Vermont state legislators are famously civil with each other. But the relationship between Reps. Gabrielle Stebbins and Tiff Bluemle goes well beyond that.
The two House members talk nearly every day. They share a seat in Montpelier’s lower chamber, but also a street in Burlington’s South End, where they live four houses away from one another. And since they represent the same constituents, they usually hold meetings with them together.
But to keep their roles in Montpelier, Stebbins and Bluemle — both Democrats who represent Chittenden 6-5 — might have to run against each other.
The two representatives aren’t alone. As Vermont prepares to divvy up its 150 seats in the House of Representatives, one map backed by a state board would draw “single-member districts” across the state, pitting a lot of incumbents against each other in next year’s elections.
That proposed map — and with it, a model in which every House district has only one representative — still has a long way to go before it’s approved by the Legislature. But with support from across the political spectrum, including one of the state’s most influential advocacy groups, the political scene in urban areas of Vermont such as Burlington could feel a shock in the months to come.
A VTDigger analysis of campaign filings found that — under the proposed map — three incumbents from Burlington’s House of Representatives delegation (including either Stebbins or Bluemle) would lose their seats because they, along with another incumbent, live in what would become a single-member district.
Among those who could be ousted by another incumbent is House Speaker Rep. Jill Krowinski, who lives two streets over from fellow Democratic Rep. Curt McCormack in the Old North End.
Reps. Carol Ode and Bob Hooper, two New North End Democrats, would be in the same position.
In an interview, Krowinski said she has “started to scan” the proposed redistricting map, but won’t focus much on the issue until the Legislature convenes in January.
Krowinski and McCormack have discussed the possibility of their district losing a seat, the legislators confirmed to VTDigger, though both declined to say whether they’d run against each other.
“It is premature for us to be talking about what we would do in that situation,” Krowinski said.
But if the two did run against each other, McCormack thinks Krowinski would have the edge.
“She’s a good campaigner,” McCormack said with a laugh. “She’s younger than I am.”
“But,” added the veteran legislator who’s represented multiple cities in Montpelier across four decades, “I’m pretty good at it, too.”
Representatives told VTDigger they weren’t fundamentally opposed to single-member districts statewide, but many voiced reservations about changing the state’s political map in such a significant way.
In particular, representatives pointed to the proposed map’s narrow approval last month, passing the state’s Legislative Apportionment Board by a one-vote margin.
“That’s not a mandate by any means,” Hooper said of the 4-3 vote. “Doing a wholesale change like this has to have some kind of weight to it, other than one person deciding they’re going to vote on one side or the other.”
“I don’t see a clear consensus,” Krowinski said. “I think there’s a lot of opinions around the table.”
Bluemle, who is in her first term, said she has sought input on the issue from some Burlington city councilors, three former state legislators and the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (which has endorsed a single-member approach statewide).
After having those conversations, “I don’t understand yet how single-member districts would benefit the voters of Burlington,” Bluemle said.
In an email, Stebbins didn’t take a side on the issue but said “it’s important to have equal representation.”
Which model creates more equal representation, though, is a disputed matter.
Advocates for having only single-member districts argue that Vermonters from multimember districts hold more political clout in Montpelier. Instead of calling up one legislator, you can call up two.
But those who favor the existence of two-member districts point out that the proposed map breaks apart towns and school districts, potentially setting up a conflict with the Legislature’s statutory obligation to draw districts by “patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties, and common interests.”
In addition, there is the question of whether voters want to shake up the state’s political map.
“Consistency is something that, in the voters’ minds, is sort of a good thing,” said Hooper, who can get hands-on with redistricting as a member of the House Committee on Government Operations. “If you’re going to replace somebody as your legislator — somebody that might have, I don’t know, helped you get your unemployment straightened out … you should have the ability to say yes or no on that person based upon their performance.”
“If we get a lot of voters coming in to say, ‘I don’t want anything to do with this,’ I think that should and will have more impact on committee work” than advocacy groups, Hooper said.
Ode didn’t respond to an interview request from VTDigger.
In Burlington, the proposed map wouldn’t only knock out incumbents. It also would create new single-member districts that no current representatives could lay claim to.
Three open seats would emerge: One that encompasses downtown, one at the very northern tip of the city and one where nearly all of one district’s residents would live in buildings owned by the University of Vermont.
The apportionment board’s approval sent the proposed map to cities and towns around the state for comments and recommendations, which are due back by Nov. 15.
Burlington’s Board of Civil Authority — the mayor and city council — will discuss the proposed map and listen to public comments during Monday’s city council meeting.
