Last month, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Andrew Cuomo was asked about his hard-line stance of vetoing overly-political congressional maps.

In the interview, Cuomo said he would push for a three-pronged approach: if it made the districts more fair, if it included the passage of a constitutional amendment to improve the process within the next ten years and if it passed a reform law in the case an amendment failed, he would not veto the lines.

A spokesman walked back this position the next day, but many who were closely monitoring the process noted that this looked like a departure from the governor’s stated position. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

Again, this has all the appearance of a policy shift. Lawmakers aren’t super excited to give up their redistricting powers because they would no longer have the ability to keep their seats and the seats of their colleagues safe. Cuomo, who has come out strongly for reform, simply doesn’t see this as a winner anymore. Capital Tonight reported on a recent Quinnipiac poll, which shows that not only do voters not consider redistricting a big deal; they don’t even know what it is.

So Cuomo’s changing the conversation to better serve his image. And when the lines finally do go through he can frame it as a victory for reform.

Today, Politicker’s Colin Campbell has a bit of news on redistricting, with this quote from Cuomo criticizing the magistrate:

“First of all, the magistrate’s lines were remarkably like the lines that she was given. I’d bet you that they were 98% the same,” he contended. “So it’s not like the court is going to start with a blank piece of paper and rewrite the lines. The lines were tweaked by the magistrate, but they were basically the Assembly and the Senate lines for the Congress.”

Campbell notes, as does Empire’s Colby Hamilton, that this is completely untrue. At best, Cuomo confused the Senate and Assembly maps with the maps offered up by open-government organization Common Cause; at worst, it’s a cynical attempt to again change the conversation. 

Here’s a theoretical: after Cuomo dismisses the magistrate’s maps as too similar to the legislature’s, the Senate and Assembly offer up new maps, alongside, oh, say, the amendment that Cuomo asked for, which they did today. Cuomo, claiming reform, signs both.

That looks pretty good for Cuomo, doesn’t it? A judge was brought in, as was promised; he proves he wants “real reform” by calling out the magistrate as well as the legislature; and in the end he can point to an outcome — possibly today’s announced amendment — and say “look what I did,” whether there’s any substantial reform or not.

I’m not even sure the amendment has to be any good. The one released by the Senate this morning certainly doesn’t appear to be. At least, not by Cuomo’s own standards. In the Democrat and Chronicle meeting last month he called for the proposed amendment to focus on “independent” redistricting; this amendment would take appointees from both parties — much like the current system — and add in two “registered independents.” And while they do take great pains to refer to the group as “an independent redistricting commission” on each reference, that doesn’t necessarily make it so: the final say ultimately goes to the legislature.

Maybe Cuomo will reject this amendment. Maybe he won’t. Maybe the next legislative maps — which are finished, but for whatever reason have yet to be released — will be more fair. Maybe not. But whatever happens, look for Cuomo to spin it in his favor.

As he’s shown in the past, it’s what he’s good at.