Editor’s note: Don Turner, a Republican from Milton, is the minority leader of the Vermont House.
The Vermont House of Representatives had planned to finish legislative reapportionment last week, ending the grueling process to establish new legislative districts in Vermont for the next decade. However, due to a last minute maneuver by House Democrats, final action on the bill was postponed.
Just one day after the House gave overwhelming support to the new and final legislative representative districts by a vote of 123 yeas to nine nays, the Democrats and House legislative leadership brought forth a last-minute amendment to modify the plan. The section targeted by the amendment was one that had been approved by the Burlington Board of Civil Authority and the City Council in accordance with all guidelines established by the Legislature earlier this session.
The House Government Operations Committee had been working in a nonpartisan manner on this issue since last fall. They sought and received recommendations on where the district lines should be drawn from all communities that were represented by two or more representatives. Prior to this maneuver the concept of local control and local people knowing their community best was embraced. These local recommendations were all incorporated into, what we thought would be, the final map.
However, after the vote on Thursday, rumors started swirling that the House assistant majority leader would be proposing a plan to manipulate the city of Burlington’s 10 legislative districts. Reality resulted in the plan surfacing as an amendment on Friday. This was met with significant resistance since a similar proposal was opposed by the committee on a vote of 3-8 however, after some coercion by leadership we saw the committee reverse its previous decision on a vote of 6-5.
The original vote upheld local control, and withdrawing from such appeared as detachment from the commitment outlined in the law we passed earlier this session. As the minority leader, this was very disappointing to me and many other members of the House. Up to this point, the product of this relatively nonpartisan process could have been a model of redistricting for the country.
General consensus led me to believe that the local input was valued. I supported the original bill on Thursday and was proud to have been part of the tri-partisan process. However, when blindsided by the super-majority by this amendment on Friday it was a mere representation of the reality that partisanship would enter into the process at some point.
The intent of the proposal would dictate the new and final legislative district boundaries to Burlington residents, replacing the plan which had been approved and submitted by Burlington’s Board of Civil Authority that’s value earned a House vote of 123-9. I was very disappointed that at the last possible minute members of the majority party and leadership attempted to sabotage the integrity of the House reapportionment process and circumvent local control in one “minor” amendment.
Vermonters value local control and deserve fair representation, and this partisan action forced us in the minority to stand our ground. Our opposition to this maneuver resulted in leadership postponing action on the bill and the proposed changes until Tuesday. Over the weekend, numerous exchanges took place between parties to come to an agreement. Our only acceptable route was to support the original plan which preserved local control. On Tuesday we stood strong on our position, and after hours of discussion leadership advised us that the amendment would be withdrawn. The bill then passed the House on a vote of 126 in favor with 13 opposed.
I explained my yes vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker: Local control, the integrity of the Government Operations Committee and the House legislative re-apportionment process in its entirety was preserved by the minority today. Thank you.”
This maneuver is just one more example of the risks associated with single party rule. Single party rule does not produce the best legislation, is not good government, and is bad for Vermont!
