House passes redistricting plan 138-4

Rep. Donna Sweaney, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, checks her IPad during the 2011 Legislative Session. VTD/Josh Larkin

Redistricting is one of the most contentious, political processes lawmakers face. But on Thursday, the Vermont House of Representatives managed to bypass the partisan rancor that typically accompanies the messy process of resetting the boundaries for legislative districts.

The Democratic majority won the day when House GOP leadership, which raised questions about gerrymandering in Rutland County, overwhelmingly supported the bill. Though the Republicans initially had qualms about a reconfiguration of Castleton, once the town was made whole in a broadly supported amendment, they fully backed the legislation.

The upshot? A landslide vote of 138-4 in favor of a plan that, with the exception of a half dozen changes, left most existing districts in tact.

The new map adds one seat to the Burlington district and eliminates a half seat from Windsor County and a half seat in Rutland County.

The adjustments were made in a once a decade exercise that realigns districts in response to demographic shifts reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Amendments and questions on the floor, which lasted for several hours, came from Democrats who saw their districts expand into new areas and/or shift from single member districts to two-seat districts. The debate largely centered on the difficulty of reaching new constituents who in some cases live literally around the mountain.

House Speaker Shap Smith held a press conference after the vote and used the opportunity to publicly thank the Republicans, Progressives and Democrats who worked together in the House Government Operations Committee to create a map that a majority of all three parties could agree to.

“People who have been around this process before understand how different the one that happened this year was from past years,” Smith said. “The redistricting process in many states is the most political of political battles and it is because it defines what the map is going to look like for the next 10 years. What was different this process is, the committee remembered who this was really about. It’s about the people of the state of Vermont. It’s not about the politicians.”

Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, chair of the House Government Operations Committee, who led the effort said now she could go to sleep at night without visions of multi-colored redistricting maps dancing in her head.

“A vote that’s 138 yes and 4 no really gives tribute to the committee … and to all the members here,” Sweaney said. “It is the Vermont way. We had every representative in our committee from Rutland County. We had members from Windsor County, from Lamoille. We brought people in and talked and discussed. We were determined to make this as fair as possible.”

Sweaney’s own district was affected by reapportionment. Sweaney who has served in the House for 16 years, will be in a two-seat district.

“It’s been real easy,” Sweaney said. “For 10 years I’ve been in a single-member district. I have to ask myself, am I psyched up to add 400 more people to my life, but there’s two of us and we can campaign together. It might not be all bad.”

In an interview, she said the change in her own district helped her lead the committee through the difficult process of redrawing lines that shifted groups of voters from one town into another to satisfy proportional representation requirements under federal law.

Still, Democrats from Waterbury, Arlington, Shaftsbury and Johnson were unhappy with the changes. Johnson lost part of Eden and was married with Hyde Park and Wolcott to become a two-seat district. The towns of Stratton, Arlington, Shaftsbury Sunderland, Glastenbury, Sandgate were joined together into a new two-seat district. An amendment proposed by Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, that would have kept two single member districts, her own and that of Rep. Alice Miller, D-Shaftsbury, failed.

Members from Waterbury were upset that instead of continuing to represent a northern section of Duxbury, which will now be part of the Mad River Valley district, they will represent the town of Bolton.

“Change is hard,” said Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury. Duxbury has a long history and civic affiliation with Waterbury, he said. “It’s no reflection on how we feel about Bolton. We’ll get to know Bolton.”

Stevens, Miller, Browning and Rep. Mark Woodward, D-Johnson, all voted against the bill.

The most controversial map drawing was in the Republican stronghold of Rutland. The GOP accused the Dems of gerrymandering when Castleton State College, located in the village of Castleton was added to a new district. The move lead to an impasse between the two parties over the weekend. House GOP majority leader Don Turner said his fears were allayed on Tuesday when Sweaney brought a new map to the table that kept Castleton whole and backed away from a plan that would have pitted three Republicans against one another in a two-member district.

“We appreciate the effort of the majority leader and the speaker to allow us to work with them to obtain a reasonable resolution to the redistricting puzzle that although not perfect does meet most of the objectives our caucus had set forth at the beginning of this process,” Turner said. “This plan keeps towns whole and provides most Vermonters an opportunity for fair representation for the next decade.”

Sweaney said the last time the Legislature went through the redistricting process in 2002 when a Republican majority was in power, the process was more contentious.

“My determination was we weren’t going to go back there again,” she said. “We were going to come at this that every member has a voice and we’re going to work hard to make sure we’re fair and I did say to the committee when I came in there are 149 people I care about and respect and I want 149 of them back here if that’s possible.”

The committee reviewed more than 40 maps together. In past years, lawmakers said the boundary lines were often drawn in closed door meetings.

An ideal single-seat district has 4,172 residents and a two-seat district has 8,344. A deviation of 10 percent above and 10 percent under those target numbers, for a total deviation of 20 percent, has been held up in court, according to a press release from the Speaker’s office. The House plan deviates by 18.99 percent.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which is expected to be approved unchanged. The Boards of Civil Authority will then review the plans before the bill is passed this session.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:47 a.m. and again at 6:14 a.m.

Erin Hale, an intern for VTDigger.org, contributed to this report.