it comes to
the Voting Rights Act, and that are being ignored by
red states across America who see no value in trying
to impose principles into what they see as a purely
political process.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
So a Sienopol released this week found that New Yorkers
are basically split on whether to update the state constitution
to allow redistricting mid decade. And that doesn't even get
to the idea of potentially striking out some of that
line language that we're just talking about that is designed
to limit partisan redistricting. Given that starting point, what do
you see as the argument you would want to make
(05:09):
to voters potentially as early as twenty twenty seven, that
they should approve an amendment And should that messaging be
brazenly partisan given the democratic enrollment edge, or is there
some sort of good government pitch that you would try
to make or you would advise the state party to
make to voters.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
I would say a few things about this. First of all,
it's extremely early days. This is a conversation that although
we in the political world are intently focused on, I
don't think the general public fully appreciates what is what
has happened.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Oh yeah, no, one's paying attention in the country.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
So I think there's plenty of time to make arguments,
to have a campaign to educate the public about the
importance of.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Doing something well just interrepth though. I mean, you've talked
about Democrats being shortsighted in the past when it comes
to strategy, So wouldn't it be a mistake not to
be thinking about those twenty twenty seven questions?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Oh? I absolutely agree, And I think, Look, what I
say about this is that I'm I'm for doing as
much on redistricting as we can with a reasonable likely
to success at the ballot, and that a that a
seventy five percent solution that passes is better than a
one hundred percent solution that fails. So I don't ignore
(06:23):
those pole results, but I just think that it's important
to put them in the proper perspective. Because it's early
days in terms of what the right messaging is. I
can't quite see that far into the future. But here's
what I would say to New Yorker's number one. The
redistricting conversation of a decade ago viewed the issue as
a question of what is the right practice within New
York State. We viewed it fundamentally as a New York
(06:45):
state policy question. And the reality is this is a
national policy question and a national political question, and it
really is. There are fifty players on the field. We
are one of fifty players. How we play in that space,
how other states play in that space, all adds up
to the national competition for control of Congress. And if
(07:07):
we allow Red states to redraw lines whenever they like
without any principles related to the fair congressional configuration of districts,
we're going to cement one party control of Congress. And
that is both a threat to our democracy and poses
enormous harm to the interests of New Yorkers because we
have seen what this party is interested in doing to
(07:30):
New York, which is enormous fiscal harm. Trump's minions in
Congress are doing enormous damage to our healthcare, to our economy,
to our education. And what the risk is if we
do not fight back, is to give these folks permanent
one party control the House of the Representatives and elections
that will be a mere formality in validating and revalidating
(07:54):
that control. That's what's at stake. It is a very
different conversation than the conversation we were having when New
Yorker's first approved independent redistricting, and that's the conversation we
need to have to get people to understand why this
is so important.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
The tenor, though of that argument is something that would
obviously resonate with Democrats. It definitely wouldn't resonate with Republicans.
I don't know about independence. So is that the message
that you think the party should be pushing out in
twenty twenty seven or is there different language that you
think you would need to focus on come twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, again, I think there are sort of three different
components of this. There's the ideological question, which is, yes,
it's a part of someone do you want to give
one party control to the Republicans? There is a question
of our democracy, which is do you want to continue
to have competitive elections for control of the Congress. Do
you believe, even if you're a Republican or an independent,
(08:53):
that your interests are going to be served by the
people in power in Washington no longer feeling like they
have to work to win your votes. And Third, and
this is not ideological, not partisan. The concrete interests of
New Yorkers are at stake, and I think as it
becomes increasingly clear the damage that is being done to
(09:14):
our state, to the people of the state, to the
programs and services that they depend on, their tax to
the tax dollars that they pay, that the damage that's
being done to all of that by this regime in Washington.
I think there is going to be a broad concern
about the idea of cementing that control in DC, even
(09:34):
for folks who are Republicans, who ideologically identify with the
Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So I want to come back to the idea of
how Democrats got into the position they're in now in
New York and in other blue states, some of which
can act a little bit faster potentially to have lines
in place in twenty twenty six that are new. And
you've talked, as I mentioned, about this idea that Democrats
(10:02):
are a little short sighted on some of these political
maneuvers and can get caught flat footed. And I guess
I'm curious, why do you think that was the case here?
Because this is not a new idea, this idea of
mid decade redistricting. Even I'm old enough to remember people
like Tom Delay. So why are Democrats in a position
where they are playing catchup?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I should say about it. I don't exempt myself from this.
I'm not here to lecture other people about where we've
fallen short as though I'm not, I haven't had the
same failure of vision that others have had. I think
all of us had a deep and abiding belief that
there were certain norms, certain boundaries, certain rules of the game,
(10:46):
that everybody was going to sort of live with them,
and yes, you'd have sort of outlier events and moments
of crisis, but that basically there was a bipartisan interest
in maintaining some rules of fair play. And I think
what a lot of us failed to realize was that
the modern day Republican Party, even preceding Donald Trump, but
(11:09):
certainly once it became Donald Trump's party, had absolutely no
interest in maintaining any of those rules of fair play.
That it was a maximalist effort to gain partisan advantage
at the expense of all of the things that bind
Americans together. And that's the world we're living in, and
it's and the fact that we have to get in
(11:31):
that game. Is there a certain sadness about it? Absolutely?
Do I wish it were otherwise, No question, is my
concern about the threat to our democracy massively greater than
whatever lamentations I may feel about the loss of a
more civil time.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Are Democrats even good at this type of political fighting? Though?
Because I think about someone like Eric Holder, who was
supposed to be helping Democrats lead the charge on redistricting
years ago, and this whole focus on the states, and
it's like, well, it seems like they're not on top
of things right here. So do you feel like Democrats
(12:12):
are in a good position to have this fight?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I think we must have this fight, and we must
use the tools available to us, and so certainly there
are ways in which I wish we were better positioned.
I wish we could make this happen in New York
in time for the twenty twenty six elections. But my
reaction to that is, let's not spend a ton of
time dwelling on how we might have better set ourselves
(12:37):
up for this moment. Let's assess the landscape. Let's figure
out what levers and what tools are available to us,
and yet let's use them with all the speed and
force that we can muster.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Is there anything to the idea which we sort of
just hinted at that the ends don't justify the means.
Is there anything you wouldn't do moving forward? Any norm
you wouldn't break to potentially help a Democratic candidate. Is
there a line in the sand that you see moving forward?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I think that's that's a hard question to answer.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Why they pay you the big bucks? Why they pay
the big bucks one dred and forty.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
I think it's I think it's a tough question. But
I think that when you have something like redistricting, where
the actions in fifty individual states add up to a
national result, it would be incredibly foolish to hold ourselves
to a higher standard. And I can certainly imagine that
(13:35):
basic principle of playing out in other contexts.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
And for the rest of our conversation with Assembly Member
Micah Lasher, a Manhattan Democrat, check out our dispatches from
Planet Albany Podcasts, which you can get wherever you download podcasts.
Join us again for Capital press Room, a production of
WCNY connected Syracuse
This is WCNIS the Capitol press Room, and we're going
to share an excerpt from an upcoming edition of the
Dispatches from Planet Albany Podcasts, where we talked with Assembly
Member Micah Lasher, a Manhattan Democrat who is joining with
some of his New York Democratic colleagues, including Governor Kathy Hochel,
to make the case for New York to update its
constitution so that it can participate in mid decade redistricting
(00:28):
as part of an effort to grow New York's Democratic
congressional delegation in response to what's happening in red states
like Texas. So the argument behind this amendment is that
New York Democrats want to have the same flexibility to
redraw boundaries if states with GOP control are going to
redraw their lines mid decade. But the constitutional language that
has been floated this summer in New York doesn't address
(00:51):
language in the constitution prohibiting lines from basically being drawn
to help a particular candidate or political party. So without
addressing that aspect of things, how does drawing new lines, say,
prior to the census, potentially help New York Democrats grow
their presence in DC?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I think as a practical matter, there is a view
that because of the long and twisty road that we
went down to get the last round of congressional lines,
there was a small sea conservativism in drawing those lines
that went beyond even what would have been even beyond
the limitations provided in those provisions of the Constitution. So
(01:33):
I think there is a view that there is change
that could be made with the maps that exist today
while still living by the principles that exist within the
state constitution around the fair configuration of districts. At the
same time, as a basic principle here, I do think
we have to look at what other states are doing
(01:54):
and not unilaterally disarm. That is certainly the principle behind
the idea that we should be able to do a
mid decade redistricting if other states are doing so, and
I think at a certain point you have to ask
the same question about what other constraints you're imposing on
yourself as a state if other states are not doing so.
As I said, I think in an ideal world, we'd
be able to balance the need to compete on a
(02:18):
level playing field with other states with holding on to
some of the values embodied and those principles in the
state Constitution. But these are the conversations that are going
to have to occur in the months ahead.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
We'll walk me through how you think whoever draws the maps,
whether it's mid decade or in the normal process, can
get around this language. I'm going to read it for listeners.
Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition, or for
the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular
candidates or political parties. I mean that seems pretty straightforward.
(02:52):
And unless a court is going to bend over backwards,
and maybe that's what you're banking on, it doesn't seem
like there's a lot of wiggle. So how do you
envision getting around that.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
There's no one set of maps that are handed down
like tablets on SINAI. You know, there is by definition
a certain amount of judgment and discretion that is inherent
in the process of drawing political districts.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Sure, but it's kind of like pornography, you know when
you see it. And if there's a district that connects,
like Westchester to Long Island, that sure looks like pornography
to me.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
I think that if we maintain the current principles of
the state Constitution. Yes, that would put some constraints on
how aggressive a redistricting could be. But as I said,
I think that the existing maps and the constraints that
existed on the final set of lines that passed into
(03:48):
law went well beyond what's in the state Constitution. There
was a because there had been so much sturm and
drang over the redistricting process the last time. When the
final round came, I think there was a judgment of
let's not even come close to the line of acceptability.
Let's draw maps that we are going to know for
(04:10):
certain are not going to go even through another round
of litigation, let alone lose another round of litigation. So
I think there is room for improvement to the existing
maps within the principles that are in the state Constitution.
But as I said, I think we do need to
have an honest conversation about what it means to continue
to impose on New York constraints and principles that have
(04:32):
been eviscerated by the Supreme Court when it comes to
the Voting Rights Act, and that are being ignored by
red states across America who see no value in trying
to impose principles into what they see as a purely
political process.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
So a Sienopol released this week found that New Yorkers
are basically split on whether to update the state constitution
to allow redistricting mid decade. And that doesn't even get
to the idea of potentially striking out some of that
line language that we're just talking about that is designed
to limit partisan redistricting. Given that starting point, what do
you see as the argument you would want to make
(05:09):
to voters potentially as early as twenty twenty seven, that
they should approve an amendment And should that messaging be
brazenly partisan given the democratic enrollment edge, or is there
some sort of good government pitch that you would try
to make or you would advise the state party to
make to voters.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
I would say a few things about this. First of all,
it's extremely early days. This is a conversation that although
we in the political world are intently focused on, I
don't think the general public fully appreciates what is what
has happened.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Oh yeah, no, one's paying attention in the country.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
So I think there's plenty of time to make arguments,
to have a campaign to educate the public about the
importance of.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Doing something well just interrepth though. I mean, you've talked
about Democrats being shortsighted in the past when it comes
to strategy, So wouldn't it be a mistake not to
be thinking about those twenty twenty seven questions?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Oh? I absolutely agree, And I think, Look, what I
say about this is that I'm I'm for doing as
much on redistricting as we can with a reasonable likely
to success at the ballot, and that a that a
seventy five percent solution that passes is better than a
one hundred percent solution that fails. So I don't ignore
(06:23):
those pole results, but I just think that it's important
to put them in the proper perspective. Because it's early
days in terms of what the right messaging is. I
can't quite see that far into the future. But here's
what I would say to New Yorker's number one. The
redistricting conversation of a decade ago viewed the issue as
a question of what is the right practice within New
York State. We viewed it fundamentally as a New York
(06:45):
state policy question. And the reality is this is a
national policy question and a national political question, and it
really is. There are fifty players on the field. We
are one of fifty players. How we play in that space,
how other states play in that space, all adds up
to the national competition for control of Congress. And if
(07:07):
we allow Red states to redraw lines whenever they like
without any principles related to the fair congressional configuration of districts,
we're going to cement one party control of Congress. And
that is both a threat to our democracy and poses
enormous harm to the interests of New Yorkers because we
have seen what this party is interested in doing to
(07:30):
New York, which is enormous fiscal harm. Trump's minions in
Congress are doing enormous damage to our healthcare, to our economy,
to our education. And what the risk is if we
do not fight back, is to give these folks permanent
one party control the House of the Representatives and elections
that will be a mere formality in validating and revalidating
(07:54):
that control. That's what's at stake. It is a very
different conversation than the conversation we were having when New
Yorker's first approved independent redistricting, and that's the conversation we
need to have to get people to understand why this
is so important.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
The tenor, though of that argument is something that would
obviously resonate with Democrats. It definitely wouldn't resonate with Republicans.
I don't know about independence. So is that the message
that you think the party should be pushing out in
twenty twenty seven or is there different language that you
think you would need to focus on come twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, again, I think there are sort of three different
components of this. There's the ideological question, which is, yes,
it's a part of someone do you want to give
one party control to the Republicans? There is a question
of our democracy, which is do you want to continue
to have competitive elections for control of the Congress. Do
you believe, even if you're a Republican or an independent,
(08:53):
that your interests are going to be served by the
people in power in Washington no longer feeling like they
have to work to win your votes. And Third, and
this is not ideological, not partisan. The concrete interests of
New Yorkers are at stake, and I think as it
becomes increasingly clear the damage that is being done to
(09:14):
our state, to the people of the state, to the
programs and services that they depend on, their tax to
the tax dollars that they pay, that the damage that's
being done to all of that by this regime in Washington.
I think there is going to be a broad concern
about the idea of cementing that control in DC, even
(09:34):
for folks who are Republicans, who ideologically identify with the
Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So I want to come back to the idea of
how Democrats got into the position they're in now in
New York and in other blue states, some of which
can act a little bit faster potentially to have lines
in place in twenty twenty six that are new. And
you've talked, as I mentioned, about this idea that Democrats
(10:02):
are a little short sighted on some of these political
maneuvers and can get caught flat footed. And I guess
I'm curious, why do you think that was the case here?
Because this is not a new idea, this idea of
mid decade redistricting. Even I'm old enough to remember people
like Tom Delay. So why are Democrats in a position
where they are playing catchup?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I should say about it. I don't exempt myself from this.
I'm not here to lecture other people about where we've
fallen short as though I'm not, I haven't had the
same failure of vision that others have had. I think
all of us had a deep and abiding belief that
there were certain norms, certain boundaries, certain rules of the game,
(10:46):
that everybody was going to sort of live with them,
and yes, you'd have sort of outlier events and moments
of crisis, but that basically there was a bipartisan interest
in maintaining some rules of fair play. And I think
what a lot of us failed to realize was that
the modern day Republican Party, even preceding Donald Trump, but
(11:09):
certainly once it became Donald Trump's party, had absolutely no
interest in maintaining any of those rules of fair play.
That it was a maximalist effort to gain partisan advantage
at the expense of all of the things that bind
Americans together. And that's the world we're living in, and
it's and the fact that we have to get in
(11:31):
that game. Is there a certain sadness about it? Absolutely?
Do I wish it were otherwise, No question, is my
concern about the threat to our democracy massively greater than
whatever lamentations I may feel about the loss of a
more civil time.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Are Democrats even good at this type of political fighting? Though?
Because I think about someone like Eric Holder, who was
supposed to be helping Democrats lead the charge on redistricting
years ago, and this whole focus on the states, and
it's like, well, it seems like they're not on top
of things right here. So do you feel like Democrats
(12:12):
are in a good position to have this fight?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I think we must have this fight, and we must
use the tools available to us, and so certainly there
are ways in which I wish we were better positioned.
I wish we could make this happen in New York
in time for the twenty twenty six elections. But my
reaction to that is, let's not spend a ton of
time dwelling on how we might have better set ourselves
(12:37):
up for this moment. Let's assess the landscape. Let's figure
out what levers and what tools are available to us,
and yet let's use them with all the speed and
force that we can muster.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Is there anything to the idea which we sort of
just hinted at that the ends don't justify the means.
Is there anything you wouldn't do moving forward? Any norm
you wouldn't break to potentially help a Democratic candidate. Is
there a line in the sand that you see moving forward?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I think that's that's a hard question to answer.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Why they pay you the big bucks? Why they pay
the big bucks one dred and forty.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
I think it's I think it's a tough question. But
I think that when you have something like redistricting, where
the actions in fifty individual states add up to a
national result, it would be incredibly foolish to hold ourselves
to a higher standard. And I can certainly imagine that
(13:35):
basic principle of playing out in other contexts.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
And for the rest of our conversation with Assembly Member
Micah Lasher, a Manhattan Democrat, check out our dispatches from
Planet Albany Podcasts, which you can get wherever you download podcasts.
Join us again for Capital press Room, a production of
WCNY connected Syracuse
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!