Cooperstown News Bureau

NORWICH - Two members of the Otsego County Board of Representatives have submitted affidavits supporting a lawsuit to keep their board's redistricting plan off the Nov. 5 ballot.

Democratic Reps. Kevin Hodne of Oneonta and Richard Thompson of Milford joined Wednesday with petitioners Henry "Hank" Nicols and Patricia Carey, who have sued in state Supreme Court to scuttle the proposed redistricting plan.

Nicols and Carey asked State Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dowd of Norwich to remove a proposition from the ballot that would reduce the Otsego Board of Representatives from 14 to 13 members, with the city of Oneonta losing one. Hodne's seat would be in jeopardy if voters approve the proposal.

Dowd said he will rule in the case before Election Day.

Sheila Ross, Otsego County deputy elections commissioner, said Wednesday that if Dowd strikes the proposition from the ballot, the Board of Elections will not count the item when tallying votes Tuesday.

"There's no time to draw up a new ballot now," Ross said.

Otsego County Elections Specialist Betsy Cunero said the county had already received 351 paper ballots as of Wednesday morning.

Lawyer Andrew Puritz of Oneonta said he submitted Hodne's and Thompson's affidavits to Dowd on Wednesday.

Otsego County Attorney James Konstanty, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, will have until today to reply, Puritz said.

If Dowd is to rule before Election Day, he will have to do so Friday or Monday.

The controversial redistricting plan was adopted by the county board Sept. 30. Under the proposal, Oneonta city would lose one of its four representatives, and Democrats Hodne and Cathy Rothenberger would be pitted against each other if each sought re-election.

In court last week, Konstanty argued that the proposed 13-member board is a substantial improvement on the status quo, a 14-member board with districts that vary widely in population. He asked Dowd to let the voters decide whether they wish to adopt this proposal.

The Oneonta and Cooperstown chapters of the League of Women Voters also have noted that the proposed plan is an improvement on the districts.

Nicols of Milford and Carey of Laurens have argued that far better plans were discussed by county representatives and that voters should not have to choose between the current set-up and a modest improvement.

In support of them, Thompson wrote, "The way it is now, the plan they are voting on leaves them between a rock and a hard place, either stick with what we have — which everyone knows needs to be changed — or take the plan we're offering and be stuck with it for years, even though everyone knows it isn't a fair plan.

"Beside that, Option E (the plan on the ballot) simply wasn't the best plan on the table, of the plans we already had to work with," Thompson wrote. "Our county planning people did a great job of getting all the data together. We had three plans, at least, that were better than the one that passed, better because they did a good job of respecting existing boundaries and got the math much closer to one-person, one-vote."

At issue is whether the change is substantial, which is not permitted after a public hearing. Konstanty has opined that it was not a substantial change, although he cautioned the board that this was only his opinion.

Thompson's affidavit states: "This was a real change from before and meant a lot because, depending on who was leaving a vacancy behind ... it would have a real effect on the makeup of the board."

Hodne wrote that board members were aware of the potential change in the law "as early as Sept. 17. It was there in the text of the resolution. It represented a substantial change from previous board policy, and there was no public comment objecting to it."