Emergency Application — Nicole Malliotakis, et al., Applicants v. Michael Williams, et al.

Supreme Court briefFeb 12, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. A25In the

Supreme Court of the United States

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, et al.,

Applicants,

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al.,

Respondents.

On A pplication For Stay to the Court of A ppeals of the State of New York

to the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor , A ssociate Justice of the Supreme Court

of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit

APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY

VOLUME III OF X (PAGES 801a - 1200a)

Bennet J. Moskowitz

Elizabeth A. Loizides

Troutman Pepper Locke LLP

875 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Misha Tseytlin

Counsel of Record

Kevin M. Leroy

K aitlin O’Donnell

Carson A. Cox

Lauren H. Miller

Dylan J. DeWitt

Troutman Pepper Locke LLP

111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4100

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

Attorneys for Applicants

390244

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPENDIX A — Opinion and Order of the Supreme Court of the

State of New York, County of New York, filed January 21, 2026 . . . . . . . 1a

APPENDIX B — Order from the Court of Appeals of the State of

New York declining to exercise jurisdiction, filed February 11, 2026 . . . 19a

APPENDIX C — Respondents’ Reply Memorandum of Law in

Further Support of Their Motion and in Opposition to Petitioners’

Cross Motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

Appellate Division, First Department, filed February 6, 2026 . . . . . . . 22a

APPENDIX D — Intervenor-Respondents’ Reply Memorandum

of Law in Further Support of Their Motion and in Opposition to

Petitioners’ Cross Motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New

York, Appellate Division, First Department, filed February 6, 2026 . . . . 51a

APPENDIX E — Petitioners’ Cross Memorandum of Law in Opposition

to Motion to Stay and Cross Motion in Support of Motion to Vacate

Automatic Stay to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

Appellate Division, First Department, filed February 4, 2026 . . . . . . 146a

APPENDIX F — NYCLU’s Motion to Appear as Amici Curiae

to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate

Division, First Department, filed February 4, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304a

APPENDIX G — Affirmation of Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky

Regarding Intervenor-Respondents’ and Respondents’ Motion

to Stay to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

Appellate Division, First Department, filed February 4, 2026 . . . . . . 381a

APPENDIX H — Government-Respondents’ Memorandum of

Law in Response to Intervenor-Respondents’ and Respondents’

Motions to Stay to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

Appellate Division, First Department, filed February 4, 2026 . . . . . . 388a

APPENDIX I — Professors Ruth M. Greenwood and Nicholas

O. Stephanopoulos’ Motion to Appear as Amici Curiae

to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate

Division, First Department, filed February 4, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416a

Table of Contents

Page

APPENDIX J — Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New

York, Appellate Division, First Department filed January 30, 2026 . . . 468a

APPENDIX K — Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New

York, Appellate Division, First Department filed January 30, 2026 . . . 470a

APPENDIX L — Respondents’ Letter to the Supreme Court of the

State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department filed

January 29, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472a

APPENDIX M — Inter venor-Respondents’ Letter to the

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division,

First Department filed January 29, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473a

APPENDIX N — Respondents’ Application for Interim Relief

to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate

Division, First Department, filed January 28, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479a

APPENDIX O — Inter venor-Respondents’ Application for

Interim Relief to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

Appellate Division, First Department, filed January 27, 2026 . . . . . .2036a

APPENDIX P — Intervenor-Respondents’ Notice of Appeal

to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate

Division, filed January 26, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3657a

APPENDIX Q — Intervenor-Respondents’ Notice of Appeal to the

Court of Appeals of the State of New York, filed January 26, 2026 . . . 3661a

APPENDIX R — Respondents’ Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court

of the State of New York, Appellate Division, filed January 26, 2026 . . . 3665a

APPENDIX S — Respondents’ Notice of Appeal to the Court

of Appeals of the State of New York, filed January 26, 2026 . . . . . . . 3667a

APPENDIX T — Declaration of Raymond J. Riley, III in Support

of Motion to the Supreme Court of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 3669a

iii

Table of Contents

Page

APPENDIX U — Affirmation of Nicholas J. Faso in Support of

Motion for Recusal of Trial Judge, Hon. Jeffrey H. Pearlman, filed

November 28, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3672a

APPENDIX V — Transcript of the Proceedings Before the Supreme

Court of the State of New York, County of New York, dated

November 7, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3675a

APPENDIX W — Len Maniace, Senate likely to have an empty

seat, THE JOURNAL NEWS, January 1, 2005, pg. 1B . . . . . . . . . . 3699a

APPENDIX X — Brian Pascus, Hochul will rely on these longtime

allies; State’s first female governor pledges more consensus

building and less combativeness, CRAIN’S NEW YORK

BUSINESS, August 30, 2021, pg. 1; Vol. 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3703a

APPENDIX Y — Dana Rubinstein, New York Will Have Its First

Female Governor, THE NEW YORK TIMES, August 11, 2021,

Section A; Column 0; National Desk; pg. 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3708a

APPENDIX Z — Jim Fitzgerald, GOP challenging voters’

right to cast ballots in NY state Senate battleground, THE

ASSOCIATED PRESS, October 31, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3712a

APPENDIX AA — Rebecca C. Lewis, Judge Assigned to

redistricting case has deep ties to Hochul, Stewart-Cousins,

CITY & STATE NEW YORK, October 28, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3715a

APPENDIX AB — Grace Ashford and Nick Corasaniti, Lawsuit

Plunges New York Into the National Gerrymandering Fight,

THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 27, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3718a

APPENDIX AC — Respondents’ Memorandum of Law in Support

of Motion for Recusal, filed November 26, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3724a

APPENDIX AD — Order to Show Cause for Motion for Recusal

Entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York,

County of New York on December 2, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3741a

Table of Contents

Page

APPENDIX AE — Affirmation Of Bennet J. Moskowitz In Support

Of Intervenor-Respondents’ Response In Support Of Respondents’

Motion For Recusal, filed December 8, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3743a

APPENDIX AF — Democracy Docket article, Voters Challenge

N e w Yo r k C o n g r e s s i o n a l M a p , Ta r g e t i n g G O P S e a t ,

written by Jen Rice, dated October 27, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3748a

APPENDIX AG — Politico article, Democrats get aggressive

on remapping congressional lines, written by Liz Crampton,

Shia Kapos, and Bill Mahoney, dated October 27, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . 3751a

APPENDIX AH — NBC News article, New York Legislature

OKs gerrymander that could net Democrats 3 more seats,

written by Jane C. Timm, dated February 2, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3757a

APPENDIX AI — New York Post article, ‘Flawed from outset’:

Judge blasts NY Democrats for ‘Hochul-mander’ mess, written

by Carl Campanile and Bernadette Hogan, dated April 7, 2022 . . . . 3760a

APPENDIX AJ — New York Times article, How N.Y. Democrats

Came Up With Gerrymandered Districts on Their New Map,

written by Nicholas Fandos, dated January 31, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3764a

APPENDIX AK — Transcript of the Proceedings of Clarke v. Town

of Newburgh, Index No. EF002460-2024, dated May 12, 2025 . . . . . 3769a

APPENDIX AL — Recusal Form by Judge Michael J. Garcia in

Clarke v. Town of Newburgh, Index No. APL-2025-110, dated

September 11, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3795a

APPENDIX AM — Letter from the New York State Court

of Appeals Noting Judge Michael J. Garcia’s and Judge

Caitlin J. Halligan’s Recusals in Clarke v. Town of Newburgh,

Index No. APL-2025-110, dated September 4, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3798a

APPENDIX AN — Queens Daily Eagle article, Court of

Appeals judge recuses herself from redistricting case,

written by Ryan Schwach, dated October 17, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3800a

Table of Contents

Page

APPENDIX AO — Recusal Form by Judge Caitlin J. Halligan in

Hoffmann v. NY State Independent Redistricting Commission,

No.APL-2023-121, dated October 12, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3804a

APPENDIX AP — Intervenor-Respondents’ Reply Memorandum

of Law in Support of Respondents’ Motion for Recusal, filed

December 8, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3807a

APPENDIX AQ — Petitioners’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition

to Respondents’ Motion for Recusal, filed December 8, 2025 . . . . . . 3815a

APPENDIX AR — State Respondents’ Memorandum of

Law in Response to Respondents’ Motion for Recusal, filed

December 8, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3839a

APPENDIX AS — Respondents’ Reply Memorandum of Law in

Further Support of Motion for Recusal, filed December 10, 2025 . . . 3840a

APPENDIX AT — Petitioners’ Letter to Hon. Jeffrey H. Pearlman,

filed December 10, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3854a

APPENDIX AU — Petitioners’ Reply Memorandum of Law in

Response to Intervenor-Respondents’ Response in Support

of Respondents’ Motion for Recusal, filed December 10, 2025 . . . . . 3855a

APPENDIX AV — Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of

the State of New York, County of New York on Respondents’

Motion for Recusal, entered on December 16, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3863a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

252

you're looking at, the 2024 plan or the illustrative map that I

drew .

And do you consider core retention to be a traditional

redistricting criteria?

Not exactly, because you can have a perfect core

retention and have an unlawful map.

for a petitioner or a plaintiff's group to have a core retention

score that is lower than the existing map that is being

challenged.

Gingles cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

It's quite common.

MR. DODGE:

Mr. Cooper's report.

It happens all of the time in

You mentioned Figure 2.

So it's not at all unusual

Can we please call up Figure 1 of

Mr. Cooper, does Figure 1 reflect the area of inquiry

for your report?

Yes.

The -- this map shows the 2024 plan just

highlighting Districts 11 and 10.

Congressional District 11 is in Staten Island, and a portion of

it on the other side of the bay is in Brooklyn.

from the midsection of Brooklyn up into Manhattan.

And 10 runs

And there is some thick black lines and also some thin

lines in Figure 1.

represent?

And you can see that

Can you just tell the Court what those

The thick black lines represent the boroughs, the

boundaries of boroughs that go out into the bay.

And then the

801a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

253

thin lines show the neighborhoods in -- in the focus area.

And are those neighborhoods sometimes referred to as

NTAs in your report?

Yes.

That's a term that is used by the New York City

Department of Planning.

tract boundaries that would approximate the areas that one would

consider to be a neighborhood if you lived in that neighborhood.

So those NTA lines come from the City of New York and

not from you personally?

That's right.

Bureau either.

Department .

They are drawn to follow current census

And they're not produced by the Census

They are a product of the New York City Planning

So let's talk a little bit more about what District 11

currently looks like.

MR. DODGE:

Mr. Cooper's report.

Can we pull up Figure 2 from

Can you just tell the Court at a high level what

Figure 2 reflects?

This is at page 8 of Tab 2 in your binder if

you want to look at it there instead of on the screen.

Yes.

Pardon me.

So what was the question?

Can you just tell the Court at a high level what

It's actually on page 9.

You're right.

Page 9.

Figure 2 shows?

Well, Figure 2 shows the citizen voting age population

802a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

254

by race and ethnicity for Districts 11 and 10.

the entire gamut of possible columns.

and ethnicity -- combinations in both 10 and 11, in other words.

It doesn't show

It shows the primary race

And just for clarity, can you tell the Court what the

term "CVAP" means in this context?

Citizen voting age population.

What is the combined Black and Latino CVAP in

District 11 under the current version of District 11?

22.7 percent.

So roughly a quarter of the citizens voting age

population in District 11 is Black or Latino?

20 percent.

Right.

It's a little short.

MR. DODGE:

It's closer to

Can we pull up Figure 3, also on

page 9.

And what does Figure 3 show us?

Figure 3 shows the underlying total population in

Districts 11 and 10, broken out by the Staten Island components

and the Brooklyn components for both districts.

What does Figure 3 show us as to the relative Black and

Latino share of the population in the Staten Island part of

District 11, versus the Brooklyn part of the district?

It is 30.01 percent in the Staten Island.

And right at

18 percent for the Brooklyn portion.

So there is a greater density of Black and Latino

803a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

255

people in the Staten Island part of District 11 than the

Brooklyn part?

Definitely.

Just to be clear, though, did your report address

anything related to voting patterns by different racial groups

on Staten Island?

No.

Let's turn to the compactness of the existing

districts .

MR. DODGE:

is on page 10 of the report.

Can we please pull up Figure 4, which

Can you walk me through what Figure 4 says about the

compactness of District 11?

Yes.

Figure 4 shows the scores for the Reock,

R-e-o-c-k, and Polsby-Popper scores for both Districts 11 and

10, and then a two-district average.

districts are quite compact.

And you can see that the

Do you think it matters that current District 10 here

has a slightly lower compactness score than current District 11?

No.

You can look at the map and see from Figure 1 that

it's reasonably compact.

One last thing about the current maps.

Let's talk

about communities of interest a little bit.

MR. DODGE:

Could we please pull up Figure 5 on

page 10 of the report.

804a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

256

And before we go through this figure, can you just tell

the Court what a split refers to when we talk about

redistricting or communities of interest?

believe .

Yeah.

I think this is actually a figure on page 11, I

Oh, my numbers are wrong.

But it is Figure 5?

Right.

Yes.

And can you just tell the Court what a split refers to

when we discuss communities of interest or neighborhoods or the

like?

Well, this particular table shows the total number of

splits that are populated in -- by neighborhood and by 2020

VTD -- in other words, there are two split neighborhoods in the

total -- in the '24 plan, creating four population splits.

the 2024 plan are currently split?

Those are two neighborhoods in Brooklyn:

Manhattan, because it is entirely within -- that

portion of the map is entirely Manhattan, there are no splits.

So to put a finer point on it, the neighborhoods of

Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge are split in the current

configuration --

Bay Ridge and

Bensonhurst, of course.

And can you -- are you aware of which neighborhoods in

Yes, they are split.

805a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

257

And are neighborhoods often considered communities of

interest in the redistricting contest?

Yes, they are.

Are splits sometimes necessary when drawing boundary

lines ?

More often than not.

So how do you consider splits when determining where to

draw different boundary lines?

Well, you have to make a judgment call.

Sometimes you

look at the potential boundary lines and see the way you can

split some other spot and have a more compact-looking district,

but you also have to look at the underlying population, which is

what I did in this instance.

And while we have Figure 5 up, can you tell the Court

what a VTD is?

A VTD is a short version of voting tabulation district,

which is a census bureau term -- term.

At the end of the decade, the census bureau, in

partnership with the localities involved and state involved

creates a boundary file for a version of the precincts that were

in place at the time of the 2020 census, following 2020 census

geography, which may be different than the 2010 census

geography .

So VTD is basically a precinct?

Right.

806a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

258

And looking at Figure 5 again, can you tell us how the

current configuration of Districts 10 and 11 split these

precincts ?

The current version split two VTDs in Brooklyn and

those VTDs are then divided into four parts, or four pieces,

under the 2024 plan.

And how many people live in those precincts that were

split under the 2024 plan?

The actual number shown in the table is 133,535.

So we've talked about the current districts a bit.

now like to turn to what you were asked to do with those

districts in this case.

Can you start by just simply explaining to the Court

why Staten Island alone cannot serve as a congressional

district?

It's too small.

In population size, it's 497,000

people and change, almost 500,000.

ideal district size of -- I believe it's 700- and -- I don't

remember, 707,000, something like that.

I'd

And you need to have an

And what are the most natural options for adding

population to a Staten Island-based congressional district?

Pardon me.

What are the most natural options for adding population

Repeat that?

to a Staten Island-based congressional district?

Well, there are really only two options, the Brooklyn

807a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

259

portion or a Manhattan portion.

And why is that?

Because those are the two areas that are contiguous by

water .

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

Not Queens?

Not -- well, I don't think Queens

is -- is contiguous by land or water.

than I, so I could be mistaken about that.

hold this constant, the two districts, to make clear the

approach I took.

But you know better

I was trying to

And to reach Queens --

THE WITNESS:

Queens is contiguous.

I'm sure you're right, some part of

And to reach Queens by water, you would have to bypass

a lot of the significant populated areas of New York City to

reach it from Staten Island.

understanding?

Is that -- is that your

You'd have to, I guess, either go through Brooklyn or

you could cross the bridge, I think, maybe.

directly from Queens or not.

the map .

THE CQURT :

THE WITNESS:

I'm not sure if

Again, I'm not that familiar with

I take the ferry every morning.

Qkay.

And on the subject of the ferry, is there a prominent

transit link between Staten Island and Lower Manhattan?

808a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

260

Well, yes.

The Staten Island Ferry is direct,

Staten Island to Manhattan.

Brooklyn and then drive into Manhattan.

Or you could cross the bridge into

And is the ferry a longstanding transit link between

Manhattan and Staten Island?

Yes.

It dates sometime back to the early 1800s, I

believe .

Ferry?

It's free .

And how do you know that personally?

Because I took the ferry on Saturday.

And does it cost anything to ride the Staten Island

It is a lovely

trip, a little cold and breezy, but a wonderful trip.

enjoyed it.

And the ferry operates 24 hours a day?

Yes, except on weekends.

I really

I don't think it runs quite

as frequently.

And do you know how many people take the ferry into

Manhattan on a typical day?

According to the website of the Staten Island Ferry,

the total population on a given day in a workweek would be

somewhere in the range of 40- to 45,000.

summertime with the tourists, it may be as high as 70,000.

And shifting gears somewhat.

I think in the

Are you aware of any

historical precedence for drawing Staten Island and Lower

809a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

261

Manhattan into a district together?

Yes, there are multiple historical examples.

MR. DODGE:

Can we pull up Figure 6 on page 13 of

Mr. Cooper's report.

And can you tell the Court what Figure 6 shows us?

Yes.

This just shows a contemporary example, which is

Assembly District 61, that is showing the part of the

North Shore of Staten Island with Lower Manhattan.

And so what, if anything, does this district

configuration tell you?

Well, it tells me that there's an election district in

the state legislature that joins Staten Island and Manhattan.

So it would seem to be entirely appropriate to do the same for a

congressional district.

no reason not to.

MR. DODGE:

Even today, I just -- there seems to be

Can we now pull up Figure 7 on page 14

of Mr. Cooper's report.

Can you tell us what Figure 7 shows?

Well, this is a map showing a congressional district

that was in place in the 1970s, from '72, I guess, up until at

least the 1980 election, that joined Staten Island with Lower

Manhattan .

And what, if anything, does this map tell you about

combining Staten Island and Lower Manhattan into a common

congressional district?

810a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

262

Well, it tells me that it's been done in the past and

the not-so-distant past.

clear memory of that congressional district being configured

that way, if they were paying attention to the elections in that

era .

Anyone over 65 would probably have a

Are you aware of any additional prior legislative

district configurations that combined Staten Island and Lower

Manhattan?

Well, yes.

Beginning in the -- I think the 1940s,

going all the way back then to the late 18- -- 1890s, Staten

Island was always joined with Manhattan.

So, in fact, Staten Island and Lower Manhattan were

part of a common congressional district for much of the

20th Century?

Yes.

With that, let's get into the your illustrative map.

MR. DODGE:

Can we please bring up Figure 8 on

page 16 of Mr. Cooper's report.

Is this the illustrative map that you prepared in your

report?

Yes.

MR. DODGE:

And can we now place this map alongside

Figure 1 for Mr. Cooper's report.

Can you explain just at a high level what changes you

made to Districts 10 and 11 in the illustrative map relative to

811a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

263

the 2024 plan?

Well, yes.

Staten Island stays In District 11 as a

single component.

shifted most of Lower Manhattan Into District 11.

To create the Illustrative map, I then

You can't shift all of It Into District 11 because that

would overpopulate the district, so a change had to be made.

chose to take Chinatown out of the map configuration for CD-11

and returned It to CD-10.

So that red portion of Lower Manhattan In the

Illustrative map, that's the Chinatown neighborhood as defined

by the city?

Yes.

And In your view, do the two districts formed In the

Illustrative map conform with traditional redlstrlctlng

criteria?

Yes.

Why don't we leave Figure 8 on the screen now and walk

through these traditional redlstrlctlng criteria.

I should point out that I failed to mention that I

also, of course, added a southern part of Brooklyn that had been

In CD-11 Into CD-10 to create CD-10.

Chinatown .

It's not just adding

I appreciate that.

Do the districts In the Illustrative map satisfy the

constitutional requirement for equal population?

812a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

264

Yes.

Are the districts in the illustrative map contiguous?

Yes.

And if we zoom in on the red portion of Lower Manhattan

in Figure 8, can you tell us from the map whether the Brooklyn

and Manhattan bridges are located within District 10?

Both are.

So in other words, the two parts of District 10 remain

connected by both of those bridges?

Right.

Are the districts in the illustrative map reasonably

compact?

Yes.

Unquestionably.

MR. DODGE:

Can we now pull up Figure 11, which is

page 20 of Mr. Cooper's report.

What does Figure 11 show us, at a high level?

Well, just looking at the scores, you can see the Reock

is .30 in both CD-11 and CD-10, and that's the measure that

looks at the area of the circle.

And in the Polsby-Popper perimeter analysis, CD-11 has

a score of .28, and CD-10 is less compact at .19.

The average scores are 30 and 24, using another

approach to compactness called the DRA compactness score, which

is a composite methodology that one can see calculated on a Web

tool called Dave's Redistricting Application, which is used

813a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

265

extensively by experts and ordinary citizens to draw

plans -- not just congressional plans, but state legislative

plans -- for all states in the country.

plan?

Yes.

Does that give you any concern or pause that the

Are these scores lower than the scores in the 2024

illustrative map districts are not reasonably compact?

It gives me no concern at all.

It's not unusual for an

illustrative map to have a lower score than an existing map.

And on that point, could you just, you know, briefly

summarize for the Court why these scores don't give you any

pause as to the compactness of the districts?

Well, in this case, it is -- it's apparent, after you

look at the map, that the area of Manhattan is a very densely

populated part of the map.

same.

unusual that it wouldn't survive judicial scrutiny.

And, of course, Staten Island is the

So the question is, as drawn, is the area in Manhattan so

And I would argue that it certainly is reasonably

compact.

the Chinatown neighborhood back into CD-10.

really be no confusion for voters or campaigners or anyone else,

in terms of which district they're in.

unusual in shape or difficult to understand.

It basically just excludes the -- or -- well, it moves

And so there would

It's not the least bit

Are there existing congressional districts in the

814a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

266

nation with lower compactness scores than those reflected in

Figure 11?

There are tons of them.

MR. DODGE:

Mr. Cooper's rebuttal report.

In fact, can we call up Exhibit A from

This is Petitioner's 9.

This is Tab 3 in your binder, Mr. Cooper.

little bit towards the back.

It will be a

It's Exhibit A.

Yes.

Could you tell the Court what Exhibit A from your

rebuttal report shows?

If I can find it.

As I say, it's on -- I don't know how well you can see

it.

It's also on the screen, if you're having a hard time in

the binder.

I see Exhibit A now.

THE COURT :

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Yes, okay.

Never mind.

Or do I?

Turn the page .

But that's -One page.

Behind that cover page of

Exhibit A.

THE WITNESS:

No.

Oh.

I know the table.

So I don't have it

memorized.

in the country, congressional districts that were in place

for the 2024 election.

according to 2024 plans.

That is a list of the 25 least compact districts

So they're valid, lawful districts,

815a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

267

And are the districts in the illustrative map -- do the

districts in the illustrative map have higher compactness scores

than these existing congressional districts?

No.

I'm sorry.

They have much lower compactness scores.

I may have misheard your testimony.

Do the districts in the illustrative plan have higher

compactness scores than those --

Oh, yes, they have much higher scores.

Are there other existing congressional districts, not

in Exhibit A, that also have lower compactness scores than the

illustrative map districts?

Well, there would be many, yes.

These top out with a

Reock score I think of around .10, maybe.

table.

order, you can see -- I don't think any of the Reock scores are

much above the .10.

in the low teens.

I can't quite see it.

I'll look at the

But those are kind of in rank

Am I right about that?

There may be some

And all of the Polsby-Popper scores are under .1.

those are relatively low scores.

some of them maybe not.

note that at least one is actually in New York.

And

Some of them can be justified;

But there you see the scores.

I will

Are the compactness scores for the illustrative map

within the norm for the nation?

I believe so, yes.

Are they within the norm for New York?

816a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

268

Yes.

In your report, did you look at the compactness scores

for each borough component of the illustrative districts?

Yes.

Dr. Trende and Dr. Bryan give you a little bit of grief

for that.

Can you just tell the Court why you did that?

I don't know why they're giving me grief for it.

All I

did was just point out that -- that if you just looked at the

two component parts, then the compactness score for CD-11, in

particular, is really quite high.

There are no voters between Staten Island and -- and

Manhattan.

said that -- it's just -- it's just important to understand that

from the voters' perspective, on the ground, the districts are

very compact and very, very easy to understand.

No one lives on houseboats out there.

They both

Really, in Manhattan, I kept all of -- all of Chinatown

intact and split part of the Financial District.

that to balance out the population to be 1 person, 1 vote.

THE COURT:

I had to do

Let me -- let me interject

because -- since you brought up splitting these NTAs .

the illustrative district, how many NTAs are split as

compared to the existing district?

THE WITNESS:

Two.

The Financial District is

split, creating two populated splits of the Financial

District neighborhood.

817a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

269

The other -- the other split is a tiny piece of

Tribeca with 22 persons.

for all practical purposes, it's really not split.

people were only split off and put into CD-10 to meet the

very strict requirement of plus or minus one person for

equal population.

So it's split into two parts.

But

The 22

Some states have equal population allowances that

go up into the hundreds still, and congressional districts

that are well over 700,000, it's almost equal populations.

But I -- there are states that actually require plus or

minus one.

those states.

I think New York, by state law, may be one of

THE COURT:

When you picked those 22 people, did

you look at their socioeconomic, or their race, or any other

variable?

THE WITNESS:

No.

I just -- they are right next

door to Chinatown and southern Tribeca, and I just put them

into --

THE COURT:

It was a compactness or a contiguity

issue more than a race or a political issue?

THE WITNESS:

Well, it was really almost none of

that.

contiguous, of course.

people, in effect, to make CD-10 a perfect deviation.

fortunately, they were right there in Tribeca.

It was just I needed to get -- they had to be

And so I just wanted to look for 22

And

818a

270

I tried to avoid splitting Tribeca and played

around with a bunch of large population tracks and census

blocks in the Financial District, but I just could never get

it to add up to zero or minus one or plus one, so I was just

stuck with those 22 persons in Tribeca.

(Senior Court Reporter Karen Perlman was replaced

by Senior Court Reporter Monica Hahn.)

(Transcript continues on the following page.)

819a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

271

To put a bit of a finer point on your Honor's

question, would it be accurate to say that the illustrative

map and the 2024 map technically have the same number of

neighborhood splits?

Yes, but one of those splits is so de minimis that

it almost shouldn't even be a split, Tribeca.

That was my next question.

Is one of the splits in the 2024 plan quite

incidental in terms of the number of people actually

impacted?

Yes.

And we were talking about how you were looking at

the different borough components of the illustrative plan.

What did you concluded by looking at those

different borough components?

Um, the borough --

When you looked at the individual, the compactness

scores for the individual -A.

I don't have them memorized.

Let me go to my

report on that.

They are quite compact.

the district as a whole, and I think if you average them

out, de-compact the scores for both the Manhattan component

and the Staten Island component would be slightly above the

statewide average score for all 23 congressional districts.

I would note that New York ranks number six in the country

820a

More compact than

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

272

in terms of compactness for the overall plan of 26

congressional districts.

So bottom line, it is your opinion the illustrative

maps are reasonably compact?

Absolutely.

So his Honor intuited where we were going next.

Let's turn to communities of interest in your map.

You testified earlier that economic ties can

reflect community of interest; is that right?

That's correct.

Since submitting your report, did you become aware

of any census data reporting on the place of work, living in

Staten Island?

Yes, I found a report that the census bureau

produces showing the origin of a workforce and the

destination for the workforce by county, and that particular

table shows that more people in Staten Island who are part

of the workforce go to Manhattan than to Brooklyn, and

slightly more actually work in Manhattan than actually work

in, on Staten Island.

It is a complex array of data that the census

bureau gathers from state agencies around the country.

you go to that website, you can then get an automatic census

bureau generated report, which I do think maybe we are able

to get into the record here so.

821a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

273

And on that point, could you take a quick look at

Tab 4 in your binder?

Yes.

Is this the census bureau information you are

describing?

It is called On The Map.

It produces this

nice five page, I think it is five pages roughly.

reliable?

Yes.

Do you consider census bureau data to be generally

Yes.

It is gold standard.

It is not perfect, but

it is pretty reliable.

MR. DODGE:

Your Honor, at this time, I would

move into evidence Petitioner's Exhibit 9, which is a

census bureau report entitled, "Destination Analysis on

the Place of Work, People Living in Richmond County."

THE COURT:

Any objections?

Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

confer.

his report.

This is

Could I clarify -Let's just wait.

Let's just wait.

Your Honor, if I could just

The reason we are conferring, this is not in

THE COURT:

Take your time.

MR. DODGE:

I'll note for the record this

information was produced by the census bureau on

822a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

274

December 18th, which was the same date Mr. Cooper filed

his rebuttal report.

scopes of his report with respect to community of

interest analysis of the illustrative map.

And that is within the substantive

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

My problem here, basically

getting another supplemental expert analysis that we

were not on prior notice of.

In other words, it is, I get what they are

saying, this didn't exist, but there is no practical

difference to my, one of my experts saying, hey, we then

had him look at this other thing too, and he is going to

talk about it now and go to town.

MR. DODGE:

The respondents had this exhibit in

their possession for since Sunday evening.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

That is not new notice.

MR. DODGE:

I agree with that, your Honor.

Census bureau data.

I don't hear

the other side questioning the reliability or accuracy

of it .

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

haven't seen it before.

MR. DODGE:

May I speak?

In the records that

your Honor can consider it for whatever it is worth.

I question all of it.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

notice.

We object.

There is no due

We don't know what the man is going to talk

823a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

275

about with respect to it.

MR. DODGE:

It is fundamentally unfair.

Frankly, he already described the

essence of it.

would have their place of work in Manhattan rather than

Brooklyn essentially.

THE COURT:

Is this a government record?

MR. DODGE:

It is.

THE COURT:

Take judicial notice that it is a

government record and we can move on.

Shows more residence in Staten Island

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

That is not -- that is the

issue with the exhibit itself, I agree with that.

Issue is we are not on notice of whatever he is

now going to testify to about it.

So perhaps if you

want we'll reserve our objections to say outside the

scope of his report.

THE COURT:

Yeah, let's go with that.

Let's

continue for now and allow counsel to reserve their

ob j ections .

MR. DODGE:

That makes sense, your Honor.

Is the exhibit admitted then subject to their

THE COURT:

and subject to their final decision on how to proceed.

Marked for identification for now

THE WITNESS:

part.

This has no interaction on my

It is auto-generated from the On The Map

824a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

276

application on the census bureau website.

lot of information there about how that count is made by

the census bureau, in cooperation with state agencies.

There is a

With that, can we pull up on the screen proposed

Petitioner's Exhibit 9, which is Tab 4 of your binder,

Mr. Cooper, Tab 4 I gave to present counsel.

Sorry.

Which exhibit?

Tab 4.

You were just looking at it?

Okay.

There is the census bureau document you were

describing earlier, Mr. Cooper?

Yes.

Can you briefly describe to the court what this

image shows?

The first page shows the map of where workers from

Staten Island go to work, or what company they are employed

by.

figure and the largest figure would be almost 60 thousand,

59,459 in a fairly short distance into Manhattan.

And you can see the darker blue lines indicate a larger

THE COURT:

Counsel, why do you rise?

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Objection.

point.

Islanders go to work is in the report.

I would glad to be pointed to that.

This proves my

I don't think anything about where Staten

MR. DODGE:

If I'm mistaken,

Mr. Cooper's report testified to

825a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

277

how the illustrative map was consistent with communities

of interest.

between people can reflect community of interest.

so this is within the scope of the opinion offered in

his report.

that is all that is required.

MR. FASO:

been put on notice of this.

to respond to the rebuttal notice.

unfair for this expert to offer a new, more nuanced

opinion disclosed in the initial reports to which our

experts haven't had an opportunity to respond.

He testified earlier that economic ties

My understanding of the New York rules is

We also object.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

And

Our experts haven't

They haven't had a chance

It is fundamentally

I will just add one thing,

your Honor.

We've been generous.

Not playing hard

ball.

Mr. Cooper is the only one which two corrected

supplemental reports.

came out.

beyond the pale though.

Both sides had to do supplements.

I believe

I'll get to that on my cross,

We allowed that.

This happened.

THE COURT:

Okay.

MR. DODGE:

What --

THE COURT:

Hold on.

This is

I'm going to allow this.

I'm going to overrule the objections, but they are noted

and let's just keep it in the context of communities of

interest.

Generally, for the purposes of that. I'll

826a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

278

allow It.

MR. DODGE:

Thank you, your Honor.

have one more question on this exhibit anyway.

I think I

If we can turn to the next page --

THE COURT:

Also, your experts will have the

opportunity to review this. If you have any questions to

follow up.

MR. FASO:

testifying potentially In a couple of hours.

Your Honor, our experts are

THE COURT:

It Is just -- It Is just a

government record.

MR. FARBER:

Right.

There could be other

government records out there.

They haven't had the

opportunity to research them.

That would bear further

on this.

opinions, more than a glance of the document In the

courtroom.

There Is a lot that goes Into the expert

THE COURT:

Noted.

As I said. I'll allow It.

I would urge you to show this to your experts.

have the opportunity to see It and speak to It, In the

context of communities of Interest.

MR. DODGE:

think, your Honor.

Let them

Really one more question on It, I

This second page of the exhibit, Mr. Cooper, does

this reflect the numbers you spoke to a bit earlier about

827a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

279

the number of people, residents of Richmond County who have

their place of work in Manhattan as compared to Staten

Island itself and Brooklyn?

Right.

That is a separate table at the bottom of

the pie chart.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Sorry.

I want to note an

objection.

question before which we objected to.

was where people go to work.

how many people work on Staten Island versus elsewhere.

Mischaracterizes prior testimony, the

MR. DODGE:

For the record it

Now you are talking about

I can spend more time going through

it in detail.

expeditiously for the benefit of opposing counsel.

I was trying to move through it

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

We objected to this.

just done was not proper.

THE COURT:

Nothing is for our benefit.

I clarify for the record what was

Sustained.

I guess staying on this exhibit for a moment, make

clear of the record what it does reflect, Mr. Cooper, can

you tell the court what is reflected on this page of

Exhibit 9?

MR. FASO:

Object.

The exhibit was not offered

in evidence.

It is marked for identification.

going to testify to contents of it, a foundation needs

to be laid and admitted into evidence.

828a

If he is

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

280

MR. DODGE:

Well, a foundation has been played

for it.

understanding was your Honor had admitted it at this

point, subject to whatever weight you choose to give it.

My understanding is, it is in evidence.

He found it from the census bureau website.

THE COURT:

Overruled .

MR. DODGE:

Again, your objection is noted.

Okay.

Again, not wanting to belabor the point, for

clarity on the record, can you describe, Mr. Cooper, what

this page of the exhibit shows?

It shows that the, of the Staten Island workforce,

approximately 60,000 or 59,459 persons in the year 2023

worked in New York County or Manhattan.

55,168 worked in Richmond County or Staten Island, and then

these, the third highest would be Brooklyn at just

43 thousand.

Staten Island is associated with Manhattan than Brooklyn.

So the larger component of the workforce in

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

And it shows that

And I renew our objection.

Just for the record, that is exactly what I'm talking

about.

That is a, finer nuance point, not raised in the

report.

Our experts have not looked at census data

which is very voluminous.

they wish he had done it in the report.

MR. DODGE:

They are doing it because

We can move on at this point.

829a

As I

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

281

understand, the objection was overruled.

move on anyway.

Experts will be able to review it I think in order.

I was about to

It is a five-page document their.

THE WITNESS:

It is auto-generated by the

census bureau's website.

beyond just printing it out.

MR. DODGE:

I will note for the record --

THE COURT:

Stop.

The objection again is noted and overruled.

MR. DODGE:

I had no interaction with it

We can take this down.

You testified earlier, Mr. Cooper, that cultural

and linguistic ties can also reflect a community of

interest, did I have that right?

Yes.

Recall you saying a moment ago the illustrative

maps keeps the Chinatown neighborhood of Manhattan in

District 10?

Yes.

In preparing the report, did you review any

testimony to the independent redistricting commission for

members of the Chinese community regarding the configuration

of Districts 11 and 10?

Yes.

You gave me a packet of information, of

testimony from the year 2021 before the Independent

Redistricting Commission.

I reviewed that and found that I

830a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

282

think you also pointed them out, a couple of persons who

testified and made clear that they've believe that Chinatown

should stay in CD-10 connected to Brooklyn.

Is it your understanding that that testimony was

cited in the Harkenrider decision which is a publically

reported decision?

Yes, yes.

And that testimony to the Independent Redistricting

Commission would have been before it at the time it was

first redrawing New York's congressional district after the

most recent census?

Yes.

Look at Tab 5 in your binder.

Is this one of the

letters to the Independent Redistricting Commission that you

reviewed?

Yes.

This was testimony by Dr. Wah Lee, LEE.

MR. DODGE:

Your Honor, at this time --

THE COURT:

Counsel, why do you rise?

MR. FASO:

Can we get clarification whether

Exhibit 5 is referenced in Mr. Cooper's report?

MR. DODGE:

Well, I can ask him that.

I don't

believe it is cited directly in the report.

within the scope of the report to the extent he

describes keeping various Chinese neighbors configured

within District 10 which is extensively discussed in his

831a

It is

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

283

report .

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

We join the objection.

We are

having a pattern.

Mentions community of interest.

Anything with community of interest can come in even if

it is not cited in the report.

MR. DODGE:

His report does describe the

neighborhoods at issue here, as largely Chinese

neighbors that were kept within District 10.

emphasizes that, I believe it was Mr. Faso himself in

opening statement made a point of suggesting the

illustrative map discriminates against Asian voters

which is the opposite of what it does.

door to these exhibits which go to a point he raised in

his opening statement.

I would

So he opened the

THE COURT:

Okay.

MR. FASO:

That point is made in our expert

report and disclosed properly with time for your team

and your experts to analyze it.

This is just another example of us getting

sandbagged at trial with a new document, new information

that wasn't disclosed, wasn't relied upon by Mr. Cooper

in forming his opinions and our experts have not had an

opportunity to review rebutting those.

So we reiterate our objections.

unfair and improper.

832a

Fundamentally

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

284

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Honor.

goose, If they believe It Is proper to do this, and

we're about to start with our experts, we can put In

whatever we want that they haven't seen before, as long

as It falls with some general concept of our reports.

Not asking for counsel, not only addressing the court,

but that has come to mind.

Ben Moskowitz.

I'll make one more point, your

THE COURT:

I gather what Is good for the

It Is a fine point, and I would

say If It Is beneficial to the determination that has to

be made here, I would allow It as long as It Is relevant

and on point and related somehow to this matter and the

discussion we're having, I would allow It.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Sounds like a limitless concept

to me, your Honor, and I'm -- I'll note again we have a

standing objection to either side being able to do this

and my saying that the good for the goose point Is only

that I would expect If our objection continues to be

overruled. It will be applied equally.

MR. FASO:

We join In the objection.

MR. DODGE:

Two points.

THE COURT:

Let me ask a question.

record, what Is It?

MR. DODGE:

Sure.

So I should note, first of

all, this Is cited In our briefing.

833a

This new

So opposing counsel

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

285

had ample awareness of it.

Harkenrider decent from I believe 2022 which I believe

opposing counsel was involved with personally.

It is also cited in the

These are letters submitted by individuals and

organizations to the Independent Redistricting

Commission, and I'll -- there are two we are going to

seek to move into evidence.

remaining exhibits I seek to move into evidence with

Mr. Cooper, our final witness, and they are letters that

describe the interests of different Chinese community

organizations as to keeping certain neighbors within

Brooklyn in a common district.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

That is, those are the only

I'll also say, we also object

on the basis this is not inside the scope of this

expert's expertise or alleged expertise.

drawer.

communities of interest.

He is no New York expert of

communities of interest.

In fact, your Honor may have

taken note, I did, he said I'm not that familiar with

Manhattan during the questioning.

We heard all about that.

He's a map

He mentions

Now, we're going to have through this expert

them jam in all these cherry-picked things of, you know,

select three people whatever it is from millions of

people who live in New York City so they can get it in

the record.

834a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

286

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

MR. FASO:

There is a trier of fact here.

Agreed.

Join in the objection, add it is

plainly hearsay.

THE COURT:

Noted.

MR. DODGE:

We are not relying on it

necessarily for the truth of the statement.

Not only that, but to the extent these are

cited in Harkenrider decision, if counsel is confident

there are counter letters to the IRC they are available

to them to cite in their post-trial briefing.

MR. FASO:

We are getting sandbagged in the

middle of trial.

understanding this would be part of the proof at trial.

Wasn't disclosed to us to that fact.

expert reports.

there to rebut this.

lunch break to break that down and research it?

Spend weeks preparing, not

Wasn't in the

Sure, there may be voluminous data out

MR. DODGE:

Are we going to have time over the

Your Honor, these letters were

cited in our petition which was filed two months ago.

THE COURT:

Okay.

MR. DODGE:

Sandbagging, you know --

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Which begs the question, if

they had it two months ago, why didn't they their

experts use this?

835a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

287

THE COURT:

Hearing what we are talking about,

understanding the testimony that is gone on over the

past two days, I'm going to allow this dialogue to

continue .

Your objections continue to be noted and let's

see what we can do in the next 15 minutes.

MR. DODGE:

close to that time, your Honor.

I am optimistic we can wrap-up

With that, can we pull up what I understand to have

been admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 10.

Mr. Cooper, before the colloquy with counsel, I

believe you said this was a letter from a Dr. Wah Lee on

behalf of an organization called OCA NY?

Yes.

If we can turn to the next page of this document.

Do you see the portion that says position two

regarding congressional districts?

Which page?

Second page of this document?

Yes.

And letter says CD-11 --

MR. FASO:

Has this document been admitted into

MR. DODGE:

My understanding is, yes.

MR. FASO:

I mean, I didn't hear any foundation

evidence?

836a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

288

laid on it.

evidence and accepted into evidence.

to the contents until --

I don't believe that it was moved into

MR. DODGE:

Can't testify as

My understanding is both of those

things are wrong.

Mr. Cooper explained he provided

counsel via Harkenrider decision.

correct me, but I understand it to be admitted.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Your Honor should

Your Honor, the references to

the Harkenrider decision, I trust the court gives no

weight to that.

to do with whether it is properly here today.

mistake, I've seen this story before in the election law

cases.

you will see up front and center. Dr. Wah Lee, if I

pronounce that correctly said the following about

Chinatown.

after the fact.

I don't know what to say.

This is just a vehicle to jam this in there

MR. DODGE:

petition.

in after the fact.

That makes no sense.

It is in our

The idea it is some sort of thing we jammed

THE COURT:

Lay a foundation.

MR. DODGE:

Sure.

Make no

Your Honor will get a post-hearing brief, and

Has nothing

Am I correct, Mr. Cooper, you said these were,

these two letters we're going to discuss were brought to

your attention by counsel?

837a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

289

Yes, because they are mentioned in my report.

Bensonhurst and --

Sorry.

-- Chinatown.

I mean --

THE COURT:

One at a time, please.

The letters we're about to discuss were brought to

your attention by counsel?

Yes.

You understand them to be cited in a prior judicial

decision that descent, in fact, in the Harkenrider case?

Right.

MR. DODGE:

I understand the exhibit to have

been admitted, your Honor.

Can I proceed?

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

MR. DODGE:

At this time, I once again will move

You have to move it.

I've done that.

Petitioner's Exhibit 10 into Evidence.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Objection.

Lack of foundation.

Just because an attorney gave you a letter

from something used in cases, that is not a foundation

for testimony.

MR. FASO:

Mr. Cooper doesn't have any personal

knowledge as to the origin of this document, when it was

created, how counsel got it, whether it is authentic in

any respect.

838a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

290

MR. DODGE:

I don't hear counsel's foundation

objection.

the redistricting commission.

MR. FASO:

Any suggestion it is not in fact a letter to

That is not how laying a foundation

works .

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

MR. FASO:

Not our burden.

We need a person

with knowledge to testify as to the foundational

elements before admitted into evidence.

When you reviewed this letter, did you understand

it to be testimony submitted to the Independent

Redistricting Commission?

That was my understanding.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

foundation.

have done that .

continue .

Not how you lay a

If they wanted to call Dr. Lee, they could

THE COURT:

Objection.

Noted.

Overruled.

Let's

Lets try to get this done before lunch.

You see the portion of this document. Petitioner's

Exhibit 10, that position to regarding congressional

districts, do you see that, Mr. Cooper, I apologize?

Yes.

On the second page?

Yes.

839a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

291

And the letter says, CD-11 contains all of Staten

Island, small part of Brooklyn, include Bath Beach and

divides Bensonhurst.

be with Staten island.

Bensonhurst should be kept together.

Did I read that correctly?

Yes.

Bensonhurst and Bath Beach should not

Bath Beach and the whole of

I specifically reference that reality in my

expert report.

Does District 10 in the illustrative map that you

drew join Bensonhurst, all of Bensonhurst and Bath Beach in

the same congressional district?

Yes.

Does your illustrative map in effect achieve what

this letter from OCA NY is asking for from the Independent

Redistricting Commission?

I believe so.

If we can scroll down to the bottom of this page,

top of the next.

Did do you see the part that says Position 3,

Mr. Cooper?

Yes.

And this portion says, there is an Asian American

largely Chinese community of interest between Manhattan's

Chinatown and Sunset Park, Brooklyn over the past ten years.

Many Manhattan Chinatown residents left and migrated to

840a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

292

Sunset Park.

Manhattan Chinatown via the N train, did I read that

correctly?

Yes.

Does the illustrative map that you drew preserve

Current Sunset Park residents commute daily to

both the Manhattan, Chinatown and Sunset Park within

District 10?

Yes.

Does the illustrative map also join Chinatown,

Sunset Park, all of Bensonhurst and Bath Beach?

Yes.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Only because your Honor said

you will listen to our continuing objections, that

proved my point.

None of this document was needed to ask those

questions which were already established about what the

neighbors illustrative map keeps together or doesn't.

It is just to jam this in.

MR. DODGE:

Your Honor, this is, I mean, it is

a little farcical to me.

It is cited in our petition,

available online in a judicial decision.

in our post-trial briefings anyway.

notice of it.

testified to as to how his district joins these various

just Chinese neighborhood together is undisputed by

We can cite it

They have complete

As they said, what Mr. Cooper just

841a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

293

opposing counsel.

move on, unless there is another speech from opposing

counsel .

I'm done with the letter.

MR. FASO:

We can

I don't think raising an objection

is a speech.

MR. DODGE:

Serial objections.

MR. FASO:

The fact that the document is

referenced in the petition does not satisfy evidentiary

evidence at trial.

ob j ection .

We continue to maintain our

MR. DODGE:

Fair enough.

THE COURT:

Again, objections are noted.

will say that both sides have talked about the issues of

Chinatown, the issues of the Chinese populations in

CD-11, CD-10, CD-12 and I believe this discussion is

tremendously relevant to making a proper determination.

MR. FASO:

Which is all the more reason if

petition wanted to bring the proof in, they should have

called witnesses like Dr. Wah Lee or a witness to lay a

proper foundation for the document.

but petitioners charted their course in this case,

decided what proof and witnesses they are going to

proffer at trial and --

It maybe important,

THE COURT:

Thank you.

MR. DODGE:

I'm ready to move on.

842a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

294

Based often your experience, Mr. Cooper -- this

isn't about the letter.

Based on your experience, Mr. Cooper, being able to

attract candidates to community forums an important aspect

of community of interest?

Yes.

Shifting gears, do you recall we talked about

Assembly District 61 earlier?

Yes.

Does the illustrative map bring all or nearly all

of the Assembly District 61 within your illustrative

District 11?

It does.

About 99 percent.

I had to split part of

the financial district to meet one person, one vote.

that small little sliver, some of Assembly District 61

remains or would be combined with CD-10 and part of

Chinatown .

So in

With respect to Assembly District 61, is it more

substantially split under the current congressional district

plan?

Um --

In terms of population?

Yes, yes, because all of Manhattan is in CD-10.

Can a state assembly district be a community of

interest?

843a

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

295

Pardon?

Yes, it could be under certain

circumstances a community of interest.

report.

This goes to something your Honor asked you about

earlier.

Can you just briefly tell us what Figure 12 says

at a high level?

Can we call up Figure 12 on Page 22 of Mr. Cooper's

Yes.

This shows the populated splits between CD-10

and CD-11 for the neighborhood tabulation areas as defined

by the City of New York and the voting tabulation districts

as assigned by the census bureau and cooperation in

conjunction with the State of New York.

Mr. Cooper's report.

Pull this up alongside Figure 5 from earlier in

You talked about this a bit with respect to

neighbors splits.

I'll move on from that.

Can you tell us whether the number of people

impacted by precinct splits between the 2024 plan and the

illustrative plan changes or how it changes?

It is much higher in the 2024 plan than it would be

in the illustrative map.

I had to make some splits of VTD's

in the illustrative map to keep Chinatown intact because

there are precincts or VTD's that split Chinatown.

following the boundaries of the NTA's to make sure that I

had all of Chinatown assigned to CD-10.

to make some additional splits.

844a

I was

In doing so, I had

I believe that Chinatown

W. Cooper - Direct/Dodge

296

itself would split five or six voting tabulation districts

resulting in ten to 12 populated splits.

exact number in my hand.

splits there.

make sure that everyone could be in CD-10.

In Figure 12 you use 2020 precincts as a comparator

for the illustrative plan.

some brief for that.

So that is why there are so many

I prioritize the Chinatown neighborhood to

I don't have that

I believe Mr. Bryan gives you

Can you explain why you made that choice?

I wanted to put the two plains on level playing

field as if I developed this plan in 2021.

the redistricting process took place in New York State and

for that reason I used VTD's.

It is time that

Just to summarize the traditional redistricting

criteria, do you concluded the illustrative plan accounts

for equal population?

Yes.

Do you conclude that the illustrative plan

satisfies the contiguity requirement?

Yes.

Do you concluded the illustrative plan is

reasonably compact and within the normal range for

congressional districts?

Absolutely.

It is unquestionable that it is a

compact district, a compact plan with compact districts.

845a

297

The other experts will argue otherwise, but they would not

be truthful .

As you can see in the exhibit that I have that

shows at least 25 districts with incredibly low compactness

scores that are legal and valid as of the 2024 election.

Did you concluded the illustrative plans account

for communities of interest?

Yes.

(Transcript continues on the next page.)

846a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

298

MR. DODGE:

Your Honor, I have about a page and a

half left.

can finish after lunch?

I estimate it would take five to ten minutes.

THE COURT:

Let's finish now.

MR. DODGE:

Great.

BY MR. DODGE:

criteria .

We've gone through the traditional redistricting

I would now like to ask you a few questions about how

the illustrative plan changes the racial dimensions of the

districts .

MR. DODGE:

And with that, if we can pull up

Figure 9 from page 18 of Mr. Cooper's report.

shows ?

Can you tell the Court at a high level what Figure 9

Well, Figure 9 just shows the citizen voting age

population of Districts 11 and 10 under the 2024 plan.

MR. DODGE:

And can we call up Figure 2 from

earlier in Mr. Cooper's report alongside this table.

Looking at Figure 2 and Figure 9, can you tell the

Court, approximately, how much the combined Black and Latino

population shared?

Yes, I'm sorry.

I was looking at this thinking I was

looking at -Q.

Oh.

847a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

299

I referred to this as the 2024 plan.

Figure 9 is

actually the illustrative map that you brought up, which is

the --

I appreciate that clarification which I guess I missed.

I guess I'm thinking of lunch already.

Looking at these two figures, the 2024 figures and the

illustrative map figures, can you tell the Court approximately

how much the combined Black and Latino population share changes

in District 11 between the 2024 plan and your plan?

better .

So it goes up just a bit.

And what happens to the Asian population share in

District 10 under the illustrative map?

It goes from 22.7 in the 2024 plan to 24.71 in

the illustrative map.

Yes.

Let me refer back to my report itself, so I can see it

It dramatically improves the -- or

enhances -- increases the Asian American C-map in District 10.

So the Asian population share in District 10 becomes

fairly substantial?

That's right.

It goes from, I believe,

16.38 percent -- I'm sorry.

the 2024 plan, to 23.38 percent under the illustrative map.

the Asian American population under the illustrative map would

have a much stronger presence in CD-10 than they currently have

under the 2024 plan.

From 16.7 percent in CD-10, under

848a

Cooper - Direct/Mr. Dodge

300

And just some final questions.

Were you asked to aim for any racial targets when

drafting the illustrative map?

No.

Were you asked to aim for any partisan targets when

drafting the illustrative map?

No.

What data principally drove your decisions when drawing

the illustrative map?

Well, I was working with the overall population by

census block, census tract.

the borough lines, of course, and the VTDs, and especially the

neighborhood tabulation areas, which I prioritized because

they're very important in the City of New York.

And I also had information about

And more broadly, what criteria drove your decision

making when drawing the illustrative map?

Well, I was trying to adhere to traditional

redistricting principles, which would include compactness,

contiguity, communities of interest, and so on.

MR. DODGE:

With that, I pass the witness.

THE COURT:

So let me thank you.

While you remain on the stand awaiting

cross-examination, please don't discuss your testimony with

your counsel, and we'll break for an hour.

2:00, we'll set up, and start at 2:15.

Come back at

849a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

301

MR. DODGE:

Right.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

We're off the record.

(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

THE COURT:

Okay.

MS. BRANCH:

Petitioner calls Mr. Cooper back to

the stand.

THE COURT:

THE COURT OFFICER:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Back on the record. Counsel.

Let's bring Mr. Cooper back up.

Please watch your step.

Welcome back.

Thank you, sir.

Before counsel begins, while he's

setting up. I'll remind you that you're still under oath.

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Counsel, whenever you're ready.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

And for the court reporter, Bennet Moskowitz,

Troutman Pepper Locke, for the intervener respondents.

CROS S-EXAMINAT ION

BY MR. MOSKOWITZ

Yes, understood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Cooper.

850a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

302

Good afternoon.

I don't know if you were here in the opening statement

that my colleague gave.

"Dr. Cooper."

At one point he referred to you as

Let me clarify that you're not a Ph.D., correct?

Correct.

And you don't have a JD either, correct?

Correct.

You don't have a master's either, correct?

Correct.

Now, in this matter, sir, the petitioners' attorneys

specifically asked you to, quote, develop an illustrative plan

that would join Staten Island with Manhattan in a reconfigured

CD-11, end quote, correct?

Correct.

And that's exactly what you did; you developed an

illustrative plan that joined Staten Island with Manhattan,

correct?

Correct.

You did not consider any alternative illustrative

plans, correct?

settled on.

I looked at other possible entities; this is the one I

To be honest, that's what I did.

Where in your report, sir, do you discuss other

possible entities that you looked at?

I did not because they're not meaningful with respect

851a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

303

to my report.

Am I -- do I have it correct that you considered other

possible plans, but didn't use them; is that what you're saying?

No, no, no.

I looked around and experimented with

different ways to split Manhattan and thought that the best way

to do it was -- simple Occam's razor solution -- was to add

Chinatown with the rest of CD-10 in Brooklyn, which is what the

Chinese American community wanted.

how to divide up Manhattan.

And it resolved the issue of

In determining to propose the illustrative plan that

you do propose in your report, did your comparison of that plan

versus the other plans that you just referenced bear on that

determination to use that one?

No.

There's very, very little difference, if any, in

the overall part Black, Latino voting strikes.

I think it's basically the same, because if you look at

Exhibit B, you can see a map prepared by the New York City

Planning Department that shows where the different ethnicities

live in Manhattan.

go, you're going to end up with the same results.

And you can see that no matter which way you

So is it fair to say, sir, that in tasking you with

developing an illustrative plan that would join Staten Island

with Manhattan in a reconfigured CD-11, you basically had very

few options of how to do it; do you agree with that?

Well, I would agree with that, particularly since I

852a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

304

wanted to keep neighborhoods intact.

you're right.

There were a few options,

Your task in this matter was not to consider what plan

is best for voters in current CD-11, correct?

Well, that's up to the petitioners.

So it was not something you considered, correct?

Well, I produced this plan, the illustrative map, and

it passed muster with the petitioners.

Thank you, sir.

My question is different.

Am I correct that in your

work in this case, you did not consider what plan -- what

illustrative plan would be best for voters in current CD-11?

I correct?

In current CD-11, well, I believe that I did.

Because

I did know that -- that there are Chinese American communities

in current CD-10 that wanted to be joined with Chinatown.

And that's --

That ended up being how I drew the plan.

Is that --

But there are, as I mentioned, many other

possibilities, if the preference by the Court or whomever is to

include other neighborhoods and exclude Chinatown --

Right.

And --

-- in CD-11.

Apologies.

853a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

305

And, again, you didn't consider any plans other than

one that would join Staten Island with Lower Manhattan, correct?

Correct.

And just so I have a clear record, sir, you talked

about compactness on your direct.

to sum it all up.

I just have a simple question

Am I correct that the illustrative CD-11 that you

proposed scores worse for compactness than the currently enacted

map?

Yes, you are correct.

Do you agree that with respect to the congressional

plans, that compactness of a district is necessary?

I'm sorry.

Do you agree that with respect to congressional plans,

Can you repeat that?

the compactness of a district is necessary?

I agree.

And I maintain that unequivocally CD-11 is

sufficiently compact according to my experience.

Right.

And the currently enacted CD-11 is more

compact, correct?

I agree.

Okay.

Do you agree with the following statement:

the extent practicable, election plans should keep the core

population in prior districts together in new districts"?

To the extent practicable, I can agree with that.

Right?

"To

854a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

306

It's a background factor.

You're talking about core

retention; it's a background factor.

You served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a

case entitled Christian Ministerial Alliance, et al., versus

Cole, C-o-l-e, Jester, J-e-s-t-e-r; Case Number 4:23-CV-471 in

the Eastern District of Arkansas, correct?

Correct.

In that case, the plaintiffs were Arkansas citizens who

challenged how the Arkansas general assembly redrew the state's

congressional district line, correct?

Correct.

In that case, the plaintiffs tried to prove racial

gerrymandering by proving the Arkansas general assembly could

have drawn district lines to achieve both legitimate political

objectives -(Whereupon, the court reporter seeks a

clarification. )

In that case, the Christian Ministerial Alliance case,

in which you served as an expert, the plaintiff tried to prove

racial gerrymandering by proving the Arkansas general assembly

could have drawn the district lines to achieve both legitimate

political objectives and significantly greater racial balance

without sacrificing traditional districting principles, correct?

Correct.

And in that case, you created three illustrative maps

And I believe I did so.

855a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

307

on plaintiffs' behalf to demonstrate that very point, correct?

Exactly.

And in that case, a three-judge panel of the District

Court in a decision ruling for summary judgment in favor of the

defendant found that your three illustrative maps fell short,

correct?

They found that it fell short because I could not

produce an alternative plan.

And that case is very different from this one, where

the partisan balance was such that it matched the adopted plan.

In other words, I had to create a plan that had a Republican

advantage that mirrored the -- the adopted plan.

do that without splitting, in some fashion, the Black community

in Southern Pulaski County and, I'm sure you're aware of this.

Little Rock was ground zero of desegregation efforts in the

1950s.

And I couldn't

And to this day, there's a significant population in

Pulaski County, Arkansas.

And as a result of this ruling, which

in effect meant -- in effect it means that there will never ever

be an opportunity again for the Black population in Pulaski

County to vote together because they're now split between three

congressional districts, it's perhaps the worst gerrymandering

I've ever seen.

produce a plan -- an alternative plan like the Alexander case.

And this case is not the Alexander case in South Carolina.

And we were unavailable, because I could not

This

856a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

308

is something different.

Other than the fact that -- that you confirmed that I

was correct in saying the three-judge panel felt that -- found

that your maps fell short, am I correct, sir, that the opinion

doesn't say any of the rest of what you just responded with?

Well, what I'm -- I -- I think it does.

effect -- in effect, the opinion is about creating an

alternative map that had a partisan advantage to the Republicans

that was equal to the Republican-drawn plan in the state

legislature, and I was unable to do that without violating other

traditional redistricting principles, like splitting a bunch of

the rural counties, which I probably could have done but I

refused to do.

Sorry.

I get that you're explaining your thoughts on

why the court found that your maps fell short.

the decision here.

Are you representing to the Court that what you're

explaining is in the words of the decision?

it if you would like.

I have copies of

I -- I'm saying what I think.

And we can look at

I'm not a lawyer and

maybe you have a different interpretation.

developed those plans and I'm explaining to you how and why I

did that.

But I developed -- I

So you're not purporting then to describe what the

opinion says?

857a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

309

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to even

attempt to describe what the opinion says.

from what I understood as I read that opinion a year

ago -- maybe six months ago or whenever, that the key problem

with the plan I drew was that I could not match the partisan

balance in the adopted plan.

Sir, turning back to the statement that I read to

you and asked -A.

It was -- you know, you've got an alternative -THE COURT:

Let him ask the question and then you

can answer.

THE WITNESS:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

But I do understand

Okay.

Thank you. Your Honor.

BY MR. MOSKOWITZ:

A moment ago -- I'm not trying to re-ask it but pivot

back to it -- I asked you if you agreed with the following

statement.

wrong.

And I believe you said you did; correct me if I'm

Let me just read the statement again.

"To the extent practicable, election plans should keep

the core population in prior districts together in new

districts ."

Am I correct that you testified a few minutes ago that

you are in agreement with that statement?

To the extent practicable, right.

Right.

858a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

310

Sir, isn't that the exact statement that was in your

expert report in the Arkansas case which you submitted

under -- under penalty of perjury?

It probably was.

Right.

What's wrong with that?

Right.

Well, sir, isn't it a fact that in this case

you told the Court something different about core retention?

No, I said it's a background factor.

Let's please look at paragraph 27 of your report, if

you still have it in front of you.

may still have it.

I have copies too, but you

Yes, I have it.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

And if you want -- if anyone wants

copies of the expert opinion, that's fine.

up that sentence that I just read from the Arkansas expert

report.

If you want copies, we have.

And if you want to look at it, sir, we can hand one up,

but we're going to put it on the screen.

I would like to see a paper copy.

Sure.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

THE COURT:

(Handing .)

I want to pull

You tell me.

I'll hand it to the court officer.

Please.

Now, first, let's look at what you said in this case.

859a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

311

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Read along with me.

"Core retention of a previous

districting plan, " and then in parenthesis, "or least changed, "

in quotes, least changed, end quote, parens, parenthesis, "is

always a background consideration as well but it should never

preempt traditional redistricting principles."

lawyer.

That is what you told the court in this case?

Correct.

Let's look next to what you told the court in the

I believe that to be a true statement.

That's my opinion.

Arkansas case.

paragraph 15 of that report.

moment.

again what you told the court in that case, sir.

And you have it in front of you.

It's

We'll give Mr. Pealer just a

I'm asking him to do some fancy-to-me work.

Paragraph 15?

Yes.

I'm not a

Let's look

"Though not typically identified as a traditional

redistricting principle, but always" -- sorry -- "but always in

the background, is that election plans should avoid paying

incumbents ."

Different concept than core retention, correct?

Correct.

Right?

It's always in the background, though.

860a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

312

Then you go on and say, "Also, to the extent

practicable, election plans should keep the core population in

prior districts together in new districts."

Do you see that, sir?

Yes.

That's consistent with this report that I filed

in this case.

You're telling the Court that those two statements are

the same, sir?

Well, that's what I think.

I mean, maybe -- maybe in

your opinion after reading it it's not correct.

as being essentially the same.

But I view it

Well, sir, don't you agree with me that what you told

the Court in this case is different than the sentence that's in

paragraph 15 from your report in the Arkansas case?

No, I agree they're -- as a background factor, if you

can keep the populations in prior districts together, one should

try to do that, absent other issues that are in play.

Where does it say in your Arkansas report that core

retention is always a background consideration?

Well, the lead of the paragraph says, "Though not

typically identified as a traditional redistricting principle,

but always in the background, is that election plans should

avoid paying incumbents."

identified as a traditional redistricting principle, " that is

when I say -- "Also, to the extent practicable, election plans

Also -- "Though not typically

861a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

313

should not" -- "election plans should keep the core population

in prior districts together in new districts."

So what is -- what -- what is possibly confusing about

that?

Sir --

What I said in this case is exactly what I said in

Arkansas .

And where in your report in this case -- excuse me, in

the Arkansas case, do you tell the court there that core

retention should, quote, never preempt traditional redistricting

principles, quote, as you told the Court in this case?

I believe I did, towards the end.

Why don't you show it to us, please, sir?

Let me see if I can find this.

What is your question, then, exactly?

It may take a while.

Where in your report in the Arkansas case do you state

as you do to the Court in this case that core retention, quote,

should never preempt traditional redistricting principles, end

quote?

I may -- I may not have said that exactly in the -- in

the Arkansas case, but that's what I understood to be

redistricting reality in the Arkansas case.

just -- Arkansas was a different case than this case, as I'm

sure you understand.

racial gerrymandering.

It's

It was in federal court; it involved

862a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

314

Core retention didn't mean something else in the

Arkansas case than it does in this case, correct, sir?

No, it did not.

That is why in both cases they are

background considerations.

Right.

Get that in your head.

And?

Sorry.

No offense taken.

Mm-hmm.

And, sir, so you said you do agree with your prior

statement, which at least one place you made it was to a court

in Arkansas, that to the extent practicable, you should keep the

core population districts together in new districts.

Isn't it a fact, sir, that it's practicable to keep

Lower Manhattan with Staten Island in CD-11?

involved .

It is practicable.

But there are other issues

In your -- in your illustrative map, you didn't do

that, though, even though it's practicable, right?

It's practicable to also put Manhattan with

Staten Island, right?

Please answer my question, sir.

Even though it is --

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Would you like it read back?

I could summarize it.

863a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

315

Even though it is -- you admit it is practicable

to -- sorry, as I trip over my words -- to keep Lower Manhattan

with Staten Island, you did not do that in your illustrative

plan in this case?

I did not because I had other factors to consider, like

the issue of uniting the Chinese American population with the

rest of the Chinese American population in Brooklyn and, of

course, also in effect following the mandates of the

Constitution, and, in particular, the New York State Voting

Rights Act to take into account the African American and Latino

voters in Staten Island.

Sir, isn't the reason that you didn't keep

Lower -- excuse me, keep the parts of Brooklyn that are

currently in CD-11 with Staten Island because, as we spoke about

a couple of minutes ago, your task in this matter was to, quote,

develop an illustrative plan that would join Staten Island with

Manhattan?

Well, that's right.

I mean I -- I did a plan that

joined Staten Island with Manhattan.

illustrative map.

Here it is, the

Right.

Notwithstanding that you could have kept Lower

Manhattan -- excuse me, that you could have kept the portions of

Brooklyn with Staten Island that are currently with

Staten Island in a new illustrative plan, correct?

864a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

316

MR. DODGE:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Objection.

Asked and answered.

I'll move on.

Sir, in -- if you need to look -- actually, let

me -- before we get there, Mr. Cooper, when was the

Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge built?

I believe around 1965.

Okay.

And on average, how many vehicles cross the

Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge on a daily basis?

Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you, but I

could find it on a website.

Sir, I could represent to you that according to the

MTA, in 2023, the bridge averaged more than 220,000 vehicle

crossings per day, 80.3 million for all of that year.

Do you have reason to doubt that?

about .

Right.

I never crossed the Verrazzano Bridge, as I can recall,

Not really.

I assume you know what you're talking

And the bridge has how many decks, sir?

so I don't know.

How many lanes does it have, sir?

I don't know.

be wrong.

I can represent to you, sir, it has 13 lanes.

Fine.

I think it may have eight, but I could

I'm just guessing.

Okay.

Fine.

I think it's immaterial of this

case, but go ahead.

865a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

317

Is it your testimony that the Verrazzano Bridge is not

material to this case?

Never mind.

No, the lane question is an interesting side comment.

And you don't discuss the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge

anywhere in your report, correct?

No, I don't.

Sir, in paragraph 43 of your report -- if you need to

look at it, it's fine -- you state that the illustrative map

that you created adds parts or the whole of the following parts

of Lower Manhattan into the illustrative CD-11:

Hudson Yards, the East Village, the Financial District,

Gramercy, Greenwich Village, the Lower East Side, Midtown South,

SoHo, Little Italy, Tribeca, and the West Village.

Chelsea,

Do I have that correct?

I believe so.

I think that's the totalis of

neighborhoods that are in the illustrative plan in CD-11.

And you testified on direct in substance that cultural

ties are a consideration in terms of communities of interest; do

you recall that?

Yes, I think so.

Right.

Do you agree with me, sir, that in terms of culture,

Chelsea and Staten Island are very different places?

Perhaps.

I mean, I think both are maybe predominantly

866a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

318

White, but I have to look at the -- I mean, obviously,

Staten Island is predominantly White.

Chelsea .

Sir, Chelsea is known, among other things, as an art

district with many art galleries, correct?

Well, yes.

extent of it.

in Chelsea.

I'm not sure about

I've heard of Chelsea; that's about the

I don't think I have -- I don't think I've been

And Staten Island is not known as an art district and

for its art galleries, correct?

Correct.

And Chelsea is also known for upscale dining, correct?

Well, I'm going to take your word for it, if that's

okay.

I don't follow the point you're trying to make because

it's got to either be joined with -- with some middle-class

neighborhoods in Brooklyn or some middle-class homes in -- and

voters in Staten Island.

I take it, sir, that other than hearing something about

Chelsea being known for art, you don't know much at all about

Chelsea.

Do I have that correct?

I think that's correct.

I've not looked into the

details -- the details of Chelsea.

Do you agree with me that in terms of culture, the

East Village and Staten Island are very different places?

I don't know.

I -- I -- there would be some

867a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

319

similarities perhaps, but I think the East Village is also on

another socioeconomic pedestal.

You said there may be similarities.

Perhaps are you

speculating, sir?

Yes, I am.

I mean, you're asking me open-ended

questions that I really didn't delve into as I was drawing up

the plan.

Sir, I think the record will reflect that I'm asking

you questions that either have answers which include whether you

know or don't know, but we'll move on.

Do you agree with me, sir, that -- withdrawn.

Are you aware, sir, that when you drafted your report

in this matter that the East Village is known, among other

things, as being a counterculture hub?

No.

Did you -- do you know what St. Marks Place is, sir?

No.

Do you know what CBGB is or was?

What?

CBGB?

No.

All right.

Do you agree with me, sir, that in terms of culture,

the Financial District is very different than Staten Island?

Well, I've been -- I've been in the Financial District

868a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Moskowitz

320

and it's obviously loaded with a lot of businesses, and there

would be some evidence of socioeconomic similarities between

parts of Staten Island and parts of the Financial District.

I remember having a very tasty outdoor pizza in the

Financial District.

gentleman.

I bought it from a Spanish-speaking

And there are Spanish speakers in Staten Island.

So do I have your testimony correct, sir, that -- well,

is the extent of your testifying here that there are some

similarities between parts of Staten Island, the Financial

District solely based on your eating of the pizza from the

Spanish-speaking person?

No.

I actually, following my initial declaration, I

prepared a national-level map looking at all census tracts and

plot groups in the country where there were households with

children, where the households had less than 185 percent of the

poverty, which indicated that there is, of course, households

where the kids can apply for free and reduced-price meals.

I saw that there were a lot in Staten Island.

surprising number, in a way, in Manhattan.

And

And there are a

And if you want to look at that map, you can go to the

Food Research and Action Center.

Look for their summer meals

map, it's the ACFP map.

see all of the neighborhoods in Manhattan that are part of

census tracts or census tracts are part of neighborhoods in

Manhattan where there is a significant population that has less

It's an interactive map.

And you can

869a

321

than 185 percent of the poverty rate.

And those -- those census tracts are in a lot of parts

of Manhattan -- I realize that Manhattan has a lot of wealth and

fancy, fancy art museums, but there's also a lot of population

in Manhattan that is not so well off.

I'm sure you know that too.

But I just want to direct

to you that map so that you can get it and look at that and see

what I'm talking about.

(Senior Court Reporter Karen Perlman was replaced

by Senior Court Reporter Monica Hahn.)

(Transcript continues on the following page.)

870a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

322

Thank you, sir.

My question was limited to the

financial district.

Can you point me to any specific location on Staten

Island that you are here testifying is similar to the

financial district in Manhattan?

I'm fairly certainly that some of the financial

district does have 185 percent census tracts and therefore I

would say there is a similarity there.

tracts, let me clarify, those are areas where at least 40

percent of the population lives between 185 percent poverty.

185 percent census

Do you have any other basis to support your

testimony that the financial district has some similarities

to Staten Island?

I think that is similarity.

of lower Manhattan.

map.

national organization known as the Food Research and Action

Center.

Nutrition or whoever is responsible for determining

potential sites to establish summer meal programs, and you

will see a there are a bunch of them in Manhattan.

I'm under oath.

Certainly similarity

It is an interactive map.

So you go look at the

Prepared nationwide for the

It is used by New York State Department of

Financial district is most known, if not solely

known for Wall Street being the financial hub of arguably

the world, correct, sir?

Well, there is Wall Street.

871a

I saw a bunch of

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

323

firms, walking off the ferry the other day, walking into the

financial district.

there are some lower income households even in the financial

district.

Manhattan, but I think they do exist in lower Manhattan.

There is the World Trade Center and

I think it is more prevalent in other parts of

Do you agree with me in terms of culture, Greenwich

Village and Staten Island are very different places?

Depends on the household, right?

Well, is it your testimony that you should judge

the similarity of two locations by each household?

Well, I -- your question is so open-ended I hardly

know how to deal with it.

know .

I will say I don't know.

I don't

Sir, you propose a map that you want this court to

adopt that moves certainly locations in Manhattan into a new

district.

map .

Just asking about those districts.

It is your

And again my question, which I want to make sure,

did you complete your answer to my question that whether you

agree with me that in terms of culture, Greenwich Village

and Staten Island are very different places?

I think you are probably right.

I heard of

Greenwich Village.

That is such a broad, broad concept,

culture, that I hesitate to agree with you or disagree with

you.

I assume you have your own ideas.

872a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

324

You brought up culture on your direct, right?

Right.

Doesn't just mean those things, right?

No, means socioeconomic characteristics.

As in language, ancestry.

Can mean

a lot of different things.

You testified at length about your considerations

regarding certain, what you said were communities of

interests, correct?

Chinese American population in testimony before the

Independent Redistricting Commission said just that.

Right.

Let's talk about that exhibit for a moment

that you saw.

lightly exchange.

There was a somewhat heated, use that term

Am I correct, sir, both the, let's start with the

census data, you didn't have that census data when you

created your report in this matter, correct?

Yes, I did.

I saw the front page in Exhibit B

shows you where ethnicities live in New York City.

Exhibit B was prepared by the New York City Department of

Planning called communities of interest.

the Chinese American population lives and they clearly are

most numerous in percentage terms in Chinatown.

You can see where

Sir, I'm referring specifically to the census data

that was introduced today, which your counsel said was

published after you authored your report in this matter?

873a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

325

Oh, that is data presented.

That is data released

by the census bureau, but it is not exactly census data in

the sense it is census.

the state agencies provide to the census bureau so they can

show workforce patterns nationwide.

It is from various data points that

My question, sir, is am I correct that that

specific exhibit that is now in evidence over objection was

not something you had and is not something you considered

when you authored your report?

Well, I actually had a different, a different

source from the census bureau, but it was somewhat dated.

So I didn't include it.

inflow and outflow survey based on the American community

survey that confirms the report you see today, but because

it goes back to 2016 and 2020, the numbers are slightly

lower.

persons who live and work in Staten Island traveled to

Manhattan then to Brooklyn.

census bureau website.

dated so I decided not to include it.

It is the 2016/2020 commuting

There is still that differential where more of the

And you can find that on the

That is what I had.

It was sort of

The report you have in your hands this morning

is hot off the presses and it was just released on December

18th.

Next one out will be in December of 2024.

Right.

So again, you didn't have that specific

report when you authored your report in this matter, right?

874a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

326

That's true.

That is true.

I had the ACS report

that says exactly the same thing.

Is that cited in your report?

No, it is not is.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Move to strike and object to

testimony on the basis of relying on something not

disclosed.

THE COURT:

Move to strike.

Okay.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Just want to reserve the right

to the extent we look back at the transcript, realize he

was talking about --

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Let me rephrase.

Thank you.

Shall strike.

We reserve the

right to raise further objections to the extent we are

able to determine that that was improperly used.

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

Noted.

I'll move on.

Any other materials, sir, that you want to tell me

about that you considered in authoring your report, but

weren't listed in your report?

Not off the top of my head.

Are there others?

I don't know.

trigger a memory.

You have to ask me.

Maybe it would

I guess I shouldn't mention anything I

875a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

327

didn't actually cite in my report.

Do you agree with me, sir, in terms of culture the

Lower East Side of Manhattan and Staten Island are very

different places?

places?

The Lower East Side in Manhattan are very different

I thought they were in Manhattan.

The Lower East Side and Staten Island -- I'll

restate it if I misspoke.

Do you agree with me, sir, in terms of culture the

Lower East Side of Manhattan and Staten Island are very

different places?

First of all, I'm not a sociologist, so I'm not in

a position to answer one way or the other.

Sir, on direct, again, you discuss how culture is a

consideration when you are appraising communities of

interest within the scope of what you did do in this case,

correct?

What I could do in terms of taking into account

culture is that by joining Manhattan with Staten Island I

then had to move some population back into CD-10 and I chose

to move the Chinese American population in Chinatown back

into CD-10 joined with Bensonhurst, Bath Beach, Sunset Park.

So I was taking culture into consideration.

there are a number of census tracts in lower Manhattan that

are Latino.

I'm also aware

So there is a shared culture there that goes

876a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

328

beyond race to ethnicity and language.

Are you aware when you created your report in this

matter, sir, the Lower East Side is known for it' indie art

and music scenes?

No.

Sir, regarding the other of the two exhibits that

were introduced over our objection this morning, one was a

letter to a community board, do you recall that?

me, it was a letter.

Or excuse

I won't further characterize it.

Yes.

Right.

You are talking about the testimony before the

Independent Redistricting Commission.

Thank.

Right.

Yes.

Am I correct?

You?

Am I correct you have that testimony as you

call it when you authored your report in this matter?

I had seen it.

I didn't cite it.

I also -- you

can see if you look at Exhibit B in my report that there is

a clear break out of where the different ethnicities and

communities of interest live in New York City.

prepared by the City of New York Planning Department and I

did have access to that map.

out .

It is

And Chinatown really stands

Asking about that specific document again, sir.

877a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

329

that you call testimony.

Did you have that document, that testimony, a copy

of it, whatever form, did you have that specific testimony

that you call when you authored your report in this matter?

I was aware of it, yes.

But you didn't disclose that in your report?

Well, do I have to disclose everything under the

sun that I thought about?

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

I'm sorry.

Can you read that

back, madam court reporter?

THE COURT:

(Whereupon, the record was read back by the

reporter .)

You may.

THE COURT:

That's a question.

Well, to be honest, I was under the assumption

there would probably be petitioners here to testify as there

usually are in federal court.

So I was going to defer to their testimony, which I can only

do now by way of this exhibit.

something very damaging.

You smile.

I must have said

I'm sorry.

Just congratulating myself for being mature enough

to not say everything that comes into my head finally.

THE COURT:

In this case, there are not.

Next question.

Do you agree with me, sir, that in terms of

culture, Soho and Staten Island are very different places?

878a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

330

I'm just -- I have no comment, no opinion.

Are you aware, sir, when you authored your report

in this matter Soho is known for its high-end fashion?

Um, maybe.

You did know that?

No, I said -- I'm confirming that you must know

Among other things, I would assume.

that so I will take that as a -- okay.

Sorry.

My question is, did you know that Soho, you

authored your report, did you know -- were you aware that

Soho is known for its high-fashion culture?

No.

Do you agree with me in terms of culture, Tribeca

and Staten Island are very different places?

Well, they are different places for sure.

I meant culturally, sir?

Culture is very hard to define from my prospective,

so I don't agree or disagree.

Do you agree with me, sir, that in terms of culture

the West Village and Staten Island are very different

places?

MR. DODGE:

questions are quite cumulative.

Your Honor, objection.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

in his report.

These

I'm going area by area listed

That is the last one, by the way.

THE COURT:

That is what I figured.

879a

We are

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

331

getting close to the end.

points have been taken and let's see if we can move on.

All I was going to say is the

I'll restate that, sir.

Do you agree with me in terms of culture the West

Village and Staten Island are very different places?

I don't agree or disagree.

How do you know what the Chinese communities in New

York City want?

Well, I know where they live and I did see the

letters to the Independent Redistricting Commission, but

I've not made a personal survey of Chinatown to come to come

to a final conclusion as to what they want.

a poll.

I did not take

Referring to the letter that wasn't disclosed in

your report, but introduced today, right?

Right.

I'm asking you, when you authored your report,

how did you determine what the Chinese communities in the

districts at issue in your redistricting analysis, how did

you determine what those Chinese communities want?

Well, what I did is, I identified where the Chinese

American community lives and I understood there had been

testimony before the Independent Redistricting Commission

that Chinatown wanted to remain joined with Sunset Park and

the only way to do that would be to bring Chinatown back

880a

W. Cooper - Cross/Moskowitz

332

into CD-10 so that it is no longer separated as would have

been the case and is the case under the 2024 plan.

plan splits the Chinese American community in Chinatown and

keeps them in CD-10.

Other than that letter --

Sorry.

2024

The current plan keeps CD-10 and Chinatown

intact, right, but it does not include Bensonhurst and Bay

Ridge.

actually on the south end of Brooklyn, not the north end

under CD-10.

Those are, those are in CD-11.

So the separation is

Other than testimony as you called it in the

exhibit that was introduced today over objection that wasn't

disclosed in your report, is there any other basis on which

you determined the illustrious plan, what to do in terms of

the Chinese communities at issue?

Well, I can say if I wanted to unite the Chinese

American community, obvious place to go is the neighborhood

in Chinatown based on the census bureau. New York City

planning office and their map showing the distribution of

communities of interest by race and ethnicity.

Sir, in your illustrative plan, is the Staten

Island Ferry terminal within your illustrative new CD-11?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay.

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

881a

No further questions, at this

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

333

time .

Pass to Mr. Faso.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

on cross with co-counsel.

break?

So we are continuing

You okay?

THE WITNESS:

MR. FASO:

May I proceed?

THE COURT:

You may.

CROS S-EXAMINAT ION

BY MR. FASO:

No.

Do you need a

Shaken and still alive.

Good afternoon, Mr. Cooper.

I'm Nicholas Faso, one

of the attorneys for the respondents, in this case?

Good afternoon.

You were retained by petitioners counsel, right?

Yes.

You generated a report?

Yes.

Is that correct?

Your report references the materials and

information on which you relied in forming your opinions; is

that right?

Yes.

We heard today there is some materials and

information that you relied on, but were not referenced in

your report, right?

882a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

334

I was aware of, right.

I was aware of the

Independent Redistricting Commission.

Aware of, are you distinguishing from that

information that you relied upon in forming your opinions,

in this case?

I don't think I did.

I mean, I would have drawn

the same plan without that information.

So you didn't --

All you had to do was go to Exhibit B.

You didn't necessarily rely on this other

information that is not referenced in your report in forming

your opinion, right?

It is supplemental.

It does make the point -- I

was aware of it, but I was also initially even aware of the

existence of Chinatown and the obvious fact that half of the

Chinese American population in Manhattan lives in Chinatown.

You are not answering my question, Mr. Cooper.

am asking you not whether you were aware of this

information.

forming your opinions?

I'm asking whether you relied upon it in

Well, not -- I mean, I was aware of it.

like a thing that was uppermost in my mind.

that .

It was not

I would say

It wasn't necessary to the inclusion that you

reached, this information not referenced in your report, is

883a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

335

that correct?

Um, it is supplemental.

But --

But not necessary because I would have known where

the Chinese American population lived without it.

Any information upon which you relied in forming

your opinions is referenced in your report; is that correct?

Um, by and large, yes.

Now, petitioners counsel asked you to examine

Staten Island, lower Manhattan, Brooklyn; is that right?

Right.

They didn't ask you to examine the entire 2024

congressional plan?

No.

You didn't undertake independent statewide

evaluation of alternative remedies, did you?

No.

And petitioners lawyers specifically asked you to

develop an illustrative plan that joined Staten Island with

lower Manhattan, right?

Right.

You didn't concede of that idea on your own?

No.

You did what you were asked to do?

Right.

Mechanical task in a way.

884a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

336

You communicated with petitioners counsel about the

plan as you were developing it?

Yes.

They didn't instruct you to consider whether there

were other lawful configurations of CD-11 and CD-10, did

they?

No.

We settled on just presenting the one

illustrious plan with the understanding there would be many

different options because Manhattan is a big place and you

can exclude Chinatown and cross the bridge somewhere else

and draw another plan.

Petitioners counsel didn't ask you to exclude

Chinatown; is that correct?

They did not.

And you testified that you considered other plans

that petitioners didn't ask you to configure; is that right?

Um, that is true up to a point, yeah.

And those other plans included joining Staten

Island with Manhattan, right?

Yes.

So different ways to join Staten Island to

Manhattan?

Um, right, or different ways to join Brooklyn with

Manhattan is better put.

But in all events the plans that you considered for

885a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

337

CD-11 join Staten Island with Manhattan?

Yes.

You didn't consider adding more of Brooklyn or

taking some of Brooklyn away from CD-11 without changing

anything about Manhattan, right?

Um, true.

And you testified on cross I believe that the plan

you generated passed muster with petitioners, did I --

Pardon?

You testified on cross with Mr. Bennett that the

plan you developed passed muster with petitioners?

I believe so, yes.

And so you presented it to petitioners to ask

whether this met their requirements for the district they

asked you to draw?

Well, yes.

I gave it to them as a potential

illustrious plan.

Did you consider party affiliation in drawing your

illustrious district?

No.

Did you consider race in drawing your illustrative

district?

No, other than extent to which I did look at the

map, that is Exhibit B, that shows basically where some of

the races and ethnicities live in Manhattan and elsewhere in

886a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

338

New York City.

referring to it at all other than to show that as part of an

exhibit which is a good synopsis of communities of interest

in New York City.

the New York City Districting Commission for drawing city

counsel district.

So kind of aware of that.

I was not

Very well done report.

It was used by

You called it a superlative report?

I think it was.

Exhibit B is the primary source in your report for

your communities of interests analysis; is that right?

Yes.

Now, you said you drew your report, your map with

Maptitude; is that right?

Yes.

Maptitude includes political data?

No, it does not.

It is your testimony that Maptitude doesn't include

political data?

It does not include political data.

with a hundred percent certainty.

attach political data to it.

Tell you that

A lot of plan draws might

I did not.

It is possible to use political data with

Maptitude; is that right?

If you import it independently.

If you just

purchase the New York City Maptitude redistricting file you

887a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

339

get the five boroughs and it is just the population data.

There is nothing attached in terms of political data.

You also access Dave's Redistricting as part of

forming your illustrative plan, right?

Not exactly.

I uploaded the data into Dave's

Redistricting.

It is an interactive map.

around, look at different things.

You can zoom

You have access to Dave's Redistricting?

I have access to Dave's Redistricting as does

everyone.

I believe the special master in the recent

congressional case used that for his actual redistricting.

I didn't use it for redistricting.

plan .

I ask.

Redistricting.

I used it to present the

Mr. Cooper, I'd appreciate just answer the question

All I asked was whether you have access to Dave's

Not talking about the special master in --

I know.

I want to be clear --

THE COURT:

One at a time.

Let him finish

before you respond.

I ask?

Fire away.

Can we call up Exhibit H2 to Mr. Cooper's report.

This goes a lot quicker if you answer the questions

Page 255 in the PDF.

I will direct your attention to H2 in

your report, Mr. Cooper?

888a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

340

Yes.

Can we zoom in on the portion of lower Manhattan?

MR. DODGE:

Did counsel say what

exhibit this is?

I apologize.

MR. FASO:

H2 to Mr. Cooper's report.

Mr. Cooper, do you recognize this portion of your

report?

Yes.

Looking at lower Manhattan and Brooklyn and the

purple shading is CD-11 in your illustrative plan, the red

shading is CD-10; is that correct?

Yes.

And you drew the lines that separate CD-11 in your

illustrative plan from CD-10 in lower Manhattan, right?

Yes.

You made the decisions as to which blocks to

include in CD-10 that are highlighted in red?

Yes.

I was trying to even things out to get to

zero deviation, right.

When you were drawing this map on Maptitude, what

other information did you have on your screen or on your

desk?

Exceptionally what you see there.

You didn't have any political data on your screen?

No, I did not.

I absolutely did not.

889a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

341

No racial data on your screen?

I did not.

THE COURT:

What about NTA maps?

THE WITNESS:

I did have NTA.

included with the Maptitude product.

the City Planning Department website.

That is not

I got that from

When I asked you what other information you had on

your screen, you said just this, that was incorrect.

also had the NTA maps?

You

Isn't that NTA map overlaying the -- yeah, that

shows the neighborhood, so, yes, NTA maps.

Did you have any other information on your screen,

available to you when you were drafting this portion of the

map?

Um, well, I had VTD's, 2020 VTD and the NTA

boundaries and I had block level data.

You have to add

things up to get zero deviation.

census block level, or in the case of New York what amounts

to a census block is often equivalent to a block or census

tract .

So that information,

Fair to say you also had the New York City

Redistricting Commission Report as you were drawing this

map?

Um, I had reviewed it, but I was not referring to

it as I was drawing the map, no.

890a

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

342

You testified that you carved Chinatown out of

your proposed, let's say you left Chinatown in CD-10 to

unite the Asian communities in Chinatown with other Asian

communities in your proposed CD-10?

around Bay Ridge.

Sole basis for that was the New York City

Redistricting Commission Report?

Yes, with Sunset Park and also with Bensonhurst

That and conversations with the attorneys about the

Asian American population, yes.

Did the attorneys direct you to carve Chinatown

No.

Now, you left the Lower East Side in your proposed

out?

CD-11, right?

Yes.

However, to be clear, you could draw the map

differently and not include Chinatown in a CD-10 and leave

it in CD-11 and in turn put the Lower East Side or some

other part of Manhattan in CD-10.

of Manhattan in CD-10 to get to zero deviation because

recall, I put all of, all of Brooklyn, including areas that

were not part of CD-10, but rather part of CD-11 in the new

CD-10.

Manhattan gains a split.

You have to add some part

In other words, Brooklyn losses a split and

Let's get back to my questions, Mr. Cooper.

891a

You

W. Cooper - Cross/Faso

343

mentioned that in order to equalize the population you have

the carve out some of lower Manhattan with Chinatown

neighborhoods ?

Yes.

You could have just drawn your northern boundary of

CD-11 further south?

Well, then that would have changed, then changed

CD-12 which would have had ripple effect that would have led

to other complications.

solution to solving and resolving the issue of keeping

intact a Black/Latino population that would have an

opportunity to elect a candidate of choice.

So this is the Occam's Razor

Going back to the Asian population, just to be

clear, you didn't interview any community leaders in

determining to join Chinatown with Brooklyn?

No, when I develop illustrative plans in almost any

case I've been involved in, sometimes I have an opportunity

to meet the plaintiffs at trial would be extremely rare for

me to interact with the plaintiffs.

You didn't collect any survey data with respect to

adding Chinatown to Brooklyn?

No.

I've been involved in, you know, probably a

hundred different litigation-related matters as I've worked

over the years and I don't have any recollection of ever

doing any kind of survey.

892a

344

And we saw on direct that there is Petitioner's

Exhibit 5, the letter from Dr. Lee.

You didn't rely on that, I think we are clear on

that point?

It was in the background.

It is not something that

I thought about beyond just looking at it at some point in

the process.

Now, did you consider that the Asian Legal Defense

Fund treats Chinatown and the Lower East Side as one Asian

neighborhood?

I did not know that the, that that is the case, no.

You found Dr. Lee's letter in the Harkenrider case

materials, right?

I saw that and also saw reference in the

plaintiff's complaint or brief at some point.

So you didn't review the Asian legal defense fund

memo in the Harkenrider materials?

I don't recall reviewing that, no.

(Transcript continues on the next page.)

893a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

345

CROS S-EXAMINAT ION

BY MR. FASO:

Going back to the New York City redistricting committee

report, are you aware that the New York Redistricting Committee

also considers the Lower East Side as part of Chinatown?

Not aware of that.

But I will say that I had no choice

because I couldn't put the Lower East Side into the map.

least I couldn't put all of it into the map.

able to add part of it rather than the Financial District, but

not much of it.

MR. FASO:

report, at page 52.

in to the PUMA chart.

BY MR. FASO:

Or at

I might have been

Can we go to Exhibit B of Mr. Cooper's

It's page 91 of the PDF.

Can we zoom

So I'm calling your attention now to the portion of the

New York City Redistricting Committee report with regard to the

Chinese communities.

East Side and Chinatown as part of one community?

And you see very clearly they list Lower

Do I have that in my --

It's Exhibit B to your report --

What page?

Page 52.

What page is it on?

page?

Pull up the New York City districting report.

I can't see quite very well.

What

Page 52 of the report.

894a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

346

Page 52 of the report.

The Bates number is PET 239, if you --

239.

-- if it is easier for you to look at those?

Okay.

So you reviewed this report in connection with

I see numbers like 203, 205.

I'll find it now.

Yes.

preparing your illustrative plan, right?

I scanned it, yes.

When you say you scanned it, do you mean you didn't

read it thoroughly?

I did not read it thoroughly.

And that's probably why you missed the fact that the

committee itself considers Chinatown and the Lower East Side to

be one Asian neighborhood, right?

Perhaps.

And I would not discount the possibility of

at least being able to include part of the Lower East Side

in -- with Chinatown.

And you split Chinatown from the Lower East Side in

your illustrative plan?

I put all of Chinatown in.

That is not my question.

I said:

in your illustrative plan?

You split Chinatown from the Lower East Side

It's a "yes" or "no" answer.

That is true, yes.

We can close this exhibit.

895a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

347

Mr. Cooper, you agree that a redistricting plan must

comply with the law, right?

Yes.

And as a general practice in the field of

redistricting, you tried to understand applicable law in -- in

drawing your districts?

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I try to understand, sure.

Of course.

Yes.

But you can read, right?

So I'm not suggesting that you need to have a legal

opinion about -- and I'm not going to ask you for one.

a proposition that you consider the applicable law when you're

drawing a district?

But just

Yes.

Okay.

principles ?

Yes.

In New York, you'd agree that complying with the law

And that includes the traditional redistricting

includes the New York State Constitution's requirements?

Right.

Your illustrative CD-11, it doesn't make Black or

Latino voters a numerical population majority, right?

Right.

And you understand that that violates the first Gingles

896a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

348

condition?

This is not a Gingles case.

I understand.

Taking aside whether this is a Gingles case or not,

you're familiar with the first Gingles precondition?

standard .

You're aware of that?

Yes.

It doesn't violate it, it just doesn't meet that

And you've drawn many maps before with the intent of

meeting that first Gingles --

Yes.

-- standard, right?

Yes.

Your proposed districting in the illustrative plan

So you're quite familiar with it?

makes the Black and Latino CVAP -- the citizen voting age

population -- may I call it CVAP?

Yes.

-- CVAP at 24.7 percent?

I think you're right, yes.

You can't point to any authority that says 24.7 percent

CVAP is enough to compel the creation of an influence district,

right?

MR. DODGE:

Calls for a legal

conclusion .

Objection.

THE COURT:

Rephrase.

BY MR. FASO:

897a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

349

You're not aware of any -- let's back up.

You testified that you tried to comply with the law in

drawing your maps, right?

Right.

This is going through the attorneys for the

petitioner, so I assume I'm complying with the law.

Right.

And you tried to do that in this case?

Yes.

And you had counsel available if there was any question

you had about whatever legal constraints there might be in

drawing your map?

Right.

You're not aware of any authority, no one has ever

advised you that 24.7 percent requires the creation of an

influence district?

target.

to exceed 50 percent.

It's a simple question.

Well, I never -- I never attempted to hit a racial

I -- sometimes I suppose in a Gingles case you do have

My question wasn't whether you tried to reach --

I'm trying to explain.

You're not aware of any particular percentage of

Go ahead.

Ask me again.

minority population that triggers a requirement for an influence

district?

No.

I want to talk a little bit about the traditional

redistricting principles.

You followed them in following your

898a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

350

illustrative plan?

Yes, I did.

And you agree that they include contiguity, and

compactness, and communities of interest, right?

Yes.

Core retention?

It's a background factor.

Now, compactness can be measured both qualitatively by

metrics, right?

Yes.

Excuse me, quantitatively by metrics, but also

qualitatively by an eyeball test, right?

Yes.

And you agree that the eyeball test is an appropriate

measure of compactness?

account .

It is one of several measures that one can take into

And we heard on cross, I believe, that your

illustrative district is admittedly less compact than the

current plan, right?

That's right.

I'm constantly balancing the traditional

redistricting principles, so it's inevitable that one or more

might not match up with the districts and plan at issue.

To defend the relatively less compactness of your

illustrative district, you propose averaging compactness scores

899a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

351

of separate pieces of land, in this case Staten Island and

Manhattan, right?

Yes.

You've never offered this sort of subpart averaging as

a measure of district compactness in your prior work, have you?

I don't recall doing so.

But this was a good

opportunity to do so because Manhattan, as relied on the

illustrative district plan, is very compact and -- and so is

Staten Island in and of itself.

about using that as -- as an explanation as to how and why I

drew the plan.

So I have no -- no concerns

I'm not suggesting that in the future disparate parts

of a district should be necessarily factored into another kind

of compactness equation like I think maybe Mr. Bryan or

Dr. Trende had suggested.

So your --

It's not a novel approach; it's New York specific.

Your subpart compactness averaging approach shouldn't

be applied in other cases?

It could be.

But if I just heard you, you said it shouldn't be

It could be.

applied in a future case?

Well, it certainly can be applied in, say, Louisiana,

CD-I, for example.

You can do that.

So you get to pick and choose?

900a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

352

Look at the north of Lake Pontchartrain and south of

Lake Pontchartrain.

done that, but you could.

You can make assessments there.

I've never

Is there any guiding standard of when the subpart

compactness arranging test can be applied?

Well, the standard is just the compactness scores

themselves, and you can see that Lower Manhattan in the plan I

drew, the illustrative map, would be compact.

very small, densely populated area.

I mean, it's a

The standard --

The compactness score is completely acceptable.

Mr. Cooper, I asked you whether there is a standard

that provides when you can apply this subpart averaging

compactness standard.

What situations does it apply?

In the instant.

In this particular case?

Yes.

And this particular case alone?

Not necessarily alone, but certainly it's applicable to

this particular case.

Louisiana.

are probably other places in the country where it can be

applied .

And it could be applied to CD-I in

It could be applied to CD-I in Alabama.

And there

You're not aware of any authoritative source or

scholarly material that recommends applying this subpart

901a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

353

averaging compactness standard, are you?

This is basic common sense to show --

Answer my question, Mr. Cooper.

No, no, I'm not making it out as a standard.

THE COURT:

Answer the question as it's asked.

My question to you was you're not aware of any standard

or -- excuse me -- scholarly source or authoritative material in

your professional field that provides for the application of

this subpart averaging compactness measure?

I've not seen one to date, but it's a good idea.

You never testified in any other case in which you

applied this subpart averaging compactness standard --

No, I never had --

-- correct?

-- occasion to do so.

You suggest that the water between Staten Island and

Lower Manhattan doesn't count because there is no population

there, right?

Well, there is a population of eight on

Governors -- Governors Island.

remember .

In late May it's five.

I can't

But in terms of measuring compactness, it's your

opinion that that water does not factor into the analysis?

Well, it does factor into the analysis.

I developed a

compactness score reported in my declaration of the entire

902a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

354

Staten Island-Manhattan district.

than the adopted plan, but it's clearly within the norm of

congressional districts in New York and especially nationwide.

Let's talk a little bit more about that water aspect of

your district.

And it scores slightly lower

You agree that Staten Island -- the distance between

Staten Island and Manhattan, by ferry, is about 5 miles?

Yes.

And you agree that it takes about 25 minutes dock to

dock --

Saturday.

I believe so.

That was sort of my experience on

And that doesn't take into account queueing and loading

and unloading from the ferry, right?

True.

You agree that the ferry route is far longer than the

Verrazzano Bridge connection in the enacted plan, right?

Yes.

And you agree that elongating a district across 5 miles

of water both reduces its geographic and its population

compactness ?

Certainly the geographic compactness, yes.

it -- but it may not.

does.

true .

It would vary.

Well,

In this case, it probably

But there would be situations where that would not be

903a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

355

Well, you say right in your report, the lower

compactness score is reflective chiefly of this geographic water

and shoreline feature.

Well, that's right.

That's right.

But in other -- in

other states and other circumstances, it would actually enhance

the compactness.

For example, you may remember the "snake on the lake

district" in Ohio from years back went from Cleveland to Toledo.

If you measure the compactness score because the census tracts

go out into Lake -- what is it?

Lake Erie or whatever.

even though it's a very narrow district, but I digress.

It's not Lake Michigan or

The compactness score is really enhanced

MR. FASO:

Move to strike as nonresponsive .

THE COURT:

You can strike that.

BY MR. FASO:

You agree that your illustrative CD is elongated

relative to the existing plan, right?

I'm not so sure about that.

CD-10 is -- is elongated

in the 2024 plan.

CD-11 --

Oh, north-south it would be longer, that's right.

And it's elongated compared to the current CD-11?

It is elong- -- it does point -- at some points it's

Let's talk about CD-11.

more elongated.

You agree that your proposed

But the compactness score is clearly within the

904a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

356

norm, there is no question about that.

You're aware that courts have criticized districts that

reach out to grab small and isolated minority communities,

right?

right .

I've seen reference to that in the occasional case,

And you agree that your illustrative CD reaches across

upper New York Bay to pick up pieces of Lower Manhattan?

Well, yes, it does.

up Lower Manhattan.

It's what?

It goes across 5 miles and picks

But -- but it's not isolated population.

Almost 300,000 people, minus Chinatown.

Okay.

Let's turn back to communities of interest.

Your opinion is that your illustrative map preserves

Chinese American communities of interest by keeping Chinatown

with Sunset Park, right?

I believe so.

And, in fact, you believe that your plan advances

communities, preserving communities of interest by adding

Bensonhurst and Bath Beach to CD-10 with Chinatown and Sunset

Park, right?

I believe so.

You didn't perform any empirical analysis to determine

whether there are similarities or dissimilarities between those

various Asian neighborhoods, did you?

No.

905a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

357

the same?

You just assumed they're all Chinese, so they must be

MR. DODGE:

THE COURT:

Argumentative.

No, I didn't do that.

Objection.

Sustained.

You didn't analyze differences in median income between

those various neighborhoods?

In a way I did.

Looking at the map I discussed

previously showing pockets of 185 percent poverty census tracts

with households with children, so in a way, yes, I -- I did.

In a way?

But I didn't go -- I didn't really drill down.

Right?

Right.

You didn't drill into the numbers to determine the

differences in median income between those various Chinese

communities ?

No, I did not.

Did you look at poverty rates between the various

Chinese communities in your illustrative plan?

No.

You didn't look at homeownership rates of the various

Chinese communities in your illustrative plan?

No.

You didn't look at language differences between the

906a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

358

various Chinese communities in your illustrative plan?

No.

You didn't analyze differences in national origin

composition in the different Asian communities in your

illustrative plan?

No, other than to take a look at the community of

interest map prepared by the New York City Districting

Commission .

So is it fair to say that you're not aware that

Chinatown has a significantly lower median household income than

Manhattan overall and the other Asian communities in your

proposed plan?

I'm aware that Chinatown has a somewhat higher rate of

185 percent poverty census tracts.

examination of Brooklyn, so I'm talking about Manhattan only.

I did not do an extensive

My question was about lower median household income.

I didn't look at lower median household income by

census tracts.

Is it safe to say that you're not aware that

Sunset Park's median household income is substantially higher

than that of Chinatown?

I was not aware of that.

Do you know that Sunset Park is majority Hispanic?

I knew there were a lot of Hispanics in Sunset Park,

yes .

907a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

359

My question was did you know it was majority Hispanic?

I did not realize it's majority Hispanic, but I did

know it had a significant Hispanic population.

And you know Bensonhurst is majority White, right?

I think I knew that at some point.

Historically, it's been known as Little Italy; did you

know that?

Right.

I believe I've seen that in some material, yes.

It's

trending Asian, isn't it?

Did you rely on any travel patterns, studies, showing

regular community ties between Chinatown and Bensonhurst or

Bath Beach?

No.

And you agree that there is significant travel time

between Chinatown and Bensonhurst and Bath Beach?

sure .

Yes.

It's certainly more than a walk around the block,

Do you agree that there are multiple neighborhoods in

between Chinatown and Bensonhurst and Bath Beach?

Yes.

Turning your attention back to the area of Lower

Manhattan where -- with Chinatown, you agree that your draw

splits contiguous Chinese communities in Lower Manhattan?

There is Chinese population in almost all of the

neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan, so I -- basically,

908a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

360

China -- Chinatown is like half of the Asian population in Lower

Manhattan, and -- so there are clearly other Chinese Americans

in other parts of Manhattan, including -- well, you can look at

Mr. Barns' map.

all over Lower Manhattan.

You can see that there are Chinese-Americans

Yes.

In significant numbers?

Yeah, 50 percent of -- 50 percent of the -- almost

50 percent of the Chinese -- of the Asian population in Lower

Manhattan lives in Chinatown.

47 percent.

elsewhere in Lower Manhattan.

It's in a -- it's in one of my

tables.

American, but yeah.

And the remainder is

I didn't -- it doesn't break it down by Chinese

But your draw splits Chinese communities that are

literally across the street from one another in Lower Manhattan;

do you agree with that?

Well, I would agree that it -- the map I prepared

splits Lower Manhattan, and so there are going to be different

ethnicities -- ethnicities or people of the same ethnicity on

the same side of the street --

Including Chinese --

-- there is no way to avoid that.

Including Chinese?

I don't have that information, but it wouldn't surprise

I want to talk about the overall effect of Asian -- on

me .

909a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

361

Asian voters in your proposed plan.

the largest single minority in CD-11?

You agree that Asians are

Under which plan?

Under your -- under the existing plan?

Yes.

And on -- in the 2024 plan, Asian CVAP in CD-11 is over

16 percent?

Let me look at --

I'll refer you to the report, to paragraph 29.

Paragraph 29 -- now, what's your question?

Asian CVAP in the 2024 plan is almost 17 percent?

Yes.

plan .

It's evenly split between 11 and 10 in the 2024

But in your illustrative plan, Asian CVAP drops to

12.4 percent?

That's right.

Because it jumps up in CD-10 to -- I

don't have it in front of me, but I think it's like 22 or

23 percent.

So they're a larger bloc of voters in CD-10 now.

And under your illustrative plan, Asian CVAP

drops -- excuse me -- in total population terms, you reduce the

Asian share in CD-11 in your illustrative plan, right?

Yes, it does in CD-11, but it strengthens it in CD-10.

In fact, you increase Asian CVAP in CD-10 to

23.4 percent?

Right.

910a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

362

Your plan moves Asians in far greater numbers than any

other racial or ethnic group; is that correct?

I'm not sure about that.

But it does -- it does

significantly enhance the voting strength of Asians in CD-10, so

that -- in at least one congressional district, they're about a

quarter of the citizen voting Asian population, whereas

currently they're just 16 percent in both districts.

And it reduces Asian voting strength in CD-11?

In CD-11.

CD-10 .

That pattern, moving over half of the Asian voters out

of CD-11, you agree it reflects cracking, right?

MR. DODGE:

But it -- yes, but it strengthens it in

Objection.

That calls for a legal

conclusion .

MR. FASO:

He's an expert in redistricting.

It is

certainly within his field to understand what cracking --

You had understand what cracking --

I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that

perhaps the 2024 --

THE COURT:

So the objection is noted and I'll allow the

answer .

Let me rule on the objection.

Yeah, normally when I think of cracking, I think of

significant populations that are divided into two pieces when

you could unite them into one piece and have a stronger

911a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

363

component of that particular ethnicity.

the 2024 plan at least on the surface appears to crack the Asian

population between CD-11 and CD-10, whereas the illustrative

plan uncracks it and makes for a much stronger voting bloc in

CD-10, from 16 percent to 23.38 percent.

way I would analyze it if I were looking at a Black or Latino

district in a Gingles case.

So I would argue that

I mean, that is the

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

MR. FASO:

Could we take a five-minute break?

THE COURT:

Definitely.

The witness can step down.

Please don't talk about your testimony with your

attorneys .

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

I'll just stay right here.

No, it's okay, you should step down.

like to clear the space.

THE WITNESS:

Oh, okay.

Right.

Okay.

(Whereupon, a recess is taken.)

THE COURT:

BY MR. FASO:

Okay.

-k

Let's go back on the record.

Mr. Cooper, I just have a few more questions.

You testified that you didn't consider any political data in

drawing your map, right?

Correct.

912a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

364

So you're not aware whether your map either makes CD-11

more competitive for Republicans or less competitive for

Republicans, or more competitive for Democrats or less

competitive for Democrats?

testimony.

But as you were drawing your map --

No.

-- as you were finalizing your report --

No.

-- you weren't aware of whether there was any partisan

Only to the extent that I listened to Dr. Palmer's

impact from your proposed plan?

Right.

I had no partisan data.

I understand Dave's

Redistricting does have partisan data, but I paid no attention

to it.

It's all historical going back five years, so no data.

And we talked about earlier how in drawing a map you

tried to comply with the relevant law, right?

Yes.

And so in this case, you didn't consider the New York

Constitution's provision which says, "Districts shall not be

drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring

or disfavoring incumbents or other political candidates or

political parties, " right?

No, I believe that's up to the lawyers.

So you finalized your map without considering whether

913a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

365

it can potentially violate that provision of the constitution?

I prepared a map and it was pre-cleared by the

attorneys for the petitioners, that's all I have to say.

not a lawyer.

I understand you're not a lawyer.

I'm saying you drew your map without any attention to

I'm

whether it complies with this provision?

Read it again.

Well, were you aware that the New York Constitution --

I was aware that there is language in the constitution,

"Districts shall" --

Go ahead.

"Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition

yes .

or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or

other political candidates or political parties."

Right.

You didn't consider that provision in drawing your map,

right?

I drew the map, and I'm leaving it up to the attorneys

to interpret.

It's a simple question.

Okay.

In fact, you couldn't consider it because you didn't

I did not.

You did not consider --

I did not.

rely on any political data, true?

914a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

366

That's true.

I did not rely on political data.

MR. FASO:

Okay.

Final line of questioning.

we turn back to I think it's Exhibit H2 to Mr. Cooper's

report .

BY MR. FASO:

Could

Now, in cross, my friend asked you whether the

Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Staten Island is within CD-10 or

CD-11.

Yes, I believe it's in CD-11.

It's in CD-11, but on the Manhattan side, the

Do you recall that?

Staten Island Ferry Terminal that lands at

Whitehall Street/South Ferry, right?

I believe so.

Right?

Which is CD-11.

But you drew the Whitehall Street terminal in CD-10?

I did.

Okay.

Well, it's easily remedied.

Not very

much population there.

And do you see -- do you understand where that terminal

You'd have to point it out exactly.

Well, 478 is there.

Yeah, I know it's right on the shore.

That is the Hugh Carey Tunnel?

Pardon?

is?

Do you see that?

915a

Cooper - Cross/Mr. Faso

367

The Hugh Carey Tunnel?

Sorry.

Is 478 -- do you see --

Yeah.

We agree that that is the Hugh Carey Tunnel?

Well, it's -- 478 goes into Manhattan and I guess

I didn't hear.

that's the Hugh Carey Tunnel -- Tunnel, excuse me.

And just to the right of it, in red, is the

Whitehall/South Ferry terminal where the Staten Island Ferry

lands, right?

If so, then I inadvertently put South Ferry -- the

ferry in CD-10, but that is a low-population

district -- low-population census bloc.

That could be removed.

correctly?

Well, if -- if it is -- I meant for it to be in CD-11,

So this is another error in your illustrative plan?

yes .

MR. DODGE:

So you inadvertently put it in, did I hear you

Objection.

If it is an error --

THE COURT:

You may answer.

Argumentative.

I'll allow it.

If it is an error, it's easily remedied.

MR. FASO:

No further questions. Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Okay.

916a

Cooper - Redirect/Mr. Dodge

368

Redirect?

MR. DODGE:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Take your time.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DODGE:

Just a few minutes.

Just a few more questions for you, Mr. Cooper.

You were asked some questions on cross about the number

of illustrative maps you drew in this case.

that?

Yes.

And ultimately your report produced a single

Can you recall

illustrative map, correct?

Right.

And why was it in this case that you drew just a single

illustrative map?

Because it's a simple solution.

It resolves the issue

of Chinatown not being part of the rest of the Chinese-American

community in CD-10.

as -- as they are in the current plan.

So it -- it puts them back into CD-10

And you understand that the petitioners in this case

have made certain legal claims about the current configuration

of District 11, correct?

Correct.

(Senior Court Reporter Karen Perlman was replaced

by Senior Court Reporter Monica Hahn.)

917a

369

(Transcript continues on the following page.)

918a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

370

And so do you recall that you were also asked some

questions on cross about why you didn't present any

illustrative plans joining Staten Island with Brooklyn?

Um --

Do you recall being asked questions about that?

Well, yes, yes.

And is it the case that you were asked to draw an

illustrative map in Manhattan in part because the legal

issues in this case contest whether it is lawful to draw a

map as to Brooklyn?

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

THE COURT:

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

THE COURT:

Can we hear the question?

Can the court reporter read back

(Whereupon, the record was read back by the

reporter .)

MR. MOSKOWITZ:

What is the objection.

the question.

Objection.

I will admit I'm on the border

here .

THE COURT:

the question.

Sure.

Why don't we have counsel rephrase

Were you aware of possible legal issues in

this case that may have complicated drawing an illustrative

map into Brooklyn?

Yes.

919a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

371

And you understand that if petitions were to

prevail here, ultimately the legislature would be

responsible for drawing new districts?

Absolutely.

That is usually the case.

Very rarely

would an illustrious plan ever become a final plan.

Happens, not often.

It is not the case that your illustrative map is

being printed as some kind of a take it or leave it option?

Absolutely not.

It is just one way to bring

Manhattan and Staten Island together.

And you were asked questions on cross about whether

certain community members and Chinatown may have been across

the street from each other, one in the district, one out, do

you recall that?

I do.

And if the legislature were given the opportunity

to draw a new district, could they make the choice about

whether to amend the particulars of that order?

Well, absolutely.

And so they could theoretically choose to draw in a

manner that went broader than the Chinatown neighborhood or

less broader, fair?

Right.

You were asked a question at the end of cross there

about the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan, do you

920a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

372

recall that?

Well, yes.

To your understanding, do a lot of people live at

the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan?

It would be a low population number if it is any at

Again, if the legislature were given the

all.

opportunity to draw a new district in this case, they would

have the choice about how to draw that particular boundary?

Yes.

It would be easily remedied because the VTD

that is in is fairly low population and some of the blocks

are zero.

You were asked some questions on cross about your

views on core retention, do you recall those?

Yes, but it also seems to veer off into the issue

of the alternative plan in the Arkansas case which was

really high.

Go ahead.

Just at a high level, it is consistently our view

that core retention can be a background consideration when

drawing a reasonably configured district?

Exactly.

I didn't really see core retention

reported in these cases until some time in late 2010 's.

Prior to that, it was maybe mentioned or suggested one

should draw at least change plan, but there was no

quantitative measure.

921a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

373

Do you recall on cross, you were taken on a tour of

lower Manhattan from Its fashion ends to Its trendy

eateries, do you recall that?

Yes, yes.

Can you remind the court how many cases you've been

an expert mapmaker In?

A lot.

Over 60, sometimes multiple appearances.

That was for trial testimony.

I don't know, 30 or more that

I filed a declaration In, the case resolved basically for

the plaintiffs before even going to trial.

backyard?

None of them were.

So you have routinely drawn Illustrative maps In

Were every single one of those cases In your

different regions of the country?

Right.

I made an effort to kind of get to know

Manhattan and Staten Island a little bitter.

Is how I got Into the city this term, this week.

At least that

And In your experience, can a district remain

reasonably configured under traditional redlstrlctlng

criteria even If It Includes neighbors that are different

culturally?

Well, yes.

In other words, no reasonably configured district

has to be a cultural monolith?

922a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

374

Exactly.

You were asked some questions as well about the

Lower East Side neighborhood, do you recall those?

Yes.

Would whether or how to include the Lower East Side

neighborhood in either District 10 or 11 be a choice

available to the legislature if it were given an opportunity

to redraw a district as a result of this case?

Absolutely.

Are you aware of any practical or legal principle

that says an illustrative map in a case has to be at least

as statistically compact as the existing district?

No.

You were asked some questions I think by Mr. Faso

about looking at the constituent borough pieces of the

proposed districts, do you recall that?

Yes.

Were you proposing some kind of new legal test or

standard with that analysis?

No.

I just was trying to make the point that

voters and campaign workers and potential candidates would

find it very easy to determine what district they lived in

and campaigned in in Manhattan because it is a very compact

area .

And why is this case one where it is helpful to

923a

W. Cooper - Redirect/Dodge

375

understand that the constituent parts of a district remain

compact?

Well, I mean, there are tw

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.