ALBANY, NY — Redistricting at the state and national levels is considered by many to be a process heavily influenced by political considerations, and one that results in most elected seats being “safe” for one of the two major political parties or the other.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years in the wake of the national census taken by the federal government, and is meant to address population shifts, but often results in districts that are gerrymandered and geographically distorted.

In an effort to address that, officials in New York State this year have placed on the ballot Proposition One, which regards a state constitutional amendment regarding redistricting. The new law would, to some degree, take the task of drawing new voting districts out of the hands of legislators and into the hands of a newly formed 10-member commission. The drawback is that if the legislature twice rejects the plan of the new commission, the task of drawing the new districts would once again fall to the legislature.

Because the commission’s plan would need the approval of the legislature, it would not be independent, and a judge ruled in September that the language in Proposition One could not describe the commission as “independent.”

But, while a lack of independence is considered a shortfall by some, there are other parts of the constitutional amendment that supporters say would improve the redistricting process.

According to the New York State Board of Elections, the law requires that, “Each district must consist of contiguous territory and be as compact in form as practicable. Districts cannot be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties. Maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre existing political subdivisions, and of communities of interest must be considered.”

A couple of good government groups are split on whether the constitutional amendment is a good idea or not.

Citizens Union of New York City is in favor of the constitutional amendment. It issued a statement that said, “Proposition One offers New Yorkers the chance to vote for real reform in Albany. This amendment creates an open and fair redistricting process that works in the interests of New Yorkers by creating a commission that takes drawing lines for political advantage out of the process, ensuring that district lines are not drawn to favor incumbents or to discourage competition and, for the first time, ensuring that the public has a say in the redistricting process. On November 4, all voters should vote ‘yes’ for progress.”

Common Cause of New York, on the other hand, is opposed. A statement on the organization’s website says, the proposition is “not impartial, it enshrines partisan control into the state constitution; not transparent, it’s complicated and confusing—on purpose; not fair on purpose, it’s ineffective and expensive for taxpayers.

“We need a truly independent process to ensure accurate and fair representation for all New Yorkers. This is a system designed to fail, with control of the district maps defaulting to the legislature. Ultimately, this is not an independent process and the voters lose.”

But there is a question of whether the Supreme Court of the United States will allow a truly independent commission to exist. Arizona has a truly independent board that has twice drawn the new district boundaries in that state. Both times the results have been challenged in federal court, and the commission and its work have been upheld by lower courts. On October 2, the high court agreed to hear an appeal in the case.