BROOKLYN, N.Y. -- Some New Yorkers are voicing concerns about the creation of not one, but two draft maps for congressional, State Senate and Assembly voting districts. The groups are asking the public to weigh in on the redistricting process, to ensure the revised maps properly represent constituents.

Asher Ross, director of the "Mapping Our Future" campaign for the New York Immigration Coalition, said in a virtual discussion this week, the move runs counter to the Independent Redistricting Commission's mission: to deliver one set of maps that are nonpartisan and fully inclusive of public input.

"This process has not worked so far, to this point," Ross asserted. "And it's very troubling about where it's going to go from here, and the commission's ability to deliver fair maps."

He pointed to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, where members of the Arab community advocated to keep their neighborhood from being split up, but do not see their input reflected in the draft maps.

Ross pointed out hundreds of people have already turned out at public hearings. There is still time to submit testimony or attend public hearings, which start again Oct. 20.

In some cases, public input has enhanced representation, such as with Asian American communities in Brooklyn and Queens.

Carlyn Cowen, chief policy and public affairs officer for the Chinese American Planning Council, noted redistricting has not served Asian American communities well in the past. She said even though they represent 10% of the state's population, and 15% in New York City, it is not reflected among elected officials.

"The representation that we have on the state and congressional level is less than 3% at either level, which means that people are not necessarily being represented by people who look like them and represent their interests," Cowen observed. "There are so many urgent issues that our community is facing."

The Independent Redistricting Commission must submit its final maps to the Legislature by Jan. 15. Cowen said it is vital they understand the importance of where neighborhood lines are drawn.

"The idea of fairness in redistricting is not really about partisan; Democrat, Republican," Cowen contended. "It's actually about making sure that we are all represented by our districts, and that we're upholding the Voting Rights Act."

Examples of proposed policies and candidates tied to false claims of election fraud have spread to Minnesota, and a new national report found the movement is not slowing down ahead of this fall's vote.

A trio of voter-rights groups issued findings into how state legislatures are trying to subvert elections, including more leeway to reject results, requiring partisan or outside audits, and shifting power away from election administrators. Some ideas have been floated by Minnesota Republicans but are not likely to pass under the current balance of power.

Rachel Homer, counsel for the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, said simply proposing them poses a threat.

"This is about everyone in support of democracy," Homer asserted. "Both political parties really need to be standing against this movement toward autocracy."

Despite calls for unity, Republicans are seeing more candidates for statewide offices who either perpetuate the stolen-election narrative, or suggest current laws need restrictions they said would tighten election security.

The Minnesota GOP recently endorsed such a candidate running for Secretary of State, the office overseeing elections. The report said 175 such laws were introduced in the U.S. this year.

Homer argued false election-fraud claims, taking shape following Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 presidential vote, have ballooned to a five-alarm fire. She noted even if most bills do not pass, voters are still being exposed to theories soundly rejected by the courts.

"These bills are being proposed by a lot of legislators across a lot of states," Homer observed. "They clearly think there's an audience for it. "

The groups behind the report emphasized it is important to remember most administrators, staffs and volunteers are committed to free and fair elections.

Sylvia Albert, national voting and elections director for Common Cause, said outside the findings, potentially having some candidates espousing such views take office is concerning. If election results were to be rejected without a valid reason, she said it might be harder to seek recourse.

"So, there definitely is an ability to challenge in court, [but] the courts are leaning more and more toward stepping away and letting the political process run itself," Albert stressed. "What that does, is not protect the people who don't have power, which are normal Americans."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The pandemic appears to have increased the level of violence in U.S. cities, and a new study found local officials and mayors, especially those of color, face the brunt of it.

Heidi Gerbracht, co-founder of the Women Mayors Network and founder of Equity Agenda, said death threats, vandalized homes and outrage at public meetings have all been reported by local government officials.

"They're having to change their lives to continue serving because of these threats," Gerbracht pointed out. "There is absolutely concern about escalation. There's concern about their physical safety and their family's physical safety."

Gerbracht noted the increasing violence, as documented in research by Oklahoma State University, requires a response from local governments, which may include protective services from local police departments. Online safety and physical training for mayors is being offered this month by the Mayors Innovation Project.

In interviews with more than 3,000 mayors last fall, 70% said they knew someone who chose not to run for office because of the hostile nature of the work.

Rebekah Herrick, professor of social sciences and humanities at Oklahoma State University, who cowrote the report, said social media is driving the increased violence.

"94.5% of mayors reported what we call psychological violence," Herrick reported. "Things like social-media attacks, verbal attacks at a public meeting; 24.2% reported receiving at least one threat."

Gerbracht added the exposure of an elected leader's personal information also is becoming more common, a level of harassment causing local leaders to decide against seeking public office.

"We just have this expectation as the public that this isn't a problem for local elected officials," Gerbracht emphasized. "There is a real need for people to understand that this is not just politics. This is not just what you should expect to get into public service."

Good-government groups are criticizing the Supreme Court's decision Monday eliminating rules on how much a candidate can spend to pay back loans he or she made to the campaign.

The justices sided with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued over rules, which said a candidate can only raise $250,000 after an election to pay back a personal loan.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.

"This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money in politics and further opening the door to corruption and big moneyed interests calling the shots," Scherb contended.

The decision undermines part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In the supporting brief, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too great a burden on core political speech. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision, quote, "greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought it right to stop ... and can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Scherb emphasized he hopes it will drum up more support for the DISCLOSE Act, which would require campaigns and groups spending money to influence politics to report more about their funding, but he is not optimistic.

"We're not holding our breaths that 10 Senate Republicans would vote for something like this," Scherb acknowledged. "But if more big money is going to be spent in politics, it absolutely has to be disclosed. The public deserves to see who's trying to influence their voices and their votes."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.