Trumbull’s Redistricting Plan Moves to The Town Council

Disclaimer – The following is an interpretive account, not a play-by-play. The opinions are solely my own. I am not being compensated for this piece by AOL or Patch. I welcome all substantive comment, and freely offer to apologize for any misstated facts.

A Redistricting Plan Approved

The federal one person, one vote law requires equalizing population in every local, state and federal voting district following the completion of each decennial census.

After a contentious, almost two-hour meeting on March 20th the three Republicans on Trumbull’s Redistricting Committee approved the four district plan they had proposed. The two Democrats voted in opposition.

That plan now moves to the Rules & Research Committee of the Town Council, and on to the council for consideration at its April 2^nd meeting.

Three other party line votes preceded the approval of the new plan. All were defeated by the Republicans. The first, to substitute the seven district plan for the four, the next to send both plans to the council without recommendation, and the third, to request that either the council or its subcommittee hold a public hearing.

Background

Trumbull last redistricted in 1985, but since 2000 population growth and the construction of condos and apartments has unbalanced populations in our seven town council districts.

On February 21^st the Redistricting Committee was charged by First Selectman Tim Herbst with completing a task that “effects every voter.” He told the committee “be fair, be apolitical, assure your plan meets the one person, one vote law... avoid gerrymandering... make each district as close as possible to equal size.”

Its four meetings have been spirited, and, from the beginning, partisan. At issue is how today's 21 council seats, divided into seven three person districts, will be restructured.

The Republicans presented a plan to dramatically reconfigure the voting district map by replacing our seven districts with four entirely new ones – three with five council seats, and a Super District with six.

The committee's two Democrats offered a far simpler plan – keep the existing seven districts, but move boundaries to equalize population.

The Republican plan necessitates moving almost 60% of Trumbull's residents to new districts, the Democrats, fewer than 18%.

Over the four meetings no minds were changed. Each side brought its own plan, gave the other's little serious thought, talked at, rather than to, each other and, in the end cast predictable votes.

The Final Meeting

The final meeting began with Republican Town Councilman Tony Scinto reoffering their four district plan.

Republican Registrar of Voters and Committee Chair William Holden restated the advantages of his plan: manning only four polling stations will cost taxpayers less (fewer phones, fewer workers and fewer sandwiches for workers, yielding a saving of less than $8,000 every second year) without lengthening voting lines or making parking more difficult, and it will permit (or require) more candidates to run for town council.

He stated “voters are not being disenfranchised,” and added “no one charged us with keeping seven districts… there’s nothing magic about seven districts.”

His statement ignored point three of the formal charge to the committee by the Town Council: “That the said Committee recommend to the Town Council a council redistricting plan comprising of voting districts of substantially equal populations… ”

Democratic Councilwoman Vickie Tesoro reintroduced the minority’s seven district plan. She and Democratic Registrar of Voters and Vice Chair Jane Aiello also restated, perhaps rehashed, the points made at the three prior meetings – “a seven district plan retains a structure that has worked well for 28 years,” but must now be rebalanced. Rebalancing “brings each district into compliance with the one person, one vote law.” It also reduces voter confusion and it retains existing polling places.

Why the Big Change?

The fight over the number of districts is really about the Republican majority seeking to increase its power in the town council. The town charter allows each party to nominate one fewer candidate than there are seats in the district – thus insuring each party at least one seat per district. Today Democrats hold only that seven seat minimum.

The 14 seats the Republicans hold provide the (two-thirds) super majority needed to approve certain important matters. Holden’s four district plan would give them even more than a super majority.

At an earlier meeting he stated that entitling the minority to hold even one-third of the council seats is “excessive.”

Sadly, no member of the majority ever publicly addressed what seems to be their real motive – are we really spending all this time, effort and energy over $8,000 every second year?

Fundamental Issues Divide the Parties

The seven district plan meets the one person, one vote mandate. But Ms. Tesoro asked for a legal opinion as to whether the Republican plan does. An affirmative opinion was obtained from the Town Attorney.

The attorney stated that “political equality… can mean only one thing – one person, one vote…in the selection of each representative, each voter’s vote will count roughly on equal terms.”

“Roughly,” the attorney states elsewhere in the document, is within 10%. Meanwhile, the Super District is 20% larger than the other three.

The opinion cites a Georgia case (Gray v. Sanders – 372 U.S. 368 (1963)) that appears to concern the ramifications of inequities growing out of an arbitrary allocation of “vote units” based on county population in a state and federal election. It does not address municipal redistricting.

The case states “once a geographical unit for which a representative is to be chosen is designated, all who participate in the election must have an equal vote.” The districts at issue are single seat state and federal office districts (comparable to T. R. Rowe’s single seat 123^rd state district, not Mr. Scinto’s 7^th Trumbull district, in which he is one of three representatives – nor the new map proposed by the Republicans which would have either five or six representatives each).

The difference between the plans begins with the definition of “district.” The minority retains the existing definition – a district includes multiple town council seats and is the smallest voting unit, a definition shared by municipalities across the state.

The majority seemingly takes a different view – that a “district,” their “geographical unit,” is a town council seat, giving Trumbull 21 “districts,” each with one representative (a misreading of the case?), and each, with 1,715 residents .

The majority appears to believe that because each “district” meets the one person, one vote standard, how they are aggregated neither changes that fact, nor puts them out of compliance.

But the test of “political equality” would seem to be whether every citizen has equal power at the ballot box. To the writer’s non-lawyer mind, the Super District plan is flawed because three districts each elect five town council members, while the Super District elects six.

The impact is that 29% of town residents have the right to elect six council people, while the remaining 71% may elect only five. Equity?

So now the committee’s business is concluded. Both plans will be considered in committee and forwarded to the full council, where there will be a public hearing.

In the event the Super District plan is approved, which the writer considers the higher likelihood, it may well be tested under the one person, one vote standard.