Republicans rigged the system in Danbury

As a Danbury homeowner, attorney and a teacher of Law, Government & Politics, I was dismayed to hear the crookedness of partisan gerrymandering had reached its gnarly hand to Danbury.

Gerrymandering is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage within the constituency. Gerrymandering artificially manipulates the boundaries of electoral districts to give an advantage to one political party. This results in a distorted election outcome which does not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Additionally, it can lead to unequal representation, wherein certain communities and groups are underrepresented or overrepresented in the political process. This distorts the democratic process and can lead to a loss of confidence in the electoral system and the government as a whole. Furthermore, gerrymandering can limit competition and reduce the incentive for political parties to address the needs and concerns of all constituents, as they can simply rely on manipulating district lines to maintain their power.

Overall, gerrymandering undermines the principles of free, fair, and competitive elections essential as building blocks to a functioning democracy.

This is the situation we are faced with after the Republicans on the reapportionment process committee failed to offer any maps or revision lines and voted against the only other map presented — the Democrats’ ward map which modifies wards only to the smallest extent necessary and without consideration of a council member’s residency or party lines. The mayor then appointed an ad hoc committee from the City Council with one Democrat and two Republicans, and for the first time, the Republicans proposed an impressively gerrymandered map that would fundamentally change representation in our city.

Ten years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court set forth criteria on how to redraw congressional districts: “(The commission] … shall modify the existing … districts only to the extent reasonably required to comply.” Hence, it is clear the law requires as few changes as possible to the existing lines to meet the U.S Supreme Court’s criteria of “one man, one vote,” or for districts to be as equal in population as is practicable (Baker v. Carr).

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Shaw v. Reno that though a reapportionment plan may be “race neutral on its face … redistricting … that is ‘unexplainable on grounds other than race,’ ” is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause:

“(R)eapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter (and) a reapportionment plan that includes in one district individuals who belong to the same race … and who may have little in common with one another but the color of their skin, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid … It reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group … think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls … such perceptions (are) impermissible racial stereotypes … (w)hen a district obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than their constituency as a whole..” (Shaw v. Reno)

Without even considering the implications of racial gerrymandering and the potential violation of Connecticut law, what kind of example are we setting for the children in our city? Do we want to set the example that you play by the rules and win or lose based on your best effort or that rigging the system to win is acceptable? I hope our City Council chooses the former. Myself, the adults, and much of the youth of this city are watching your choices and we will remember come November.