2001 Public Hearing Transcripts

July 11, 2001 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.     PRESIDING CHAIRMAN: Senator DeLuca   MEMBERS PRESENT:   SENATORS: Cappiello, Crisco   REPRESENTATIVES: Currey, Lyons, O'Neill, Ward       SENATOR DeLUCA: -- third in a series of hearings on reapportionment in the state of Connecticut. We're happy to see so many of you here this evening and look forward to hearing your comments.   If I can introduce those members of the Committee who are here with me this evening, starting from my right, your left, Senator Cappiello, Senator Crisco, Representative and Minority Leader Bob Ward, Representative Currey and Representative O'Neill.   This evening, Senator Sullivan is unable to make it. And Speaker of the House Moira Lyons is stuck in traffic, we understand, and she will be here as soon as possible.   We do not put time limits on our speakers. But we ask you to be concise and prompt as you can so -- out of courtesy to those others that would follow. And we have a number of people who have already signed up. So out of courtesy to each other, we hope that you will keep your remarks concise and to the point.   With that in mind, I will start this evening by calling on Tom Moorehead, to be followed by Richard Bond. If you would state your name and town and title, if any, when you start please?   THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you, Senator. I am Thomas B. Moorehead and I am Chairman of the Town Council of New Canaan. At its meeting on May 9, 2001, the Council unanimously passed the following Resolution:   "Whereas, the Town of New Canaan is incorporated by the State of Connecticut and this year is celebrating the 200th anniversary of its incorporation; and Whereas, since the Town of New Canaan has a population of 19,393 people, with a growth of almost nine percent since 1990 according to Census 2000, New Canaan ought to send a Representative to the General Assembly for the next decade. However, with a population of 17,864 at the 1991 redistricting, New Canaan also had the reasonable expectation to return a Representative to the General Assembly as it had for the Town's first 190 years;"   "And Whereas, the reapportionment of 1991 not only singled New Canaan out as the only town, with almost 18,000 people, not to send a Representative to the legislative, but also allowed 26 towns smaller in population than New Canaan to send a resident Representative to Hartford. This malapportionment has led to renewed community vigilance and this Resolution;"   "Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Council of New Canaan, in meeting assembled, hereby petitions the Reapportionment Committee to return a single Representative for the entire, undivided town of New Canaan to the General Assembly in the years 2002-2011."   I ask that this Resolution be received into the record of the Committee, if that is possible.   I find the results of the 1991 reapportionment as applied to New Canaan incomprehensible in that 26 towns smaller in population were able to send a Representative to Hartford and we were not. The result of the 1991 travesty was to partition New Canaan into three voting districts.   To further confuse the matter, two of the districts have separate Representatives and Senators and the third district has a Representative from one district and the Senator from the other district.   Now, we accept the fact that we will always be part of a larger Senatorial District. But one Senator should cover New Canaan, not two or three. There is no rational reason why a town of New Canaan's size should not have a single Representative in the General Assembly.   It would be inexcusable if this Committee recommends single representation for 26 smaller towns and again divides New Canaan into two or three pieces.   I respectfully ask that you recommend that New Canaan obtain the single representation that it needs and deserves in the General Assembly.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you. If you would give it to the Clerk on that side?    THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Any questions or comments from the members of the Committee?   Thank you, sir.   THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you, sir.   Next is Richard Bond, to be followed by John Pollack.   RICHARD BOND: Gentlemen, ladies, thank you for the opportunity of speaking to this subject. Mr. Moorehead certainly brought out the points that we all are concerned about. As he stated, we have a population a little bit different this year with 19,395 through the census, up approximately eight percent. If you take the 26 towns that he referred to in the prior census, even if you add 15 percent to any one of those towns, which is not likely, not true, they would still not be equivalent to the residents of New Canaan.   The point that I think is very important to make -- and I'll keep it short. In 1999, New Canaan paid in State income tax $110,700,000.00. And at the same time, we received in aid from the State two percent of our revenue, which was less than two million dollars. It was one million-three.   My only comment at this point in time, that sounds like taxation without representation. And that is certainly one of our founding fathers' problem and we are faced with that now. We hope, sincerely hope, that you consider the fact of what we contribute to the State, what we get from the State -- we're not complaining. But we do think we need representation. We are a major part of the state. We are a town that's larger than 26 other towns who have representation or significant representation.   So we would be very pleased and happy that you recognize what we are contributing to the town by giving us Representatives. Thank you. We have, you know, in the past had representation up until 1990, both from the Senate and the House, which we don't have any at this time directly.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Bond.   Any questions? Comments?   REP. WARD: Mr. Chairman?   SEN. DeLUCA: Yes. Representative Ward.   RICHARD BOND: Please.   REP. WARD: First, I thank you. And I take it that your point -- and not for you to speak for the prior speaker -- is principally not wanting the town to be divided into multiple Districts.   RICHARD BOND: Yes, sir.   REP. WARD: As opposed to being guaranteed a Representative. Because, in theory, if there were 2,000 people from another town, in theory that person could win the election, could run from the minor part. What you really don't want is the town divided.   RICHARD BOND: That's absolutely correct.   REP. WARD: And because misery sometimes loves company, you're right when the census -- I'm sorry. Ten years ago when it started -- the town of Cheshire actually has 25,000 residents and no citizen of the town of Cheshire serves in either the House or Senate. So there is another place that we need to look at, a town a little bit bigger than yours that's divided up. They did at one time have a Representative. But it changed in another election. But I do -- and I don't mean to -- just to point out that somebody else is in the same boat. I think we need to address that as well. And I don't mean to minimize your point. I think that's a valid point.   RICHARD BOND: Absolutely. I just want to make an apology for one thing. I'm Chairman of the Municipal Planning Organization, which is the governing body for the Southwest Regional Planning Association representing the eight towns from Greenwich to Westport. And I want to apologize because our major function is transportation. And I apologize for those people being late. We're working on it.   SEN. DeLUCA: Okay. Thank you.   RICHARD BOND: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Mr. John Pollack, to be followed by Representative Newton.   REP. NEWTON: Did you just call Mr. Pollack?   SEN. DeLUCA: Yes, Representative Newton. Mr. Pollack, to be followed by Representative Newton.   JOHN POLLACK: Good evening. I'm John Pollack, a 15-year resident of New Canaan and a registered Democrat. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone in New Canaan is a Republican.   I'm here tonight to speak in support of the return of the New Canaan resident to serve in the Connecticut General Assembly. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is a New Canaan issue. This is a matter that speaks to the integrity of a town that has made significant contributions to the state for over 200 years and, just as you heard earlier and know, continues to make an even more vital contribution to the state today.   This should be a simple matter of facts and numbers. In 1991, when the majority position that New Canaan in an Assembly District was reapportioned to a neighboring town, a town with almost 10 percent fewer people than New Canaan, it was an outrageous mistake. To repeat that error would invite -- would be to invite a very reasonable and well-founded legal challenge.    Let me repeat the numbers. For example, New Canaan has a population of 19,395 people. Wilton has a population of only 17,633 people. Not an overwhelming number but a statistically significant number.   There's never been a town with as many as 19,000 people that didn't send a resident Representative -- though, obviously, I stand corrected when I just heard about Cheshire -- not to send a Representative to the State Legislature where the town holds a majority position in one of its Districts.   This year around there will be no last-minute arrangements at this time to split New Canaan down the middle to be reapportioned into the minority in two Districts.   The 19,395 people of New Canaan is not a statistic that Democrats can dismiss or Republicans take for granted. With 19,395 people -- and I keep repeating that number -- New Canaan is not a population to be divided to fill out the dance cards of other Districts and towns, not to be a pawn in a chess game between the two major parties and not to be an unwitting victim of racial gerrymandering. Simply, the representation of New Canaan is not negotiable.   And, finally, when you complete your redistricting in the fall, keep the population, hopefully, of New Canaan whole within one District or divide it into two Districts with New Canaan being in the majority of one of those two Districts, make sure this year it fairly represents, respects and reflects the integrity of these 19,395 people. And also note the significantly smaller population of Wilton.   When you sit down over the next several months with your computer-generated maps and weigh the elements you need to measure, reconcile and compromise, do not compromise the Town of New Canaan with its population of 19,395 people, who by every standard you may apply merits a citizens' voice in the State Legislature in Hartford.   And I thank you very much.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Pollack.   Any questions?   Yes. Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you. Just a brief comment. I appreciate all the speakers from New Canaan who are expressing they don't want their town to be divided. But just a quick question.    I'm not sure -- a former colleague of mine in the House, Les Young, served in that District, in one of those Districts. Was he from New Canaan or --   JOHN POLLACK: Yes, he was.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Oh, he was. So it's not as if, though, there hasn't been representation from New Canaan for the past ten years.   JOHN POLLACK: New Canaan has had representation up until 1995. While Les Young was still alive, he retained that seat. But on his seat, the seat reasonably transferred to a resident from Wilton, a smaller town, but a much larger town in terms of the number of people it has in the 143rd District.   THOMAS MOOREHEAD: (Indiscernible - not using microphone)   SEN. DeLUCA: Well, Mr. Pollack is really up at this minute. After he finishes, if you'd like to come up again and --   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you for your answer.   SEN. DeLUCA: Any other questions? Comments?   You could come up again then, Mr. Moorehead.   JOHN POLLACK: Can we just leave this here to be entered into the record as the other people did?   SEN. DeLUCA: The Clerk will take it from you, Mr. Pollack.   JOHN POLLACK: Thank you very much.   THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you. I understand the import of your question. But to be --   SEN. DeLUCA: Could you just state your name for the record again?   THOMAS MOOREHEAD: It's Tom Moorehead, New Canaan. But to be completely clear, prior to the 1991 redistricting, New Canaan always sent a Representative to the Assembly. Les Young was that Representative. After the redistricting, a small portion of New Canaan was included in Wilton. Because of Les' stature in the legislature and his seniority, Wilton continued him in that role until Les died. And then at that point, the seat went to Wilton because they had the most voters.   But it was not a situation where, after the redistricting, a small sliver of New Canaan sent somebody. It was a carryover from the previous districting. And I just wanted to be clear on the record for that.   Thank you.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Moorehead.   Next is Representative Ernie Newton, to be followed by Herb Rosenthal.   REP. NEWTON: Let me just say good evening and welcome to the new center of the universe. You all heard that, that this is the new center of the universe. So we want to welcome you here. Let me --   SEN. DeLUCA: Would you state your name and title please, Representative?   REP. NEWTON: I'm Senator DeLuca by way of Bridgeport, Connecticut. No. I'm Representative Ernie Newton from Bridgeport. I'm sorry, Senator. That's a step down.   Let me just say that when you look at the minority population in this state, it's increased. There's roughly 630,000 Afro-American and Latinos combined. Less than one-fifth of this state is minorities. 18 members of the House, combined with the Senate, make up a minority caucus.   There's definitely, as you look at these maps, room for improvement on fair representation. So we've got to look at those areas that have increased in minority participation and make a conscious decision that, no, we're not going to redraw minority lines; but we do have to make sure that people are included.   And I can tell you from the last redistricting, we picked up quite a few seats from -- since 1990 reapportionment up until now. The numbers increased. And as you all are aware, people have shifted in population. So they have left the urban areas and moved to suburbs and to rural areas.   So I would just hope that this Committee takes that under consideration as you sit down and deliberate where that population shift has moved, to make sure that those areas, like Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Meriden -- I can think of some other places. But Representative Santiago is here and I'm sure he's studied it more than I've studied it, on where we can pick up additional seats. And so I would hope that you all would look at that.    And Senator Penn told me to tell you all after you all finish, he will take you out to dinner.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative Newton.   Does anyone have any questions or comments?   Thank you.   Next is Herb Rosenthal, to be followed by Representative Lydia Martinez.   HERB ROSENTHAL: Good evening. My name is Herb Rosenthal. I've lived in Newtown since 1953 and, since 1997, I've been the First Selectman.   Newtown is proud to be part of the Housatonic Valley region, including the 5th Congressional District towns of Bethel, Brookfield, Danbury, New Fairfield, Redding and Ridgefield.   The Housatonic Valley is very much a community of interest. We share and are part of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce, as well as having representatives on the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, our Regional Planning Association, the Housatonic Valley Economic Development Partnership, the Housatonic Valley Tourism District and the Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority. We are also served by the Housatonic Area Regional Transit Elderly Bus Service.   In addition, our residents read the Danbury News Times and many of our families commute to work on Interstate 84. There is a special pride we take in knowing that we live in a beautiful area like the Housatonic Valley with its great resources, such as Candlewood Lake and the Housatonic River lakes, Lowanona and Zoar.   I am here this evening not only to describe the pride we take in being residents of the Housatonic Valley, but also to stress that it is important for our community to stay together during redistricting.   The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing our community. I respectfully ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee keep as much of the Housatonic Valley together as possible in the 5th Congressional District.   The Housatonic Valley communities are part of the I-84/I-684 corridor. This is the main route of transportation that brings us together. For Newtown, I-84 connects to Southbury and Waterbury on the east/northeast and Bethel, Brookfield and Danbury to our west. Thus, our primary orientation is to the west and northeast and not to the south.   Danbury serves as a hub of activity for Newtown as our families shop at the Danbury Fair Mall and some of our young people are educated at Henry Abbott Technical School, the State's regional technical high school, or, like my stepson, at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury.   The State and Federal offices we use are all located in Danbury. For example, the Social Security Administration office, the IRS, the State civil and criminal courts, the State Labor Department, the State Department of Motor Vehicles, the Greater Danbury Mental Health Authority and even our central postal facility is located in Danbury.   Since 1964, Danbury, Newtown and most of the Housatonic Valley have been part of the same Congressional District, the 5th. That tradition of 37 years and our community of interest, which has grown even remarkably more vigorous through the past four decades, should be preserved.   Prior to that time, Newtown was part of the 4th Congressional District. And although I was in school, my father was actively involved in government. And he has told me that the town was not as well served in that situation.   From 1972 until 1982, Newtown was divided between the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts. And that was also unacceptable.   For our success to continue, it would be better to be linked together as we are now. Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for Federal grants, for higher education, economic development, open space and transportation improvements with more than one member of Congress, if the Danbury area is again divided.   The cities and towns of the Housatonic Valley have stayed together and are now the fastest-growing area of Connecticut. I ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee honor our spirit and the integrity of our community and keep our cities and towns together in the 5th Congressional District.   Another redistricting issue that is very important to us in Newtown is to have our own State Representative. And what I say now is in no way to diminish the fact that Julia Wasserman lives in Newtown and does represent us. We have some very fine Representatives in Representative Wasserman and Representative Shay, Representative Stripp and so forth.   But our 2000 census population of over 25,000 people should entitle us to that and to be part of another district rather than our current situation of being part of three Assembly Districts; the 106th with part of Bethel, the 112th with part of Monroe and the 135th with Easton, Redding and part of Weston.   Through the years, Newtown has been in some rather interesting configurations. At the time we were divided into the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts, we were also moved from a State Senate District with Danbury to a division with the 28th and 32nd State Senate Districts and an Assembly District with Redding. Finally, we were in a single State Senate District. Albeit totally dominated by Fairfield, at least we're in a single State Senate District.   Please give us our own Assembly District and keep us with Danbury in the 5th Congressional District. We have been shifted around too much over the years.   Thank you very much.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal.   Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: One quick question. Mr. Rosenthal, last night at a hearing in Waterbury, we heard a lot about the 5th and the 6th. Some talked about Meriden really having a close relationship to many of the towns in the District. I didn't hear you mention that. Is there much connection with folks from Newtown to Meriden?   HERB ROSENTHAL: No, I wouldn't say that Meriden is -- with Waterbury and those -- I would say in the direction of Waterbury along the I-84 corridor. Meriden is really not a town that I would say we have a lot of contact with.   REP. WARD: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thanks for coming, Herb.   HERB ROSENTHAL: Thank you, David.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: You spoke about the Housatonic Valley Region. And you and I work a lot together on a number of issues in that region. But can you tell me, do you see a problem with the fact that some of the region is in right now the current 6th District, New Milford, Washington? Are you still able to work together even though they're in two separate Congressional Districts?   HERB ROSENTHAL: Well, I think we are. I think most of our -- other than the meetings. I mean New Milford and Bridgewater are not part of the same Tourism District with us. And New Milford is in the same Economic Development District with us. I mean there are some differences in the region.   I would say our most -- most of our contacts are with, you know, the Danbury -- the towns surrounding Danbury, although New Milford is certainly an important part of our District. And I guess if we were to be shifted in a direction, I would much prefer to have Newtown shifted in the direction of the northern with Danbury, in the direction -- and Waterbury in the direction of the northern towns, like New Milford, rather than to be cut off and go into a District like the 4th where we really have very little normal contacts with the lower towns in lower Fairfield County.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Last night, quite a few people said "Please keep the Naugatuck Valley together, again with Waterbury" and that it was very important to keep those towns together. I don't know if it's possible -- it may be -- to keep the entire Naugatuck Valley and Waterbury and the entire Housatonic Valley together in the same District.   Can you tell me how important it is to you to have Waterbury? Or is it -- or is it more important to have simply the Housatonic Valley? What are your thoughts on that?   HERB ROSENTHAL: Well, I think I would have to say primarily the Housatonic Valley being kept together. But I would think that many people in Newtown commute in the direction of Waterbury and along the I-84 to the east and north. We certainly have people commuting to New York. We don't have as many probably commuting to Stamford or Westport, although we have some. The New York commute generally goes west along I-84 and then down 684.   But there are certainly, I know, a large number of people who do commute to the Waterbury area from Newtown. So I think there would be -- again, it's very hard, you know, to start -- to say which parts of the 5th District could be lost and which couldn't. I would like to see the 5th District stay together, if it's possible. But, as I say, certainly if there has to be a division, I think Newtown would be more in line with the part of the 5th that would include Waterbury and up north rather than somehow being cut off to the south. I think that would be a bad thing for us.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thanks. I appreciate it.   SEN. DeLUCA: Just one last thing. You mentioned about many people commute from Newtown to Waterbury and so forth. If they were to be in two different Districts, it wouldn't affect their commute and where they work and their transportation or anything. Would it? It wouldn't change their habits.   HERB ROSENTHAL: I don't think that so much as the orientation of the, you know, communities of interest kind of thing. When you're in different Congressional Districts, different people representing you in Congress, when you start competing for some of the other things I talked about, open space issues, grants, and you try to get some uniformity, you know -- I would just see us like a fish out of water if we were in with southern Fairfield County, with all due respect to the Speaker and the fine city of Stamford. Dan Malloy is a good friend of mine. But I don't see us having similar --   SEN. DeLUCA: No. I understand your concerns. But wherever -- there's going to be five Districts. There's going to be a number of lines. And wherever it happens, somebody is going to be at the end of a District. Not everybody can be in the center of a district.   HERB ROSENTHAL: Right.   SEN. DeLUCA: So no matter what we do -- and we have no preconceived notions. So I was just bringing the point that many people talk about the economic, talk about the Route 84. Last night, that was the primary point of coming from the Danbury area and their association with Waterbury and so forth. But those things don't change because if they were to be in two separate Districts, a wall doesn't go up and stop people from using 84. So all those things are still in effect.   I understand your point about communities of interest for recognition on national grants, Federal grants and so forth and so on.   Thank you.   HERB ROSENTHAL: Thank you very much, sir.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Next is Representative Lydia Martinez, to be followed by Representative Reinoso.   Good evening.   REP. MARTINEZ: Good evening. I'm Lydia Martinez, State Representative and also Councilwoman for the City of Bridgeport. Please allow me to welcome you to Bridgeport. I hope you have a good day here today. It is nice that you have this meeting here in Bridgeport. I'm sure that the residents of Bridgeport appreciate this as much as I do.   I would like to thank you for working with us. I know from the beginning the Committee have been working -- some members of the Committee have working with the Senators and the State Representative in Hartford. And I deeply appreciate that very much.   I would also like to recommend you to work or to continue working -- because I don't know if you're working already -- with the different organizations that we have in Connecticut that has shown the interest that have been in Hartford in meetings talking about redistricting. These committees are the Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut, Democracy Works, African-American Affairs Commission, the Latino and the Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the Urban League of Greater Hartford and any other organizations. I don't know if you have a means for these people to communicate by E-mail or if you have a place that they could write to this organizations about ideas that we might need or concerns. But I would appreciate if you would address that, if you don't have done that already. And excuse my ignorance because I don't really know if you already have done something like that.   And for Bridgeport, I would like to ask you to keep us together. We have communities that have common interests. We have communities that are make up of people that speak one language, especially the Hispanic language, the Spanish language. We also have in our communities churches that are very close to the community, stores, schools, clinics, people that walk into the community. And as you know, being politicians, all this services that we have in the community need representation in Hartford when we go about deciding where the money in Hartford goes or where we make the laws or the decisions that we need to make for our cities.   Again, I'm here to help, to serve, if I could do anything else. I do appreciate the communication that we have already in Hartford. And I wish you the best of luck.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative.   Questions or comments?   Thank you. That's fine. Thank you.   Representative Reinoso, to be followed by Senator Penn.   REP. REINOSO: Senator DeLuca, Speaker Lyons and distinguished members of the General Assembly, good evening. And, again, thank you for coming to Bridgeport.   I guess I'm going to take only a couple of minutes. And I will focus on the youth and also in urging communities in our state. In our schools, we always emphasize kids to be responsible. And a number of families and kids are quickly learning the responsibilities as they arrive to these shores.   Now, we all share the same responsibilities as far as responsibilities where the State, taxes and so on and so forth. But also along with responsibilities we have, we also reinforce to our kids rights.   I really don't know how can I face a young student, junior or senior, when that student asks me -- if a student asks me, "What is the representation of the Latino community in the General Assembly?", understanding that we are 10 percent of the population in the state of Connecticut. We are only five. And ten percent is supposed to be 15. In the Senate, the same, the same issue. Ten percent, it's 3.6, almost 4. And we don't have any.   So I -- basically what I'm asking is to please consider this request and also for the emerging communities in our state who are vividly -- they're working very, very hard to make it. And that's the future of our state. Communities who are going to stay -- they're not moving from our cities. They are contributing. And in the future, they will be our -- probably the labor force of this state. Along with rights and responsibilities, these communities, which are my -- my community, I can tell you that they understand also that the economical advancements, controlling power goes hand to hand with the political control. They know that very, very well.   I'm asking you to please consider my request to provide the best opportunity, a fair opportunity for my communities and communities along the state. Let's provide hope, respect and justice for all. Justice for all.   Thank you. Thank you very much.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative.   Any questions or comments?   Thank you. There are none. Thank you.   REP. REINOSO: Thank you very much.   SEN. DeLUCA: Senator Penn, to be followed by Arthur Bogen.   SEN. PENN: Thank you. Let me just say first good afternoon and welcome to all my Senate brothers and definitely to my House friends. Welcome to Bridgeport. Be careful of the mikes, though. You've got to be careful.   Let me just say again that it's important that you decided to come on the road. And the Speaker and I were walking in together and she was so articulate in saying that, you know, this is the only time where people get the opportunity to feel that they have some input into the process of the things that we do. And she's so -- she's so right in that concept. And so I just applaud you for your efforts. And you're doing -- I basically really came down to say Hi. And I'm shifting my office around today. So -- and it's not going to the Federal bill. So I will make sure my wisecracking Senate President is not here. If Lou was here -- and he did leave a dollar to get you some Kentucky Fried Chicken, Lou. So -- you know, Ernie, he thinks a lot about it.   But, on a serious note, again, I listened to some of the words of some of my colleagues and I do know what the issue is. I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago and I talked with the CBC President, Congressional Black Congress President, A. Bernice Johnson. And we was going over some of these issues. And Charlie Rango. And also Mel Watts, who you know had taken his -- out of North Carolina whose case had already went to the Supreme Court based upon the redistricting avenues. And it's something to follow.   Let me speak more initially to my home, which is the city of Bridgeport. Obviously, you heard people talk about one of inclusion. But it's so sad that in this year, in 2001, that we have to talk about inclusion to have somebody who looks like us or look like you to maintain some kind of open forum either in the Congress or in the General Assembly.   Hopefully -- and I've always thought and looked forward to that day that we wouldn't have to worry about the tone of someone's skin color to represent them as far as being able to speak in a parliamentary matter on issues of concern. The Supreme Court in their wisdom also spoke about common communities of interest. And I'm one who can respect communities of interest. I don't think it have to be a community of ethnicity to be represented. But somehow it seems to fall amongst the crack.   We find that out basically about even what happened in Florida when you had people who were disenfranchised and the votes -- and people are very wary of the things that we do, particularly when we start demarking lines as far as voting and voting strength. So, but we have to be careful about how we delineate that and how we talk about that, particularly the minority community, because it could come back to haunt you. That's one thing that seems to fall short with American being the melting pot. I think we need to talk about communities of interest. People can have that but not have a community of agendas. So I understand somebody doesn't have to look like me to be on the wrong page or be on the right page. But I think it's very cognizant that we make people comfortable in the representation that they ask for.   So you don't have an easy task. But based upon population shifts as they are -- and I'm the only one, the only Senator who represents the city of Bridgeport entirely in the city. That's -- out of 23 Senators, I think that I am -- I don't think. I know that I am the only one whose boundaries lies totally within the impact of the city of Bridgeport.   So even though we have a large, diverse community, which is very important, we have to make sure our lines are not drawn where the state's largest cities becomes impotent in the General Assembly or in Washington. And that can easily happen. We may have loud voices here. And that's a good thing to have in the houses of power. But we also have to make sure that those lines are not drawn so, no matter what we say, somebody goes to do something different. That's irrelevant to our common interest in the city and it's not representative of the folks who live here in the city of Bridgeport.   So, again, I know I will have time to speak on this later because I believe it has to take a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if I'm not mistaken. And so I believe I would have ample opportunity to speak on this issue again. And I will shut up so people can come up and espouse to the able community about their concerns.   Welcome to the city of Bridgeport. Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Senator.   Just before Mr. Bogen comes, I'd just like to recognize in our audience some other State legislators who are here to -- I assume to observe. I'd like to recognize Senator Finch, Senator Friedman, Representatives Backer -- I saw him here. I guess he must have left. Oh, he moved. I thought he was over there. He moved. Representative Cocco and Representative Dickman, Representative Stone, Representative Keeley. And I saved the best for last, Representative Tymniak. Welcome. And thank you for all coming.   Mr. Arthur Bogen, to be followed by Michelle Petamak?   ARTHUR BOGEN: Good evening.   SEN. DeLUCA: Good evening.   ARTHUR BOGEN: I have just a few pages which I would like to read. Thank you for the time. My name is Arthur Bogen and I reside in Milford. And I'm here this evening to discuss a fair and equitable way for the Redistricting Committee to divide the state and reduce the number of Congressional Districts from six to five.   To potentially force any two incumbents to run against each other, either in a primary, if they're in the same party, or in a general election, the Redistricting Committee should look to a factor that cannot be labeled as political maneuvering. That factor should constitute a fair standard that all can look to and determine that it's right.   In accordance with the redistricting principle of the U.S. Constitution, the factor that should be used is the size of the growth or lack thereof in the state and the various Congressional Districts during the past ten years.   In Connecticut, there's a notable shift between the two sides of the state. While some small communities on the eastern side of the state saw solid growth, New London County, however, had the second-lowest growth of any county over the past decade. It grew just 1.6 percent, surpassing only Hartford County, which is also largely on the eastern side of the state, which grew by one-tenth of one percent.   The other side of the state presents a very different story. Fairfield County led the state in growth as its population increased by 6.6 percent and it accounted for nearly half of the state's overall growth with 54,922 new residents, while the entire state of Connecticut added only 118,449 people.    This population boom was most reflected in the 5th District, for it added the most new residents and now has the largest population of any Congressional District in the state, fueled in part by having Danbury add more than 10,000 new residents and Danbury suburbs such as Newtown, Brookfield and Ridgefield all have more than double-digit percentage growth.   The neighboring 4th Congressional District was the second-fastest growing. Connecticut's growth is clearly concentrated on the western part of the state. As a result of that growth, the new Congressional Districts, in accordance with the fundamental constitutional redistricting principle, should reflect new population centers.   In brief, there should be two Districts on the eastern side of the state and three on the western side. Under this scenario, the Committee would create a southeastern shoreline district and a central northeastern district that runs from Hartford to Thompson. The new shoreline district would be comparable to the southwestern shoreline district that already exists in Connecticut, the 4th. And the current 1st District, which already touches Andover and Hebron, would continue east into the outer Hartford suburbs and add the balance of Windham County.   I admit this is not a new idea. Michelle Jacklin, the political columnist for the Hartford Courant, noted in her March 28 column, and I quote, "The melding of the 2nd and the 3rd Districts, which would put Democrat veteran Rosa DeLauro of New Haven in a newly drawn shoreline district with Republican freshman Rob Simmons of Stonington, the top half of Simmons' eastern district would be severed and reattached to Democrat John Larson's 1st District", end quote. Jacklin goes on to say, "That configuration makes sense, given that the Groton/New London area has more in common with New Haven than it does, for example, with the small rural towns of Union, Woodstock and Thompson.   In fact, this very suggestion was voted upon and approved by the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in late June. The Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments supported a reconfigured District and linking the northern part of the 2nd with the 1st.   The Associated Press reported that, in quotes, "By a six-to-one vote, members of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments said they think their towns have more in common with the 1st District."   While I know that the NCCOG later voted again and reversed this plan, citing its unwillingness to embarrass Representative Simmons, it should be noted that, absent any political pressure, the overwhelming vote of local leaders thought it made more sense to join Hartford than to stay in the 2nd District.   Those in eastern Connecticut should not be concerned about losing a member of Congress. They'd be more than compensated as there would now be two advocates for the interests of eastern Connecticut in the House of Representatives instead of just one.   This two-for-one approach with smaller, more compact Congressional Districts would enable residents to be closer to their members of Congress District office in every way, including physical proximity. That's important, considering that many offices handle large volumes of Social Security, Medicare and immigration cases where personal attention is needed.   Finally, I want to stress that each of our current members of Congress does an outstanding job representing the many needs of their constituents. After redistricting, the members of Congress representing a new city, town or area will make a great effort to build relationships, to help residents with problems and ultimately seek their support for upcoming elections. No constituent, no city and no town are going to be left behind after redistricting.   It only makes sense that a member of Congress who already grasps the concerns and problems in one area of his or her Congressional District will make a strong commitment to understand and become an advocate for those newer residents, courtesy of redistricting.   I strongly encourage the Redistricting Committee to use the legitimate factor of population growth of the past decade as the measuring stick for deciding how to redraw the Connecticut Congressional Districts. Such a standard serves to underscore the integrity of the committee and protect you from being falsely accused of politicizing the process.   Along with the testimony that I am providing to the Committee, I am also giving you a copy of a map dividing the state as I outlined above. I've already given that to the secretary.   There are several ways to draw the specific lines. But I just wanted to show that it can be done in a manner that is both sensible and technically correct. Each of the Districts as shown on the map has an equal population down to a single digit.   I wish you the best of luck as we move forward with redistricting. I appreciate your time this evening.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Bogen.   Any comments? Questions?   Thank you very much.   ARTHUR BOGEN: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: I hope I pronounced your name properly, Michelle. To be followed by Americo Santiago.   MICHELLE RETAMAR: The first was great.   SEN. DeLUCA: How about your last name?   MICHELLE RETAMAR: I'll tell you in a minute.   SEN. DeLUCA: Okay.   MICHELLE RETAMAR: Good evening, honorable members of the Redistricting Committee. Welcome to Bridgeport. If I seem uneasy, it's because this place always welcomes me. And that's an inside joke.   My name is Michelle Retamar in English and Michiella Retamar in Spanish. I'm a lifelong resident of the city of Bridgeport. I'm here speaking as a member of the Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut. I know that you have heard members of the Committee make presentations in the city of New Haven and Waterbury where we had a lot of fun last night. And you will hear them again in Norwich and in Hartford.   That is because we want to make sure that our message to the Committee is not lost or misunderstood. We continue to ask you to post On-line all relevant information about the redistricting process. In addition, public access terminals with census and political data should be established at libraries and other State offices. Develop and publish the criteria the Committee plans to follow in redistricting, including languages other than English.   Let the public know if you are planning to change the number of House and Senate Districts. We don't want to be caught off guard. So please let us know if any discussion is taking place with regard to increasing or decreasing the numbers of House or Senate Districts.   We understand that you have a difficult task ahead and that there are many factors that you must take into consideration when drawing a redistricting plan. That is why we want to be clear. We want you to keep the Latino/Hispanic community together. We want to have the opportunity to elect people of our choosing that understand our needs and concerns.   Today, the Latino community is the largest minority group in the state of Connecticut and growing. According to the U.S. Census, which I had a great time doing last summer, there are over 320 Latinos in the United States -- 320,000. I'm sorry. According -- and this doesn't include the under-count. Those were the people that slammed the door in your face and said "Go away." I remember that last summer.   Yet, we still don't have any representation in the State Senate. And in the city of Waterbury, where Latinos are the largest minority group, we don't even have one Latino State elected official. And we don't want to wait ten years for our young gentleman from yesterday who spoke.   So when you come up with your final redistricting plan for the State House and Senate, we hope that you take into consideration the 320,000 Latinos in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that race can be one of the several factors considered in drawing the district lines, together with other traditional redistricting criteria.   Also, the Court specifically recognized the following factors and shared community concerns: common country of origin, cultural background, economic status, common media markets, shared community service organizations, including health clinics, stores, public transportation and workplaces, voting patterns and common languages and dialects.   As a Puerto Rican/American born in Connecticut, it is my goal to get the same opportunity afforded to others, which I have tried. We want to be part f the socio/economic and political life that other ethnic groups enjoy today.    As I said before, you have a difficult task ahead. I wish you good luck and thank you for taking the time to listen to us. And we'd be more than happy to help.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Any comments? Questions?   Thank you very much.   Americo Santiago, to be followed by Richard Cunningham.   AMERICO SANTIAGO: Good evening, members of the Committee. Thank you very much for being here. We welcome you to the city of Bridgeport. Since Bridgeport is not the center of the universe, but it's close to it. It's paid a lot of attention the past few days.   I'm here on behalf of the Latino Voting Rights Committee and the Committee for Fair Redistricting in the State of Connecticut. I'm going to make this very brief and very short.   Just to let you know that on July 17, the last public hearing, we will be introducing our redistricting maps to the Committee. We will be doing that at 2:00 P.M. It will be hopefully a complete map. I hope that -- we have a lot of work to do from now to that day. As you well know, it's a very difficult task.   We also wanted to let you know that we will also be introducing a plan for the Congressional Districts. And people have been taking a lot of time talking about the needs to keep certain Districts together. It's my understanding that there's no incumbents. Once you reduce or increase the number of House seats or Senate seats or Congressional seats, you have to redraw the lines and every one is for grabs. Taking into consideration the political consideration the people who were there at that time.    But I think if you draw a District that comes from Bloomfield to the city of Bridgeport, you can have 330,000 African/American and Latinos in that District. So as we all talk about having a corridor from Danbury to Waterbury to Meriden, we have a corridor from Bloomfield through Bridgeport. So that should be taken into consideration when we draw these maps. Okay?   Also, just to let you know that in the city of Waterbury our population has increased. Yet, we don't have any Latino elected officials. The African/American population also has increased. As well in the city of Danbury. But there is a District right now that is -- the communities of interest is the majority there. I hope it continues to be the same, that it doesn't get divided, as well.   And in the city of Bridgeport, where we had a Senatorial District that encompasses the 23rd Senatorial District, it's the only Senatorial District in the State of Connecticut that is within one city. We hope that continues to be in the city of Bridgeport. It's very important for us.   The deviation of the population is not that much that it could not be put together in combining populations from other districts within the city of Bridgeport.   Also, in the city of New Britain where the Latino population continues to increase, the 24th State Rep Districts need to be adjust. They have lost population. There's a lot of communities of interest between the African/American community and the Latino community in the city of New Britain, as well as in Meriden and New London and Danbury.   So I hope when you look into your plan, that you give the opportunity of our community, the African/American/Latino community, to continue to be represented, not to dilute the numbers, not to decrease the number of House seats. And, also, if you're going to make a determination that you're going to change the number of House or Senate seats, please let us know ahead of time so we can put a plan together.   Thank you very much for your time. Welcome to Bridgeport.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   You had mentioned that last night and tonight as well. And the previous speaker, Michelle, also mentioned it; about the number of House and Senate Districts.   AMERICO SANTIAGO: Right.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Do you have any recommendations for what you want? Do you think we should stay the same? Do you think we should increase? Decrease?   AMERICO SANTIAGO: It's my understanding that the population has shifted outside of the urban centers. It has gone, like the gentleman prior to me said, that we have now a higher population between Danbury, Waterbury, Stamford and Bridgeport and that center of the part -- southwest part of the state as the population growth, as well as between East Hartford, Middletown and Manchester, that piece right there in between, the population grew.   I know that with the plan that we have created that, if we shift the population northeast and also from Bridgeport southwest, we can accommodate to have 151 State Representative Districts and 36 Senatorial Districts, to keep the same numbers.   In the event that you decide to change the House seats, we will support increase a couple of seats, two, three or four or five, but not to the numbers where it's going to be very difficult to create those districts. We don't support reducing the number of State Representative seats or State Senate seats.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   AMERICO SANTIAGO: You're welcome.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Any further?   Thank you, sir.   Next is Richard Cunningham, to be followed by Jane Fix.   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. First, I'd like to address some of the other comments which have been made. There are people here from New Canaan who are very anxious New Canaan have a State Representative seat. And, indeed, when we passed the State Constitution in 1965, they had reason to expect it because the Constitution requires you can only split a town when you're creating more than one Representative within it.   And even my plan, which I have here, splits towns which have more than enough for Representative without creating just a simple multiple in it. That would create too big a problem with population deviation.   But we can stick to the constitutional mandate to the extent of not dividing any town that does not have a Representative entirely within it. In fact, I have a plan here which not only does that, it also doesn't split any town between Senatorial Districts unless it has a full Senatorial District within that town or within that city. It doesn't split any town in the Congressional Districts. In fact, within the plan here each Congressional District, there now being to be five, should have an even number of State Senate seats within it.   Right now, if you look at the maps, I'm sure you're quite aware, if you compare town lines and you compare House lines and you compare State Senate lines and Congressional lines, and you've got one heck of a mess. Don't you?   How many State Senators are entirely within -- have their entire District within a Congressional District? Most of them are split between -- you know, only parts of it in one and parts of it in another District. Same with House and Senate lines.   No. We should make them so they are unified, not for the benefit of any individual or any party, but for the benefit of the people of Connecticut, that people can move up the political ladder, creating their base within the next level to which they would run and have a chance at running in -- you know, in that seat.   And in doing so, I propose that we would have 160 House Seats instead of 151. It should make it much easier than having 151. Plus, the fact is that this is a number -- and also with the 40 Senate seats, which also helps the city of Stamford, Connecticut, from which I come, not for my benefit but for the benefit of everyone. Stamford would be able to have five Representatives even. We have 20 voting Districts in which we elect local representatives. That would mean that we can have a system where four local representative districts -- and I've designed a plan for that for Stamford -- would fit within each House seat, you know, State House seat, and then each, as I say, four House seats would make a Senate seat.   Now, in this case, New Canaan not only won't be split between House seats, it won't be divided up between Senate seats. It would share a Senate seat under this with Darien, Wilton and Westport. And Norwalk would, under this, have exactly four Representative and a State Senate seat, not dividing Darien in half. Darien would have a State Representative of its own, also.   No. We should follow the mandate of the State Constitution, which, by the way, also provides that you can pick a different number than 151 and 36. Those are no numbers of magic. In fact, they came from outside the legislative process, as I recall. Judge Sadin came up with the 151. We had had just before 177.   As I say, that by choosing these numbers, you can have the Congressional -- and what do these Districts look like, by the way? I haven't been able to put down on a big map yet. I gave Representative Ward a while ago some maps, the only one who seemed to be particularly interested at the time.   But let's look at what it does. This is what the State Senate seats would look like. The objective to make them not only equal in population but also geographically desirable. And now what does this do for the Congressional seat?   And by the way, one should remember history when one does districting. One should remember the time when we had five Congressional seats before. We didn't always have six. I'm one of those who remembers when we had an at-large Congressional seat instead of six Districts.   In that case, essentially the four eastern counties of Connecticut were a Congressional District. Here they are here in brown. Former Representative Cora Seeley Brown from that area. It is the four eastern counties plus two towns, the towns of Marlborough and Madison. That's a Congressional District. It makes sense.    The 4th Congressional District, from which I come, is down here in red. Again, it's a District which makes sense. It just adds several towns coming out of what is now the 5th District.   The 3rd District again makes sense. You could almost draw -- take a compass and draw an arc around New Haven to get that District. It makes logical sense.   And what is now two different Districts, the 5th and 6th Districts, we look historically to when a District was first created in that area. Back a little further historically, Litchfield and Fairfield County constituted a Congressional District. At a point, Fairfield County left -- Litchfield was taken off from Fairfield County as far as Congressional districting was concerned.   Under this, it is complete. You then have sort of equally around Litchfield County and a much greater population, a number of centers. Also considering a matter of fairness politically, it keeps Danbury and Waterbury in one Congressional District, which has been presented to you makes a great deal of sense.   It also leaves essentially the heart of Hartford County covering both sides of the Connecticut River in one remaining Congressional District. It would be the new 1st District.   Now, I can also tell you that there are -- you don't have to stick to, certainly, anything like this. And even among -- with the plan that I have, with the Senatorial Districts, you could say, "Well, we want to move that Senatorial District and we'll trade it for that District." That can be done. There are some different configurations that you could certain consider, especially considering the plight of Representative Nancy Johnson.   Under this, she is districted in with Representative Maloney in this District here. She could be districted, instead, being right in there, into the 1st District and switch another line, if one wanted to.   This seemed to me the logical way to do it. And I would urge you to do something unusual, quite unusual in the political system. That is not to look out for what affects you individually or your advantage individually or your party, for that matter, where it has been done in the past. All incumbents generally of both parties. Do something which is right for the state of Connecticut. Follow the State Constitution and create Districts which will help the political process, not help individuals, but help all people involved.   In fact, I can add that the plan that I worked out for Stamford would kind of end any political run that I might have because I would find myself districted in with Representative Lyons because that District of Stamford would make more geographic sense.   Again, one should not look out for one's own advantage or the advantage of any particular individuals, but look out for the advantage of the process of the political system.   Thank you. Are there any questions?   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Any questions? Comments?   Senator Crisco.   SEN. CRISCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.    Mr. Cunningham, I commend you on your effort that you put into your proposal. A very minor issue in regards to the State House. You have 160 seats. How would you break a tie? Would you have the Speaker have the power of two votes?   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Well, actually, as you're quite aware, having served -- and I've served up in the House -- a good deal of the time there's somebody absent. So the times when you have 160 out of 160 voting is not that great, other than on Opening Day. And even then, somebody's likely to be late or out getting a cup of coffee or something.   Seriously, those times are rare when you have the ties. Think of how many times there have been and think of how many times it's even by one vote where everyone is voting.   I would suggest that -- of course, you also can provide, as Rules of Order usually do, that if the Speaker has a vote separately, the Speaker may actually make and break a tie. That can be done, also.   There was -- by the way, I don't know if you're aware of the time when the State Senate was divided evenly. And the State Senate -- actually, neither party had a majority because there are three Socialist Senators from the City of Bridgeport. And what is most interestingly politically is the three Socialist Senators voted with the Republican party to organize the State Senate.   SEN. CRISCO: I appreciate what you say. But --   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Sure.   SEN. CRISCO: -- then, you know, in the Senate you have the Lieutenant Governor who breaks a tie. But that's a minor point. But I know that --   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Right.   SEN. CRISCO: If your plan was selected, that is just a minor adjustment --   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Right.   SEN. CRISCO: -- just to add or subtract one person.   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: That's right.   SEN. CRISCO: Thank you.   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: I remember even in the Senate, most of the time there were only about 35 of us present instead of 36.   Okay. If I could leave a copy of the proposal here with you?   SEN. DeLUCA: We have another question, too, Mr. Cunningham.   Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: Not really a question.   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Okay. Go ahead.   REP. WARD: Just a comment, that I do appreciate your effort. And I think the census figures -- the ink wasn't even dry on them. I think you were in my office within a week or ten days of the census figures out and actually took the opportunity to put an entire plan together, which all of us know here is not easy to do. So I do appreciate your coming here to testify on that.   RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: All right. Thank you very much. And I did, by the way, before contacting you, tried to contact a couple of Representatives on the other side of the aisle. I spoke with Representative Currey on the telephone before. And I tried to speak with Representative Lyons before that. Before I spoke to you.   Thank you. Who do I give these copies to here? Over here? Okay. Thank you very much.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   (APPLAUSE)   SEN. DeLUCA: Next is Jane Fix, to be followed by Norman Primus.   JANE FIX: Welcome to Bridgeport. I am Jane Fix, the President of the League of Women Voters of Bridgeport, Trumbull and Stratford. And I'm here to encourage you in your efforts to observe fairness and voting equality as the basic principles for what you do.   The League of Women Voters has long been involved in monitoring the process of legislative reapportionment and redistricting and is -- our concern historically has been to support fair and equitable representation of the people of our state.   We have previously testified, emphasizing numerical equality consistent with fairness of representation. Specifically, this fairness includes the right to vote and participate in the political process, the ability to run for public office and to choose candidates for office, minority representation, preserving as best possible the contiguity and compactness of districts, the integrity of political subdivisions and preserving, as well, a community of interests, all of which are affected by the redistricting plan.   Importantly, as well, the fairness of the outcome is dependent upon the fairness of the redistricting process itself used in each state. This has been a concern in Connecticut, as well as other states, over methodology.   Fairness also means not using legislative redistricting as a method of party discipline and political censure or reward. It includes fair representation in the Reapportionment/Redistricting Committee themselves.   I am slightly concerned that we have six men and two women, all Caucasian, no representatives of the minority community. I think that is something that should be definitely considered in the next reapportionment in ten years; that we more fairly reflect the diversity of our state's residents.   The League of Women Voters supports a non-partisan representative committee system as used in several other states. It would also make Connecticut less vulnerable to suits under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended.   We join you in going forward together to further the goal of protecting the right of the people to be represented and to participate in the political process in a manner that is fair, equitable and constitutional.   Thank you very much for your time and attention.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Any questions or comments?   Thank you very much.   Next is Norman Primus, to be followed by Edna Garcia.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Good evening, members of the Committee. We meet again.   SEN. DeLUCA: Nice to see you again, sir.   NORMAN PRIMUS: I know you all by first names now.   My name is Norman S. Primus and I reside in New London, Connecticut. As a result of my presentation last night in Waterbury, you advised me that I might look at your Website to find answers to the questions that I have been asking. I thank you for that suggestion. And I wish to share with you my impression of the Website that I reviewed this morning.   I am grateful for your good intentions and your action of good faith in setting up the Website. My first impression of Websites is that they are all alike and very much like the voice that greets me when I call Company X,Y,Z to inquire how to open the container I just bought. The voice tells me to press numbers as it spews out extensions that do not cover my inquiry. The creator of the voice is to be lauded for the job done. But, somehow, they did not reckon with me.   The same can be said for Website creators who make good tries but somehow overlook me and others when we seek our topic. Allow me to state my impression of the Connecticut General Assembly Redistricting Home Page.   I award an "A" to the public hearing schedule. The schedule was accurate and concise. But the directions are winners and well-done. The Committee Agendas and Minutes are, I think, a "C". There are no Minutes since April 26. That's 76 days ago. I recognize the fact that the Committee has not met in that period of time. But I believe it should have held periodic meetings to keep an eye on staff and the matters in the meeting -- and that meeting would produce Minutes so that my fellow citizens and I can keep aware of your proceedings.   The redistricting maps on the Website are a very hard "D". The maps are of no use in the redistricting process and are not helpful to anyone who would look at them. They should be deleted. The cover page states that "Improved maps coming soon." 76 days, in my opinion, is not soon.   The redistricting links are a "B". Thanks for the address to the National Conference of State Legislatures and to the Census Bureau, to their Home Page. For novices going to these Websites, the experience would probably quash any and all interest in visiting the sites.   A synopsis of the articles and the list of the buttons to press to expedite entry into the pertinent information one might be interested in would be of a great service on your Website.    Your State Law section is also a "B" and for the same reasons. You point out the laws, which I appreciate always because I always forget the numbers. However, if they were a little more highlighted so that individuals who are novice at redistricting would be better informed when they go in.   As far as the Redistricting, Frequently Asked Questions section, that garners an "A", especially for those who are uninitiated. Of course, that's the sheet that is being handed out to everyone here.   The Contacting the Committee and Its Members section is a solid "B". It should be expanded to include staff and departments involved in the districting process.   The final, an added section, is called the Technical Corrections/Census Files. It's graded Incomplete. I must confess I was unable to secure the files. It may very well lie with me since my present computer is only three months old and I have Windows 2000. I had a problem not getting in. I don't know what it was. So we'll solve that later.   But it strikes me that the errors that were made, depending upon their simplicity or their complication, should be written in terms that the ordinary citizen can read. If this is going to be written in electronic language and so forth, I think that's difficult for most people.   Now, overall, this is a good try at being informative. It is, to me, not sufficient in its detail. Anyone else who wants to draw, review maps or follow the process, there is no information on the Home Page that is helpful.   Now, I dislike itemizing problems in small, medium or large and then doing nothing about them. So I would like to make one suggestion that might bring more information and enlightenment to the public and satisfy my drive for fair and open districting. And I hope that my suggestion will bring your Committee and constituents closer together and in locked step.   I suggest that the Committee and I agree to place my Balanced Neutral Process, which you're familiar with over the last two meetings, that this be placed on your Home Page. That will give to individuals who are asking you to put this information in libraries and so forth in the libraries and so forth. And in this way, we can serve the people.   They could draw their own plans. And anyone in Connecticut could participate, as could any person with an Internet connection. The Districting Kit has all the population, all the criteria, instructions and maps necessary to complete plans. And all the material is on 8-1/2-by-11 sheets of paper, easily downloaded and printed into hard copy.   Upon completion of their plans, they could send the plans to me for their evaluation as set forth in the process. And this Committee could have the option of receiving the plans or not, as you please.   I submit this as a proposal for the Committee's consideration. And I thank you again for allowing me to present.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Primus.   Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   A question and, also, a comment. You had mentioned before that you think we should have had meetings in between, even though we weren't doing anything --   NORMAN PRIMUS: I understand.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: -- didn't make any decisions. Can you give me an example of what the meeting would have been about? What would have been on our agenda? Since no decisions were made during that time.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Well, you have received various data of political -- number of people who are Republicans and Democrats in districts, voting districts. You have racial information. You have all types of information, which you, together with the requests of our Spanish, our colored and our 5th District and 1st District people are asking you to do. You already have that. Why not put it on the Web?   It's -- the information is in the Census Bureau. You have it. You put it down into -- your staff must be putting it into some operable manner that they can use it. Go put it on the Web.   Your meetings, from my standpoint -- I understand you were very, very busy. I know that. And you, you especially, you were tied up with that budget until three weeks after the session was over. So I know that you had that problem. You have that problem, I know, throughout the session.   But you can't run a business from Florida if the business is in Chicago. You've got to have somebody watching the store. And I have respect for your staff. I'm not questioning that.   It's just -- you've been a citizen and not in office. So you know that the hardest thing and the worst thing is we don't know where to go and talk to somebody and when you call someone, you get shuffled to somebody else and you don't get satisfactory answers. That's not the way to run a government.   I just think something should have been. Whatever the progress -- I don't know what they were doing. But the progress of what they were doing should have -- it would have been nice to know.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: And, also, everything that's being handed in is public record. So -- but we can't really let people see what you keep bringing every night unless you've let us submit it to the public record. So no one can really take a look at your literature unless you actually give it in for us to keep.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Well, I'm offering it to put it on the Internet. Okay?   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Well, I don't know if we're going to put it on the Internet. But you might want to give it in so we could at least have it for the public record so if someone wants to come look at the documents or other documents that have been given out, you probably want to leave it so people could look at that.   NORMAN PRIMUS: I might consider to do that, yes. Yes.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Representative Ward. Representative Ward?   REP. WARD: No.   NORMAN PRIMUS: May I make one more --   SEN. DeLUCA: Yes.   NORMAN PRIMUS: One more comment please? Senator Crisco -- and I come from Indiana about four years. Indiana has a 50/50 split in our House of Representatives. They had to make up some rules. The best one I heard, and they didn't do it, was that the -- you add the 50 -- the two parties and the votes that were achieved by each side and the party that had the highest number of votes was the Speaker. That was a recommendation. It was one way to break the tie. Do you follow what I'm saying?   SEN. CRISCO: Yes, I do.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Accumulating all --   SEN. CRISCO: I still does not, you know, eliminate the problem. But we'll talk about that later.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Okay.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, sir.   NORMAN PRIMUS: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Edna Garcia, to be followed by Nelson Roman.   EDNA GARCIA: Good evening, Senators, Representatives. It's nice to see all of you here. My name is Edna Garcia. I am a Bridgeport resident and a former State Representative. My address is 1465 East Main Street, Bridgeport.   Before I begin my remarks, let me point out that I welcome this Reapportionment Commission and I thank all of you for the time that you're taking to ensure that this year's redistricting process is fair.   It is encouraging to see this Commission listening to the residents' opinion. I'd like to suggest that you also hold public hearings, if possible, in London, Danbury and Stamford, to allow those citizens to express their opinion as well.   As you may have already heard from those towns, minority voters there feel -- they have expressed a lack of confidence in the political process because they feel under-represented. The best example of this in this, our great state, is the case of the Latinos in the Connecticut Senate in which from its inception there has never been a Latino elected in a state that has, according to this last census, approximately 320,000 Latino residents. Something must be wrong.   I am here tonight because I share the concerns of the Latino community throughout the state. I am here because I want to do everything that I can to restore confidence in our political process. The redistricting process which takes place every ten years give us all the opportunity to work together towards that goal. We all benefit when this process ensures equal representation and every citizen is given the opportunity to vote for the individual he or she feel will best represent them.   Your Commission has the awesome responsibility of ensuring that throughout this process everyone has an equal opportunity to have their voices heard by having the ability to elect individuals in their communities that they feel represent their views.   I am sure that you have heard these argument before. But I must continue to remind committees like yours so that we won't continue to repeat the past. As of today, in spite of our efforts to promote inclusion of minorities in the political process, minorities in the state of Connecticut have not been given the opportunity to be equally represented.   Finally, I would like to say to this commission to please keep in mind when reporting back to the General Assembly that in order for this year redistricting process to be inclusive of the Connecticut Latino population, those responsible for making the final decisions as to what a district must look like must be reminded that a person's origin, cultural background, economic status, shared community services, organizations, voting patterns and common languages are some of the factors that the Court has specifically recognized as some of the common threads that keep a community together.   I hope that all of you in your wisdom remember this. Thank you for the opportunity to address all of you. And welcome to Bridgeport.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Any questions or comments?   Thank you for coming.   Nelson Roman, to be followed by Joseph Braca.   NELSON ROMAN: Good evening, members of the Reappointment Committee. Yes, I am back again for Round Two. I'm here for three main reasons tonight. One is in hopes that in the near future, before I decide to run for political office, you all will seek me out for your re-election campaigns. Two is to see smiles on your face. You're up here and sometimes I see smiles. Sometimes I don't. Be happy. We're very honored that you guys are traveling state to state -- I mean city to city to come out and hear the -- you know, the needs of the people and the wants of the people during this process.   And my main reason I'm up here is basically, as I said, to remind you of my message, the one that I brought in the center of the universe, in Waterbury; that minority representation in the state is needed more, especially in Waterbury, and just to give you a little background about Waterbury because I am -- that's all I know about.   The Latino community in Waterbury is about 25,000 people and rising. And right now, a lot of the Latinos in Waterbury feel that they would become more involved probably if they had representation of their own. You know, whether it's State Senator, State Representative.   This can only be done by, in the process, thinking of establishing a District or whatever or State Senate or State Representative District that will give the Latino community, as well as the African/American community, an equal representation power.   I only ask that during the process you remember me and my message. I will be here -- I will be at the meeting tomorrow in Norwalk or wherever it may be. That you remember, when you're drawing these districts, that Waterbury has a large Hispanic population and wishes to see equal representation and that (B) don't divide towns and districts -- I'm not talking about literally. I'm talking about emotionally. I trust you all very much. You are very -- all respected individuals, you know, in high-status places. And I trust that you could keep the communities together and involved while during this process.   And I just wanted to thank you all again for traveling city to city, listening to my needs. And just remember me and my message of keeping equal representation.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Nelson, just a minute please.   Senator Crisco.   SEN. CRISCO: Thank you.   It's nice seeing you again, Nelson.   NELSON ROMAN: Yes.   SEN. CRISCO: And my colleagues do smile an awful lot.   Just directly related to the Latino concern with regards to representation, what are the young people doing with regards to organization? I mean there are clubs in the Democratic party, Republican party. But are the young people organizing?   NELSON ROMAN: The Latino community in Waterbury right now is organizing. I'm on top of that myself. We right now would love to see representation because, as I said, we have a lot of Latinos in Waterbury that are involved in the political system. Right now, we are organizing, trying to form a smaller commission of the Latino Voting Rights Commission and just, you know, working with Americo and -- (Interruption in taping - changing tape) -- you know, that are in the city to get us more involved in this process because it does affect us in the future and we do realize this.   SEN. CRISCO: So you have an active group in regards to registering people and getting the vote out?   NELSON ROMAN: Yes. Registering Latinos to vote. Yes.   SEN. CRISCO: Thank you.   NELSON ROMAN: You're welcome.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.   Joseph Braca, to be followed by Ralph Ford.   JOSEPH BRACA: Board members, my name is Joseph Braca, from Bridgeport, the East Side. And I'd like -- I'd like the Board to think a little bit about our city before they make any decisions.   The city is under great economic development. And people have been shifted. But I'm pretty sure they're in the city. In our city, we have some families that are doubled up. And I think the number is 2,700? Is that what we're missing in this number here, on the population? In our city, it showed that we were minus 2700 people. Okay.   But I'd just like the Board to keep in mind that we've had a lot of -- a lot of economic movement here. And people have been shifted. There are many families in our city that are doubled up in apartments.    And I need the Representatives that we have right now because we all can communicate. And I would not like to lose any of them.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, sir.   Next is Ralph Ford, to be followed by Reverend Thompson.   RALPH FORD: Good evening. My name is Ralph Ford. And I'm a resident of the city of Bridgeport. I'm also a member of the Democratic Town Committee here in Bridgeport. And that might be a dirty term to some of you all, especially, you know, for the events of the last couple of months. But there are a few of us who still believe in the process, still believe that the process can and should be fair. And, hopefully, as we proceed into this millennium, that you will see changes here on the local level, both in our elected officials and in our leadership.   First, I want to welcome you all to come to Bridgeport. It is my first opportunity that I've taken -- and I've been involved in politics here for about 37 years. It's almost unbelievable to think how long this has been.   One of my first involvements was being a major supporter of the great Senator Margaret Moore, especially when she was a Representative and she pursued the seat now known as the Senate seat of the 23rd District.   That was a time that, both being young, energetic and visionary, I saw a time where Bridgeport was in the throes of change. Unfortunately, it was a kind of change that I think scared folk. We had a period of reactionaryism. And now we have a situation now where folks, not only myself who operate in the political system, but those average folks on the street, have lost some confidence in the political process.   Voting is probably the most cherished right any citizen can have. I've spent most of my adult life encouraging, haranguing, yelling and screaming at folks to register to vote.   One of the by-products of that is that we now have a city that's represented by several people from the minority communities, both African/American and Latino. It has not been easy in terms of getting folks, decent folks, honest, hard-working folks, to participate and run for public office.   In the past, I've seen forums, committees in closed rooms make decisions that create tremendous barriers for the minority population to participate in that process.   You as a committee have a tremendous responsibility first to follow the law, but also to be sensitive to the issues, particularly to those issues inside urban centers. Bridgeport -- and it's probably a well-kept secret -- is probably pretty close to about 70-percent minority. And that number is growing every day.    As the economic realities of lower Fairfield County create opportunities for folks to move into Bridgeport, you're going to see that number rise.   Now, I know in the course of doing your redistricting you're going to face tremendous challenges to protect incumbents, protect lines. And by well, it should be because this is a political process. However, in Bridgeport, we have Representatives, four Representatives, I think, four or five Representatives and two State Senators. It is vitally important to not only our political future, our economic future and the general welfare of the community that we maintain that level of participation in the State Government.   And I know -- and I won't harangue you with figures and all of those things. I know because the changing population will only mandate that we'll have greater representation from the Latino and African/American community. Because all you have to do is drive around here in Bridgeport and you'll see the changes day to day. Whole communities have changed almost overnight. And I think that's a good thing.   But even better is that we can have a District that's drawn up that encourages participation. And that will require you to be sensitive to those issues affecting minority communities, particularly like Bridgeport.   Again, I thank you for coming. I wanted to keep my remarks short. Those who know me know I speak quite a bit, quite often and quite long. But I wanted to make it short tonight because I know you're very tired, just as I am. And I hope you will take my comments into consideration. And the best of luck.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, sir.   REP. WARD: Just a quick comment?   SEN. DeLUCA: Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: Here you said that you've been involved in politics for 37 years. I just wanted to say you're to be commended. Anybody that can stick it out and keep working all that amount of time -- I'd probably prefer you were a Republican than a Democrat. But, other than that, it's just good to hear of somebody that stayed as a volunteer, not somebody who holds an office, but volunteering and working for that many years. It's just good to hear.   RALPH FORD: Thank you for your comments.   SEN. DeLUCA: Next is Reverend Thompson.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: My name is Reverend Vernon S. Thompson, Pastor of the East End Baptist Church in the city of Bridgeport. I live at 35 Wickliffe Circle here in the city of Bridgeport.   I am concerned especially for the District for which I live. There are two Districts that have statistically been designated as minority communities. 35 Wickliffe, once it was the desolated as an ignored community. I was pushed into another community. I did not have adequate representative from the Aldermen or the State Representative. We spot-zoned. We were part of a political buddy system that hurt our community.   The community now have a Minority Town Committee, a minority slate of officers for the City Council, representation of our City -- of our State representation, has three Districts. It is illegal. It is an unjust process.   My street only, in the midst of the ten-year process of redistricting, was part of the manipulation and the political game that was played by politicians. I do not have representations from my State Rep or my City Council because we were put into the political game.   I think as a citizen that I deserve more. I think my street deserve more. I think the City of Bridgeport, if we have two minority communities labeled Afro/Americans, that we should have equal and just representation.   I do not think it's fair that every street in my community, except 35 Wickliffe Circle, gets the same Alderman, gets the same State Rep because of a game that was played.   I hope that you would in an urgent way take a clear -- and look clearly and see that this community have been dealt with unfairly, unjustly and that we should get what we rightly deserve as citizens, as taxpayers of the state of Connecticut. And I hope that you will review that with consciousness, with efforts and morals and give us what we rightly deserve.   Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, sir.   Senator Cappiello.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Just one question. I don't know what happened in the legislature back then.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: Okay. In our community --   SEN. CAPPIELLO: But -- well, just if I can finish? But when you say you don't have representation, can you just be more specific? Because, obviously, everyone has representation.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: Our -- yes. Our community has become only -- up the North End, which is Lakeside Drive -- that whole area has become an Afro/American community. It was cut. For example, our State Representative has three Districts, which makes it almost impossible to elect a minority State Representative.   My street in particular, in the midst of three other Districts, they put us in a District which is majority non-Afro/American.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Okay.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: We have no influence. We have no represen-- when I say no representation, they do not understand the issues that are -- are they concerned with the issues of my community? I'm displaced. I think it's illegal. I think it's better that I approach you than do a lawsuit or anything of that nature. But for ten years, we have suffered because the citizens had to endure the political game of those who were the powers that be who cut a deal to -- my one street -- if you look at Wickliffe, W-i-c-k-l-i-f-f-e, Circle, you would discover that we are one of the few streets who is in a District when everyone else around us is in a different District, which means it makes us powerless. It means that we do not have the ability to be -- to rightly follow the Constitution of America that is given to all citizens here in the city of Bridgeport.   And I hope that you would rightly consider that. Take a clear look and see that we were unjustly in the last redistricting -- we were not treated fair. And I hope that you will give some consideration.   SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Representative Ward.   REP. WARD: This Committee, obviously, will deal with the State Legislative Districts. You also mentioned your City Council District. So just to be sure, we won't have any say about your City --   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: Well, see, the Councils became all Afro-Americans. Everything but State Representative.   REP. WARD: Okay.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: And the State Representative that could -- in three different Districts, which created an inability to elect, which we should have, two Afro/Americans as Representatives of the city of Bridgeport. As Ralph Ford just discussed, 75 percent of the community is minority. Hispanics have two State Reps. Afro-Americans have one. That is an Afro/American District. They cut us into three pieces to make certain that that would not happen. Is it legal?    I trust -- and my faith is in you to do the right thing. They did not do the right thing. They did not do the right thing. And I know legally they did not serve the community as they should have.   REP. WARD: Thank you.   REV. VERNON THOMPSON: Thank you.   SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, sir.   No one else has signed up. If anyone here wishes to speak, they could come up now. Hearing none, I will consider this hearing closed. And thank you all for coming.   (Whereupon, the public hearing was adjourned.)

 

Back