Lawmakers to try again to revise congressional map
Connecticut’s legislative leaders on Monday agreed to try one more time to come to bipartisan agreement on a new map of the state’s five congressional districts after a court-appointed special master warned he was in the process of redrawing the boundaries himself.
Speaker of the House Matt Ritter and state Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly now have a noon deadline on Wednesday to haggle over the final districts where cities including Torrington, New Britain and Meriden will be placed after a western shift of Connecticut’s population in the past 10 years.
But both Democrats and Republicans, including GOP State Chairman Ben Proto, seemed steadfast in their disagreement, especially as it relates to the makeup of the 1st and 5th districts.
While Connecticut’s decennial reapportionment process has been smoother than many states — mostly where Republican majorities in legislatures have gerrymandered districts to benefit GOP interests — Connecticut’s state House and Senate districts were agreed upon late last year, with incumbents generally protected.
But changes to the current congressional map, which still bears a so-called lobster claw in the Hartford area dating back from the loss of a seat in 2000, has been stalemated. The state Supreme Court named Stanford University Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily as special master.
During an hour-long virtual public hearing on Monday, Persily, who took a similar job 10 years ago when state lawmakers deadlocked, said that he is already drafting him own map, but wanted to give Connecticut Democrats and Republicans one more chance for a meeting of the minds. The state’s high court has given him until Jan. 18 to finalize the new map.
“In a national perspective — as you know I am doing this around the country — you all are pretty close to each other,” Persily said. “If you cannot come up with a full plan that you could agree upon, I would ask whether there are sections of the plan you could agree upon.”
Persily asked the state lawmakers, leaders of the Reapportionment Commission, to file with him either a partial or complete map. “I am eager to see what the commission can come up with in the next 48 hours,” Persily said during the virtual hearing.
Persily added: “In developing the plan the court has ordered me to modify the existing districts only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with the following legal requirements. Districts shall be as equal in population as practicable; districts shall made of contiguous territory; the plan shall comply with the Voting Rights Act.”
In particular, Persily mentioned the boundaries that currently split Shelton into the 4th and 3rd districts, or the 1st and 2nd district split in Glastonbury.
“I can’t tell from the briefs whether you all are committed to one way of slicing those towns as opposed to another,” Persily said.
Kelly defended the Republican proposal, which would have near-equal populations of about 721,189 residents per district.
He recalled that the map developed by lawmakers after the 2020 Census resulted in the elimination of the state’s 6th District, lawmakers drew up a new 5th District that included both Danbury and New Britain, because the incumbent U.S. representatives, a Democrat and Republican, lived in those towns.
“It is our duty not to turn a blind eye to past failures to fulfill our redistricting principles but rather to confront them and correct them,” Kelly said. The Republicans submitted two maps, a “least-change” map and a “good government” map.
“When the ultimate goal is to have the least amount of change possible, the end result preserves the status quo,” Kelly said. “When the status quo includes gerrymandered districts as well as well-recognized reduction in competition, the status quo cannot be allowed continue unchallenged.”
“The problem with the (1st District) claw, as everyone I think will admit privately, is that it is political,” Proto said in the virtual hearing. “It is politically gerrymandered to fix a problem that occurred in 2001. Simply because something was good in 2001, or the politically expedient thing to do in 2001, does not mean it is the correct thing or the politically expedient thing to do in 2021 or ’22, other than to protect the interest of five sitting congressmen, which shouldn’t be a consideration.”
Ritter, speaking for Democrats, noted that under the current maps, the Republican candidate, Bob Stefanowski of Madison, won both the 2nd and 5th districts.
“So, the idea there is no competition, I don’t think the stats back that up,” Ritter said. “But candidates do matter, I will acknowledge that.”
Ritter said that the Democratic proposals for new district lines would shift 71,736 people to new districts, while the Republican plans, with a unified Torrington, which is currently split into the 5th and 1st districts, would move 125,000 people. “The amount of disruption, I believe, is significant,” Ritter said.
Ritter noted that the state House and Senate maps were unanimously approved, culminating a year in which the Census totals were months late in arriving, putting lawmakers drastically behind schedule.
“I am personally disappointed, Mr. Special Master, that we’re at this process, but it’s not from not trying,” Ritter told Persily. “We all worked very, very hard to get there, but these things are very difficult to do, particularly in a tight time frame.”
Persily said it might be worth the wait if the lawmakers could come to a deal.
“I wanted to try just one more time because I do think it could be a model for the country as well,” Persily said. “You all have worked through the legislative process in a way that is admirable.”