Editor’s note: This commentary is by Don Turner, a former Republican state representative from Milton, former House minority leader, current Milton town manager and longtime member of the Milton Fire and Rescue departments. He was a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2018.
Consider this: let’s say you live in the small town of Cambridge, Vermont, in rural Lamoille County. In Cambridge, you have one elected state representative the voters send to the Vermont House of Representatives, and one elected state senator to represent the county in the Vermont Senate. So, in total, Cambridge residents have two lawmakers representing them in Montpelier.
But right across the town border is Underhill, in Chittenden County. In Underhill, residents have two elected state representatives and six elected state senators. That’s a total of eight lawmakers representing Underhill.
In other words, an Underhill resident has four times as much representation in the Vermont Legislature as a Cambridge resident does. And get this — Cambridge has more people living in it than Underhill does.
Does this sound like equal representation to you?
If your answer is “no” then you’ll be glad to hear that right now we have an opportunity to change things.
Every 10 years, Vermont’s legislative district boundaries are rewritten to conform to the new population figures from the federal Census. Traditional principles and practices for redistricting are typically followed each decade. For example, is the district contiguous — that is, completely connected? Is it compact? Does it respect traditional boundaries? The list goes on.
But in Vermont, our legislative districts are drawn very, very differently from most other states. And as the Cambridge-Underhill example shows, we don’t necessarily draw them better. In fact, we arguably have the worst record when it comes to redistricting.
Only 10 states in the country have legislative districts with more than one member. In most states, this is limited to the House of Representatives — and most have no more than two members per district.
Only three states — Vermont, West Virginia and New Hampshire — allow districts with more than two members. And only two states — Vermont and West Virginia — have both House and Senate districts with multiple members.
In a sign of wisdom, West Virginia has opted to abandon multi-member districts, leaving Vermont alone with this antiquated policy in place in both of its legislative bodies.
As a result, Vermont is home to the largest legislative district in the nation. Indeed, the Chittenden County Senate District is an impenetrable bloc that strongly favors incumbents. A Chittenden County state senator hasn’t lost re-election in several decades. Thankfully, this district will be partially split up regardless due to legislation signed by Gov. Scott.
Because of our liberal use of multi-member districts, Vermonters face remarkable unequal representation in the Legislature.
Nearly all states have limited their legislative districts to just one member per district for good reasons. It keeps elected officials close to the communities they represent, instead of having massive districts with multiple members representing several communities across wide geographical areas. It avoids pairing incumbents in a bloc that is difficult for newcomers to penetrate. And it forces districts to remain relatively small, resulting in closer and more accurate representation.
Of the nearly 120 House and Senate Districts in Vermont, roughly half are single-member seats. The rest contain anywhere from two to six members. This is far more than any other state.
As Vermont considers its redistricting plan, it should strongly contemplate following the overwhelming majority of states and ditch its use of multi-member districts — or, at the very least, severely curtail it. Even in West Virginia, which will be abandoning its use of multi-member districts, the overwhelming majority of its districts are already single-member.
If officials are wise enough to move in this direction, it will improve representation, avoid unbreakable “blocs” of several incumbent legislators, promote competitiveness, and keep districts more compact and closer to their core communities.
Yes, it may cause some disarray among incumbents who will be angry about new boundaries. But that political reality is worth the price of better representation and competitive elections that are fairer in their conduct and more equal in their outcomes.
