2001 Public Hearing Transcripts
July 17, 2001
pat REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 7:00 p.m.
PRESIDING CHAIRMEN: Senator DeLuca
Speaker Lyons
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
SENATORS: Crisco, Cappiello
REPRESENTATIVES: Ward, Currey, O'Neill
SENATOR DELUCA: I'd like to call the Reapportionment Committee to order. As this is the last public hearing scheduled at this point, I'd just like to repeat that though we don't time people we ask you to respect others that will be following you in speaking so that you limit your remarks and make them as brief and concise as possible.
With me so far this evening to my right is Senator Joseph Crisco. To my left is Minority Leader, Republican Leader in the House, Bob Ward. Next to him is Representative Currey and next to her is Representative O'Neill. Other members of our Committee I know are in the building and should be joining us shortly.
With that being said, our first speaker this evening is Senator Coleman. Good evening, Senator.
SENATOR COLEMAN: Good evening, Senator DeLuca, members of the Committee. I think all of you know my name but for purposes of the record, I am Eric Coleman and I serve the Second Senatorial District, a district that includes the City of Hartford, the Town of Bloomfield and the Town of Windsor.
I wanted to first thank you for conducting this hearing and the hearings that have taken place previous to this and also thank you for providing me and others the opportunity to comment concerning the development of a redistricting plan for the State of Connecticut.
I want very briefly to comment on two points. One has to do with the particular concern of the Town of Windsor and the other in general has to do with the application of the Voting Rights Act and the implications of the Voting Rights Act to the task that you are undertaking.
First, as concerns to the Town of Windsor, I would point out to you that the population of the Town of Windsor is 28,500 people and currently Windsor includes portions of three assembly districts and two senatorial districts.
The current situation probably makes Windsor the only town in the State of Connecticut of its size not to have a district wholly contained within its boundaries, or at least a district the majority of which includes residents of the Town of Windsor.
In the considered opinion of the residents of Windsor, they would prefer to have the meaningful opportunity to elect a resident of Windsor to the General Assembly and in their view, that opportunity would best be presented by having a district wholly contained within its boundaries or a district the majority of which is comprised of residents of the Town of Windsor.
Secondly, I wanted to comment on the importance of inclusion and equal voting rights and equal opportunity for representation. Those of you who may generously have paid any attention to what I have tried to undertake in the Legislature, I have always been concerned about inclusion and providing opportunity and encouraging participation in the political and governmental process and in the recent Florida fiasco, in my opinion, that should underscore for us all, the importance of the fair opportunity to vote and to have one vote counted.
In that situation there were widespread, allegations of widespread disfranchisement of minority voters and in my opinion, neither political party, that is neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor the courts for that matter, properly and genuinely addressed those concerns which are distressing and disappointing, to say the least, to many of us.
In general, the ethnic minority point of view is an important part of any legislative process and any governmental process and inclusion of that point of view in the process can be facilitated by the work that you are undertaking and through the opportunity for adequate representation made possible by the opportunity of communities to elect candidates of their own choosing.
And as far as representation is concerned, I know you have heard it already, but I would also express some disappointment in the composition of this Committee in that it does not include any members of an ethnic minority group. Given the close relationship of the Voting Rights Act to the redistricting process, I believe that it would be consistent with that act if this Committee had included at least one member of an ethnic minority group.
By way of a suggestion, and I believe this suggestion has been made previously, I would support the establishment of an advisory committee or a subcommittee which would include members of the Connecticut Legislative Black and Puerto Rican Caucus and/or other representatives of the minority community. I believe providing some meaningful opportunity for interaction and input by such a committee would be probably the best alternative to not having such an individual or individual serving as members of the official committee.
And with that, I want to thank you for providing me this time and thank you for your attention. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to attempt to respond to those questions.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Senator. Questions? Thank you.
SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: We've been joined by Senator Cappiello to my right and Speaker Lyons to my left. Our next speaker is Anita DeBerry, to be followed by William Jenkins.
ANITA DEBERRY: Greetings, Senator DeLuca and members of the Reapportionment Committee. I am Anita DeBerry. I'm currently a student at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work. The focus of my studies at the School of Social Work is policy and planning.
I am a lifelong resident of the State of Connecticut and currently reside in the Town of East Hartford. I am here before you today to express my concern and interest in regards to the task of redrawing the congressional and legislative district lines.
In reorganizing new district lines, I ask that you consider the needs of ethnic and minorities in the State of Connecticut. The new district lines must provide ethnic minorities an equal voice in the political process. Communities that have a significant African-American and/or Latino population often have different concerns or issues than communities that reflect the ethnicity of the greater population.
It is important for African-American and Latino communities to be able to have political representation that will address their needs. The new district lines must allow ethnic minorities fair and equal access to the political system.
As a resident of the Town of East Hartford, it is important to me that the district lines be drawn with respect to East Hartford's changing ethnic makeup. East Hartford is not the East Hartford of twenty years ago nor is it the East Hartford of ten years ago. The needs of the individuals and families who reside in East Hartford have changed.
I ask that East Hartford be within the district lines of towns and communities that have similar interest and needs of the Town of East Hartford. As a student of the University of Connecticut School of Social Work, I'm aware that historically the populations in which social workers serve usually do not have a great knowledge of the political system or knowledge of how the political system relates to their everyday lives and needs.
Moreover, these populations are often not represented in the political process. Ethnic minorities are often disadvantaged especially with regard to the political process. As a social worker, it is my duty to advocate for the needs of the disadvantaged, the populations in Connecticut that are disadvantaged and realizing that there are several considerations that must be made in redrawing the district lines.
I ask that you consider the needs and issues of the minority communities in the State of Connecticut. I ask that the district lines be drawn with respect to equal representation for all populations. I'd like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to be able to speak today.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you for coming. Next is William Jenkins, to be followed by Tom Callahan.
WILLIAM JENKINS: Good evening, members of the Reapportionment Committee. My name is Bill Jenkins. I'm on the Republican State Central Committee from the 35th Senatorial District.
When I was reviewing the state representative districts as drawn in 1991, the following situations jump out at me as strange. Newtown, population 20,000 at that time was split between three state representative districts. Killingly, population 15,889 was also split between three state representative districts. Somers, population 9,108 was split between to state representative districts. Middlebury, 6,145 split between two representative districts, Middlefield, 3,900 split between two representative districts. And the strangest one yet, very close to where I live, Lisbon, population 3,700 was split between two state representative districts. All six of these towns aren't large enough to have their own state representative district, yet they are split between two or more districts.
Here's another one that I thought was a little strange. North Haven, population 22,247 was nearly a perfect size for a single town state representative district the way Mansfield, Simsbury and some other single town rep districts are, but it was split between the 87th and the 88th.
It has been my experience that residents of small towns, again my state senate district is the 35th Senatorial District, the largest town is Vernon. The next largest town is Tolland, 11,000 and all the towns are very small.
When peoples' towns are split between two or more representative districts, they are very confused and disenfranchised and they feel that they're not represented and that their voices are further diluted between two representatives or more.
For instance, in the Town of Killingly they have five precincts with three state rep districts that ends up with nine different voting blocks. The voting situation is very confusing. There is at least six polling places in town. Again, it's a very confusing situation.
I was talking to a gentleman earlier tonight in Stamford where there's 20 precincts and five or six different representative districts. I thought the situation in Killingly was a little confusing. Sounds like Stamford's a lot worse.
Well, some of these odd results that I described before may have perfectly reasonable explanations as to why they ended up that way in other parts of the state. I can certainly testify to the fact that here in eastern Connecticut where I'm from, many people in Lisbon, Killingly and Somers feel the situations are crazy and serve no real good purpose.
I would strongly urge you to consider placing the entire Town of Somers and the entire Town of Lisbon wholly within their own state representative district and try to consolidate Killingly into two or ideally, one state representative district. Thanks for your time. Any questions?
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any comments or questions? Thank you for coming.
WILLIAM JENKINS: Okay, thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Next, Tom Callahan, to be followed by Richard Cunningham.
TOM CALLAHAN: Good evening, Senator DeLuca, Representative Lyons, the rest of you, good evening. My name is Tom Callahan. I reside in Enfield and I've been a resident of Connecticut since 1984. I'm currently a district captain for the Enfield Democratic Town Committee and the Connecticut Legislative Coordinator for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
I am here this evening to point out to you that most people in the area north and east of Hartford out to the Rhode Island border have a strong connection with the City of Hartford. We travel the same roads, we read the same newspapers and we have the same community interests. Indeed, we have far more in common with the First District than we do with cities like Torrington, New Milford and others which are far removed from our area.
I would ask that as you redraw Connecticut's congressional districts, that you create a balance amongst the districts. That is, that you create districts which balance large and small towns to evenly represent all of the interests of Connecticut citizens.
I would ask that you create a district that begins possibly in Thompson and Putnam and continues to Hartford. This district would be similar to the others in representing that diversity of the small and large towns. These districts would represent the realities we face every day, whereas the north and east of Hartford are more closely tied to Hartford than the towns which are south and west which are more closely tied to the large cities in those areas.
While compromise is the foundation of our democratic form of government, I believe that balance is the foundation of fair and proper representation within the bodies of government. This new district would also provide the towns within as well as my Town of Enfield, the combined economic might that representing a large city would provide them. I know the current Representative, Mr. John Larson, does an excellent job and would represent us well.
While I know that many would like the Redistricting Committee to look at past and previous maps to chart the course for our future, I believe this is wrong. The previous congressional maps, those dating prior to 1964 will not take into account the areas of growth within our state which has taken place over the last 37 years.
The question is, would any of us drive into a new state using a map which is 37 years old? And the answer is, of course not. We would find ourselves if not lost altogether, we would be at least disoriented and fumbling to get to where we want to go. The map you draw should reflect new demographic realities for our state.
The Voting Rights Act of 1964-1965 were constitutional landmarks that changed the way we hold elections. Let's see here, they enfranchised thousands of minorities and other urban residents who were being denied their right to vote. A map that was drawn over 37 years ago predates these Voting Rights Acts. We do not the prevoting rights acts past to govern our lives today.
I have read in some press accounts that people in Norwich want to use a map that was in existence prior to the turn of the century. To use this map which predates even the right of women to vote would place us further back in recognizing the important social and economic changes that have taken place in the State of Connecticut.
And finally, we have libraries and museums that protect and preserve our past. Our congressional districts must reflect the immediate present and future realities of our state. I strongly suggest that you do the right thing and give the Connecticut citizens a balanced and fair representational map. Give Connecticut a district that creates new beginning also for the northeast of Connecticut as well as our entire state. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions? Comments? I'd just like to say that what you must have read in the paper about the maps they were talking about, they left out the comments that the people said, as a guide.
TOM CALLAHAN: Well, I'm sure you'll use many resources as a guide.
SEN. DELUCA: Not that we're doing it. I'm just saying the suggestions of those people were to use those older maps as a guide. That's all they were. They didn't say use them.
TOM CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.
SEN. DELUCA: So I don't think we're going to predate women's suffrage or go back in history, believe me.
TOM CALLAHAN: Okay, thank you very much.
SEN. DELUCA: Richard Cunningham, to be followed by Ted O'Brien.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. You may recall I spoke to you the other night. I'm speaking again tonight because one of the Representatives commented to a newspaper reporter concerning the issue of whether or not there is a case to be made for a number other than 151 House seats and 36 Senate seats.
By the way, the comment that the State of Massachusetts has for a long time had 40 Senate districts.
The first, one of the first speakers tonight, Senator Coleman commented as to the problem that Windsor has. That is, being divided between different districts and so forth.
It is a problem which will continue to be the case unless we do vary the number of House and Senate seats from 151. I don't know how many of you remember why we have 151. After the 1970 census, the Legislature failed to act. It ended up being up to three judges, two of whom signed what was called "The Saden Plan". That reduced the number of House seats from 177 to 151. That's how we happen to have it.
Now, federal court later overturned, actually appointed a special master, then Professor Robert Boren from Yale University to come up with a plan which was more equal in population and so forth, which he did. Which, by the way, happened to have each Senate district having an equal number of House districts contained within it.
Now what has happened since 1972 has been repeated each time. That is, a plan that has created some rather odd shaped districts, totally violated the concept of following the town lines to keep, you know, have districts entirely within towns wherever possible, totally ignored.
Now, I would submit that you have the opportunity of changing that and now is the time to do it. Now let me also demonstrate the reason for 160. If we can start at each end of the, each quarter of the state and see what happens. The first one is the area of the state which I'm from. That is, I'm from Stamford.
Now one of the things the other night you may recall a discussion about the Town of New Canaan. Well, gee, how can we, ha, ha, ha, we've got to cut it because after all, we start off with Greenwich, and gee, where can you go to make the districts?
Well, there is a way to do it. This allows a slightly different, you know, increase, in the actual number of people, you know, varying from district, you know, from a perfect number. You have to allow some deviation so you can follow the rest of the State Constitution, that is avoiding this cutting of town lines and so forth.
Now by using 160, you can work it, the Town of Greenwich, I haven't actually finished putting it on this. I do have the completed computer print out maps for all three levels of districts, but down here by having Greenwich, and these aren't obviously, the final exact lines, but basically Greenwich would have three Representative districts, Stamford, five. Norwalk would have four, Darien and New Canaan, one each, plus a little bit of Westport would be a district and Westport would be a district.
Now it not only works out well for this, but let's look at some other parts of the state here as to how it affects the rest of the State of Connecticut. It enables you up in the northeast to have districts which aren't cutting town lines. And by the say, when you get to the Senate districts you have a choice in that corner of the state of one Senate district. I have it here where basically all Windham except for three towns is the Senate district. You could do it where all Windham except Windham is a Senate district. You can switch some of these things around between which Representative districts go into which Senate districts, by having them coordinated.
Also down here in the southeast, you'll notice how this Senate district works out, not only Senate districts but the House districts work out. It worked out that North Stonington and Stonington come under a House district. You'll be able to split Groton evenly between two districts, no adding, no subtracting. You have the Towns of Ledyard and Preston, seeing those come to a Senate district.
As you go throughout the State of Connecticut you see the same thing. You can, by using these numbers, coordinate it where you have House districts which don't cut town lines except where you have more than enough in the town and no other towns are split except those towns, and those as much as possible are split only within the town following the State Constitution guidelines.
You also have no towns split between Senate districts except for those cities which have more than a full Senate district.
And by the way, it was also commented the problem of minority representation, the thing between Hartford and East Hartford.
Now one of the things that also comes out on this plan is that Hartford and East Hartford come in two Senate districts even. Well, that means on entirely within Hartford and the rest within the district including East Hartford. That follows this idea with the representation for minorities.
Well, you know, it also follows down in Bridgeport because by using these numbers you're able to have two Senate districts between Bridgeport and Trumbull, while all within Bridgeport. One combining Bridgeport and Trumbull.
Now, let's look at New Haven, what happens with New Haven. Again, by combining with West Haven, just those two towns, you have two Senate districts. One entirely within New Haven, one shared between New Haven and West Haven. I mean, that's the way I would see to do this.
Now, I didn't look to see where incumbents live on this. And oh, by the way, down here, my favorite part of the state. Of course, Norwalk, which now has this odd thing. It's a weird situation here. Right now, Darien is split between a district which is in Stamford and a district which is in Norwalk. Now, really, those people have no representation. I mean, who in Norwalk and Darien is ever going to get elected? We know if ice cap melted or something you could get two from Darien, two Senators and no Senator from Stamford, because after all, I don't want to be from Greenwich. And heck, Greenwich could have no Senator either. Greenwich, Stamford and Norwalk have no State Senate living within them because one's in New Canaan because of the way you have these weird lines coming. And two are in Darien.
Now, it doesn't make any sense at all to follow the present system, nor to take and make minor adjustments with it saying, you show here these beautiful maps. Not as bright and colorful as these maps, but just the same, these lovely maps. These districts gained, these districts lost. Well, you're going, ah, okay, we adjust a little bit here, but we've got to protect, so we'll just draw an extra piece like a Gerrymander and I don't know if you know, but Governor Jerry after whom it was named, also served as vice-president of the United States. But anyway, so it goes back a way, but I think it's time to get away from some of that kind of drawing of districts. It should be drawn completely.
Now you'll notice when you look at my notes, well, gee, I show Bridgeport all equal number of districts. Well, how do I know you can do that? Because I've already designed a districting plan for the City of Stamford for the 20 districts. I mean, almost every one I may look at, not only looking good in shape and following, you know, logical lines like the Merritt Parkway and other major roads, but almost all of them are within three people.
That means you can take Bridgeport, you can do it logically, you can certainly have them within ten people of the average number within that and actually your average deviation won't change any as you make those minor adjustments on the plan. But I left those open because it should be, someone should spend the day, and I volunteer to do it if you want me to, come up to Hartford to work in the Committee Room there with all the maps, and by the way you should use a coastal geodetic survey maps while you're at it because you have to look at these natural bounds so you don't split neighborhoods and so forth.
I didn't do that in Stamford. It doesn't have to be done in these other cities. You've got to look at these maps, not just to see how many Republicans, how many Democrats. Forget how many Republicans or Democrats live in any one district. Follow what's right and you'll end up, I'll tell you, with proper representation.
In fact in Stamford it turns out by following this, we have more minority districts than any plan that was otherwise proposed for it. This actually increased the number of minority districts substantially in Stamford by following just the numbers and the logical shape for the district.
As I say, I volunteer to do it if you want me to. I'll be glad to help on that so that Bridgeport and Waterbury and Hartford and so forth can be split, not for partisan purposes at all, so it's split so it follows for minority representation and so forth so that it follows logical, neighborhood patterns and so forth and I can assure you, they would have equal population. It can all be done, but not done when you're playing politics with it.
SEN. DELUCA: If you would please summarize, Mr. Cunningham.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Okay. If I can, I do have these here. I will leave them here and hopefully somebody can get the big ones back to me. I've got copies for the Committee. I've got a few extra copies back there for any other people. I've got ten sets here with the maps and with the numbers and I would urge you to work on it this way.
Again, it's set up so if you want to change, it's easy to make certain changes. But the basic pattern is the way that redistricting should be done now and in the future for the State of Connecticut. Thank you. Any questions?
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions? Senator Crisco.
SEN. CRISCO: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cunningham, I didn't hear you. What was the standard deviation that you use?
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Okay, the deviation --
SEN. CRISCO: Just specific to numbers.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Okay. To begin with, my objective when I looked at it was to be plus or minus 20% on House seats. I got much closer than that on House seats.
If you look at this, you can see the actual maximum deviation on the numbers. I can't remember the exact number for the average, but the maximum deviation is just over 10%, you know, plus or minus in the House. More on one side than the other. And for the Senate they're closer than that. The maximum, in fact, because of the way the population works out, Stamford will actually have the maximum deviation on the Senate.
And also, in order to put together, in fact one of the other reasons we're using the 160 and 40 is it's the only way to come close enough to be able to have a district up in the Hartford area which includes just the three towns of Newington, Wethersfield and Rocky Hill as a Senate district which I think is desirable.
I'll tell you, I spent hours trying to figure out a way to get closer on that one than I could and that's the biggest deviation on the negative side that I couldn't because of the towns around it, there was no way of getting any closer than that and following the other objectives.
SEN. CRISCO: Thank you, Sir.
SEN. DELUCA: Senator Cappiello.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: If I could, just to follow up on the deviation. Are you saying 10% either way?
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Exactly. 10% either way.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: I don't know if you're aware, but by law, the most we can do is 4.99% either way.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: That happens to be untrue. What it is, is a case which said well, gee on this basis. What it is, if you actually read the cases carefully on reapportionment, you must have a substantial reason for any deviation at all, actually.
But in this situation, the reason for allowing a greater deviation and I am absolutely positive. I'm an attorney. I've dealt on reapportionment. The courts will permit it. In fact, Stamford used the plus or minus 10% and got away with it already in the past, for no good reason, for that matter.
But in this situation, because of the Constitutional mandate you have, viz-a-viz cutting town lines, and for very good reason that we have that, that there should be no problem with it whatsoever.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: If you could get me that case in Stamford, if you could give it a precedent because my understanding is that we cannot go above 4.99% one way or the other. I don't believe anyone can in the country, but if you could give me the information that would be great.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: I'll do a study on that and get you a brief on the issue.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Because it would make our job a lot easier if we can go 10, 15, 20%. That would be great.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Well, exactly. The thing is, you've got to remember when you go plus or minus 1%, I mean, I could get every district within three or four people, I could do the state absolutely perfect on population. The only reason you can have any deviation at all is for a legitimate purpose and the basic test here, and by the way, I want to point out that after the first decision relating to the State of Connecticut, the court approved a plan which had a greater deviation. It had a plus or minus 20%. It was approved by the courts for Connecticut after the initial rulings on reapportionment. That was the first time for Connecticut. That was when we had the 177 seats and you know, leading to the Constitution Convention as you recall in 1965.
It was a very interesting thing because the Constitution of 1965 was the first change since the 1818 which created the old system which at the time it was adopted wasn't so bad. But by 1965 it was terrible for apportionment.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: If you could give me that, it would be fantastic for the Committee.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Okay. Fine. I'll get you some of the information on that.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Senator. Representative Ward. Sorry, I thought you had -- thank you very much, Sir.
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM: Sure.
SEN. DELUCA: The next speaker is Ted O'Brien to be followed by Hector Riollano.
TED O'BRIEN: Good evening. I'm Ted O'Brien. I'm the President of the Husky League of Voters. It's a student organization from the University of Connecticut that's created to empower the UConn students with voting rights.
Currently, the UConn campus is divided into two districts. I believe the districts are Number 19 and Number 35. And because of this, our interests don't hold as much weight because we're divided into two different groups.
Basically, we're a community of interests and we're made up of students, faculty, staff and surrounding residents in the Town of Mansfield. And although this is a diverse group, we all went together by the University of Connecticut. And when you split the voice of UConn you're dividing its community. Thank you very much.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Representative Ward. If you would, Ted, we have a question, please. Representative Ward.
REP. WARD: I'm just curious to, you have a sense of the number of, obviously I know the students are counted as living within Mansfield for reapportionment, but what percentage of UConn students are registered to vote there versus registered back in their home districts in another state or in Connecticut.
TED O'BRIEN: Well, currently there haven't been many steps toward registering UConn campus because it has been divided and there's a lot of problems with getting polling stations on campus because you would have to get two different polling stations and the Town of Mansfield is kind of having trouble helping us with that.
But basically --
REP. WARD: I'm not trying to trap you. I just didn't know if (inaudible-two speaking at once) I was just wondering if you had a rough idea because you're talking about representation, whether most of the kids choose to be registered back in their home town.
For example, I have a daughter at UConn. I kind of urge her to keep voting in our town. You know, I think she's voting for me. I'm not trying to (inaudible), I was just curious if you'd given it any thought, not given thought, but knew roughly if a lot of the students are registered to vote there where they would then have an impact on the outcome of the election whereas if although they are counted there for reapportionment purposes, but they're voting in their home districts, they obviously wouldn't have a lot of impact. And I didn't know if you --
TED O'BRIEN: I'm not sure as to how many members of the UConn campus vote within the district, just because there are so many things holding back students from voting at UConn be it the distance that they have to travel because they're divided so half of the campus has to travel roughly around nine miles was the estimate that I heard, to go to do this and most UConn students don't have cars to travel that distance and there isn't transportation provided to get them out there.
So I feel if it was created into one district, we could have one polling station and therefore everyone on campus could vote. And giving them the ability to vote I think would empower the students to take the steps to register to vote within this area because that's what's greatly affecting them. They live there about nine months out of the year.
REP. WARD: E. O. Smith, is that one of the polling places? I just don't know.
TED O'BRIEN: It is not.
REP. WARD: That's interesting, because that's obviously right next to the campus. Okay, thanks.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Thank you, Sir.
TED O'BRIEN: Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Hector Riollano, to be followed by Yolanda Castillo.
HECTOR RIOLLANO: Good evening. My name is Hector Riollano. I am the President of the Hispanic Democratic Club in Waterbury. I want to thank you for allowing me to talk to you for a third time.
The reason I'm here tonight because you can see three essentials. The population has been growing very fast in the state. Are you seeing the more rapid (inaudible) in Connecticut is a big increase but this increase having no translation into political power or sharing the politic of this state.
And what I want to ask you tonight is to take a careful look at this and give the Latino population the opportunity to share this power. You have a population with the same language, economic needs, social needs, but at this point, we don't have the way to share this power.
Let's take for example Waterbury. We have a population of 107,000 people in Waterbury. 26,000 are Hispanics. If you look at the government in Waterbury, you will see that we don't have aldermen, Hispanic aldermen. We have only one Hispanic in the board of education, only one.
You look at the commissions (inaudible) we have no Hispanics either. But we have a population. We have the need there and we are working us a group already throughout the state in trying to come out with a solution to this and we are going to share with you those ideas pretty soon.
But what I wanted to ask from you, when you define those lines, keep in mind that this population that really have been left out and if we go through the Constitution about our bill of rights, is really, something has to be done, something has to be changed and it's in your hands.
Another point of observation, too, is that we tried from the beginning, and I don't see any minority on this Committee. Whoever decided to form the Committee, maybe they couldn't see that there were other people around, other groups, ethnic groups beside you. But we have black (inaudible) in the state.
And I think, as a few speakers said, that if you would consider appointing maybe a subcommittee that will give you some advice, some input, from the Latino population, you could pick these later from the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus in your Assembly plus neighborhood leaders and other people. I think that would be the right way to go. You want this to be inclusive, have input from everybody, because without public hearings, you know, until tomorrow, but are you listening?
If you are listening, listen to us now. There are two things we want. As Latinos, we want a voice, we want to have a say in our future. And second, we have to work with you, too, with the blacks. And thank you very much and I hope that the next time we meet we'll be smiling at each other. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Before you go. Senator Crisco.
SEN. CRISCO: Thank you Hector for appearing today. I just want you to know and other members of the audience that people here, were in Texas and in particular meeting with the Justice Department, we're aware of the criteria of the Justice Department, we're aware of the community of interest, we're aware about minority representation and we're very sensitive to that because no one wants to go through a lot of days of work to have a particular plan turned down by the courts so we're very, very sensitive to that. I appreciate your comments.
But in regards to your comments of Waterbury, I'm curious and I speak out of ignorance, with centralized population of Hispanics, what is the percentage of votes by Hispanics in elections.
HECTOR RIOLLANO: Out of the population, we have around, latest statistics, okay, we have around 5,800 registered Hispanics but we are (inaudible) throughout the city in different districts.
SEN. CRISCO: What's the percentage, how many, what's the percentage of people voting?
HECTOR RIOLLANO: I would say out of the 25,000 that would make around 48% of the population, or 45% because you don't count the kids, they're in school. But (inaudible)
SEN. CRISCO: But how many people vote, what is the percentage?
HECTOR RIOLLANO: I would say 35%.
SEN. CRISCO: Okay.
HECTOR RIOLLANO: Which is, and Waterbury has averaged for (inaudible)
SEN. CRISCO: I understand. I understand. Okay.
SEN. DELUCA: Just for, Hector, let me also say something. This afternoon, at a hearing this afternoon we had a gentleman that talked about the 1991 Committee of which I was a member, and talked about how the Hispanic and other minority groups met with each of the Caucuses and took their suggestions under consideration and they were happy with the results.
So one of the things you just said today, are you listening? I would answer the question with a resounding yes because we proved it in 1991 by listening and working with and I'm not going to put words in other people's mouths but I am sure that that would be the case again this time. That we not only listen but are willing to work and take all suggestions under consideration and to work to make sure that all people in the State of Connecticut are properly represented.
So if you ask if we are listening, I think the proof is 1991 we did and there is no difference and no change today other than a few different members.
HECTOR RIOLLANO: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Yolanda Castillo, to be followed by Bud Salemi.
YOLANDA CASTILLO: Good evening, Senator DeLuca and the Reapportionment Committee members. I'm speaking on behalf of the Connecticut Latino Voters' Rights Committee and I believe that earlier today at 2:00 o'clock the attorney for that Committee spoke and also a presentation from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund also spoke.
I have written a statement but before I read, and it's brief, I would like to say a couple of things. One, I would like to thank the Committee for opening up these public hearings for the residents of Connecticut and giving them an opportunity to come out and speak and share their concerns about this plan that's going to take place which I think is very important to everyone.
Second, I hope that all the information that is taken through these hearings, that it be fair and inclusive so that everyone will have a fair chance of having representation throughout the state.
And third and lastly, I would hope that all the information that is obtained, that at the end the redistricting plan that is developed by this Committee, that the people of Connecticut will be able to come out and vote and be able to have selection and representation that will be in the interest of their community. And now I will read my statement.
The Connecticut General Assembly is required every ten years to redistrict the State Assembly and Congressional Districts. We want to make sure that Connecticut redistricting insures equal representation for all the residents of Connecticut. Everyone should have an opportunity to vote for the person they feel represents them and their community.
We must keep communities together so that we can give minorities an opportunity to vote with confidence and that their votes count and that their voice will be heard and that they feel that the deck is not stacked against them. We should not turn back the clock to the days when minorities had no hope for electing someone who represented their view.
To provide greater public access to all the aspects of the redistricting process, we strongly urge that the Reapportionment Commission consider these recommendations. Post on line all the relevant information about the process and a downloadable format. Such information should include proposed redistricting plans, political and demographic data sets used by the Commission to create these plans, analysis of voter registration, election data and racial block voting done by the Commission experts, procedures for public submission of alternative plans and hearing transfers.
In addition, public access terminals with census and other political data should be established at the Commission office and in other easily accessible locations across the state such as libraries and state offices. This information should be accessible in English and in Spanish.
Develop and public that criteria that the Commission plans to follow in redistricting in the terms that are accessible to the general public and in languages other than English including informing the public in a timely manner of changes in the number of House, Senate and Congressional districts.
Allow the public to submit their own proposed plans and develop a process for their serious consideration, including their wide dissemination. California State and other states have provided extensive public access to data and Connecticut should follow their example.
And finally, expand the number of public hearings to include New London, Danbury and Stamford. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Any comments or questions? Thank you for coming. Bud Salemi, to be followed by Norman Primus.
BUD SALEMI: My name is Bud Salemi. I'm a lifelong resident of the Town of East Hartford. I also serve as the Chairman of the Democratic Town Committee in East Hartford and as the State Central Committee person from the Third Senate District.
First of all, I'd like to start out by agreeing with an earlier speaker that said that you should ignore the partisan registration of people when you consider doing district lines and sort of ignore Democrats and Republicans and just keep the lines, or make lines that make sense. And I'd say that East Hartford's political boundaries have always made perfect sense to me the way they are.
I'd like to start out by asking a question and I don't know whether it's appropriate or not. But I know in 1991 the redistricting plan did come before our Town Council. Now I'm not sure if it was because our internal voting district lines had changes or what the reason was, but some sort of ratification took place, or adoption or ratification at our Town Council. Is that something that has to happen? I don't know why we dealt with it, maybe because we had to pick a voting place or a new voting place or something.
SEN. DELUCA: You might have changed your own internal town lines.
BUD SALEMI: I said that earlier. I think that may be what happened. So, there is no ratification or requirement for adoption by municipalities or municipal governments in any way of this (inaudible)
SEN. DELUCA: If all 169 towns had to ratify I don't think we'd get it done this century.
BUD SALEMI: Okay. Well said. I'm sure that would become a major problem.
I do want to also support the speaker just before me, the idea that hopefully where a plan can come before people, and is there a plan at this point in time for a draft plan to be, you know, to have public hearings after a draft plan is created so that there are additional comments? There is no scheduled public hearings after the plan comes out?
SEN. DELUCA: We haven't even had a meeting, Sir, to decide that yet. So we have waded through all the public hearings so we have complete input from the public before we meet as a Committee to start discussing those things.
BUD SALEMI: Okay. I would support a plan that included an opportunity for you to put out a draft plan and for the public to have some comment on it.
Last but not least, I'd like to say that on behalf of the Town of East Hartford and its political subdivisions and process, I think that first of all, the Third Senate District, which obviously has East Hartford as its anchor for many, many years I think works well. I think if you look at the numbers that you've produced for us to look at, you'll see that the change is minuscule, the change in population is minuscule in the Third Senate District and I would support that that district remain basically the way that it is and ask for your consideration in that. And with that, I'd like to say thank you very much.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Representative Ward.
REP. WARD: You said in the beginning that the lines in East Hartford were properly drawn. One of the earlier speakers tonight thought there was an opportunity to create a predominantly minority district within East Hartford and I just wondered as Democratic Town Chairman, you had a position of whether if we had an opportunity in redrawing those lines if we could create a predominantly minority district if we should be looking at that.
BUD SALEMI: I'd say that I'm not aware of, you know, an opportunity to do that. I think East Hartford has a large minority population but I think it's pretty well distributed through the town. I think that to try to pick off a piece of the town would be difficult even for me, and I think I know the town pretty well. I'm not sure you could do that.
REP. WARD: And I don't know the town. It's just something an earlier speaker had said, so I was trying to get your input.
BUD SALEMI: And I'm trying to respond to that.
REP. WARD: I appreciate that. Thank you.
BUD SALEMI: Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Excuse me, Sir. Another question, Sir. Senator Cappiello.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: I'm sorry. Just to follow up on that. If it was found that the numbers were there to create a minority district, would that be something that you could support being the Town Chairman?
BUD SALEMI: I think my comment at the beginning was that the sort of decisions or whatever that were made regarding redistricting that have (inaudible) and politics as a part of them are probably, more or less should be ignored. Even as the Town Chairman I would say that. And I'll say why.
I mean, for the most part, I watched the registrations, the new registrations in my town very carefully. I get them on a monthly basis and I'd say that that's becoming a moot point. I think it's becoming something that's making your job much easier with the rapid rise of unaffiliated voters. Even in a town like East Hartford that's had many, I would say, enjoyed many years of Democratic superiority in numbers to the tune of at times six to one, seven to one. I think that number has fallen off tremendously with respect to, as a percentage of total voters as the numbers of unaffiliated voters has risen, so I don't see any reason to support dividing the town in any way other than what it is now and again, I'd say that I don't think there's any particular part of the town that has a minority population that could be treated that way. I think that the minority population in East Hartford is distributed pretty evenly across the town.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: I appreciate your answer.
BUD SALEMI: Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Our next is Norman Primus to be followed by Laura Taylor.
NORMAN PRIMUS: Greetings once again. My name is Norman S. Primus, P-R-I-M-U-S. Before reading my comments for you this evening, I want to thank you and the person who selected this 7:00 o'clock meeting tonight. Between our meeting this afternoon and this meeting, I was, I witnessed something that I must tell you about.
The mentally retarded individuals that were brought here to demonstrate their artistic talents, sang, played musical instruments, it was very moving. They're just delightful. I think these are wonderful things that bring here and expose these individuals to the public.
Now, to my comments. First and foremost, I must say that what I've said five times before. To each and every one of you, thank you very much for the opportunity you have afforded me in allowing me to present my ideas to you, to discuss them and for your suggestions offered.
One of my favorite founding fathers is Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. He was a close friend of Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Continental Congress, a delegate to and a participant in the Constitutional Convention.
He was a member of Congress, Governor of Massachusetts and Vice-President of the United States when he died in 1814.
Now, it's questionable as to whether or not Governor Gerry had anything to do with the plan that contained the salamander looking district. In any event, as executive governor, interference would surely have been prohibited.
What disturbs me most is that the simple coinage of that word, Gerrymandering appears in our textbooks and literally maligns a great patriot in the eyes of our children when he should be revered. It is for this reason I ask this Committee and all redistricting committees to establish a manner of districting that will render the word Gerrymandering useless, and by this action we will have our children's children not malign a great American. We can and we should do this.
And in conclusion, I must also take this opportunity to once again invite everyone to join in districting process. The first step is securing the districting kit and for that I have left flyers on either side for any individual who wants to sit down and draw all the plans and ideas which they've committed to you. Thank you very, very much for the opportunity of being with you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Mr. Primus. Next is Laura Taylor to be followed by Americo Santiago.
LAURA TAYLOR: Good evening, Senator DeLuca and respective members of the Apportionment or Redistricting Committee. I, as a private citizen in the City of Hartford, but a citizen of this country for all my life, I represent that part of the community I believe that doesn't always feel that saying something makes a difference.
But I believe that this Committee has an opportunity to probably be that shooting star for those dreams that so many of us have. It's always to the advantage of everyone to have a difference of idealogy and difference in diversity in order to understand some of what everybody's thinking, get a flavor for it.
And when I hear, not just here tonight, but on CNN and on everything, they speak in terms of minorities, African-Americans and we're not monolithic. I don't think like Clarence Thomas and I'm sure a lot of people, a lot of African-Americans don't, but I'm sure there are a lot that do.
I also don't believe that when you talk about minorities that it's not impossible for us to get to a time where you no longer break up the majority population as French, Irish, Italian, Polish, Portuguese. You're American citizens and that's what we are. So when you seek to have diversity, it's because we're citizens and we want to be a part of whatever effort to going to change our nation and make it better for not only ourselves but our children and their children, so on and so forth.
So when I speak to the Redistricting Committee tonight, I say, think about those things. I don't want to see people broken up in blocks because they are largely African-American or largely Latino or largely Catholic or largely Protestant. I want to see a diversity that will give our country what it deserves to have and that is a country that represents the world as the number one nation.
And it starts in these small gatherings and it grows. And if we want to involve our children, our students, our college students and the politics of Connecticut, and wherever they choose to go, this is where it starts. So I'm saying, it's time for us to think of redistricting as, what's best for the community as a whole. We want all of our citizens to be productive. We don't want anyone to be troublesome. We want that in a black community. I'm sure they want it in a Latino community just as everyone else wants it in their communities.
So, I heard several people say, well, and he pointed out the difference in Bridgeport, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford. I think we're distributed all over Connecticut. I think we're in many towns, small ones, large ones, and I don't think we all think alike. I just know that we all want the Redistricting Committee to do the right thing and that is to make Connecticut the best that Connecticut can be. And in order to do that, we need to have positive thinkers that can think not only of today but of tomorrow and what Connecticut can look like, and that can trickle down to our education system, to our churches, to our homes, to our neighborhoods.
And as we say, it takes a village, that village doesn't mean just my street, it means all of us making this better. So I think it would get away from minority representation in this. I mean, if a tree represents what I want to say, then let the tree speak for me. I just want it to be right, and this may be the start we need to have it happen that way.
So please, when you sit down, don't think how many African-Americans are here or how many Latinos are there. Think about what's going to be good for the state. And if that can come across, I think that you will find that the political base in this state can represent the other states around the nation. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions or comments? Thank you very much for coming. Americo Santiago to be followed by Joan Gibson.
AMERICO SANTIAGO: For the record, my name is Americo Santiago. I am speaking on behalf of the Fair Redistricting Partnership for the State of Connecticut. This partnership is composed of Democracy Works and NAACP of the State of Connecticut Chapter, the Latino Voting Rights Committee and the African-American First Commission and Latino-American First Commission.
We want to thank you, Senator DeLuca, Speaker Lyons and members of the Committee for giving us the opportunity to come before you to present our ideas and to meet with you to talk about the needs of the Latino, African-American community and communities of interest in the state.
We also want to make sure that we continue the discussion and we continue to work together so at the end of the day we can have a plan that is in the best interest of all the citizens of the State of Connecticut.
So, I want to make it short. I want to say thank you and I want to say please take into consideration all these discussions that have been brought to you, all these plans and recommendations. But one thing we want to make sure as members of the different organizations have the opportunity to speak before you this afternoon and prior to today, is that we will see the lowering the numbers of State Representatives in the State of Connecticut as a form of regression and that will be diluting the representation of communities such as the African-American and the Latino community.
So thank you very much. I would hope that in the near future we could have a plan we all can agree.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Any questions, comments? Thank you very much for coming. Next is Joan Gibson to be followed by Leo Canty.
JOAN GIBSON: Good evening, Senator DeLuca and members of the Reapportionment and Redistricting Commission, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joan Harrison Gibson. I am presently the second vice-president of the Connecticut State Conference of NAACP branches, first vice-president and political action chair of the Greater Hartford branch and a member of the board of directors of Democracy Works.
I will refrain from outlining my personal background and experience as this will only serve to highlight who I am and not what my real purpose is for coming before you this evening.
Today, July 17, 2001, I come before you representing the thousands upon thousands of nameless, faceless, individuals in our city and state, who for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to come before you on this, your final scheduled evening of public testimony on the redistricting, reapportionment process.
I am the voice of the very people who many consider the least, the lost and the locked out of our system of governments. Those people that believe that their votes really do not count. Those people that are convinced that we are no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, a democracy but a United States of America where one man, one vote no longer is the rule.
I am the voice for those individuals who fought, bled and died for the right to vote and the right to govern and represent their communities and people of color. In these United States where we have gone from election to selection in a country that has prided itself on being the oldest federal Constitution in existence in the world today, a Constitution that was so well framed that it has served as the basis for this government for more than two centuries, threatened only by the Civil War.
Many of the principles of our Constitution have been adopted by other countries as they move to adopt more democratic rules of governance.
The United States has always been the beacon light of democracy throughout the world. Many of its principles have been adopted by other countries as they move to become more democratic. You, the elected Representatives of the State of Connecticut have a legal and moral responsibility to make certain that the least of those among us are equally represented in the electoral process, have voice and vote in this, the cradle of democracy, the Constitution State.
As you deliberate on the drawing of district lines throughout the state, I submit to you that you must make certain that everyone, everyone in this state has the opportunity to vote for and elect Representatives that mirror their communities as well as their concerns.
Communities must be kept together in order to provide so-called minority voters with the assurance that their votes really do count and that their voices are, and will be heard. People must no longer feel that the seats of government are stacked against them. We can no longer afford to turn back the hands of time to the once dark period of our history when people of color had little or no hope of electing Representatives that shared their same views. The very thought that this blue ribbon commission does not and is not representative of the diversity that exists within the State of Connecticut in general and the Legislature in particular, is reprehensible.
We are once again demonstrating that only a few votes will be counted and even fewer voices are and will be heard throughout this process. The communities of color deserve to be represented on your commission. Won't you take this very important fact into consideration during your deliberations and remedy the situation?
Further, it is our hope that you will consider all of the points of the Connecticut Partnership of Fair Redistricting, a coalition comprised of the NAACP, Democracy Works, Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut, the African-American Affairs Commission, Latino and Puerto-Rican Affairs Commission and the Urban League. Those points are, post on line all relevant information about the redistricting process in formats that are portable and can be downloaded. Such information should include proposed districting plans, political and demographic data, sets used by the commission to create these plans, analyses of voter registration, election data and racial block voting done by the commission experts, procedures for public submission for alternative plans and hearing transcripts.
Additionally, public access terminals with census and other political data should be established at the commission office and other easily accessible locations across the state such as libraries and state offices. The information should be accessible in both English and Spanish languages. Develop and publish the criteria the commission plants to follow in redistricting in terms that are accessible to the general public and in languages other than English, including informing the public in a timely manner in changes of the number of House, Senate and Congressional Districts.
Allow the public to submit their own proposed plans and develop a process for this serious, for their serious consideration, including wide dissemination. Other states have provided extensive public access to date. The State of Connecticut should follow this example.
Create an advisory committee comprised of members of the Legislative Black and Puerto Rican Caucus as well as community representatives to provide input to the commission and expand the number of public hearings scheduled in cities like New London, Danbury and Stamford.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that race can be one of several factors considered when drawing the district lines. Other traditional redistricting criteria includes the district is compact and contiguous, respects political subdivision, preserves communities of interest, protects incumbency and meets political goals.
In conclusion, I recognize that the task you have before you is not an easy one. It is my hope that you will not draw the Congressional and Assembly districts of this state without truly reflecting what you have heard from the people of this great state. Let us help you make Connecticut and our nation truly a representative democracy. Thank you.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you. Questions or comments from any member of this Committee? Thank you for coming. Leo Canty.
LEO CANTY: Good evening. My name is Leo Canty. I'm from Windsor. I'm the guy who separates you from an evening at home right now, I guess, huh, and I hate to be the presenter right before lunch, too, but I'll be quick on this one.
I live in Windsor. I think Windsor is the largest town in Connecticut that's divided up into districts that we have without the majority of the people in the town represented by a single State Representative. We have three Reps and two Senators and I have to say that they're some of the best in the Legislature. I think they're terrific performers and they do a lot for our town.
But it's not quite the same thing. The issue that we have in town is that what we have is within the political spectrum. In 1980 we actually had one State Senator and one State Representative. In 1983 we had a couple of Reps and at that time still one Senate District and in 1993 we ended up having two State Senators and three State Representatives.
So what we would like to see happening in Windsor, I believe, is to try to bring it back to the pre-1983 status that we had there.
And the issue really has to do with community of interest and I think that's a very important issue. Connecticut is made up of our 169 towns and everybody's very proud of their municipalities. We all, it's home rule and I think it's one of those things, good or bad, right or wrong, but the fact of the matter is we're really focused on the home rule issue.
And what really helps in Windsor, and if you look at your census reports, there's 28,000 people and the average House District is going to be about 22,000, 23,000. And right now what we have in most of our districts, they're divided up amongst three and we don't really have what represents a majority.
So in a home rule basis we don't have someone who actually has the ability to work as a majority person, a majority decision maker in the Legislature from our town, who sends their kids to the schools, who takes the votes on the roads and who works to try to do things to improve the town from a perspective from someone who has that large community of interest and Windsor at heart.
We are home rule people. We're very proud of our municipalities and I think that says a lot about the commitment and dedication of a State Representative or State Senator when they're out there trying to do the good things that they do for their area of jurisdiction.
I know that there's a number of things that you have to look at and I know that you have. It's not an enviable position that you're in right now to have to struggle with this issue between now and when you make your decision and when the outcome comes.
But Windsor has actually been, I think, struggling with this issue and I think it has a lot to do also with participation, with lack of confusion, with a number of other things that we're all supportive and fond of wanting to make voter participation a priority. A community of interest supports voter participation and to try to take Windsor, in particular, which is a small issue compared to the large ones we're dealing with but one that's very important for those of us that live there.
I hope you'll take a look at those numbers, take a look at the lines, see just how it has worked out and try to spare us another ten or twenty years of that element of being divided up between the communities. And I hope that you'll take a look at it and I appreciate your time and I guess that's it.
SEN. DELUCA: Thank you, Sir. Any questions or comments? Thank you.
Mr. Canty was the last person signed up this evening. Is there anyone here who didn't sign up but wishes to speak at this point in time? Hearing none, then I would call this hearing to a close. Thank you.
(Whereupon the hearing was adjourned.)
Back