Lawmakers’ efforts to update legislative districts continue to sputter along in the Statehouse, dogged by warnings of a court challenge, political maneuvering and conflicting ideas between the Senate and the House.
The Senate Thursday tinkered with several Senate districts, which are based largely on county lines for the 30 members of that body, but also changed four districts in the House, two each in Bennington and in Chittenden County. The actions were taken by the seven-member reapportionment committee in the Senate.
The Senate panel did not wade into a controversy over last-minute changes proposed to two Burlington districts in the Vermont House, which had expected a hot debate on two amendments proposing those changes Tuesday. But following backroom huddles and opposition from House GOP and Progressive members, the amendments were withdrawn and the redistricting map was approved as recommended by the House Government Operations panel 126-13 on Tuesday and sent to the Senate.
The changes to the redistricting maps were approved in a 6-1 vote by the Senate reapportionment committee and now go to the full Senate for action. The changes ensure the likelihood that the bill, H.789, will require further action by the House and a conference committee to iron out differences, which could delay resolution and also allow House Democrats to again try to change the two Burlington districts.
The redistricting process occurs every 10 years after new census population information comes out, in an effort to make sure representation is fair and even across the state. But drawing boundary lines crosses many hot wires, from deciding which town ends up in which district, sometimes disadvantaging certain lawmakers by changing the towns they represent, to upsetting voters who are riled when they are lumped with towns they feel they have little in common with or are separated by mountainous topography.
That fairness issue has riled the Vermont GOP, with Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, and state GOP Chairman Jack Lindley criticizing the reapportionment for being out of conformance with generally accepted guidelines for district equality and hitting Democrats for “sabotaging the integrity” of the House process.
Lindley said when some House or Senate districts are as much as 20 percent in deviation from the norm – too many or not enough people in a district – it is “out of the mainstream.”
“Somebody under the ‘Dome’ does not understand ‘one man, one vote’,” he said.
Lindley earlier on Tuesday said that raises the prospect of a court challenge, since deviations that high are frowned upon by the courts because “people are being shortchanged.”
Turner was upset at last-minute efforts to manipulate the city of Burlington’s 10 legislative districts, in part because the effort ignored the local wishes of the Burlington Board of Civil Authority.
“Local control is important,” he said, and argued that the effort by Democrats to tinker with a “tri-partisan” agreement with Progressives and the GOP was out of line.
“We don’t usually get our way much,” he said of the minority GOP in the House and Senate, “but we are on firm ground.”
According to the bi-partisan Legislative Apportionment Board, which drafts an initial map for lawmakers to consider, the 2010 Census counted 625,741 residents in the state, up 16,914 residents from 2000.
Dividing the 2010 population by 150 House of Representatives seats yields an ideal district population of 4,172 for a single-member district, and 8,344 for a two-member district. Dividing the 2010 population by 30 Senate districts yields an ideal Senate district population of 20,860.
The push and pull over the redistricting schemes comes as the Legislature builds up to a crescendo in the last weeks of the session, adding both a little drama and politics. Rep. Turner said he’ll be “watching very closely” to see what Democrats do next in the Senate.
