CONNECTICUT
REAPPORTIONMENT: Review decade
population changes here.
U.S.
Senate: Map of current and
proposed 5
Districts in Connecticut, U.S. Congress above, left. Going to
court for the final answer.
CT Legislative districts:
Agreed-upon CT House
and CT Senate districts above, right.
Court
approves U.S. House map -- and map maker's fee
Mark Pazniokas,
CT MIRROR
February 10,
2012
The Connecticut
Supreme Court today adopted a congressional
redistricting plan that makes minimal changes in the state's five U.S.
House districts, and it ordered the legislature to pay the
court-appointed special master who produced it a fee of $36,400.
The only news
was the fee charged by Nathaniel Persily, the Columbia
law professor chosen as special master in December after legislators
failed to draw new districts. He precisely followed the court's
instructions in producing the new map, leaving no doubt as to the
court's acceptance.
"The Supreme
Court's adoption of the congressional reapportionment plan
comes as no surprise, given the previous instructions it gave to the
special master to pursue a 'minimalist' approach that comported with
the Democrats' request,'' said House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero
Jr., R-Norwalk.
Democrats on
the legislature's bipartisan Reapportionment Commission
had argued that the existing five U.S. House districts were politically
fair and legally sound, requiring only slight changes to equalize their
population.
"The current
district lines have been proven fair and competitive over
time," said Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven.
Looney and
Cafero are members of the Reapportionment Commission, which
agreed on state legislative districts, but deadlocked over a new
congressional map.
Republicans
urged changes that would have smoothed the border of the
oddly shaped 5th Congressional District, the product of a compromise a
decade ago when Connecticut lost one of its six U.S. House seats. It
was drawn to accommodate two incumbents, one Democrat and one
Republican.
The 2001 map
produced mixed results. Republicans won three of five
seats in 2002 and 2004, while Democrats won four of five in 2006 and
swept in 2008 and 2010.
"It's not the
fault of the current lines that the people of Connecticut
decided to repudiate Republican congressional candidates as the decade
went along," Looney said. "The lines were fair from the beginning, and
they continue to be fair, and we're pleased that the court recognized
that."
The court
appeared split during oral arguments a week ago, but the
order issued today made no reference to how the justices voted.
State Supreme Court To Hear Redistricting
Plan
YAHOO
Associated Press
9:34 AM EST, February 6, 2012
HARTFORD — The state Supreme Court today is scheduled to hear arguments
on a proposed minor redrawing of Connecticut's congressional district
boundaries.
The justices have until Feb. 15 to approve a final plan, which is
needed because of population changes. The state is retaining all five
of its U.S. House seats.
The court had to appoint a special master to develop a redistricting
plan after a legislative committee charged with the task failed to
reach a deal.
The proposal would move nearly 29,000 state residents, less than 1
percent of the population, out of their current congressional
districts. It would move all of Durham into the 3rd District, while
moving several thousand people in towns such as Shelton, Glastonbury
and Middletown into new districts.
Congressional redistricting:
Court-appointed special master submits revised district map
Weston FORUM
Written by James Passeri
Thursday, 26 January 2012 00:00
A special master appointed by the state Supreme Court to resolve
Connecticut's redistricting stalemate submitted a final proposal Jan.
19 that will keep Bridgeport in the 4th District.
The plan also retains New Britain in the 5th and requires only minor
changes to equalize district populations, a constitutional mandate
following the 2010 federal census.
District 4, which was the most underpopulated in the existing plan, was
redrawn to move 8,079 people in Shelton from District 3, which achieved
"perfect population equality," said Nathaniel Persily, the special
master.
District 3 was then moved further into District 1's Middletown, gaining
an additional 5,369 people.
After inviting interested parties to submit reports by Jan. 18, Mr.
Persily concluded that the Draft Report and Plan are "in order" and
require no revision.
The four parties who submitted comments to the Clerk's Office on Jan.
18 included Republican members of the Reapportionment Commission; the
Reapportionment Commission Democratic members; the Coalition for
Minority Representation; and Robert S. Poliner, town counsel to the
town of Durham.
Mr. Persily's report comes after two completed plans — one from
Republican members of the Reapportionment Commission and one from the
Democratic members — were submitted before Jan. 9.
"The Republican proposal shifts more population, land, and towns than
is reasonably necessary to comply with one person, one vote," Mr.
Persily said in his report.
He said his proposal takes into account "all submitted proposals,
historic redistricting maps, briefs submitted ... by this court, and
testimony received at the special master's hearing on Jan. 9."
According to Mr. Persily, the state district map was drawn first with
respect to District 2.
The federal census revealed District 2 had an overpopulation of 14,952.
"Perfect population equality can be achieved merely by adjusting the
borders of [Durham and Glastonbury]," Mr. Persily said in his proposal.
Lastly, the proposal addressed the imbalance between District 1 and 5.
District 5 requires the "least alteration to comply with the law," Mr.
Persily said, and required only minor adjustments: 524 people were
moved to District 1 from District 5.
The districts are now virtually identical in population size, with
District 2, 3, 4 each comprised of 714,819 people, and District 1 and 5
each of 714,820.
Attorney David Rosen, representing the Coalition of Minority Voters,
said he is pleased with the outcome, and the controversial Republican
initiative to move Bridgeport and New Britain from the 4th and 5th
respectively would have only diluted minority representation in the
state.
The final report included the testimony of Mr. Rosen and members of the
coalition.
"Our perspective was that the special master shouldn't try to do
anything more than necessary," Mr. Rosen said. "What we were advocating
was pretty clear cut."
Concerned parties must submit objections to the court by Feb. 1; oral
argument will be held on Feb. 6, and the court will file its final plan
with the secretary of the state on Feb. 15.
Special master hears redistricting pleas
CT POST
Ken Dixon, Staff Writer
Updated 01:00 p.m., Monday, January 9, 2012
HARTFORD -- Republicans and Democrats offered conflicting views of the
political landscape in their pitches to a court-appointed special
master who has until Jan. 27 to approve new maps for the state's five
congressional districts.
Minority Republicans said their proposal is designed to undo the
Democrats' "gerrymandering" after the 2000 U.S. Census; Democrats, who
are in a strong majority in the General Assembly, charged the GOP plan
would be convulsive to too many voters.
At the start of an afternoon hearing on the legislative stalemate,
Columbia University political science professor and special master
Nathaniel Persily told the 17 people signed up to speak that he was
withholding judgment.
"I am here to listen," Persily said when the hearing started.
Ross Garber, an attorney for Republicans, said their proposal, which
would relocate New Britain into the 1st Congressional District from the
5th District, makes sense by compacting the district's footprint and
putting together two nearby cities.
Garber charged that Democrats "gerrymandered for incumbency" in keeping
essentially the same map from 10 years ago, when the state lost a
congressional seat.
Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, R-Southbury, said that losing the congressional
seat in 2001 was unprecedented and it resulted in a combination of the
former 5th and 6th districts.
He said that the 2001 effort was "driven" by trying to accommodate the
incumbent members of Congress, but Waterbury was divided between the
5th and Hartford-centric 1st District "to maintain a political balance
of power."
"I think for the 5th District, we didn't look at them as the way
Connecticut would be divided going forward," said O'Neill, the only
member of the current Reapportionment Commission who also served on the
2001 panel.
Andrew J. McDonald, legal counsel for Democrat Gov. Dannel P. Malloy,
said the proposed Democratic plan "upsets" fewer town boundary lines in
determining congressional districts: five compared to 14 for the GOP
plan.
"Under the Democratic plan, less than 1 percent of the population would
be moved" to other districts, compared to 5 percent under the GOP
proposal.
McDonald charged that the power of minority voters would be undermined
in several mid-size cities, including Meriden.
"What the Republican proposal achieves is a wholesale re-engineering of
the political landscape in Connecticut," McDonald said.
GOP bends, Democrats stand pat on
congressional map
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 6, 2012
Encouraged by new guidelines from the state Supreme Court, Democrats
today proposed a congressional district map that makes minimal changes
in the five U.S. House districts dominated by Democrats since 2008.
Republicans modified the map they last proposed, but the GOP still is
pushing for changes that would make the open 5th Congressional District
seat more competitive in 2012.
Democrats and Republicans on the bipartisan Reapportionment Commission
had until noon today to file their proposed maps for consideration by
the court's special master, Professor Nathaniel Persily of Columbia.
Previous GOP map created a 'compact' 1st and 5th, undoing the 'claw'
created in 2001.
Persily, who is barred by the court from commenting on the plans, will
conduct a public hearing on the maps Monday at noon in the Legislative
Office Building.
Earlier this week, the court issued instructions to Persily that
Democrats interpreted as siding with their long-held contention that
the map adopted in 2001 can be re-used with minor changes to reflect
slight shifts in population.
"In developing the plan," the court said in its instructions order,
"the Special Master shall modify the existing congressional districts
only to the extent reasonably required to comply with the following
applicable legal requirements..."
Those requirements are that the districts be equal in population,
consist of contiguous territory and meet "other applicable provisions
of the Voting Rights Act and federal law."
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, the
co-chairman of the Reapportionment Commission, said that the reference
to other "applicable provisions" of the Voting Rights Act and federal
law suggests the special master has flexibility to make more than
minimal changes.
But Aaron Bayer, the Democrats lawyer, said in a brief filed today that
the existing map is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
"No voting Rights Act questions were raised about the 2001
congressional districts, and only minimal population shifts have
occurred since that plan was adopted," he wrote. "As a result, no
changes to the current congressional districts are 'reasonably required
to comply with' the Act."
The Democratic plan makes no changes in 164 of the 169 towns. It
equalizes the populations of the districts by shifting the lines in
four communities currently divided between two districts: Glastonbury,
Middletown, Shelton and Waterbury.
Durham, now split between the 2nd and 3rd districts, would be united in
the 3rd. Torrington, which is split between the 1st and 5th, would be
unchanged.
The Republican map proposed today focuses only on the irregular border
of the 1st and 5th, the result of a bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 to
accommodate two incumbents, Democrat James Maloney and Republican Nancy
Johnson, who both landed in the 5th after the state lost a House seat.
"The political compromise of 2001 is no longer relevant," the GOP says
in its brief.
The lates Republican map would swap New Britain, a solid Democratic
city in the 5th, with six Republican-leaning towns now in the 1st:
Colebrook, Westbrook, Hartland, Barkhamsted, New Hartford and Granby.
"Not only do these towns represent the most egregious evidence of the
gerrymandering that occurred at the time of the last redistricting,
they have natural communities of interest with the rest of the Fifth
District and little in common with the First," the GOP says in its
accompanying brief.
The oddest portion of the GOP's new and old maps is a section of the
5th that just into the first to keep the towns of Cheshire and Meriden
in the 5th. House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, and former
state Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Cheshire are congressional candidates in
the 5th.
Republicans bowed to political convention -- the commission worked to
keep all candidates and incumbents in existing districts -- even though
the court's instructions to the special master said, "In fashioning his
plan, the Special Master shall not consider either the residency of
incumbents or potential candidates or other political data, such as
party registration statistics or election returns."
Court favors Democrats in redistricting
instructions
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 5, 2012
In a victory for Democrats, the Connecticut Supreme Court has directed
its special master on redistricting to make minimal changes as he draws
new lines for the state's five U.S. House districts.
Democrats and Republicans on the bipartisan Reapportionment Commission
declined to comment Thursday, but the court's directions to Professor
Nathaniel Persily of Columbia, the special master appointed last week,
echo arguments made by the Democrats.
"In developing the plan," the court said in its new order, "the Special
Master shall modify the existing congressional districts only to the
extent reasonably required to comply with the following applicable
legal requirements..."
Those requirements are that the districts be equal in population,
consist of contiguous territory and meet "other applicable provisions
of the Voting Rights Act and federal law."
While the reference to "other applicable provisions" leaves the door
open for other changes, the court pointedly ignored a GOP-suggested
condition that would require significant changes to the current map:
"geographic compactness."
The court also made no direct mention of "political fairness." In fact,
it explicitly prohibited Persily from considering how the map favors or
disfavors Democrats or Republicans.
"In fashioning his plan," the court said, "the Special Master shall not
consider either the residency of incumbents or potential candidates or
other political data, such as party registration statistics or election
returns."
Democrats are proposing minimal changes in the existing map, arguing
that it was fairly drawn 10 years ago by a bipartisan legislative
commission. As such, they said, the court should give deference and use
the map, with the minimal changes necessary to equalize the districts
by population.
"The special master should use the current district lines as a baseline
and shall adjust those lines only to the extent necessary to comply
with those constitutional and statutory requirements," Aaron Bayer, the
Democrats' lawyer, wrote in his brief.
Ross Garber, the lawyer for the Republicans, urged the court to think
more broadly by directing the special master to consider factors such
as making the new districts politically fair and geographically
compact, with an eye toward grouping municipalities that have a
"community of interest."
Drawing the new map is far from an academic exercise: The map suggested
by the GOP would make the 5th Congressional District, the only open
seat in Connecticut next year, more amenable to Republicans, while the
status quo favors Democrats, who now hold all five U.S. House seats.
The court is accepting proposed congressional maps and supporting data
until noon Friday, and Persily will conduct a public hearing Monday at
noon in the Legislative Office Building.
Persily must file his plan with the court no later than Jan. 27.
Under the state constitution, the state Supreme Court took over
congressional redistricting after the commission failed to produce a
new map by Nov. 30. The court granted the commission an extension until
Dec 21, but the legislators on the panel declared a deadlock.
In taking over responsibility for the map, the court invited the
commission to continue its work on what the court says is a legislative
function. But Democrats declined to respond to the Republicans' last
map, which made changes in the awkwardly drawn border between the 1st
and 5th districts.
That border is the result of a bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 to
accommodate two incumbents, Democrat James Maloney and Republican Nancy
Johnson, who both landed in the 5th after the state lost a House
seat.
"That is why the district is shaped the way it is," Garber told the
court last week. "That is why that district is a gerrymander."
Republicans say their map makes geographic sense, while also making the
5th District -- an open seat in 2012 -- less Democratic by stripping it
of heavily Democratic New Britain.
Bayer responded that the 2001 map, even if oddly drawn, was the product
of a bipartisan legislative commission, and with minor modifications it
still can meet constitutional muster.
"It was a valid process," Bayer said.
Attorneys Argue Over Where Special Master
Should Start
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Dec 30, 2011 3:12pm
Attorneys for Republicans, Democrats, and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy were
able to agree on which two special masters to put forward to help
complete the redistricting process, but they were unable to agree on
where the special master‘s task will start.
Aaron Bayer, the attorney for the Democrats, told the Supreme Court
Friday that “deference has to be to the last successful redistricting
process.” Democrats on the commission have staunchly defended the 2001
map, which merged the 5th and 6th districts and pit two incumbents
against each other.
The current map needs only “modest changes“ to bring it into
compliance, Bayer argued.
Each Congressional district needs to include 714,819 people this year
and the 2nd district has a population of about 729,771 people,
according to U.S. Census data. As a result Democrats have argued for
making minimal changes.
Bayer also argued that the special master should ignore the traditional
redistricting criteria used in developing a redistricting plan.
“The Connecticut constitution does not include any of these criteria
for Congressional redistricting, as some state constitutions do,” Bayer
wrote in his brief. “That these criteria may be considered in the
legislative redistricting process does not mean that courts are
required to do so.”
Ross Garber, the attorney for the Republicans, disagreed with Bayer. He
said the special master shouldn’t be required to “ignore or minimize
traditional redistricting principles.”
He said the redistricting principles, of compactness and communities of
interest, are repeatedly articulated in federal and state court
decisions and should be the starting point.
He said those principles prevent racial isolation and gerrymandering.
“It would be a mistake to constrain the special master,” Garber argued.
He also argued a special master should not give deference to the 2001
map. He said the special master should have access to the 2001 map, but
should not be constrained by it.
When the last redistricting commission in 2001 merged the 5th and 6th
districts pitting two incumbents against each other, “that is why that
district was gerrymandered,” Garber told the court. He said that map
was never subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Bayer argued that anything less than sticking to the 2001 map would
make it a “much more inherently political process.” He said there was
never a legal challenge of the 2001 map and no one has claimed it’s
illegal.
Garber said while the 2001 map should be included, other maps drawn in
previous years, in addition to the maps created during the
Reapportionment Commission process should be included.
“The special master shouldn’t be handcuffed,” Garber argued.
Andrew McDonald, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s chief legal counsel, said the
special master should start with the 2001 map and shouldn’t start from
scratch, but it also shouldn’t ignore the widely acknowledged
redistricting principles.
“But unlike the Republican brief which exalts compactness the other
principles should be given just as much weight,” McDonald told the
court.
Democrats argued Republicans are ignoring the “communities of interest”
principle in moving minority groups in and out of districts in their
various versions of their maps in order to create a district that would
favor a Republican candidate. Currently all five seats are held by
Democrats, but they argue that three of the five seats have been held
by Republicans over the past decade.
Garber told the court Republicans are not valuing one principle of
redistricting over another, but he argues in his brief that “Although
the concepts can be difficult to apply and ought not trump compactness,
continuity, or preservation of traditional boundaries, in the absence
of other guidance it makes sense to draw district lines so as to
capture and maintain identifiable communities of interest as distinct
voting blocs.”
William Bloss, the attorney who is representing the minority
communities in Meriden, Norwalk, Bridgeport, and New Britain didn’t
make any arguments and hasn’t filed a brief yet in the matter, but said
he plans to stay involved in the proceedings.
The minority communities in those cities were upset when Republican
maps eliminated Bridgeport from the 4th district and placed it into the
3rd district. Then after Republicans restored Bridgeport to the 4th, it
removed New Britain from the 5th in its final version, which again
upset the minority community.
The court issued an order late Friday appointing Professor Nathaniel
Persily the special master and is expected to outline his duties by
Thursday, Jan. 5.
GOP Leader Calls On Guv To Withdraw Court
Appearance
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Christine Stuart | Dec 29, 2011 11:49am
(Updated 1:14 p.m.) House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero thinks Gov.
Dannel P. Malloy overstepped his authority when he filed an appearance
on the redistricting petition currently before the Supreme
Court. Cafero called the move “disturbing” and said it
creates the appearance of partisan politics and “undue influence” on a
court proceeding. He called on the governor Thursday to withdraw the
appearance.
“This is a process that excluded the governor,” Cafero said. “As the
defacto leader of the Democratic party, who has the power to appoint
Supreme Court justices, it’s completely inappropriate.”
In addition to nominating the justices, the governor has the power to
appoint the nine-member Reapportionment Commission under the state
Constitution, but Cafero said that’s where his power ends.
Andrew McDonald, Malloy’s chief legal counsel, said Wednesday that an
appearance was filed by the governor because “this is uncharted legal
territory and the governor wants to ensure Connecticut residents are
adequately represented.”
“Rep. Cafero is simply mistaken,” McDonald said of the accusations.
“Connecticut’s constitution specifically provides that once the
commission Rep. Cafero co-chaired failed to fulfill its obligations,
‘any registered voter’ could participate in the Supreme Court
proceedings.”
“The Governor had urged the members of the commission to get this job
done. Now that it is in the Supreme Court, he intends to advocate for a
redistricting plan that is fair to all of Connecticut’s citizens and is
accomplished within the timelines set forth in the constitution.
We will not be withdrawing from the case,” McDonald said in a statement
Thursday.
Asked what the governor’s concerns were McDonald said there’s a concern
that there may be an effort to undermine the “communities of interest”
in the proceedings.
“Communities of interest” is just one of the terms of art applied by
the commission in determining how district lines are drawn. It can be
taken to mean anything from ethnic groups to those with shared economic
interests to users of common infrastructure to those in the same media
market.
McDonald said there were several proposals advanced during the process
that divided geographic and racial communities of interest with
profound importance.
Parsing McDonald’s words, Cafero said he’s referring to the Republican
maps when he talks about his concerns regarding “communities of
interest.“
But McDonald said the governor’s court appearance is not an endorsement
of the maps put forth during the commission process since it’s unclear
the court will even pay attention to what has been done before the
matter was handed over to it.
“In many ways the court is writing on a blank slate,” he said.
But Cafero said if the governor is concerned about “communities of
interest” then he’s “opposing our maps and that’s just wrong.”
Republicans tried to keep partisan politics out of the whole process
and didn’t have a conversation with one candidate about its maps,
Cafero said alluding to the fact that House Speaker Chris Donovan’s
chief of staff is named in one of the other court appearances.
Donovan, who resigned from the Reapportionment Commission before
discussion of the congressional maps began, is running for the
Democratic nomination in the 5th congressional district. Mildred Torres
Ferguson, Donovan’s legislative chief of staff, has signed onto an
appearance with other advocates from Meriden, New Britain, Norwalk, and
Bridgeport.
The 5th district is the same one Republicans attempted to reconfigure
to make it more competitive for a GOP candidate. In its last proposal
Republicans removed New Britain from the 5th district and put
Bridgeport back into the 4th district—a move that was decried by
minority communities before the Dec. 21 deadline.
Republicans argued that putting New Britain in the 1st instead of the
5th eliminated the unusual borders required in 2001 in order to create
a level playing field for two incumbents to compete against each other
when a congressional district was eliminated.
Last week representatives of the minority community said moving New
Britain out of the 5th district was unacceptable.
Meriden Councilwoman Hilda Santiago said the minority population in New
Britain shares common interests with the growing minority populations
in Danbury and Waterbury in the 5th and putting it in the 1st would
“diminish the minority” influence of New Britain.
Cafero argued that New Britain shares more with Hartford than it does
with Danbury. In fact, a 9.6 mile busway is about to connect the two
cities, he said.
Democrats dismissed the Republican maps calling them radical.
Democrats proposed minimal changes to the five districts, but accounted
for the 15,000 increase in population in the 2nd congressional district
by shifting it from east to west. They argue the current maps are fair
because Republicans won three of five seats in 2002 and 2004.
In addition to Malloy several other organizations, representing
minority communities in Meriden, New Britain, Norwalk, and Bridgeport
have filed appearances with the court.
The court will hear oral arguments on the appointment of a special
master tomorrow at 1 p.m.
Special Master Will Be Appointed for
Redistricting, But Court Holds Out Hope for Legislative Solution
Hartford Courant
By DANIELA ALTIMARI
12:55 PM EST, December 27, 2011
The
state Supreme Court will
appoint a special master to help redraw
Connecticut's congressional maps. But the court also directed the
legislature's Redistricting Commission to continue working on a
redistricting plan. The court outlined the redistricting process
in an order issued Tuesday.
“We are mindful that the drawing of voting districts is a political
question and is quintessentially a legislative function,'' the court
stated in its order. But, it added, the court is bound by the state
Constitution, “and the deadline set therein to commence work on the
petition immediately.”
“While the foregoing proceedings are ongoing, however, the commission
shall continue working to agree on a redistricting plan,'' the order
states. “[A]nd we maintain hope that legislative action will be
forthcoming.”
The matter was thrown to the court after the bipartisan Redistricting
Commission failed to reach agreement on the new map, which is mandated
to be updated once every decade based on population shifts documented
by the U.S. Census. As outlined by the court order, the next step
is for the lawyers for all parties to confer and agree on a special
master. If the lawyers are unable to reach consensus, each party should
submit a list of potential nominees to the court by Friday at 10 a.m.
On Jan. 5, the court will appoint the special master and announce his
or her duties as well as the process that will be used to draw a new
map. The special master shall submit his or her report by Jan.
27, 2012. Any objections to that report must be filed on or
before Feb. 1, and any oral arguments to be made will be heard on Feb.
6.
The new congressional map must be filed with the Secretary of the
State's office by Feb. 15.
Copyright © 2011, The Hartford Courant
Deadline Looms For
Reapportionment Commission
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by
Christine Stuart | Dec 14, 2011 5:30am
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.
Court gives
redistricting commission
until Dec. 21 to draw congressional map
Mark
Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
December 2, 2011
The Connecticut
Supreme Court on Friday extended the deadline for
drawing new congressional districts to Dec. 21, keeping the politically
sensitive task in the hands of state legislators for nearly another
three weeks.
The
legislature's bipartisan redistricting commission sought the
extension after missing its deadline of midnight Wednesday. It
unanimously approved new districts for 151 state House and 36 state
Senate districts.
But Democratic
and Republican negotiators on the commission disagree
sharply over a congressional map, with Republicans seeking major
changes that would transform the 4th District into a GOP stronghold and
improve the party's chances in the 5th.
Ten years ago,
the commission members convinced the Supreme Court to
grant it more time for congressional redistricting, but its members
could tell the court in good faith that substantial progress was being
made.
In 2001, the
state had a six-member U.S. House delegation, evenly split
between Democrats and Republicans united on one point: no one wanted to
risk leaving a new congressional map to an unpredictable court.
Today, that is
not the case.
All five seats
-- slow population growth cost a seat in 2001 -- are now
held by Democrats, meaning there is little downside for the GOP to roll
the dice by giving the Supreme Court a shot at drawing new
congressional districts.
Democrats have
proposed a map that makes minimal changes from 2001 to
balance population in the districts.
"I thought the
Democratic proposal made a lot of sense," said U.S. Rep.
John B. Larson, D-1st District.
Republicans say
that the Democrats love the existing map only because
they now hold all five districts.
Republicans
offered a version that they say eliminates the oddly drawn
borders required in 2001 to craft a 5th Congressional District that
provided a level playing field for two incumbents forced to compete for
one seat, Democrat James Maloney of Danbury and Republican Nancy
Johnson of New Britain.
The new GOP map
removes both Danbury and New Britain from the 5th.
Danbury would be included in the 4th, while New Britain would become
part of the 1st.
But the map
also would greatly diminish the re-election chances of U.S.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District, by shifting heavily Democratic
Bridgeport, crucial to Himes' victory in 2008 and re-election in 2010,
to the 3rd District.
"It's beyond
blatantly obvious what they are trying to do," Larson said.
House Minority
Leader Rep. Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, the
co-chairman of the commission, said the GOP map offers five districts
that make sense geographically, regardless of the political parties.
Larson and the
rest of the Connecticut delegation met Thursday in
Washington with U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, to
talk about redistricting. The timing of the meeting was a coincidence,
Larson said.
Larson, who
participated in the 1990 redistricting as a state Senate
leader, said he told his colleagues there was little they could do but
watch.
"Having done
this once as the Senate president, I could tell them, 'You
have no role,' " he said.
When it comes
to redistricting, the Connecticut Democrats' possession
of all five seats actually disadvantages them. If the GOP held one or
two seats, Republicans on the bipartisan commission would be under
pressure from their own incumbents to agree on a map without court
intervention.
Weston Senate
districts in 26th changed
State legislative districts approved;
congressional map goes to court
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
November 30, 2011
The General Assembly's bipartisan redistricting commission unanimously
approved new districts Wednesday for the state House and Senate ahead
of a midnight deadline, leaving an unfinished congressional map in the
hands of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Attorney General George Jepsen will ask the court to grant the
commission an extension to continue negotiations on congressional
districts, the major piece of unfinished business. A second potential
legal complication: a Latino group is threatening to challenge the
state Senate districts.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, a
commission member and a candidate for Congress, immediately announced
his resignation from the panel, ceding his seat to House Majority
Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden.
"My goal is to get the maps done. I want to avoid politics and
encourage a bipartisan process," Donovan said.
Donovan, one of four Democrats and five Republicans running for the
open seat in the 5th Congressional District, has faced weeks of
criticism for his role on the panel from Mark Greenberg, one of the GOP
candidates. Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said
Donovan's resignation will remove a distraction from the process.
Both the Democratic and Republican congressional maps were drawn to
leave all nine candidates -- five of whom live in border towns -- in
the 5th district. Greenberg said Donovan's departure was overdue.
"I am pleased that Chris Donovan has finally recognized what the rest
of Connecticut has known for months: that Donovan's participation on
the commission that is re-drawing the boundaries of Connecticut's
congressional districts, including the 5th where he is a declared
candidate, is a blatant and egregious conflict of interest," he said.
Mike Clark, another GOP candidate, also was quick to attack Donovan:
"With his resignation from the commission today, we must ask, 'What
took him so long to see such a gross conflict?' This certainly proves
Donovan's poor judgment."
Greenberg said the map should be drawn by the court, saying that
replacing Donovan with Sharkey changes little, since Sharkey is an
ally. But if the courts gives the commission more time, no map can be
approved without the consent of the GOP. The GOP map would place
Bridgeport into the 3rd District with New Haven, creating a district
that Republicans say would be "minority influenced," the term for
districts in which minority voters are sufficiently numerous to
potentially be a pivotal voting bloc. The district would be 19 percent
black and 19 percent Hispanic, similar to the 1st District of Greater
Hartford.
But the shift also would rob U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District, of
Bridgeport's Democratic voters, jeopardizing his re-election. The
release of the state House map -- the Senate districts were completed
so close to the deadline that the map was not be available online
until Thursday morning -- prompted a rush to assess winners and losers.
One obvious winner: the Hartford suburb of Windsor, whose voters will
dominate a House district for the first time in 30 years. It will come
at a cost to Hartford and, more specifically, Rep. Marie Kirkley-Bey,
D-Hartford, who was redistricted out of her 5th Assembly District.
"This is huge," said Leo Canty, the Democratic chairman in Windsor.
"The new plan brings back the rightful and just district that Windsor
lost because of nasty political payback back in 1981."
Windsor leaders were lining up in 1981 behind House Speaker Ernest
Abate, who made an ill-fated challenge of Gov. William A. O'Neill. When
Abate failed to place himself on the redistricting panel, Windsor was
unprotected, Canty said.
The redrawn 5th Assembly District will spill from Northeast Hartford
into Windsor. It will have 13,537 voters in Windsor and 9,463 in
Hartford. As is the case now, it will remain a district dominated by
African-American voters, meaning it is not expected to reduce black
representation in the General Assembly. The 5th is one of seven
Assembly Districts with a population that will be at least 50 percent
black. Another eight are at least 30 percent black.
Kirkley-Bey is expected to retire after 20 years in the House. Should
she seek another term, she will have to compete against Rep. Matt
Ritter, D-Hartford, in the 1st Assembly District.
The new map also appeared to presage the retirements of Rep. Richard
Roy, D-Milford, and Rep. Gail Hamm, D-East Hampton, whose districts
were drastically redrawn. Roy, who also was elected 20 years ago, now
finds himself in the 117th Assembly District, the same district as Rep.
Paul Davis, D-Orange.
Roy's old district, the 119th, becomes an open seat that appears to
favor a Republican candidate.
The House map was praised by a Latino group that has closely followed
redistricting, urging the commission to draw a Senate map that would
create a district dominated by Latino voters, giving the Senate a
better chance at seeing its first Hispanic member.
"I think the House did a fantastic job," said Americo Santiago, a
former legislator involved with the Latino redistricting group.
Even with urban populations generally growing at a slower rate than
suburban and rural communities, the House map managed to largely keep
intact districts now represented by Latinos. In Hartford, three of the
five surviving House districts are drawn to favor a Latino candidate.
Statewide, the population of 21 House districts are at least 30 percent
Latino, with 7 being at least 50 percent Hispanic. But Santiago
said the group is likely to consider a legal challenge over the failure
by the Senate to create a Latino district. The Senate did not provide a
racial breakdown of its districts.
Democratic and Republican negotiators tentatively agreed late Tuesday
night on new lines for 36 Senate districts, while the 151 House
districts have been set for days.
A congressional compromise is expected to be more difficult, especially
if the GOP insists on a map that tilts the 4th and the 5th toward
Republicans. The court will have to decide if the parties are
reasonably assured of reaching an agreement. Ten years ago, the
commission members convinced the Supreme Court to grant an extension,
but its members could tell the court in good faith that substantial
progress was being made.
In 2001, the state had a six-member U.S. House delegation, evenly split
between Democrats and Republicans united on one point: no one wanted to
risk leaving a new congressional map to an unpredictable court.
Today, that is not the case. All five seats -- slow population
growth cost a seat in 2001 -- are now held by Democrats, meaning there
is little downside for the GOP to roll the dice by giving the Supreme
Court a shot at drawing new congressional districts.
"There was some concern on our part whether the Republicans had
incentive to bargain on the congressional districts. They don't have
any skin in the game," said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New
Haven, one of two Democratic state senators on the commission.
Looney said those concerns now appear well-founded.
Republicans say their congressional map eliminates the gerrymander
created in 2001 to accommodate two incumbents, Democrat James Maloney
and Republican Nancy Johnson, who were placed in the 5th Congressional
District after Connecticut lost one of its six U.S. House seats.
The Democrats have proposed minimal changes that adjust the districts
to give them equal populations.
The realities of redistricting are that the congressional maps take a
back seat to the state legislative districts. The reason is simple
enough: the maps are negotiated by eight state legislators, evenly
divided by party and legislative chamber. The panel worked as two
separate groups, with House Democrats and Republicans crafting a House
map, while Senate Democrats and Republicans handled work on a Senate
map.
The four House members -- Donovan, D-Meriden; Rep. Sandy Nafis,
D-Newington; House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk; and
Rep. Arthur O'Neill, R-Southbury -- signed off Monday on a map resolved
last week.
The four Senate members -- Looney; Senate President Pro Tempore Donald
E. Williams, D-Brooklyn; Senate Minority Leader McKinney, R-Fairfield;
and Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven -- had a harder time.
"We came to an agreement last night a little before midnight," Looney
said Wednesday.
The agreement surprised the House members, who had heard that the
senators were far apart. Williams today acknowledged that the talks
were heated. Williams and the Republican leaders, after
congratulating each other on resolving the state legislative districts,
immediately exchanged barbs about the congressional differences.
Technically, the deadlock on the bipartisan panel could have been
resolved without court intervention.
When the group failed to produce new maps by Sept. 15, it was required
under the state Constitution to add a ninth member, ostensibly giving
them a tie-breaker. The ninth member was Kevin Johnston, the former
Democratic state auditor. From the outside, it appeared to be a
simple matter to resolve the congressional districts. Johnston simply
had to pick either the Democratic map or the Republican version.
But Williams, co-chairman of the commission, said the eight legislators
committed to following decades of precedent and practice: They will
negotiate a balanced map, or let a court decide for the first time.
The threat of court intervention always has been sufficient to force
the legislators to reach a compromise.
Malloy
turns up the heat on redistricting
panel
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
November 22, 2011
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy offered his first criticism Tuesday of the
legislature's bipartisan redistricting panel, saying yielding the
responsibility to the courts would be "a gigantic mistake."
"They should get their act together and get reapportionment done. It's
an odd number of people. Get a vote, and get it done, and stop playing
around with it," Malloy said.
Failure to produce new legislative districts by Nov. 30 would place the
process in the hands of the courts.
"We know how bad Washington looks. We don't need that replicated in our
own state," Malloy said. "So you know, 'The ayes have it.' Have a vote."
The panel already has missed one deadline.
When the legislature's eight-member Reapportionment Committee failed to
finish by Sept. 15, the panel was reconstituted as a Reapportionment
Commission with the addition of a ninth tie-breaking member, former
state auditor Kevin Johnston.
But Johnston is not part of the daily negotiations.
The two Democrat House members on the panel meet regularly with the two
Republican House members, focusing exclusively on drawing 151 state
House districts.
The two Democratic senators on the commission conduct the same exercise
with the two Republican senators, exchanging revised maps of 36 state
Senate districts.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, a commission member,
said Tuesday night that the eight members have yet to discuss new
boundaries for the five U.S. House districts.
"We are all mindful that time is running short. Obviously, we have not
reached agreement. I wouldn't handicap whether we will or we won't,"
McKinney said. "It's not for lack of effort."
A spokesman for House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said
the commission members are optimistic they will meet the Nov. 30
deadline. Donovan and Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New
Haven, who are both members of the commission, declined to comment on
Malloy's remarks.
The commission members resume their negotiations Wednesday, one week
from the deadline. There are no plans to meet on Thanksgiving, but
talks are expected to pick up again Friday.
The state's legislative districts are redrawn every 10 years to reflect
population changes. Ten years ago, the redistricting effort briefly
fell into the hands of the courts after the two deadlines were missed.
The 2001 redistricting commission convinced the court that it could
finish the job without court intervention. With the permission of the
court, it did.
Open seat makes 5th
District the one to watch in redistricting
CT
MIRROR
By Mark Pazniokas
July 18, 2011
With four public hearings in three
days, the legislature's Reapportionment Committee this week finishes
its first round of information gathering to be used in drawing five
congressional
and 187 state legislative districts to reflect the 2010 census. Then
the fun begins.
Drawing new districts in Connecticut
is an exercise in computer-assisted puzzle making and old-fashioned
horse-trading by a precisely balanced committee of four Democrats and
four Republicans, with equal numbers from the state House and Senate.
Based on maps drawn over the next
two months, opportunities could open for some politicians and close for
others.
In the crowded race for the open
seat in the 5th Congressional District, for example, five candidates
live in communities on the border of two or even three districts:
Cheshire,
Farmington, Meriden, Plainville and Simsbury.
"The odds of Meriden being in the
5th are pretty goddamned good," said Richard Foley, a former state
legislator and state GOP chairman who was co-chairman of the 1990
Reapportionment
Committee. "That's just a guess."
It's more than a guess. Meriden is
home to House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, a candidate for Congress
in the 5th and, as Foley is well aware, one of the four Democrats on
this
year's Reapportionment Committee.
Others may not be so lucky.
One of Donovan's competitors for the
Democratic nomination, former Rep. Elizabeth Esty, lives in Cheshire on
the border with the 3rd District. Republicans Mike Clark of Farmington,
Justin Bernier of Plainville and Lisa Wilson-Foley of Simsbury are on
the border of the 1st District.
Ten years ago, population shifts
left Connecticut with five congressional districts, down from six. Of
the state's five surviving congressional districts, the 5th is the one
that cries out
for an overhaul. Its borders were manipulated 10 years to give two
incumbents, Democrat James Maloney and Republican
Nancy Johnson, a relatively even shot at victory.
The result was a district that looks
like a misshapen claw reaching east from a block of communities running
north from Danbury along the New York state line to Massachusetts. It
may be
a gerrymander, but the irony is that the 5th needs the least tinkering
on the basis of population.
According to the 2010 census, each
congressional district should have a population of 714,819 this year,
up from 681,113 a decade ago. The 5th has 714,296.
With 729,771 people, only the 2nd
District of eastern Connecticut needs to shrink. Population for the
other districts: 1st, 710,951; 3rd, 712,339; and 4th, 706,740.
Donovan and other members of the
committee say it is too early to talk about whether the 5th is in line
for a significant remaking. The panel has held hearings in the 2nd and
5th.
It has a hearing tonight in Norwalk in the 4th District, then Tuesday
in New Haven in the 3rd District and two
hearings in Hartford on Wednesday.
The Democratic committee members are
Donovan, Rep. Sandy Nafis of Newington, Senate Majority Leader Martin
M. Looney of New Haven and Senate President Pro Tempore Donald
Williams Jr. of Brooklyn.
The Republicans are House Minority
Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. of Norwalk, Rep. Arthur O'Neill of
Southbury, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney of Fairfield, and Sen.
Leonard Fasano of North Haven.
The committee has until Sept. 15 to
produce three maps: state House districts, state Senate districts, and
congressional districts.
"We haven't engaged in any specific
deliberations yet," Looney said.
And that includes Donovan's
potential interest in the outlines of the 5th District.
"I've always known Chris Donovan to
be very even-handed in his approach to things," Looney said. "I think
he's aware there is going to be a particular spotlight on him given his
position and the position he aspires to."
Donovan noted he has just one of
eight votes, and his place on the committee is due to his leadership
post.
"It's appropriate for me to be
there," Donovan said. As for any special spotlight on him, he said,
"People can speculate all the time about things."
He and Nafis will be negotiating
state House districts with Cafero and O'Neill. Looney and Williams will
be negotiating Senate districts with McKinney and Fasano.
Together, the eight members will try
to agree on congressional districts. If they cannot, a ninth member
will be appointed by the eight. If that fails, the courts step in.
Cafero said only O'Neill has
previous experience redistricting, so the rest of the panel is still
learning. Attendance was light at the first two hearings.
In Waterbury, the panel was urged to
consider drawing a state Senate district that includes the southern
half of Hartford and a portion of East Hartford to create a Latino
majority
district.
Creating districts that give
minorities a voice is one of many criteria established by court cases.
Other goals are trying to minimize dividing communities among
legislative and
congressional districts.
Durham, Glastonbury, Middletown,
Shelton, Torrington and Waterbury are the only six communities in more
than one congressional district. Middletown stands at a congressional
crossroads, where the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th districts meet.
Once an important part of the 2nd,
Middletown was pushed into the 1st and 3rd a decade ago after the
election of a Republican, Rob Simmons in the 2nd.
"Clearly, it was a Republican goal
in 2001 to switch Middletown for Enfield in the 2nd District in the
second district.
Part of that was Simmons," said Foley, who described Simmons as more
comfortable with the Democratic World War II veterans of Enfield than
the Wesleyan community in Middletown.