Posted 12/5/11

Political Jigsaw?
Photo by Steve Kotchko

After each national census, Connecticut, like all other states, is required to reapportion its State House and State Senate seats, as well as its congressional districts.  In 2001, due to a population drop, Connecticut lost a congressional seat, and state officials had to tackle the difficult task for reshaping six districts into five.

No major population changes occurred in the latest census, but as it turns out, producing a new congressional district map, again proved to be the biggest challenge for the state Reapportionment Commission.  This panel is comprised of the legislative leaders from both major parties.

The overall deadline for district maps was last Wednesday, Nov. 30, and the commission managed to craft new district lines for all 151 State House seats, and 36 State Senate seats.  Technically, the panel had the power to increase or shrink the number of House and Senate seats, but decided to stick with current numbers.

However, there was no bipartisan agreement on a congressional map, so the Commission quickly petitioned the State Supreme Court for a time extension to noon, Dec. 21st, according to an official request filed with the high court by Attorney General George Jepsen on behalf of the Commission.  A more remote possibility is that the high court itself would take on Congressional redistricting.

Since a congressional map is the Commission’s only remaining task, it’s hoped there will be agreement soon, but there’s no guarantee.  At one point last week, State Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney (D-New Haven) told the Connecticut Radio Network the two parties were “oceans apart” on the shape and detail of the five congressional districts.  By contrast, House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero (R-Norwalk) claimed the two parties actually agreed on 82% of the map, with about 30 communities still in dispute.

The five-member state Congressional delegation, all Democrats by the way, urged the Commission not to tinker much with current district lines saying there hasn’t been much of a shift in population.

Democrats, who were elected under the current lines, favor the status quo.  Republicans—devoid of any congressional seat in Connecticut would like to do something to boost their chances.

The GOP offered up one possible map configuration for discussion.  Among other things, it would remove Bridgeport from the 4th Congressional District, placing it in the 3rd, presumably making it easier for Republicans to elect a congressman in the Fairfield Country-oriented 4th District. 
The Democratic offering appears very similar to the current map.  Looney called the GOP proposal “a non-starter” so expect some wrangling if the Commission gets back to work.

There could be some sniping as individual legislators, their rivals and town political committees take a magnifying glass to the state House and Senate maps, but they’ll like have to grin and bear it, because the legislative lines have been voted on and approved by the bipartisan Commission and sent to the Secretary of the State.

Some changes in current district lines were made.  For instance, Windsor, a town that was split among three House districts, with no representative from Windsor, pleaded loudly for unification.  The Commission worked on the issue and crafted a district, the 60th, the major portion of which will be Windsor turf.

There was also a political casualty of sorts as the Reapportionment Commission hit the Nov. 30th deadline.  House Speaker Christopher Donovan (D-Meriden) resigned from the panel.  Donovan, who is now running for the 5th District congressional seat, was under pressure from rivals in that race to step down.  One of them, GOP hopeful Mark Greenberg called Donovan’s presence on the panel “a blatant and egregious conflict of interest.”

Donovan said with the legislative maps done, he chose to resign from the panel “to avoid politics and encourage a bipartisan process.”

Ironically, Donovan’s membership on the Commission was defended by Cafero.  “To say it’s a conflict of interest for Chris Donovan would mean you’d have to say it’s a conflict of interest for myself or anyone else—obviously (as legislative leaders) we’re all drawing our own districts,” Cafero noted.

Beyond their own districts, legislative leaders who serve on the Commission, obviously have an interest in maintaining, or increasing their party’s chances of garnering more legislative seats in coming elections, but that is the nature of reapportionment, and it’s why the process starts out each decade with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the panel.

Over the years, there have been reports that Democratic and Republican leaders altered district lines to punish members of their own parties who had failed to toe the party line in the past.  Cafero said while some new districts might persuade some incumbents to retire, he didn’t see any overt effort to stick it to anyone.  “We didn’t get to the level of conversation of ‘help me get rid of so-and-so and you’ll get rid of so-and-so, it never came to that,” he said.

Follow Steve Kotchko on Twitter for news and insider tidbits on politics and government: @CRN_News