Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rama Schneider, who is a member of the Williamstown School District Board of Directors.
[C]hange happens. Once upon a time Vermont’s General Assembly consisted of a House made up of one representative per town/city, and a Senate made up of one senator per county plus 16 more that were apportioned by county population. Along came 1962 and a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Baker v. Carr and a ruling that such district schemes in state governments violated constitutional rights by virtue of indefensible differences in representation. At this point change did happen resulting in our current basic structure of senatorial and representative districts based primarily upon population. Unfortunately we are still living with a system that violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The most obvious case of unequal representation in Vermont’s General Assembly is illustrated with a comparison of the Chittenden and Orange senatorial districts. Under the latest (2012) legislative reapportionment scheme, the Chittenden district is made up of 137,510 residents, each of whom is represented by six senators, while the Orange district has 20,049 residents each of whom is represented by only one senator.
The discrepancies are obvious. The population difference is huge with Chittenden having almost seven times the number from Orange, and the number of senators representing each individual constituent is only marginally better at six to one.
In all fairness I acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Brown v. Thompson (1983) that there are valid reasons that make population disparities among districts constitutionally permissible, but “an apportionment plan with population disparities larger than 10% creates a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore must be justified by the State, the ultimate inquiry being whether the plan may reasonably be said to advance a rational state policy and, if so whether the population disparities resulting from the plan exceed constitutional limits.”
Every voter in the Chittenden district will get to vote for six candidates while those in Orange will only get to vote for one!
So we come to the question of rationality regarding Vermont’s current legislative district scheme. Vermont’s senatorial districts are defined by cities and towns. This is important because some of these districts, such as Caledonia, Chittenden, Chittenden-Grand Isle, and Orange readily ignore county boundaries to accommodate population considerations. If the rationality for Senate districts exists at the town and not county boundaries then certainly greater accommodation can be made to bring the district populations closer.
The above ignores a possibly more salient point: Every voter in the Chittenden district will get to vote for six candidates while those in Orange will only get to vote for one! There is no rationality for allowing a person in Burlington to have six senators representing her while someone in Randolph only is allowed one — nor is there any case law upholding that grotesque disparity in governmental representation.
And yes, these same basic arguments apply to Vermont’s House districts that bounce from one to two representatives per district depending upon local whim. House districts don’t even recognize town boundaries as illustrated by Bennington-3 district: “Glastenbury, Shaftsbury, and that portion of the town of Sunderland encompassed within a boundary beginning at the point where the boundary line of Sunderland and Glastenbury intersects with VT Route 7; then northerly along the eastern side of the centerline of VT 7 to the intersection of North Road; then northerly along the eastern side of the centerline of North Road to the intersection of Borough Road; then northerly along the eastern side of the centerline of Borough Road to the intersection of Sunderland Hill Road; then northeasterly along the southern side of the centerline of Sunderland Hill Road to the boundary of the town of Manchester; …”
The cure to these constitutional violations is simple: better alignment of districts by population with each district sending the same number of senators or representatives as every other district. My personal preference is for single member districts.
So let’s make a bit more change happen.
More information regarding the above referenced history and court cases:
http://mailtrack.me/tracking/raWzMz50paMkCGV3ZwN3AmV5ZGDzMKWjqzA2pzSaqaR9ZGV1AGLlAGp0Way2LKu2pG04ZwxlAwp2Zwt4CN
