Deadline Looms For Reapportionment Commission
by Christine Stuart | Dec 14, 2011 6:30am
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Courts, Election 2012, Election Policy, Legal
“One more week,” Kevin Johnston, the ninth member of the Reapportionment Commission shouted to a security guard as he crossed the Capitol parking lot Tuesday.
He was referring to the one week the commission has left to draw lines on the Congressional maps before the court-ordered Dec. 21 deadline.
Some members of the commission will meet Wednesday to see if they’re any closer than they were last month when bipartisanship faded almost immediately after it voted on the maps for the General Assembly’s 187 House and Senate districts.
The four Republican lawmakers on the commission drew the five Congressional districts very differently than the four Democratic lawmakers on the commission. Johnston, a former state auditor and lawmaker from Pomfret, was added to the commission in November to be arbitrate between the two sides.
The Republican map of the five districts pushes Bridgeport into the 3rd Congressional District with New Haven and creates a 4th Congressional District that would be favorable to a Republican candidate. The map drawn by the Democrats makes few changes to the current map and simply shifts the increased 15,000 people in the 2nd Congressional District from east to west, mostly by moving 15,000 people in Glastonbury to the 5th Congressional District.
While neither side is ready to admit defeat both sides have retained lawyers in case they’re unable to reach a conclusion and the maps end up in court.
Republicans have retained Ross Garber, a partner in Shipman & Goodwin, and former legal counsel to former Gov. John G. Rowland. Democrats have retained Aaron Bayer, a partner in Wiggin & Dana.
“The state’s congressional districts should be drawn in a fair, bipartisan manner,“ Sen. Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said last week in a statement. “We are committed to making changes necessary to balance population shifts as required by law and do not seek drastic political changes.”
Asked how quickly the two sides may be able to reach consensus, Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said, “Fifteen minutes is enough time to draw the maps if we’re of like minds and kind find an agreeable redistricting map.”
“It doesn’t take as long as I think people would think. It’s mostly political differences and an inability to reach a compromise that takes so long,“ he said.
“If both sides are willing we can definitely do it,“ McKinney said.
McKinney wouldn’t go any further except to say that he’s trying not to negotiate redistricting through the media.
The members of the commission have not had a public meeting since Nov. 30, but both sides have been busy working on drawing the lines separately.
Tags: Redistricting, maps, Democrats, Republicans, Congress
(4) Comments
posted by: Aldon_Hynes | December 14, 2011 10:04am
Can anyone provide a non-political rationale for moving the largest city in Connecticut from on Congressional district to another, instead of making minor changes given that the population change in Connecticut is minor?
posted by: ... | December 14, 2011 2:38pm
I don’t support the plan the Republicans have pushed forward because its motives are most certainly political.
However a fairly well argued position for their map changes (seen here http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/redistricting_heads_to_court/ ) is that if follows the ideal of congressional redistricting is to make the districts as square and concise as possible. And each district should have a proportional number of citizens per district in that state.
Looking at the Republican’s proposal, it largely succeeds in that, but its motivations are overtly partisan, especially as we move towards what will certainly be a tumultuous presidential/senatorial/congressional election period.
The democrats largely sustain the imperfect maps as they were in 2000, with minor modifications.
What I would be curious to know which plan has the most equal number of citizens per district overall? The Democrats proposal appears to have numbers in the right hand corner for population, but they are too small to read (It looks like around 713,000 people per district is the goal). And the Republican proposal has none listed with their map.
posted by: William Jenkins | December 15, 2011 2:29am
Aldon Hyens, you need to ask Amerigo Santiago and the rest of the advocates for a minority based/dominated Congressional district. He has an excellent and extremely non-political rationale for putting Bridgeport and New Haven in the same district.
Here’s another question for you, are Bridgeport’s needs and concerns more like New Haven OR Grennwich, New Canaan, Easton, Fairfield, Darien, Westport and Norwalk? “Communities of Interest” is something of the utmost importance during the reapportionment process and Brigdeport and New Haven are certainlly “communities of interest.”
Is that “non-political” enough for you?
posted by: Aldon_Hynes | December 16, 2011 1:15pm
@jonessAC12 Thanks for the link to the article. Yes, the Republican plan appears much better in terms of compactness, which is a desirable goal in redistricting.
Another goal is to minimize change, which the Democratic plan appears to be stronger at. I suspect there could be a good middle ground, which wouldn’t involve moving Bridgeport to the 3rd CD.
@William Jenkins - Which I respect the desire to move towards a minority district, moving Bridgeport to the 3rd does little to accomplish it.
Bridgeport is 33.3% Hispanic in the latest census. New Haven is 27.4%. Yet Bridgeport is currently with Stamford which is 23.8% and Norwalk which is 24.3%. I would like to see numbers which show what the different proposed districts would be in terms of percentage of Hispanic population. I don’t believe the Republican plan makes a significant impact.
Your question of communities of interest is also important. I do believe that there is as much of a community of interest between Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport as could develop between Bridgeport and New Haven, but that’s not clear. In other aspects of communities of interest, although we have little county government, Bridgeport is in Fairfield County with Stamford and Norwalk, and not in New Haven County with New Haven.