Add Title

On Tuesday, June 28, 2022, the Buffalo Common Council held a public hearing to solicit comments on its
proposed redistricting plan for Our City. More than 100 residents turned out to tell the Council that its
plan, which was created as part of a rushed, non-transparent, and non-participatory process, isn’t good
enough – in fact, it’s downright anti-Buffalonian. Residents uniformly agreed that the Council’s plan
splits neighborhoods and prioritizes the desires of incumbent officeholders over the needs of the
people. Most residents who attended the hearing also expressed support for an alternative plan that’s
been advanced by Our City Action Buffalo (OCAB), which has received endorsements from over 750
residents and concerned citizens to date in an online petition.

Even with this groundswell of support for our alternative redistricting plan – which was designed to
preserve neighborhood boundaries and advance racial equity – we at OCAB knew that the plan was far
from perfect, and we’ve strived to be transparent about that fact from the start. So, as expected, we
learned a lot from the scores of speakers at the public hearing and the hundreds more who participated
in our public education events or just reached out to learn more. True to the purpose of public hearings
and community outreach, we heard you – and we were listening closely.

After reviewing all the testimony from the hearing, as well as the communications we received through
different channels, we set out to revise our alternative plan to incorporate what we’ve learned so far.
The major concerns we took away from all that information were:

 Neighborhoods on the West Side were initially divided many years ago to break up the political
power of Buffalo’s growing Latina/o/x communities. Residents spoke out in favor of reunifying
the “Upper West Side”, “West Side”, and “Lower West Side” sections of the City.
 The Elmwood corridor has historically been split into multiple Council Districts. Residents
expressed support for creating a cohesive Elmwood Village Council District.
 Finally, the First Ward community has historic ties to the Council District that has traditionally
been anchored in the Broadway-Fillmore neighborhood. Residents stated that these ties should
be maintained in any alternative plan.

As we began incorporating these suggestions into our alternative, neighborhood-based map, we quickly
found that Our City’s residents know best when it comes to redistricting. Specifically, implementing the
changes resulted in vast improvements to our alternative plan on the criteria that are most important
to us, and to those who spoke up at the Council’s public hearing: neighborhood preservation, equity,
and compactness. Below, we present the OCAB Revised Alternative Plan and offer a brief analysis that
compares it to the Council’s latest redistricting proposal.

The Revised Alternative Plan

To incorporate the feedback outlined above, our team began by reassigning all of the census blocks (the
data collection units that are literally building “blocks” for district construction) in the City of Buffalo’s
three “West Side” planning neighborhoods to the same district. We followed by doing the same for the
two “Elmwood” planning neighborhoods, and then shifting the blocks in the First Ward planning
neighborhood to the same district as the Broadway-Fillmore neighborhood. From there, we began
iteratively reassigning blocks to adjacent districts to equalize populations – as required by law – while
striving to keep planning neighborhoods in the same Council District. The resulting map is shown below.
Compare the preceding districts to the districts proposed in the Common Council’s latest plan:
It is immediately clear that, despite the revisions made to our original alternative plan, we still have two
drastically different proposals. The following sections detail precisely how they differ – and which plan
performs better – on all the required redistricting criteria described in our original open analysis found
here.

Comparative Analysis
Prior to jumping into the comparison, it is important to note that the analyses herein rely on the 2020
Amended Population dataset created by the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic
Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR) for the purpose of state and local redistricting. The LATFOR
Amended data adjust the 2020 decennial census population data by adding state-incarcerated persons
back to their residential census blocks, rather than counting such persons in the census blocks where
they are incarcerated. Although it is not explicit on the LATFOR website, the underlying principle is that
persons incarcerated in state facilities deserve fair and equal representation upon their release. Notably,
both the Citizens Commission on Reapportionment and the Buffalo Common Council use raw,
unamended 2020 decennial census data in their reports. As such, population totals reported in those
documents may differ slightly from their respective totals presented below. We adopt the LATFOR
Amended data for our purposes insofar as we believe strongly that all of Our City’s residents deserve fair
and equal representation in the Common Council.

Population Equalization
According to the LATFOR Amended population data, the 2020 population for the City of Buffalo is
280,052 residents. Dividing that total by nine Common Council districts reveals that the target
population for equalization in Buffalo is roughly 31,117 residents per district. In practice, deviations that
fall within +/- 5% of this or any redistricting population target are deemed to be acceptable and tend to
be upheld in courts.

One simple way to quantify how closely a redistricting plan meets the goal of population equalization is
to calculate a metric called the plan’s total deviation. Total deviation in a redistricting plan is equal to
the deviation observed in the district with the highest population minus the deviation observed in the
district with the lowest population. Using LATFOR-adjusted population data, the highest-populated
district in the Council’s Proposed plan is Niagara, with 32,181 residents, which is +3.4% over the target
population (notably, Ellicott is 3.3% over the target, meaning that two districts are relatively
meaningfully overpopulated). The least-populated district in the Council’s plan is South, with 30,223
residents, which is -2.9% under the target population. The total deviation of the Council’s plan is
therefore equal to:

Maximum Deviation (+3.4%) – Minimum Deviation (-2.9%) = 6.3%

For the Revised Alternative (neighborhood-based) plan, the highest-populated district is Lovejoy, which
contains 31,816 residents (+2.2% over the target). The least-populated district is University, which is
home to 30,247 residents (-2.8% under the target). The total deviation for the Alternative plan is
therefore:

Maximum Deviation (+2.2%) – Minimum Deviation (-2.8%) = 5.0%

Since the goal of redistricting is to minimize total deviation and create districts that are as equally
populated as possible, the Revised Alternative plan outperforms the Council’s Proposed plan on this
criterion.
 Council’s Population Deviation Revised Population Deviation
District Alternative
District
Delaware 3,1347 0.7% Delaware 30,879 -0.8%
Ellicott 32,153 3.3% Elmwood- 31,438 1.0%
Allentown
Fillmore 30,523 -1.9% Broadway- 31,007 -0.4%
Fillmore
Lovejoy 30,821 -1.0% Lovejoy 31,816 2.2%
Masten 30,605 -1.6% Masten 30,783 -1.1%
Niagara 32,181 3.4% West Side 31,150 0.1%
North 31,283 0.5% Northwest 31,237 0.4%
South 30,223 -2.9% South 31,495 1.2%
University 30,916 -0.6% University 30,247 -2.8%

Compactness
As we mentioned in our initial open analysis, perhaps the most popular and simplest measure of
compactness is a shape index. The shape index is a ratio of area to perimeter, scaled so that the most
compact shape takes on a value of 1, with less compact shapes approaching 0. The index is measured as
the ratio of the area of a district to the area of a circle with a circumference equal to that of the district.
It can be computed for all districts in a given districting plan. Because no districts in practice will take on
perfectly circular shapes due to the nature of the built environment, no district will receive the
maximum shape index (compactness) score of 1. Thus, the way to compare two plans is simply to
identify which plan has higher relative compactness scores. We do that below by comparing the range
and average compactness scores across the two plans.

Within the Council’s Proposed plan, Fillmore expectedly exhibits the lowest compactness score of 0.12.
The most compact district is Masten, with a shape index of 0.41 (an improvement over the
Commission’s plan). The average shape index for the nine districts is 0.26, which is actually slightly lower
than the status quo average of 0.27. Thus, the Council’s plan retains, if not exacerbates, existing issues
of non-compactness.

By contrast, the least compact district in the Alternative plan is the West Side, which takes on a shape
index of 0.15. The most compact district is Masten, with a shape index score of 0.66. Notably, University
(shape index = 0.55) and Elmwood-Allentown (shape index = 0.50) also have compactness scores above
0.5; and three more districts take on shape index values greater than 0.41. The average shape index for
the Revised Alternative plan of 0.42 is greater than the maximum shape index value for any district in
the Council’s plan.

Given that the goal of redistricting is to create districts that are as compact as possible, the Revised
Alternative plan meaningfully outperforms the Council’s proposed plan on this criterion.

Council’s District Compactness Score OCAB’s Revised District Compactness Score

(Shape Index) (Shape Index)
 Fillmore 0.12 West Side 0.15
South 0.17 South 0.29
Ellicott 0.19 Northwest 0.33
Lovejoy 0.22 Broadway-Fillmore 0.42
Niagara 0.28 Delaware 0.44
Delaware 0.30 Lovejoy 0.46
North 0.32 Elmwood-Allentown 0.50
University 0.32 University 0.55
Masten 0.41 Masten 0.66
Plan Average 0.26 Plan Average 0.42

Contiguity
All districts are contiguous in both plans. Neither plan outperforms the other on this criterion.

Preservation of Communities of Interest

Without access to other, more context-sensitive data, we again use the City of Buffalo’s self-identified
planning neighborhoods as “communities of interest” for the purposes of this exercise. Recall that one
of the goals of generating an Alternative redistricting plan in the first place was to maximize the amount
of a planning neighborhood’s area that gets enclosed in a single district. Our original neighborhood-
based plan fully or almost fully preserved 27 of 35 planning neighborhoods (compared to 14 preserved
by the Commission’s plan).

If we retain these working definitions – i.e., that a planning neighborhood is “fully or almost fully
preserved” when at least 95% of its area falls into one district – then we can compare how well the
Revised Alternative plan stacks up against the Council’s latest Proposed plan. The following graph makes
this comparison. Neighborhoods that are highlighted are ones that are fully or almost fully preserved.

Notably, the Council’s plan represents an improvement over the Commission’s plan. The Council’s map
preserves 16 of 35 planning neighborhoods. If the criterion for preservation were slightly relaxed, so
that a neighborhood is considered “well preserved” if at least 90% (as opposed to 95%) of its area falls in
one Council District, then the Council’s plan would also preserve the Hopkins-Tifft neighborhood –
bringing its total to 17, or just under half of all planning neighborhoods.

Just as the Council’s plan marked a slight improvement over the Commission’s plan, our Revised
Alternative makes a slight improvement over our original proposal. Namely, the Revised Alternative plan
preserves 28 of 35 planning neighborhoods. If, as above, the criterion for preservation were slightly
related (from 95% of area down to 90%), then the Revised Alternative would also preserve the Central
neighborhood. It would also nearly preserve the Elmwood-Bidwell neighborhood (86% of whose area is
contained in the new, cohesive “Elmwood-Allentown” district). Thus, the Revised Alternative plan
preserves upward of 30 of the City’s 35 planning neighborhoods, vastly outperforming the Council’s
proposal on this criterion. Of the five neighborhoods that are not preserved, four have at least 73% of
their area in a single district.
Racial Equity
Finally, recall that the motives that guided are original Alternative Plan were to (1) preserve City of
Buffalo planning neighborhoods and (2) promote racial equity in Buffalo’s legislative landscape. The
original Alternative Plan approached this latter goal by creating an additional district where residents
who identify as Black or African American account for the largest proportion of voting age population
(VAP) – raising the number of such districts from three (status quo) to four. The Revised Alternative plan
was designed to retain that feature.

The following figure offers a side-by-side comparison of the racial-ethnic breakdown for the total
population in the Council’s proposal and the Revised Alternative plan. Observe that both plans call for
four districts where Black or African American residents constitute the largest share of population.
However, there are two clear differences. In the first place, under the Council’s proposal – as happened
under the Citizens’ Commission’s proposal – the Fillmore District changes from plurality Black or African
American (status quo) to plurality white. The Revised Alternative preserves and strengthens the Black
plurality in Fillmore (labeled “Broadway-Fillmore” in the pie charts). Second, the Black plurality in the
Lovejoy District is meaningfully stronger in the Revised Alternative proposal (46%) relative to the
Council’s proposal (39%, versus 38% white).

Next, the figure below offers an analogous comparison for the VAP, or the population of persons who
are most likely to be eligible to vote in the upcoming 2023 Councilmanic elections. It is with respect to
the VAP that the demographic differences between the two plans is starkest. Namely, whereas the
Council’s proposal retains the status quo of having three districts where Black or African American
residents are the largest share of VAP, with white residents having the numerical advantage in the
remaining six districts, the Revised Alternative plan creates four plurality or majority Black districts. In
other words, the Revised Alternative plausibly advances racial equity in Buffalo by increasing the
number of districts where Black of African American residents make up the largest share of the potential
electorate.

Bottom Line
In sum, after reviewing public comments and striving to incorporate that feedback into the original
Alternative redistricting plan advanced by Our City Action Buffalo, our team generated a Revised
Alternative Plan that:

 Reunifies neighborhoods on the West Side that were initially divided many years ago to break
up the political power of Buffalo’s growing Latina/o/x communities.
 Establishes a cohesive district around the Elmwood Avenue corridor.
 And re-integrates the First Ward into the district anchored in Broadway-Fillmore.

In addition, and as was the case with the original Alternative plan:

● The Revised Alternative has lower total deviation than the Council’s proposal, meaning that the
Revised Alternative outperforms the Council’s plan on the criterion of population
equalization;
● Districts in the Revised Alternative plan are substantially more regularly shaped than districts in
the Proposed plan, such that the Revised Alternative outperforms the Council’s plan on the
criterion of compactness;
● The Revised Alternative plan preserves upwards of 30 of the City’s 35 planning neighborhoods,
compared to just 16 or 17 neighborhoods preserved in the Council’s plan. Therefore, the
Revised Alternative appears to strongly outperform the Council’s plan on the criterion of
preserving communities of interest; and
● Perhaps most importantly, the Revised Alternative plan creates an additional district where
Black or African American voting-age persons have the largest share of VAP. Likewise, the
Revised Alternative plan increases the maximum Hispanic/Latinx share of VAP in one district
relative to the Council’s plan, strengthening that demographic group’s potential electoral
influence. Taken together, these outcomes suggest that the Revised Alternative plan
outperforms the Council’s plan with respect to the goal of advancing racial equity in Buffalo.