Rep. Chris Pearson makes the case before the House Committee on Government Operations for an additional house seat for Burlington. VTD/Josh Larkin
Update: Reporter Nancy Remsen of the Burlington Free Press is reporting that the House Government Operations Committee has voted against a 10th seat for Burlington.
What the apportionment process giveth, the apportionment process taketh away.
House representatives from the Burlington area are looking to gain an extra seat, and if the proposal is accepted by lawmakers, another district elsewhere in the state would have to give up a seat.
The legislative committee charged with realigning voting districts is taking testimony on a tentative map that would largely leave the districts now in place untouched, but inevitably, the process creates winners and losers. Some districts will gain more representatives, while others will lose seats.
The House Government Operations Committee has scrapped some of the recommendations of the Legislative Apportionment Board, including an additional 16 single-member districts, and has tried to keep the status quo — a large number of two-district seats — in place.
Burlington representatives want a 10th seat in the House of Representatives. Rep. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, testified on behalf of the nine members from the Burlington area on Tuesday before the House Government Operations Committee.
“Given the population growth (in Burlington), we would ask that you give us the 10 seats we deserve,” Pearson said. “I don’t envy you (committee), this is a really tough problem, and I know it can be extremely personal.”
Committee members were uncertain about where the extra seat would come from.
“We have a district right next to you (Pearson) that is too much for one seat and not enough for two,” Rep. Ronald Hubert, R-Milton, said to Pearson during the meeting. “How do we solve that problem?”
Vice Chair Kenneth Atkins, D-Winooski, raised concerns about the addition of a member in Burlington.
“It would be nice if Burlington had 10 (members), and we had two, but if that’s the case we would add up to 151. By law we can’t have 151,” Atkins said.
Vermont has 150 representatives and voters within the districts must be distributed more or less equally. Once a decade, all 50 states must go through the process of redistricting to accommodate population shifts. Vermont experienced a 2.8 percent population growth in the last decade, which is roughly a third of the national average. The most growth occurred in Chittenden County. In accordance with the 14th Amendment, or the “one-man-one-vote” law, all citizens must be ensured equal representation.
The 2010 census changed the distribution of representation statewide and in individual districts. Each member of the House is supposed to represent approximately 4,172 Vermonters.
The committee’s tentative map, developed by legislative counsel, grouped together Burlington, which has nine members, with Winooski, which has two members, in an 11-member district. Ultimately, the districts would be broken down into one or two-member districts.
Winooski has a population of 7,267 people which is a -12.91 percent deviation from the “ideal” number for a two-member district. For Burlington to gain a 10th seat, it would need to give Winooski at least 243 voters to reach a -10 percent deviation – which is considered the bare minimum.
Burlington’s gain would also be another district’s pain. A seat somewhere else would have to be dissolved.
Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, chair of Government Operations, said she hopes that the Board of Civil Authority in each of the bigger municipalities like Burlington will give the committee feedback on how they want the districts to be divided.
The House committee will continue to hear testimony from other districts around the state as January continues, but Sweaney said her deadline for the first draft of the House map is due by Jan. 31; it will then be presented on the House floor. The map will be sent back to the House Committee on Government Operations for a second draft before being sent to the Senate.
The Senate is going through the same process to create a separate map. Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell proposed a resolution for a special seven-member committee which was passed by an overwhelming majority, much to the chagrin of Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windsor, a member of the Senate Government Operations Committee.
Permalink |
Going to all single member districts would actually solve any issues regarding representative apportionment.
The state government already ignores most of the supposed constitutional requirements. I live in the boundaries of the Orange-2 district that combines towns that have little to no contact with each other; crosses county lines; and connects by the thinnest thread of a single town maintained road.
I would argue that forcing some folks who live in town ‘A’ to share state representation with some folks from town ‘B’ while both townspeople simultaneously act within their separate town districts would be a very good thing. This effect would get people out of their insular little holes and deal with the reality that local decisions have global (okay – statewide) effects.
Single member districts would also have the salutary effect of making it easier for more folks to participate in running for office (at least out here in the countryside where districts can cover fairly large areas).
I think it’s sad we are going to once again bow to the alter of “Don’t upset the apple cart ’cause the drivers are setting the rules”.