Outcome of Reapportionment for CT Congressional Districts 

05/26/2012

 
by Pat Donovan
The State of Connecticut's final 2011 Plan of Congressional Districting was published by the Secretary of State February 15, 2012.  The final plan incorporated the Special Master's Draft Report and Plan submitted on January 13, 2012.

Public comment was invited following the submission of the Special Masters Report and Plan.  Four parties commented - the Republican Members of the Reapportionment Commission, the Reapportionment Commission Democratic Members, the coalition for Minority Representation, and Counsel for the Town of Durham.  These comments did not result in any change to the plan.

District 2 was first to be reviewed because it was the most malapportioned in the existing plan.  It contains two towns (Durham and Glastonbury) that were split, one of which can be united.  The decision to unite Durham instead of Glastonbury was based upon the desire to achieve greater compactness.  5,193 people in Durham are moved from District 2 into District 3.  Glastonbury remains split.  9, 759 people in Glastonbury are moved from District 2 to District 1.

District 4 was the most under populated in the existing plan and was redrawn.  The only split town in the District is Shelton.  8,079 people in Shelton were moved from District 3 to District 4.

Due to the changes in boarders District 3 needed to gain population to comply with the one person one vote rule.  Durham, Shelton, Middletown, and Waterbury are towns split by the existing District 3.  District 3 has been moved farther into Middletown in District 1.

These changes caused 524 people to be moved from District 1 to District 5 in order to achieve population equality.  Torrington is the only town split between District 1 and District 5.548 people were moved from District 1 to District 5 and 24 people went from District 5 to District 1.

District 5 required the least alteration.  The boundaries of Torrington were moved causing the District to gain 524 people.

Redistricting is mandated every 10 years.  LWVCT would like to explore whether there is sufficient member and public interest in studying reapportionment methods in order to determine what method would best suit Connecticut's needs.

 

LWVCT Testimony on Redistricting for July 18 Public Hearing

07/18/2011

 
CGA Reapportionment Committee
July 18, 2011 Public Hearing
Norwalk City Hall
Comments by Pat Donovan, Redistricting Specialist 

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, a statewide organization with nearly 2000 members, commends the spirit of cooperation that the members of the General Assembly's Redistricting Committee have shown and the committee’s efforts to obtain public input. We urge that all meetings be well publicized, that the public continue to have access to testimony and transcripts, and that all redistricting proposals submitted by the public, and eventually the committee, be posted on the state's redistricting page.

Redistricting is not straightforward; there is more involved than the size of or shift in population.  Redistricting plans must comply with Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act (one person, one vote) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment.  The Acts have the potential to conflict with partisan objectives.  Districts can be drawn to give some people more voting power than others.  Redistricting affects citizen representation.  District lines can be drawn in an infinite number of ways, and how they are drawn can affect who is elected.

Our comments will be directed towards a process that is representative, accountable, transparent and responsive.  Redistricting should establish and maintain voting districts that are faithful to the principle of one person, one vote.   The League of Women Voters believes that legislative districts should have equal population, respect minority representation, be contiguous and compact and follow political and geographic boundaries.  In order to achieve representative democracy, we cannot stress enough that redistricting plans must be drawn in a manner that allows elected bodies to reflect the diversity of the populace, especially racial and ethnic diversity. 

To that end, one specific measure for redistricting purposes we support is for the Committee to count those incarcerated as part of their hometown population and not the towns in which they incarcerated.

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut applauds the Committee for the efforts it has taken to ensure transparency and invite public input. We look forward to reviewing the Committee’s proposed redistricting maps and hope to see districts that have equal population, respect minority representation, are contiguous and compact and follow political and geographic boundaries.