July 10, 2001

prh       REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE       7:00 P.M.

 

 

PRESIDING CHAIRMEN:          Rep. Lyons

                        Sen. DeLuca

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

SENATORS:                    Cappiello, Crisco,                              Sullivan

 

REPRESENTATIVES:             Currey, O'Neill, Ward

 

 

 

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS:  Good evening to everybody.  We'd like to start the hearing.  And welcome to the second round of hearings for Connecticut Redistricting Committee.

 

As you know, tonight -- and we appreciate everybody being here and certainly welcome your comments.  It's extremely important as we go through the process to hear from the public about your concerns about the community in which you live and your thoughts and ideas about how redistricting should occur.

 

As you know, we're focusing on redistricting both of Congress, for the State.

    

With me tonight is Senator DeLuca, who represents the Republicans and is the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate.  Seated next to him is Senator Kevin Sullivan, who is the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

 

On my other side is Representative Bob Ward, who is the leader of the Minority Caucus in the House.  Below me is Representative O'Neill, Representative Melodie Currey and Representative Joe Crisco.

 

SENATOR DeLUCA:  Senator.

    

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS:  And Senator -- oh, Senator.  One of my favorite Senators.  You'll still forgive me.  Won't you?  Although, it's actually an honor to be a member of the House.  So that wasn't bad.

 

For your information, in case some of you wish to attend any more of the hearings, we are having another hearing tomorrow at 7:00 in Bridgeport and on Thursday in Norwich we will be having one also at 7:00.  And next Tuesday, we will be holding a hearing both in the afternoon and in the evening in Hartford and that will begin at 2:00.  And, clearly, we welcome all your comments and your considerations as we go through this process.

 

I think it's helpful to know that it's not simply the public hearing by which we can get your information.  We do have a Website.  There is the Internet.  And we have an individual, Dan Duffy, who is a non-partisan staffer, in Hartford who is able to receive any type of information that you submit to us.  And all of it becomes part of the public record and all of it we take into consideration as we go through what clearly is a very important process for each and every citizen of the state of Connecticut.

 

And, with that, I would like to begin the public testimony.  There are a number of people signed up.  We wish to hear all of your considerations.  We clearly welcome them.  But we understand, and I'm sure all of you do, the fact that we would like to have the opportunity to hear from everyone.  So whatever you submit is part of the public record, whether it's verbally or in writing.  And if you could focus your comments on what you clearly would like us to hear, recognizing there are a number of people after you who would also like to have the time and the opportunity to be heard?

 

So, with that, I believe the first gentleman -- and I do apologize if at any time I say your name incorrectly.  So please bear with me.  But it's Bob Mezzo.  He's the Deputy Mayor of Naugatuck.

 

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO:  Good evening, members of the committee.

 

REP. LYONS:  Good evening.

 

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO:  My name is Bob Mezzo.  And I serve on the Borough of Naugatuck Board of Mayor and Burgesses as the Deputy Mayor.  I'm here this evening representing Mayor Taf, who is away, and myself.

 

The Naugatuck River Valley is composed of seven cities and towns abutting the Naugatuck River, including Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford, Seymour, Ansonia, Derby and the city of Shelton.  The Valley is very much a progressive community, home to approximately 125,000 people.

 

The seven-town Valley is united in organizations such as the Alliance for Economic Growth, the Valley Council of Elected Officials, the Valley Arts Council, the Valley River Celebration, Telemedia Cable Television, and a new plastics cluster aimed at promoting and improving training and the job opportunities in the Valley's plastics industry.

 

Many of the Valley towns share additional connections as part of the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, the Valley Regional Planning Agency, the Valley Enterprise Corridor Zone, Griffin Hospital, the Naugatuck Valley Health District, the Valley Transit District, the Valley United Way, the United Way of Naugatuck/Beacon Falls.  And we share not one but three newspapers, the Valley Times, the Valley Gazette and the Naugatuck News.

 

Our families commute on Route 8.  We share a proud and long-established tradition of high school athletic rivalries.  And now in the Information Age, our region is even more connected than ever through the award-winning Website dedicated to the interests of the Valley, which is www.electronicvalley.org.

         

Finally, the strength and unity of the Valley was recently recognized nationally by the National Civics League as we were named 2000 All-America City.

 

I'm here this evening to describe the special pride we take in being residents of the Valley and happy that one of our own, Senator Joseph Crisco, is on the Redistricting Committee.

 

It's important, furthermore, that during redistricting our communities stay together.  The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing our united, diverse and excellent community.

 

I respectfully ask the members of the Redistricting Committee to keep the Naugatuck Valley in one Congressional District anchored by the city of Waterbury.

 

The Naugatuck Valley has always shared a special relationship with the city of Waterbury.   Route 8, the Naugatuck River, the Valley Rail Line continue to connect Waterbury to the Valley as its done for centuries.

 

The cities of Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Waterbury all share part membership of the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region and also are common members of the same Council of Governments.

 

The Greater Waterbury Chamber serves over 1,000 businesses in the Greater Waterbury region, including members of Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Ansonia.  The Naugatuck Valley Brownfields Initiative seeks to redevelop properties in the communities from Waterbury to Shelton and the Convention and Visitors Bureau shares four-town representation of Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls and Oxford, as well as Seymour.

 

In addition, Naugatuck Valley Community College and the University of Connecticut, two institutions devoted to higher learning and educating our residents, are both located in Waterbury.  The plans to expand the opportunities at the UConn Waterbury branch will serve to even draw more residents from the Valley to the city of Waterbury.

 

The river valley's special relationship with Waterbury dates back to the turn of the century as the Valley and Waterbury share the same industrial heritage in industries such as brass, copper, rubber and steel products.

 

Finally, Waterbury serves as the gateway to the Valley through the Route 8/Interstate 84 connection.  And according to the Connecticut State Register and Manual, since 1911, six of the Valley towns, except for Shelton, have been with Waterbury in the same Congressional District.

 

The tradition of 90 years and our special relationship with Waterbury should be preserved.  For us to continue our successes, we need to be linked together.  Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for Federal funding, for grants for education, for economic development, transportation and brownfields revitalization if we had to deal with two different Congressional Representatives.

 

The cities and towns of the Valley and Waterbury have stayed together through fires, through floods, through the pollution and the recovery of the Naugatuck River.

 

So I ask the members of the Redistricting Committee to honor the spirit of the Valley and keep our cities and towns together in one Congressional District anchored by and with the city of Waterbury.

 

Thank you very much.  I'd be happy to answer any questions any of the members of the Committee might have.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, very much for your comments.

 

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  We appreciate that.

 

The next speaker would be Representative Mike Jarjura.

 

REP. JARJURA:  Madam Speaker, President Sullivan -- although, this is the Committee.  So we're -- Chairs of the Committee, the Redistricting Committee, honorable colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a privilege and an honor to welcome you here to the fine city of Waterbury on behalf of myself and Representative Conway, who is here tonight.

 

Our Governor often, in a friendly sense, refers to Waterbury as the "center of the universe".  And it is our hope that Waterbury will remain, as it is today, the center of the 5th Congressional District, as it should.  Waterbury is the fifth-largest city in the state of Connecticut.  It is the hub for our region.

 

I would like to just comment, though.  One of the things here which may be an oddity is that Waterbury has a history of bouncing back between Democrat and Republican administration.  And I think we should concentrate on making redistricting a healthy process and that we should try to make it so that we get the greatest maximum voter participation.  Because isn't that what it's all about?  The more we get people involved in government, interested in government, the better it is.

 

Now, that may not be a good thing sometimes for all of us who may be partisan, be it Democrat or Republican.  But we should make it so that people have a fair shot, whatever they may be, Democrat or Republican, in all the five districts remaining in Connecticut as opposed to the six districts, but the five districts. so that their ideas matter more than whether they're one category or the other.

 

And I think that's a healthy process for the citizens of Connecticut.  And it will be a healthy process for democracy because then the ideas count more than what our political persuasion is.  We may not like that sometimes as partisans because then our feet is held to the fire and we have to really think and justify how we vote on issues.  But I think it's a healthy process for our democracy.  And I encourage this Committee to think of those issues as they deliberate further.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your remarks. 

 

I would also like to acknowledge that we have been joined by Senator Cappiello, who is also part of the Committee.  And as Representative Jarjura mentioned, with us in the audience is Representative Conway, Representative Wasserman and Representative Wallace, who have also come to be part of the process.

 

And, with that, I believe the next speaker is Larry Butter.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  Butler.

 

REP. LYONS:  Butler.  I apologize, sir.  I have difficulty reading names.  And if you might identify yourself?

 

LARRY BUTLER:  Yes.  Thank you.  My name is Larry Butler.  I'm an Alderman here in the city.

 

REP. LYONS:  Welcome.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  And welcome to Waterbury.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  To the Committee, members of the General Assembly, I'd first like to also let you know that I am also the President of the Waterbury Democratic Club here in the city.  But my comments here tonight are more reflected as a private citizen concerned about good government.  And it starts with a single vote, a single vote that's going to be cast throughout the state of Connecticut.

 

I have to first say that it would probably help the whole state of Connecticut if this Committee, someone within the state, could start off by giving us a feel for what this Committee had in mind.  You know, I know there's some rough draft out there or ideas of how the particular Congressional Districts may be changed.  And it would have been very helpful to have some kind of brainstorm models that we could have actually spoke of.

 

I know we, the public, have the chance to give you -- you know, brainstorm a little bit and give you our sentiment.  But I guess it's really important to know a little bit about what you're thinking, too, in terms of your brainstorming.

 

Furthermore, a little bit more about the State Representatives' Districts.  That would have really been beneficial because, for those of us who live within Waterbury that at the current time has five State Representative Districts, a street, a river, a neighborhood, a park makes all the difference in the world when you start drawing these lines.  So it would have really been helpful locally to see some models, if you will, of what people were deliberating or brainstorming on prior to a public hearing.

 

Maybe -- maybe this Committee, for the public hearings that are going to be held in subsequent cities, maybe you could just help those people in those cities by sharing something of that nature with some of the particular cities or towns.  I know some State Representative Districts cover many towns.  But, certainly, it would help the people and give you honest input.

 

I'll start off with my comments on the Congressional redistricting.  And I think it's very important that you consider some of the aspects of what's important to the current configuration.  As was alluded to earlier from our neighbor from Naugatuck, I think it's very important that when you consider these Districts, that you consider the geographic history, if you will, about the neighboring towns, how they grew together, what impact they've had over the years.  Certainly, we feel very attached to all the other towns in the Naugatuck Valley, especially our neighbors to the south, Naugatuck.

 

Also, I think it's also important to look at the socio/economic similarities within the District.  We have towns, cities, if you will, that are in the 5th Congressional District, such as Danbury, which we feel very much mirrors a lot of what Waterbury is about.  And Meriden as well.

 

Any District that comes forward from this process, we would love to have the similar type of cities within it, such as a Danbury, a Meriden, because we know that they share very much the same socio/economic issues that we, Waterbury, have.

 

It's important to reflect on what State Representative Mike Jarjura brought forward in terms of Waterbury anchoring the 5th Congressional District.  I think it's only fair that we again anchor one of these Districts, being the fifth-largest city here in the state.

 

And, finally, I just would like to say on the issue of the Congressional Districts that I think it's very, very important that we look in terms of what's really fair to all of the voters of the state of Connecticut.

 

Hopefully, for the 5th Congressional District, we will be in a District that, hopefully, has cities such as Danbury and Meriden.  Also, we very much want to make sure that we maintain our association with the rest of the Naugatuck Valley.  So, hopefully, you will consider that in your deliberations.

 

Going forward to the State Representative Districts, this is very important here in the city of Waterbury because, as we are having our financial, you know, crisis here in the city, one of the things that is probably the glue that holds this whole city together, even in the face of the largest adversity this city has probably even seen, is our neighborhoods, our communities.

 

When it's all said -- you know, when all has been said and done here and we've really climbed out of this economic dilemma, what's going to be really, really a part of the solution to all of it is our neighborhoods.

 

We have great neighborhood settings where there's clusters of neighborhoods that come together and really make the city what it is.  And this is very important when you start talking about the State Representative Districts not to divide up these neighborhoods and these communities.  It's important that those neighborhoods, those neighborhoods and those neighborhood associations, are closely, as much as possible, adhered to when we're putting together these State Representative Districts.

 

And, hopefully, in terms -- looking at these neighborhoods in terms of forming Districts that are very contiguous, if you will, and making sure that they maintain their, you know, their roots that they've had forever, from the beginning of the city's history.  It goes back that long.

 

And I think that any plan that really divides neighborhoods would really cause, you know, a dilemma for us here in the city.

 

So, please, try the best you can to work within the communities, the neighborhoods in terms of the redistricting for the State Representative Districts.  Keep the neighborhoods and those community entities intact, if you will.

 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you.  If you have any issues or questions that you'd like to ask of myself, I'd be glad to answer any questions.

 

REP. LYONS:  Senator Sullivan.

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  Not so much a question, just to clarify one thing.  I think you said at the outset that you had heard that there were plans around that we're looking at to be shared.  I want to assure you that nothing at this point could be further from the truth.  There are no draft plans.  There will be no draft plans.

 

The purpose of this hearing and the hearings we have is to get information to us, not information from us.  We are trying to listen, as you suggested tonight, to the sort of criteria that people in the state think we should look at within the confines of the Constitution, which is ultimately the criterion we live with.

 

But we have not engaged in nor do we have available nor have we looked at one single redistricting plan at this point in time.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Senator Cappiello.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Thank you.

 

Alderman Butler, I appreciate your comments.  Obviously, you care a great deal about your city and about the 5th District.  But can you just clarify for me exactly what specifics make Danbury and Waterbury so similar that they need to be together?  I don't necessarily disagree with you.  But you mentioned that time and time again, that Danbury and Waterbury are so similar.  Can you explain to me what the similarities in the year 2001?

 

LARRY BUTLER:  Well, right now the similarities are probably -- basically more of -- probably -- Danbury is more like three-quarters the size of Waterbury.  But it has its basic neighborhood settings where there's certain parts of town that actually have community settings, if you will, that you know, that probably need to be taken under consideration, as well as Waterbury, and probably a big part of what makes Danbury, you know, special as well.

 

I think that Waterbury is going through a transition financially in terms of going from a manufacturing base and trying to really re-establish itself, whereas Danbury has more or less been successful in attracting a lot of businesses from the New York area.  And, really, you know, economically they're kind of booming.  And we hope to use some of that economic development as a solution to our problem here in Waterbury.

 

So in terms of being associated with them, we can very much learn from the economic development and being here at a crossroads of I-84 and Route 8, hopefully we could use some of their plan and market ourselves very much the way they have.  They have a geographic location that's probably favorable.

 

But I see in terms of the transition from manufacturing to the economic development they did to draw businesses, you know, is what I'm looking at more than anything else.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  And for many years now, Danbury and Waterbury have been in the same District.  How -- from what you're saying, to draw from Danbury's successes, how would being in the same District affect that?  Whereas -- I mean you could still draw, my guess is, from their experiences of what's happened in Danbury.

 

I'm trying to get a feel, I guess, for what would make Danbury and Waterbury linked up so closely as opposed to a Danbury/Norwalk or Stamford or Danbury and Torrington, because there are so many different options out there right now.  Can you explain what makes those two linked up so closely?

 

LARRY BUTLER:  Well, our current Congressman happens to be from Danbury and has his main headquarters here in Waterbury.  But I think that having someone who knows both cities so well very much helps.

 

I'm sure you could look at a lot of different combinations of cities and come up with a lot of different plans.  But I just think that the current configuration just happens to work.  Geographically, we're in the center.  We have a bow tie type of district, where in the west we have Danbury anchoring down the west end; Meriden, we have another city that actually anchors the east.

 

And I just think that some configuration that main-- to really maintain that or tweak it such to, you know, to maybe expand the current District would help versus -- I don't know how the state is being looked at to be carved up.  But if -- if -- if we were to lose one District and just reapportion various Districts, I think that works more for me an our District currently because I happen to be very fond of my District and my fellow cities and towns within my District.  If we were to adopt some other towns to make us fit the population criteria, that would make me very happy.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  I appreciate your answers.  I'm not trying to give you a hard time.  I'm trying to -- because, obviously, one district I don't see will disappear.  But we're losing one district.  So we're going to have to change the entire structure of the state, the configuration of the state.  And everyone is going to say "Please keep my District intact."  So I'm just trying to get your -- I'm just trying to get your feel, besides the incumbent Congressman who sits here, for what kept Danbury and Waterbury together.  And I do appreciate your comments.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  All right.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Thank you.

 

LARRY BUTLER:  You're welcome. 

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much.

 

Representative Wallace.

 

REP. WALLACE:  Good evening.

 

REP. LYONS:  Good evening.­

 

REP. WALLACE:  Madam Speaker, Senator Pro Tempore Sullivan, members of the Committee, I want to start by thanking the Committee for holding these statewide hearings.  I had the opportunity to participate in redistricting hearings ten years ago.  And I remember having to trek to Hartford repeatedly.  And so I appreciate the Committee coming out to the state and holding these public hearings to encourage participation from around the state.

 

I also know as I stand here this evening that many of my colleagues, probably as well as a number of lobbyists, would welcome the opportunity to be before the eight of you and speak on a number of issues.  But here tonight I'm going to talk about redistricting.

 

And what I'm going to speak about addresses some, I believe, of Senator Cappiello's questions.  And I want to speak about the communities of interest, of Danbury, of Waterbury and Meriden.

 

Christians believe in a Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost.  I believe in the 5th District we have a trinity that we want to keep whole and that trinity is Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

 

Speaking to the District, there are -- I'm going to talk about the District.  I'm also going to talk about the communities of interest that I most prominently represent and those are people of color.

 

The 5th Congress-- the current 5th Congressional District has the fourth-largest population of African-Americans housed and living primarily in Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden.  It has the third-largest population of Hispanics living primarily at Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden.

 

As legislators and skilled politicians, in the best sense of the word, you know about communities of interest.  We have our own communities of interest in the legislature.  It may be the Organization of Women Legislators.  It may be the Italian/American Caucus.  It may be the Irish/American Caucus.  It may be the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.  Communities of interest meeting not always for a political or policy opportunity but an opportunity to socialize, to gather strength from each other.  These are the type of communities of interest that, again, Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden share.

 

I remember a few years back in the legislature, in the House, there was a row of Representatives seated near -- seated in the back row of the House.  And they proudly wore or they proudly had at their seats flags.  They had an Italian flag and an American flag.  And they had that because they were proud of their ancestry, I believe, not being Italian.  But I'm sure they were proud of their ancestry and, as well, they're proud of being Americans.  A community of interest; the same as Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

 

Throughout the 5th District, but especially, again, the black and Hispanic communities in Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden, share a community of interest -- and I'm going to just speak briefly and, I believe, with some insight -- not some insight, but as an example.  And I can also speak to Senator Cappiello, who will be getting married next year; I believe met his wife at the State Capitol, the legislature, as I met my wife in the halls of the State Capitol.  At that time, she was living in Meriden.  When we got married, we got married at her family church in Waterbury.  And I, of course, am a resident of Danbury.

 

People of color, Hispanic people, we attend many of the same -- the churches that we attend are well-known to ourselves.  In Danbury specifically, we have a large population of younger people moving to Waterbury because the housing prices are lower and, yet, their parents and many relatives still live in Danbury.  Communities of interest.

 

As you deliberate over what you hear today and what you've heard in the past and what you will hear in the future and as you prepare a map to present to your colleagues, I ask that -- I ask respectfully that you do consider the communities of interest, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Latinos, here in the 5th District that reside, again, primarily in the cities of Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, very much for your comments.

 

Senator Cappiello.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Thank you. 

 

Just a brief comment, Representative Wallace.  Just so you know, you referred to Christine as my wife.  And we can't really push it.  Julia Washington might be upset she wasn't invited to the wedding as of yet.  So she's still fiancee.

 

REP. WALLACE:  Wife to be.  And a good choice.

 

REP. LYONS:  Representative Ward has a question.

 

REP. WARD:  Good evening, Representative Wallace.

 

REP. WALLACE:  Good evening.

 

REP. WARD:  Other than very interestingly with your own personal family situation -- let me first say I grew up in the Lower Naugatuck Valley, lived in Derby from when I was about four years old until I finished college and got married.  So I know something about the Valley.

 

Would it really be fair to say that the average constituent of yours from Danbury doesn't spend much time in Meriden and, other than the happenstance of the same Congressman, you don't see a lot of Meriden folks shopping or doing business in Danbury?  I mean aren't those two towns really pretty distinct?

 

REP. WALLACE:  I think there's probably more connection between Waterbury and Meriden and Meriden -- I'm sorry -- and Waterbury and Danbury.  But, again, Representative Ward, the communities of interest that I speak to you tonight about are African-Americans and Hispanics.  And, again, our churches are primarily in the major cities.  The issues that we care about deeply, they're issues that every Connecticut citizen cares deeply about.  Our issues, of course, come with brown and black faces.  And so that's a very important consideration.  Whether they shop or visit in Waterbury of Danbury, the issues that we care about are broader than that.

 

REP. WARD:  I think that's very fair.  And I've made no preconceived notions and any one person wouldn't make a decision anyway.  But one of the things I've toyed with is whether two of the largest cities ought to be -- in other words, should New Haven be with Meriden and Waterbury?  So that, in fact, you would have very substantially the largest minority group.  And especially if you could fit into that and still make it fit within, you would then be linking minority communities in a greater way.  Is that something you think we should be looking at?

 

REP. WALLACE:  Certainly, you'll have -- you will have many options to consider.  Tonight I want to speak about the current 5th District and the cities that are in those and the people that I know best.  And, again, that's Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

 

REP. WARD:  Thank you.

 

REP. WALLACE:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much.

 

Thank you, Representative Wallace.

 

The next speaker is Chris Setaro.  And as you come forward, if you might just either identify yourself as representing yourself or some community or the community from which you currently reside?  Thank you, sir.

 

CHRIS SETARO:  Thank you.  Madam Speaker, Senator DeLuca, my name is Chris Setaro.  And I am the former Common Council President in the City of Danbury.  I'm representing myself this evening.

 

I'd like to first say that I am not married and I have not met a girlfriend or fiancee in the 5th Congressional District.  And I hope that does not impact on the weight given to my comments tonight.

 

And I'd also like to certainly greet our hometown Senator, David Cappiello, who sits on your Committee.

 

Good evening.  My name is Chris Setaro and I live in the city of Danbury.  And I'm the former President of the Danbury City Council.  I'm here this evening to discuss why I believe the Redistricting Committee should uphold nearly 40 years of history and keep Danbury and Waterbury in the same Congressional District.

 

Ever since April of 1964 when the General Assembly met in a Special Session and eliminated the Representative-at-large and created six Congressional Districts, carving out what was then the new 6th District, Danbury and Waterbury have been located together in the 6th Congressional District.

 

The 5th was not created as an afterthought.  According to the 1972 edition of the Almanac of American Politics, that belongs -- that distinction belongs to the 6th District.  And I quote, "Connecticut's 6th is one of those Districts that consists of everything left over after everyone has been constructed."

 

It came as no surprise then that the 6th District was intended for and was subsequently held by the last member of Congress at large, Bernard Grabowski of Bristol.

 

But there was something more concrete than 37 years of history that connects Waterbury and Danbury.  It is the link of I-4 and the economic and community connections between Waterbury and Danbury that it represents.

 

The 5th Congressional District is known as the I-84 corridor, for the interstate runs from the District's western border in Danbury, through Waterbury, in the east connecting through I-691 to Meriden.  Many new businesses are located along its course and most were started after I-84 was created.

 

I-84 is the east/west spine for a series of State roads, like Routes 7 and 8, that run north and south to the smaller towns in the District.

 

The communities of the 5th Congressional District, like Danbury and Waterbury, are connected and possess a shared identity because of I-84.

 

I'm sure there's been much discussion about the size and shape of our current Congressional Districts and that compactness, as well as economic ties, is important to consider.  The current 5th District from Danbury to Meriden is only 42 miles long.  The 4th Congressional District, a very compact District, is only two miles shorter than the 5th.  It takes 40 miles to travel from Monroe to Greenwich.  Indeed, the 5th Congressional District is much smaller than either the 6th or the sprawling 2nd.  Yet, it has the largest population today of any Congressional District in the state.

 

The economies of the city of Waterbury and Danbury are linked in other important ways.  The city of Danbury has been growing rapidly, including major expansion in high-tech manufacturing.  The city of Waterbury, with its centuries-old manufacturing heritage, supplies a significant component of that workforce.

 

Conversely, many people commute from Danbury to Waterbury to work or have access to major Waterbury institutions, such as Naugatuck Valley Community College, the Waterbury UConn campus and St. Mary's and Waterbury Hospitals.

 

The affordability of the Waterbury housing market has provided a benefit to the communities of western Connecticut where development pressures have been acute.

 

Because Danbury and Waterbury are both in the same Congressional District, the two communities can maximize their abilities to work together and derive the most from their interlinked economies.  For example, I-84 throughout the 5th Congressional District, from east of Waterbury to the New York border and Danbury, is currently slated for major improvements and upgrades.  This both reflects the connection of the two cities and highlights the need to keep both of the cities together in one Congressional District so those improvements can be best coordinated and advanced.

 

It is notable that far more vehicular traffic connects Danbury to Waterbury along I-84 than connects Danbury along Route 7 to the southern Fairfield cities of Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford combined.  Because I-84 is so central to this region's economic and community life, splitting Danbury from Waterbury along I-84 would be just as damaging as splitting Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport along I-95.

 

Finally, the cities and their outlooks are similar.  Both are cities with strong neighborhood traditions.  Both are very diverse in their ethnic and racial populations.  Danbury and Waterbury have among the two largest Portuguese/American communities in the state of Connecticut.  Both Danbury and Waterbury are home to growing Hispanic communities and both cities are politically independent, supporting Republicans and Democrats alike, in distinction with many larger cities that vote Democratic and smaller towns that vote exclusively Republican.

 

Both need, furthermore, continue energetic representation to ensure they are provided the grants and funds needed to continue their revitalization efforts.  Twenty-five miles of pavement, thirty-seven years of history and ever-stronger economic links connect Danbury and Waterbury.

 

And I respectfully request that the Redistricting Committee keep these two cities together in the 5th Congressional District.

 

Madam Speaker and members of the Committee, before I conclude, I did want to share with you an analogy that perhaps may shed some light on Senator Cappiello's point and Representative Ward's question with regard to the commonalities between Danbury and Waterbury.

 

When I -- I attended law school at Catholic University in the District of Columbia.  And while I lived in the District of Columbia, a media outlet had conducted a poll amongst residents of the Greater District of Columbia area, asking them in Maryland and Virginia whether they felt that they were a part of the Greater District of Columbia metropolitan area.  Those in the state of Maryland felt overwhelmingly that they were part of the Greater District of Columbia metropolitan area.  Those in northern Virginia overwhelmingly felt that they were not part of the Greater D.C. area, although they were all substantially within several miles of the District of Columbia.

 

And the conclusion that was drawn from that was that those folks that lived in Maryland did not have to travel over a bridge.  There was not a body of water that separated them.  And that they were connected to the District of Columbia more closely.  Those that lived in northern Virginia felt that the fact that they traveled over a bridge, the fact that there was a body of water that separated them, was, in fact, a distinct difference.

 

And I reflected upon that as I heard the questions of the Committee because one of the questions perhaps that will continue with this Committee is why would Danbury be more greatly connected to Waterbury than southward along Route 7.  Why would Route 7 be any less a connecting factor than I-84?

 

And I use this analogy to highlight that; that, in fact, the people of Danbury do see, in my view, in my experience -- and I'm speaking for myself -- a difference between Route 7 south and I-84; that there are common interests and there are certain not so much understandings but there are -- there is a view, I believe, that Danbury does look towards Waterbury rather than southern Fairfield County.

 

So I'm not sure that that's necessarily helpful in addressing some of the questions, that analogy.  But I did feel that perhaps it could shed some light.

 

And I thank the Committee for your time and certainly would be willing to take any of your questions.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for being here.  Appreciate it.

 

CHRIS SETARO:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you.

 

Mike Verona?  Vernova.  I'm sorry.  No?  Okay.

 

I would like to acknowledge we have been joined by Representative Giannaros and appreciate you're being here this evening.

 

Deborah Lewis?

 

DEBORAH LEWIS:  Thank you.  Welcome to the city of Waterbury --

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you.

 

DEBORAH LEWIS:  -- the place of fiscal change.  It is so nice to see all of you sitting right here where we all make it happen.  Or maybe sometimes not make it happen.

 

I sit on the Board of Aldermen for the City of Waterbury.  And I come to you to obviously appeal to you the way many of the previous speakers have done before, which is to basically ask you to keep the 5th District the same.

 

But I come from a perspective of having experienced the 5th District because I worked for former Congressman Gary Franks and had the opportunity to travel the 5th District.  And that bow tie shape of the 5th District is manageable.  Not only is it geographically manageable, but it is all the things that the previous speakers have said.  It has a diverse population.  But when I think of diversity, I think of the ability of Republicans and Democrats to be elected in the 5th District, unlike the 1st District and the 3rd District.

 

I'm not saying that we can't win as Republicans or -- but it's been a history of more of the same in those districts more often than in our District.  And so we have the opportunity to have different perspectives because of the geographic makeup of -- and the demographic makeup of our District.

 

So I ask you to consider looking to the east and leave us alone.  Okay?

 

I thank you.  And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.  I sure do know the 5th District from -- you know, from the top to the bottom, going down to Ridgefield, traveling 7, going up to Danbury, sitting in the Seymour Town Hall, making my presence known.  So, you know, I certainly, if not at this time, at any time would be happy to provide you with input.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, Madam.

 

Representative Sullivan.

 

REP. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Madam Chairman.

 

I understand the passion and the experience behind your remarks.  I suspect that as we continue these hearings around the state of Connecticut, we will hear pleas to keep the 1st the 1st, keep the 2nd the 2nd, keep the 3rd the 3rd, keep the 4th the 4th, keep the 6th the 6th and keep the 5th the 5th.

 

There's only one small problem.  First, we're going from six to five.  That's a modest problem that we face.  Second, the probability is that there is not -- the certainty is that there is no Congressional District in the state that will not in some fashion be reconfigured.  So, at a minimum, there will be no District, I suspect, that will be the same.

 

DEBORAH LEWIS:  Oh, good.  I'm happy to know that there will be equal opportunity change.  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much for your remarks.

 

The next speaker is James Szynkiewicz.

 

JAMES SZYNKIEWICZ:  Excuse me.  My name is James Szynkiewicz.  I reside here in the city of Waterbury.  And my understanding was there was somebody ahead of me.  So there was -- I don't know.  Do we switch?  Is this possible?  Because this gentleman has to leave earlier.

 

REP. LYONS:  Sure.

 

JAMES SZYNKIEWICZ:  He's been concerned about it.

 

REP. LYONS:  Yes.  That's fine.  Go ahead and switch.  If you would please identify yourself, sir, the next gentleman who is taking your place.

 

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK:  My name is Joe Zdonczyk.  I'm the State Chairman of the oldest independent political party in the state of Connecticut.  And the very first thing I want to do is I want to thank Jim Szynkiewicz for giving me his time.  I do have an appointment at 9:00.  And I genuinely appreciate him giving me this opportunity.

 

I would also like to note that right from the very beginning I looked around and there was a room full of people here and several people sitting up there at the podium and there was an American flag and a Connecticut flag.  And ordinarily I would expect that every meeting would begin with, at the very least, a Pledge of Allegiance.  And there was none.  I think that's a major defect that should be corrected at future meetings.

 

I would like to just basically say God bless this nation and God bless this state.  Over the years, the Concerned Citizens Party have run candidates, many candidates, on a local level, on a State level and on a Federal level.  We have garnered anywhere from 500 votes for a local candidate to 35,000 votes for a candidate for United States Senate.  In our last election, our candidate, Bill Kozack, who ran against Mr. Lieberman and our own Mr. Giordano here, for United States Senate received 26,000 votes.  I, myself, ran as a candidate for the Congress against Mr. Maloney and Mr. Nielsen.

 

Why are we concerned about this districting?  Well, of course, what this means, if districting, redistricting does take place, it means that the status that we enjoy by reason of hard work would just simply be wiped off the books.  The only position that we will remain -- that we will maintain status for will be for United States Senate because is not affected by redistricting.

 

However, the 5th Congressional District, the 6th Congressional District and other Districts where we may have candidates who have run for State offices, they will be wiped clean.  You know, I was reading here in this handout that was given.  It said, "Federal law requires Districts to have about equal populations so that everyone's vote has equal importance."  One person, one vote.

 

Well, we certainly feel that it's necessary that this be taken into consideration when you redistrict, however you do it, and that you preserve that concept of one person, one vote.

 

You know, right now this commission is composed of people, Republicans and Democrats.  We'd like to point out to you what it said here in your own -- in your own handout.  "Although the courts have not clearly identified the principals, they may include respecting communities of interest, drawing contiguous and reasonably contact districts, protecting incumbents and maintaining partisan fairness."

 

Well, you know, I would question that.  When you talk about partisan fairness, this would indicate to me that you're talking about fairness for the Republican Party and for the Democratic Party.  Now, about a third of the state of Connecticut is comprised of voters who are neither Republican or Democrat, who are Independent voters.  You have the commission that's made up, comprised of eight people and another appointed person, purely partisan.  Where is the representation for the Independent voters?  There is none.

 

If you're talking about fairness, one man, one vote, where is the representation?  Where are the best interests of those people who are Independent voters represented?  This is going to shape up in the months to come as a purely partisan battle.  Republicans will be jockeying around and gerrymandering and the Democrats doing the same thing, to gain political advantage.  That's not what redistricting should be all about.

 

Redistricting is to provide fair and decent representation for all the people in the state of Connecticut honestly and fairly.  With this kind of a commission sitting in place, that can't be done.

 

I would ask where we're concerned, our own Concerned Citizens Party, where we're concerned is that legislation be passed so that, at the very least, those positions that we have, that we have achieved through hard labor -- and you know what it takes to get a candidate on the ballot here in the state of Connecticut?  We have had to collect as high as 13,000 certified signatures to get a candidate on the ballot for Governor.  In this last presidential election, we had to get 7,500 signatures for an Independent candidate to run for President with our Concerned Citizens Party.  That's a difficult task.  It's very, very hard to achieve status.  We've done that in the case of the 5th and 6th Congressional District.  Also in the 35th State Senatorial District.  We have status.

 

And when redistricting takes place, what happens to that status?  Republicans and Democrats just simply wipe us out.  Where is the justice?  Where is the fairness? 

 

You know, right here in Waterbury we had a similar problem that just came up.  We're talking about fair representation of the people.  You're probably not familiar with it.  But there was an effort made here in the city of Waterbury to change the City's government and to allow representation by district.  It was brought to a referendum and it was very, very closely defeated.  What the people of the city of Waterbury were saying is there needs to be a change in government.  There needs to be fairer representation.

 

And what you're doing on the State level is the same thing.  You are taking and looking at this proposal in a purely partisan fashion.  You're not taking into consideration the wishes and the desires of the people of the state of Connecticut who are not affiliated with the Republicans or Democratic parties.

 

So, insofar as we're concerned, our own Concerned Citizens Party, we would ask you to pass legislation that would preserve those positions for which we have status.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.  I believe Representative Ward had a comment or a question.

 

REP. WARD:  I just wanted to, at least for the record, say first I appreciate your comments asking us to consider the status of minority parties when we look at redistricting.

 

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK:  I'm sorry.  I can't hear you very well.  Could you speak louder please?

 

REP. WARD:  I'm sorry.  I said I appreciate your making a point of asking us to consider the status on minority parties when doing redistricting.  It's not something I had thought of.

 

But I did want to also point out that you indicate that the Committee is not make up of any unaffiliated minority party members.  I wanted the record to reflect the Constitution requires that the Committee be made up of legislators.  And there are no legislators presently serving who are either unaffiliated or members of minority parties.  So that it would not be possible -- and the Constitution isn't something the General Assembly did, but, obviously, was adopted by Amendment of all of the people.  So I just wanted you to understand that it would not have been possible to appoint minority party or unaffiliated to this commission because our State Constitution requires it be made up by members of the General Assembly.

 

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK:  May I ask you a question?  There was a point here made that there was one person who was supposed to be nominated, other than the eight members that were originally serving.  Was that person a legislator also?

 

REP. WARD:  Only if the eight-member committee does not reach by the September 15 deadline a plan which gets submitted to the General Assembly.  Only then would there be a ninth person.  And I do not recall off the top of my head -- I don't believe that that person has to be from either party and that person does not have to be a legislator.

 

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK:  If it is within constitutional guidelines and if it does come to an impasse and if then it does become possible that we have another person appointed to the Board, that that person be an Independent person.

 

REP. WARD:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.  We appreciate your comments.

 

The next speaker is Dennis Buckley.

 

DENNIS BUCKLEY:  Honorable Chairpersons and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Dennis M. Buckley and I reside at 1062 Meriden Road in the city of Waterbury.  I have been a registered Republican voter in this city for 35 years.  And I have engaged in some politics during the course of that period.  And, as a consequence, I have participated in the election of persons to the General Assembly of Connecticut, the Congress of the United States, the office of Mayor of Waterbury and, yes, the governorship of the State of Connecticut.

 

I would say that as a result I have been afforded an opportunity to see our political process from a vantage point of the inside.

 

I have also in the course of the last decade, while serving as incorporator and President of Concerned Taxpayers of Waterbury, Incorporated, our local taxpayer organization, been subjected to observing and protesting the ill effects of insider politics in the city of Waterbury; a process, which, in my opinion, has neither acknowledged nor addressed the concerns or needs of the residents and voters of this city.

 

This evening, I have appeared before you to express my concerns regarding whether redistricting will adequately meet the needs and desires of the voters of the city of Waterbury, as well as the voters of the ballots of the 5th Congressional District and, yes, the voters of the 6th Congressional District.

 

I respectfully argue to this Committee that a top priority of your charge must be the preservation and expansion of the current 5th and 6th Congressional Districts, ably represented by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Jim Maloney.

 

I understand that this Committee must determine geographic lines for five new Congressional Districts which incorporate approximately 125,000 new persons into these districts beyond the present populations now identified.

 

Given the fact that the present 5th Congressional District is the largest in this state, this Committee need only add approximately 100,000 individuals in order to reach the magic number of 681,113 desired in each of the new configured districts.

 

I submit to you that finding those additional individuals should not be difficult.  When you examine the 2000 census, you will determine that this portion of Connecticut, that is, western Connecticut, Fairfield, Litchfield and New Haven Counties, experienced the most growth during the last decade, while, in comparison, the eastern portion of our state, New London County, was the slowest-growing region in the state of Connecticut.

 

Clearly, this Committee can both preserve and expand the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts.  Sufficient numbers are right here.  No doubt, the more important question is why should your Committee produce this result?

 

We understand that any Congressional District is more than lines drawn onto the map of the state.  The real significance regarding any Congressional District is the capacity of and commitment to representation provided by the individual sent by the people of that district to the United States Congress in Washington.

 

We could have a substantial discussion regarding the overall effectiveness of the seniority system in the United States Congress some day.  But this is not that day.

 

The seniority system and its importance in the institution of the U.S. Congress, I would argue to you, is a fact.  That system and its weight in the daily functions of the Congress, I respectfully submit to you, impel your action to preserve and protect the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts.

 

Representative Nancy Johnson and fellow Republican representing the 6th Congressional District is one of the members of the prestigious and powerful Ways and Means Committee.  Additionally, she chairs the Health Care Sub-Committee in the U.S. Congress.

 

For Connecticut and some of the state's largest employers, such as Aetna and Cigna, having Representative Johnson on those committees are invaluable assets of the competition to create and/or maintain thousands of jobs.

 

For the state's senior citizens or other individuals interested in the complex issues of an ever-changing health care delivery industry, Representative Johnson is at ground zero in her chairmanship position, both informed on the issues and capable of sponsoring and leading toward passage necessary legislation in the interests of the people of our whole state.

 

Congressman Jim Maloney, my Congressman in the 5th District, is now in his third term and is the State's most senior member on both the Armed Services and Financial Services Committees.  Each of these committees has proven crucial to fueling Connecticut's business and industrial economy, yesterday, today and, no doubt, tomorrow.

 

The Armed Services Committee often works closely with such notable Connecticut employers as Sikorsky and UTC.  The Financial Services Committee has recently inherited from the Commerce Committee the role of overseeing and working with the insurance industry, one of the service industries for which Connecticut is perhaps best known nationwide.  Such committee, in terms of banking and security issues, affords Congressman Maloney opportunities to assist Webster Bank, which is headquartered here in Waterbury.

 

Lastly, Congressman Maloney has compiled a record of local service to the people of the 5th District, such that even his opponent in the last election observed that he performs like the mayor of the 5th District, addressing issues judged by many to usually be the responsibility of local elected officials.

 

For example, last year, in the beginning stages of the eventual disclosure of Waterbury's fiscal crisis, when local officials proposed raising sewer use rates nearly 300 percent, sponsoring pleas from my constituents and concerned taxpayers and Waterbury rate payers in general for assistance, Jim Maloney secured emergency funding by passage of a Congressional enactment granting the City of Waterbury $750,000.00 to be applied toward rate relief.

 

In conclusion, I would stress to the Committee that we need to keep experienced and influential members like Congressman Johnson and Congressman Maloney in place both in terms of preserving their Districts as well as preserving the opportunities of their service to Connecticut's residents. 

 

It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that Connecticut must lose a Congressional seat.  But it is wholly avoidable that such loss should deprive either the 5th or the 6th District of the presence and powers of these two persons in the Congress of the United States.

 

I've read articles in the Waterbury Republican American speculating as to whether the Districts would be merged in such a manner as would sponsor a race for a new Congressional seat between Representatives Johnson and Maloney.  I respectfully submit that such outcome from this Committee's deliberations would be a profound disservice to this region of the state which has grown the most in the decade since the last Federal census.

 

As a Republican, I note that some have argued that such a contest would afford my party the opportunity to place Representative Johnson in Congress in lieu of Congressman Maloney.  For such persons, I am compelled to remind them that Jim Maloney has run four Congressional campaigns, each arguably tougher than the one preceding it, and, yet, he remains the 5th District Congressman today.

 

In his last campaign, he garnered 63 percent of the vote in Waterbury, even after my party's candidate knocked on 3,000 doors in this city.  Simply for comparison, Governor Rowland, Waterbury's favorite son, won 70 percent of the vote in Waterbury in 1998.  I would hope that such facts would readily overcome any simple suggestion that a head-to-head race between these two incumbent Congressmen is a simple win for the Republican Party.

 

I firmly believe that the best interests of the people and, yes, of the major parties can be served by maintaining separate Congressional Districts that preserve but expand the current 5th and 6th Districts, thereby affording us the opportunity to continue the Congressional service of Representative Nancy Johnson and Representative Jim Maloney.

 

I thank the Committee for this opportunity to voice my opinion.  And I have furnished to staff an original and 12 copies of my remarks.

 

And if I might be permitted just one closing observation, in part motivated by some earlier comments?  I share the observations and the strength of arguments that have been offered on certain matters of demographics.  But I think it is completely legitimate for you to consider here, as no doubt you will be asked to consider in a like manner throughout the whole of this state, the significance of the fact that representation here in the state of Connecticut must also be orientated in terms of representation where in the Congress of the United States six of 435 was difficult enough.  Five within 435 is not an improvement of the equation.

 

And while I don't want my remarks to be viewed as meaning that all incumbents should be inviolate for all time, the term of anyone is always left to the judgment and the vote of the people.  But I do not think it inappropriate to you to consider, for me to argue or for the people to understand the significance of seniority within the Congress in affording the people of the state of Connecticut the best opportunities for representation within that legislative body.  And it is within that spirit that I argue to you forcefully that you hopefully shall preserve the representational opportunities and values of both of these seasoned veteran Congressmen.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

The next speaker is I believe the gentleman who had given up his place before, James Szynkiewicz.  James -- I'm sorry.  I pronounced your name incorrectly, sir.  If you would like to correct me --

 

JAMES SZYNKIEWICZ:  I'm quite used to it.  I have a sheet about this long of misspelling of my name, you know, which I enjoy and my kids enjoy, too.

 

Waterbury, as well as the Naugatuck Valley and Danbury, as well as Meriden, are areas growing rapidly in terms of new population with ethnic diversity.

 

I would like to comment to Senator Cappiello's inquiry before.  For whatever reason, there are new communities or new ethnic groups which center on Waterbury and then spread out along the I-84 access.  Especially -- and this is my observation.  I see people of Hispanic origin here and also Afro-Americans.

 

Your understanding that the political setup is of primary concern is probably somewhat wrong because I notice that the activities, especially the social activities, of the new communities -- and you have to add the Albanians, for instance, and we have Hindus, Chinese.  You know, there's wide diversity of people.  They're mostly centered around churches and social organizations.

 

And this system has been sort of growing and expanding.  Therefore, any serious change in it would really confuse the issues, confuse the development and confuse the participation of the individuals in the political and economic arena.

 

Therefore, those groups that are developing and some which have been already -- reached a point of political importance will depend heavily on the support on a Federal level in education maintenance and development of services, et cetera.

 

Without direct representation on a Congressional level, the citizen towns of the 5th District will suffer a great economic setback.  Being part of another geographically larger district will dilute the effectiveness of this representation.

 

I hope, therefore, that any reapportionment this Committee will consider will not be made on a strictly statistical basis but on that of economic and population needs.

 

My other comment is that -- it has to do really with the 5th Congressional District as such.  With a practice established in recent years, mainly through work of Congressman Maloney in this area -- because personally I do not belong to any political party.  I'm completely independent and I vote for the best person at all times.

 

I believe that people of the current 5th District have come to appreciate the direct contact with the Washington administration through the commitment and actions provided by the Congressional Representative, Mr. Maloney.

 

He has provided us with accessibility and concern for the quality of life for people in his District.  And, in his absence or the absence of a similar representative with a responsive local office among the beneficiaries -- excuse me -- among the beneficials has been the large senior population -- you see, here in Waterbury we have a growing senior population.  And a lot of their fate, I would say, and the future residents in Waterbury and their quality of life belongs to the organization which has been sort of formed through the activities of the -- of Congressman Maloney.

 

I hope, therefore, that any solution this Committee shall arrive at will have taken into consideration an organizational structure allocating a manageable geographical area which -- with a good Congressional Representative, which it should be, good Congressional Representative could serve efficiently.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you.  Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

Representative Reggie Beamon, who will be followed by Normas Primus.

 

REP. BEAMON:  Thank you, Madam Speaker and honorable members of the Redistricting Committee.  I just would like to state for the record my name is Reggie Beamon.  I reside at 46 Catalina Drive in the center of the universe, Waterbury, Connecticut.  And we thank you this evening for being here, bringing this hearing to our great city.

 

I would just like to echo some of the comments I heard from my colleague, Representative Lou Wallace, as he discussed communities of interest.  About ten years, I happened to be in the legislature when we went through a redistricting.  And one thing I found out is that it's very difficult for you, especially your Committee, to maintain good friendships after it's over.  And one thing we like to do in our business is maintain friendships.  It's kind of hard sometimes. 

 

So, in deference to the deliberations that you have to make, I would hope that the public would appreciate all the hard work that you have to put in to come up with an arrangement that the majority of people may agree to.

 

I also would like to note for the record that as Chairman of the Legislative Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, that I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for your indulgence to our concerns that blacks and Puerto Ricans, even though we're not on your committee, that we will have access to this process as we appear in the public this evening and let the public assess what they have to say about any plans that may come up or may not come up which could be adopted, which may not be adopted, but to provide the input which is necessary.  So I thank you for that opportunity.

 

And, again, for the record, Representative Annette Carter of Hartford and Representative John Martinez of New Haven, they serve as the liaisons to the Reapportionment Committee.

 

So, again, thank you for being here.  I have no comments on all the hard work that you have to do.  It's more important for me here in Waterbury to listen to our citizens and to assess what they have to bring to your Committee.  So thank you so much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.

 

Normas Primus, to be followed by Hector Riollano.

 

HECTOR RIOLLANO:  Good evening --

 

REP. LYONS:  Normas is --

 

HECTOR RIOLLANO:  I'm sorry.

 

REP. LYONS:  Oh.  That's okay.  No.  I just let you know you would be -- Hector, you're next to be -- so you're right after, right after Normas.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Thank you very much.  Members of the Committee, I thank you very much for the opportunity of once again speaking to you.  We met at New Haven two weeks ago.  And I would like to clarify one of the statements I made and I'd like clarification from you about something that is troubling me.

 

I can't hear myself.

 

My name is Norman S. Primus.  And I reside in New London, Connecticut.  And I've come before you for the second time and again it's for the purpose of assisting this Committee and the people of Connecticut in securing open and fair elections in this next decade.

 

And if I might divert, digress a moment?  I want to congratulate and thank Representative Murray -- Jarjura -- pardon me -- for his comments about open meetings and about bringing the system into the open.  And also to Councilman Butler who also asked for opening the system so we know what you're doing.

 

We don't -- we have faith in you, but we would have more faith in the system, in the process, if it were open.

 

I want to expand on the districting kit which I showed you when we met.  This kit, which I -- and I've been doing this for 15 years -- is maps and -- of the state of Connecticut by county and by towns and by voting districts where necessary.

 

Any individual with an adding machine, pencil and paper can divide the state of Connecticut into five Congressional Districts.  Any reasonable person can do it for 36 Districts for Senate and, if they want to sit down for a long time and do a lot of homework, 151 Districts.

 

These kits are available for people who want to prepare plans for me.  I want to demonstrate to the Committee that this can be open, participatory process and would relieve you of all of the clashing you're going to have when you get out to the 2nd District as opposed to the 5th District.

 

So if we're going to have an open society and we want to, I believe, involve everyone, I suggest that people submit their own plans.

 

The second item -- and I trust that Senator Sullivan would be kind to me and explain something to me that he explained to Mr. Butler.  You must know that I'm very interested in redistricting, not only in my "Balance Neutral Process", but I'm very interested in the process that this Committee and its aides and its staff are using to complete that task.

 

Since the process is not stipulated in the State's Constitution or Statutes, I sought to find out how districting is being done by visiting the Legislative Office Building last week.  I spoke to a number of individuals.  All of them were staff people.  The legislators, of course, were home, recouping from the budget session.  Everyone was most polite and courteous.  And some were helpful.  Which brings me to the question.

 

I learned that this Committee had created five committees, two in the Senate, one Republican and one Democrat, and two in the House, one Democrat and one Republican, and one described as being neutral.  I was unable to learn how many persons were on these committees.  I did not learn the names or occupations of the committee members.  I have no recollection of seeing a news report of these appointments to committees.

 

Now, if these committees are working on districting plans, I'd appreciate knowing their names, addresses, phone, fax, E-mail addresses so that I might submit my request for access to their data, maps and all other documents they have in their possession.

 

Is there a list of this information here this evening?

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  I'm not speaking for all of us.  I'm not even sure what you're referring to in terms of committees.  There are no committees of this committee.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  There are no individuals working on plans at the present time?

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  Only staff who are working on gathering data and inputting data into the systems.  No one has worked on a plan of any kind at this moment in time because --

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Why is that?

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  That is why we're doing the hearings.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Why is that material secret?  I can't -- I don't have access to it, as you understand.  But I --

 

REP. LYONS:  Sir, just to answer your questions, I think almost everything that we have, whether it's information about the demographics of a district or whether it's information about the numerical number of people in a district, is all public information available.  We have a Website that is available both for your input and for you to access.  The primary purpose and only purpose for the public hearings, of which there are five, is to go around, not have them in one single area, but to go around the state and get and receive access from the public prior to us sitting down and really looking at what we think the District should or should not be.  We're governed by certain Federal constraints.  We're governed by certain demographics.  We're governed by certain population determinations.

 

And the purpose of us doing this is to get public input to determine, as you've heard speakers say, what the areas of common interest are.  And that's essentially why we're here, to hear from the public their concerns and to take that into consideration as we go through this process, which is quite open, and, as you know, is done in a bipartisan or a non- really partisan manner because it's represented equally by Republicans and Democrats.  As was said by Representative Ward, that is a determination by the Constitution.

    

So if you would like to proceed with your comments, we'd be happy to hear them.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Well -- well, I'll have to go back to sources and check back again and find out why -- why I got this information.

 

And I thank you very much.  And I'll be back to see you maybe tomorrow night.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your comments.  We do appreciate it.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  And now -- oh.  I'm sorry.  Senator Cappiello --

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Thank you, sir.

 

REP. LYONS:  -- would like to make a comment or ask a question.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  I do have one question.  I don't know what the answer was from the last public hearing in New Haven.  But I believe Representative Currey asked this.  That packet that you have, is that for all of us?  Can you give us a copy of all of that?

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Well, as I explained to Representative Currey, I'd like to do that.  But my deal is I want maps.  Are you prepared to draw maps for me?

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Well, I'm only asking because you said you had a packet to show us that we could look at.

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  Oh, if you want to look at it --

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  I mean it might be helpful for us --

 

NORMAN PRIMUS:  If you want to look at it, fine.  Yes.  Now, let me explain.  I've done this about 15, 20 times.  And when somebody calls up and says, "Gee, I'd like to have it" and I say, "Okay.  Send me 25 bucks for mailing it to you" and I send it to them, I never get the 25 bucks.  I'm not interested in the $25.00.  I'm interested in the maps because when I take 20, 15, 20, 39 maps and evaluate them on the basis of their adherence to criteria, calculation, compactness and the splitting of counties and the splitting of towns, if I have a sufficient number to evaluate them, it's very clear which map best represents the people.  And so I need maps.  I need map-makers.

 

And so I'm reluctant to just give it to people just so they look at it and toss it in the wastebasket.  I'll give you the map.  But I want a binder that you're going to make, draw the maps for me.  I'd be very happy to circulate this to you.  You're talking now just to look at this thing.  Okay?

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you for your comments.

 

Hector -- Hector Riollano.  And then to be followed by Will Rogers.

 

HECTOR RIOLLANO:  Now it's me.

 

SEN. CAPPIELLO:  Definite.

 

REP. LYONS:  Yes.  This is definitely you, sir.  Please proceed.

 

HECTOR RIOLLANO:  Thank you.  Okay.  First I want to thank you for letting me, you know, address this group tonight.  And welcome to the center of the world.  Okay?  We are falling apart, but still it's the center of the world.  Okay.

 

Yes.  My name is Hector Riollano from Nine Orbital Avenue.  I'm a member of the Hispanic Democratic Club in Waterbury and the Connecticut Latino Voting Right Committee in Connecticut.

 

And as a Latino and Hispanic, we are very concerned because, as you aware, in the last census we are the fastest-growing group, not only in Connecticut but throughout the country.  Especially in Waterbury.  We went -- it was a growth of 65 percent in the past 10 years, which means that all our districts changed in Waterbury.  In 10 years, it has changed in Waterbury with the Latino population growing so fast.  Okay.

 

Now, this growth has translated into more political power for the Latino in Waterbury or for the state.  For example, in Waterbury, we have no Hispanic Aldermen.  We have only two Commissioners.  And we tried to run for State Rep.  It was very difficult because our power is not concentrated.

 

Now, we have a group in Waterbury.  We share the same culture, same language, same socio/economic problems, same views.  But we lack power, the bigger power.

 

But we're going to ask you -- we are working as a group throughout the state.  We are just assessing data.  We are assessing different cities where we -- we're asking you when you draw these maps, with your wisdom -- I know you are smart people.  That's why you are there -- to keep in mind this group, the Latinos.  When you draw those maps, you reflect a group with the same needs, culture, language in such a way that we could move ahead politically because we don't want to be told from City Hall what's best for us.  We won't tell anybody, either.  We want to share solution.  We have problems.  We want to part of solution of the problems.  But this point, we aren't.

 

And besides that, we are working as a group for the state and eventually we're going to share this information with you.  I went to the meeting in New Haven.  Maybe you are familiar with me already.  I'm going to follow you to Norwich, too, and Hartford, until you get tired, sick and tired of me and say, "Hey, just shut up."  You know?  Well, I'll be there just to remind you over and over that we are here.  We are here to stay.  We want to be part of the process.

 

But we have to be allowed to be part of this process.  I mean when you draw those maps, keep in mind, please, you know, that we need that district of Hispanics as a group.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.

 

Will Rogers.

 

WILL ROGERS:  Thank you, members of the Redistricting Committee.  I'm Will Rogers.  I'm here from the Legislative Council in Newtown, although I'm not here on behalf of the Legislative Council.  I'm just here as an individual.

 

I'd like to shift the focus for a moment from Congressional redistricting to State redistricting and to basically ask for an upgrade for the Town of Newtown.  As you might know, our population increased by 20 percent, which I find on the list to be fairly respectable, given Newtown's starting base.  As you'll note, many of the high-percentage increases are a bit disingenuous because they're with towns that have four-digit populations.

 

Newtown has grown substantially.  I can tell you as a local politician that many of our local residents believe we have only one Representative, Representative Wasserman.  And that includes many of the people who are served by our two other Representatives, Representative Shea and Representative Stripp.

 

I note that Bethel didn't have a lot of population growth.  I'm thinking perhaps a possible solution would be to remove Bethel from the 106th and perhaps give Ms. Wasserman or her successor Mr. Shea's district within Newtown.  We really do have a disparity of the bulk of Newtown represented by one person and very small slivers represented by the other two.  And if there's a way that you can change that, I think we would appreciate it.

 

Finally, on a personal note, Madam Chairwoman, my wife shares your first name, spells it the same way, pronounces it the same way.  And we always point to you as someone whose name is in print for proof that there's somebody else out there who really does spell that that way.

 

REP. LYONS:  With the same name.  Thank you.  I'm glad that I share something in common.

 

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

The next speaker is Nelson Roman.  And prior to that, I would like to acknowledge that we have also been joined by Representative Jeff Berger, who is with us this evening.

 

Nelson?

 

NELSON ROMAN:  Good evening, members of the Reappointment Committee.  If I may just step up real quick and give you something?  It is a part of my presentation tonight.

 

REP. LYONS:  Oh.  Sure.

 

NELSON ROMAN:  Thank you.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Nelson Roman.  And I'm a 13-year-old political activitist here in the city.  And tonight I'm here representing the Hispanic community in the city of Waterbury.  And I know you're wondering, "Why is he here for this task?"  The reason is because this redistricting issue, you know, affects for the next ten years and that's when, hopefully, I would like to run for Mayor.  As you could all see, I have the business cards. 

 

For you people in the public that did not see what I gave them, I gave them a business card that said "Mayor of Waterbury".

 

And it's just going to affect, you know, when I run for Mayor, maybe even for State Representative.  You know, it will affect it, you know, because, you know, it will be ten years are up and it will be -- you know, the districts will be in place.

 

So, in that, tonight you might want to save these cards because they might be worth money one day when I become a real big politician.  So --

 

To get to the point, I know my dreams of becoming a Mayor is possible.  But there's still one thing missing, my friends; a strong Hispanic district in this new districting map.

 

My friends, the Hispanic community is the fastest-growing group in Waterbury, with 25,000 Hispanics in the city.  If you take a good look at the city's current administration, you'll be surprised to see that there are no Hispanics in positions of significance.

 

I'm here to ask that while you are drawing up your maps for the State Representative Districts, you give the Hispanic community a strong District to represent the large, growing community of Hispanics.

 

Honorable members of the Reappointment Committee, please help me, the future of tomorrow, to cure this problem.  I know it's not only in Waterbury, but it's all -- it's happening all over the state.  Help the statewide problem.  Help the citywide problem by giving a good example by starting in Waterbury, by giving us a strong Hispanic District that will balance out the political power between, you know, between cultural differences.

 

Now, let's not do this in a bitter way.  Let's do this civilized.  I'm a very young man to come up here and tell you to do it civilized.  You're all adults.  You all know that, of course.  But let's not divide the state.  Let's make it equal.

 

And I'll be at the next couple of meetings to promote this equal -- this equal message.  You know?  I'll be there and I'll keep putting forth this message.  We need equality and we need to start in Waterbury.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, Nelson.  Appreciate it.

 

                    (APPLAUSE)

 

REP. LYONS:  I want to commend you.  You're extremely well-spoken.  And I'm sure the candidates currently running for Mayor of Waterbury are delighted you're not going to be here for another ten years.  So, thank you.

 

SEN. DeLUCA:  May I --

 

REP. LYONS:  Please, sir.

 

SEN. DeLUCA:  I just wanted to mention something, Nelson.  The good news is we can't cut up the City of Waterbury that it would diminish it before your running for Mayor.  But the bad news is this is going to happen again in another ten years.

 

NELSON ROMAN:  I realize that.  And by that time, I should be in power and --

 

                    (APPLAUSE)

 

REP. LYONS:  I've got to tell you.  I love self-confidence.  Go for it.  Good for you.

 

The next speaker is Robert Marconi.

 

ROBERT MARCONI:  How do you follow that act?

 

My name is Robert Marconi.  I'm from Brookfield, Connecticut.  But in a larger sense, I guess I'm from all over Connecticut because I was born in Hartford, grew up in Windsor Locks, went to college in New Haven, law school in West Hartford, my sisters both live in Stonington and I work in New Britain.  So I think most of the state is covered there.  And I once worked in Norwalk, too.  So I once worked in the 4th Congressional District.

 

At any rate, I am the Democratic Town Chairman for the Town of Brookfield.  But I'm not here as a representative of the Democratic Town Committee or trying to advocate a Democratic point of view.

 

First of all, I know something better than that.  There's four of you from each party.  We're not going to get a Democratic plan or a Republican plan that is going to get approved by this Committee and by -- and become law.

 

Second, I do want to say that I work as an Assistant Attorney General.  But I'm not here as a representative of Dick Blumenthal, of the Attorney General's Office.  But one thing I do know.  By working for a Democratic Attorney General and having as clients State agencies headed up by appointees of a Republican Governor, there's not really a Democratic way or Republican way of representing the people of the state of Connecticut.  There's just the right way to represent the people of the state of Connecticut.  And that's what I try to do in court.  That's what you try to do in the Connecticut General Assembly.  And that's what you're trying to do here.

 

I'm here mainly to talk about Congressional reapportionment.  Now, something about the importance of this.  We keep hearing about the next ten years.  When we shifted from five Congressional Districts to six in the mid-1960'2, frankly, the general parameters of those Districts remained the same for over 30 years.  Changes around the edges, yes.  But basically you had the Greater Hartford District, the Eastern Connecticut District, et cetera, et cetera.

 

So what we're talking about, the parameters that are set here, that are set this year, are parameters that will probably guide us as long as Connecticut has five members of the United States House of Representatives.  It could be 10 years, 20 years.  It could be 50 years.  It could be for the first half of this century.  So it's extremely important what you do, not just for the next election, but perhaps for decades beyond.

 

Next, what's also important, even when we take a look at next year, is the U.S. Representative who is out of a seat next year.  That may be the deciding vote as far as who does control the United States House of Representatives with the close party division right now.

 

So it's very hard to not think about the next election.  But think about also the next few decades, not just this decade.

 

So how are you going to do the job?  We've heard about communities of interest.  And I think what you need to think about, obviously, is a community of interest.  And you're not going to have Congressional Districts based upon ethnic divisions.  You can't really work that out.  You can't have contiguous Districts.  You can't have Congressional Districts where you put all the urban areas in one Districts, all the suburbs in another District.

 

So how do you take a look at community of interest?  You might take a look at where do people get their news?  The newspapers.  Where do people get -- watch television, et cetera?  So that -- for instance, when I grew up in Windsor Locks and I work in New Britain -- you'll see a lot of Hartford Courant boxes out there.  It's all part of the Greater Hartford community in that sense.

 

So I would suggest that perhaps, as you did back -- as we did back in 1962, all Hartford County was one Congressional District.  Perhaps expanding the 1st District to include those parts of Hartford County that are not part of the 1st District, that might be one thing to think about.

 

The 2nd Congressional District, Eastern Connecticut.  Again, Eastern Connecticut does not necessarily associate itself with Hartford or New Haven.  It's too disperse, obviously, to consider itself to be one community.  But it has been, in fact, one District for not just the past 30 years where we've had six Districts but well beyond that, during the time when we had five Districts.

 

So I would suggest perhaps as a starting point, take a look at when we last had five Congressional Districts.  The map right in the 1962 Connecticut Register and Manual, take a look there.  That can't be your ending point, though, because population shifts have occurred between the towns from 1962 to the present, relatively speaking.

 

So I'm here to also make another recommendation.  And I don't have it mathematically calculated to a fine certainty.  But I'm going to echo what a lot of speakers here have before.  I'm going to ask you to consider keeping Danbury, Waterbury and the Naugatuck Valley within one Congressional District.

 

Now, I'm not going to ask you to keep the 5th District the same because one of the districts has to go.  I understand that.  I look at the charts there.  I look at the maps there.  I can see which towns have lost population, which have gained population.

 

I would suspect that if you keep a Danbury, Waterbury, Naugatuck Valley district, you may have to move Litchfield County into that District perhaps because you're still going to have a Lower Fairfield County District of Southwestern Connecticut.

 

I listened to the questions Senator Cappiello asked about why do those two communities tend to have a similarity of interest?  Why not Danbury with perhaps Speaker Lyons' town of Stamford?  Et cetera.  Part of the answers have been already expressed.  I-84 tends to be more unifying -- a unifying road in one sense.

 

For instance, did you ever try to get from the Danbury area down to Stamford or Norwalk?  For a while, I had to commute from Brookfield to Norwalk when I worked as an attorney for Norden Systems.  I could tell you, it's a lot easier for me to make my commute from Brookfield to New Britain, even though it's greater miles, than for me to commute down to Norwalk or when I have to go to court in Stamford from my home in Brookfield.  It's very difficult.

 

But it's not just highways, too, that we're talking.  We're also talking about making sure that towns, that communities get adequate interest, that are not overshadowed by other towns, that they have some things in common perhaps.

 

One of the things I note is, for instance, one of the members of this commission, Senator DeLuca, you represent a District that includes Greater Danbury and Greater Waterbury.  It includes Brookfield, which gets its daily newspaper from the Danbury News Times.  But it includes so many other towns that receive the Waterbury Republican.  So I tend to think that there is more of a commonality between them.

 

In addition to that, for over 30 years at least, Danbury and Waterbury have been part of one Congressional District and that neither town has dominated the others.  Because consider that since the current 5th District has been more or less the same, with Danbury, Waterbury, Meriden, we have had some outstanding members of Congress of both parties from different communities.  We've had a Democrat from Danbury, Bill Ratchford, and now a Democrat from Danbury, Jim Maloney.  But we've also had an outstanding Congressman from Waterbury, Republican John Rowland, our current Governor.  We've had Gary Franks from Waterbury.  We've had Ron Serasin from Beacon Falls.  We had John Monaghan, a Democrat from Waterbury.  We've had Danburians, Waterburians, Naugatuck Valley residents.  We have not had one community dominate over the others.

 

And what I'm afraid about is if Danbury is tossed in with the far southwestern part of Connecticut, is that Danbury will not have that commonality of interest.  And when I say Danbury, I also include my town of Brookfield and good town of Bethel.

 

When I worked in Norwalk, those who lived on the coast, frankly, they tended to get more of their news from New York stations.  They tended to read perhaps the New York Times more so than Connecticut papers.  In essence, perhaps more of a greater feeling of being part of a New York metropolitan area.  And I do not mean to insult, say, southwestern Connecticut, Speaker Lyons.  What I do mean to say is that I tend to think that the southwestern coast does see itself more as a different part of a community from, say, Greater Danbury.

 

I tend to think that Danbury and Waterbury both tend to get -- both tend to see themselves more of a same community, of something having something more in common, of being more linked business-wise, being more linked economically.  And I do see that as a greater political balance.

 

Now, tragically, we're going to have to lose a member of the House of Representatives.  I can't dictate to you who that's going to be.  But I am going to suggest that we take a look, take a look at how our map looked in 1962 and realize there were reasons why those districts were cut that way, then start adjusting with that map and keep Danbury and Waterbury together in one District.

 

Now, I realize in '62 Danbury was part of the 4th District.  Keep Danbury and Waterbury together.  Keep the Naugatuck Valley together with that District.  Add on to it so that you do have five equal districts.

 

And, again, I want to say I don't envy your job.  It's difficult enough.  And that's not even getting to 36 Senate Districts and the 151 House Districts.

 

But thank you for listening to all the people who have come here to give their viewpoints.  Thank you for being very attentive.  And if you have any questions, here I am.  I've answered them from judges in court, so I'll answer them, obviously, from you.

 

Madam Speaker?

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much.  We all appreciate your comments and appreciate your being here.

 

ROBERT MARCONI:  Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.

 

James Smith?

 

JAMES SMITH:  Madam Chairperson, distinguished committee members and the public, I'm James Smith from Newtown, Connecticut.  I've been involved in local politics and things like that for approximately 40 years.  I am not speaking for anybody but myself and things that I've seen over those years both with redistricting, with voting, with what goes on in the polls.  I'm not going to be redundant with anything that's been said before. 

 

I do want to say, once you come up with a plan and you have some lines drawn, consider each and every one of those lines, if they go through a town, to make sure, even if you have to increase some of the population in one of the areas, of which you're allowed to do, to do that.  It does cost money every time you have a town -- and it costs money to the town when you have part of a district, because of different people on the voting machines, that kind of a thing.  So it's going to cost approximately $3,000.00 per district in some of the smaller towns.

 

Representative O'Neill understands very clearly that Southbury, part of it is in the 5th District and part of it isn't.  So when you finish with your maps, look at your lines.  Don't split towns any more than absolutely necessary.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

Jorge Irizarry, to be followed by John Harmon.

 

JORGE IRIZARRY:  My name Jorge Irizarry.  I live in city of Waterbury.  I'm here because I'm concerned about the redistricting process.  Before I continue, I would like to say good evening to all of you, members of the committee.

 

I believe that the process should be fair for all the resident of the state.  We also make sure that the Connecticut redistricting ensure equal representation for all the community across the state, including Waterbury.

 

I also believe that everyone should have an opportunity to vote for the person they feel represent them and their community.  We must keep community together so we can give minority voter confident that their vote count, that their voice will be heard, that they will have equal opportunity to elect someone who will represent their views.

 

I also would like the Board and -- or the Committee to consider the many recommendations that the Latino and the Puerto Rican Affair Commission have put forward to you.  It's very important that we consider Hispanics, like many of our -- my friends have come here tonight and expressed their feeling on how the Hispanic population is growing so quickly in many of the cities across the state of Connecticut. 

 

We also need the opportunity to allow many of those individual from my community that are looking forward to have the opportunity to participate in the political process, the opportunity for them to be able to achieve those goal and those objectives.  And the only way we could be able to participate and enjoy those opportunities like many of you enjoy here, enjoy in those opportunity, I would also would like my community be able to enjoy those opportunity.

 

So when you are drawing those line, I would appreciate if all of you consider my community, not only the Hispanic community in the city of Waterbury but also in Danbury and many of the other community across the state.  We also are very important group in this country and we have a lot to offer.  But in order for us to offer something, we also need you guy to open those door for us so we be able to be participant in the political process in the United States.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

John Harmon, to be followed by Americo Santiago.

 

JOHN HARMON:  Thank you.  Members of the commission, my name is John Harmon.  I live in West Hartford, which is also on I-84.  But I'm not here to include it in the 5th District.

 

I'm here this evening in my capacity as co-chair of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.  CCAG is the state's largest membership-based citizens group, with over 25,000 members, most of them registered voters and many concerned with the redistricting process.

 

First, I want to echo earlier comments about public access to the plans and to the data as they're proposed, particularly on the Web.  It's the first time the Worldwide Web has been around -- it barely existed in 1980.  And after the 90's census, it was there.  But certainly maps and complex queries were several years off.  Today, the technology is widely available and certainly within the budget of the commission to serve all kinds of maps, images and data across the Web, to the legislature, the media and interested members of the public.

 

Software that will allow anyone to download any proposed plan, zoom in on their neighborhood, see where the proposed lines were going exactly, is being used by many states in their redistricting efforts.  I've even seen applications where a user could select a particular plan, type in an address and have the current and proposed district be returned.  And I've seen simpler systems where an individual legislator has proposed a plan in Utah by drawing on a map and they scanned the map in and it was available for public review.

 

I'm sure the staff of the commission has been perusing the Web for sites to emulate.  And Websites are nice because they can change all the time.  But I'd recommend a few.  The Alaska site shows plans that have been submitted a coalition group for fair redistricting.  The State of Minnesota site has one Senator who submitted 10 of the current 16 plans available for review there.  He seems to change his plan about every week.  This site also makes the data available through the Website, which is going to be a significant time-saving for your staff.

 

There are several organizations in the state currently working on plans they would like to see adopted.  And the commission should encourage this work by making data available and publishing these proposed plans on the Web.

 

The second issue I'd like to speak to deals with the geographic problem I've seen that the commission and its staff would have to work hard to address.  When I looked at the current population of the existing 151 House Districts, it's evident that many are very far off the ideal target population they have to hit for fair redistricting.  It's completely normal after a decade of population growth, shift and decline. 

    

But what matters is the geographic arrangement of this change.  If we had a checkerboard pattern where relatively underpopulated districts abutted overpopulated districts, the shifts would be minimal.  But the pattern is not that simple.  The underpopulated districts are in the cities and with some in eastern and norther Connecticut and the overpopulated districts are clustered in western, southwestern and parts of eastern Connecticut.

 

Because of this clustering, you extend many of the urban districts into adjacent suburbs and the ripple effect of this movement is going to go all the way to the state border.  It's not going to be a small shifting of these 151 Districts but a wholesale movement.

 

And the problem with shifting lines in this matter is that it's going to increase the number of people who will be moved from one Representative District to another, which will lead to confusion and lower turnout in the next general election.  It's common for turnout to decline immediately after redistricting for this reason.  So any efforts you can take to reduce this amount of movement will help the voters stay involved.

 

A solution to this problem is to increase slightly the number of House seats.  As you know, the Constitution allows up to a maximum of 250 seats, which would be one Representative for every 13,622 people.  And that cleary is unnecessary.  But then, New Hampshire has a State Representative for about every 3,000 people.  I don't think we ought to emulate New Hampshire's legislature.  Put that on the record.

 

But with the carefully located addition of about six House seats, you could relieve a lot of the wholesale shifting of lines across the state.  One obvious area for additional seats is in western Connecticut, south and east of Danbury.  There are 15 Districts in that area that have enough population within them to support two additional House seats.  There's another contiguous cluster of six Districts in central/eastern Connecticut, plus two on the shore, that have sufficient population for an additional District there.  And there's a linear set of 11 Districts stretching from Greenwich to western Bridgeport that also have an additional District within their territory.

 

Trying to create equal population House Districts with 151 seats in areas like southwestern Connecticut is going to be very difficult.  If you try to make up these Districts by stretching to Bridgeport, the under-ideal population Districts there do not make up an entire District.  You don't even make the population up by the time you reach New Haven, which has under-population Districts of its own.

 

So I urge the commission not to dismiss out of hand the idea of adding up to six seats in the House.  This will help solve the difficult redistricting problem and will keep the population size of an ideal House District within 100 people of what it was after the last round of redistricting.  All politics is local.  And if you can keep it more local without extremely large increases in the size of the House, you will be doing a good thing for the people of the state of Connecticut.

 

And I thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much for your comments.

 

Americo Santiago, to be followed by Hilda Santiago.

 

AMERICO SANTIAGO:  Wow, John's taller.

 

Good evening, committee members.  My name is Americo Santiago.  I'm a resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut.  And I'm here representing the Connecticut Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission.  Also, I'm working on behalf of the Connecticut Fair Redistricting Partnership.

 

We have -- the Partnership has submitted prior testimony.  So I'm not going to go over it.  But I just want to touch on a few key points.  I would like to echo for the record the recommendation of Professor John Harmon.  I think there should be taken into consideration as you come together to look at the possibility of increasing the number of State Representative Districts.

 

But I would like also to ask you this question just for the record, just in case as we work to submit a plan on behalf of the Partnership -- we would like to know if this discussion is going to take place among you members, if the committee is going to try to figure out if they want to increase or decrease the number of State Senate Districts or House or Senate.  It is important for us to know. 

 

It is important for the simple reason that if we want to submit a plan, we would like to know ahead of time.  That way, when we submit a plan, we don't have to submit a plan for 225 Districts down to 151.

 

I think, also, it's a good thing that should take place -- a good discussion that should take place now instead of later.

 

The Partnership for Fair Redistricting in the state of Connecticut was made up of the NAACP, Latino/Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the African/American Affairs Commission, the Max Works, the Latino Voting Rights Committee, and also with the support of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund.

 

You have heard testimony this evening about the concerns of the communities of interest in the state of Connecticut.  Connecticut has a population that is changing.  It's a diverse population.  We have an increased number of Latinos and African-Americans in the state of Connecticut, 320,000 Latinos, 300,000 African-Americans.

 

Look, for example, at the city of Waterbury where we are today the center of the universe.  So let's make the center of the universe an example for the state of Connecticut and give the opportunity of communities to elect the person of their choice.

 

Right now, for example, in the city of Waterbury, there is, as has been mentioned, there is no Latino elected officials.  And that should be looked at as you draw your plans.  This community is a growing community.  There are other municipalities in the state of Connecticut that should have African-American representation, which they're not.  And that should also be looked into.  For example, the minority population in the city of Stamford has grown dramatically.  There is no minority representation for the city of Stamford.  That should be looked into consideration.

 

The courts have decided that as you look at drawing plans, take into consideration compactness, contiguous incumbency, that you also take into consideration communities of interest; that you should not roll back the clock.

 

And let me just be clear that if, in the event that there is a proposal to lower the number of House Representatives or Senate representation, that that will be rolling back the clock.  And that's a form of regression.  And the courts have said that this should not take place.

 

So as you draw your plans, please take that into consideration because we want to work with you, as we mentioned before.  And we will be there in Bridgeport, like the young man said, Mr. Ramos.  We will be there with you in Norwich.  But we'll also be there with you after February 15, if need be.  So please take this into consideration as you deliberate for your plan.

 

Thank you very much.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you for your remarks.

 

Hilda Santiago, to be followed by Gerald Weiner.

 

HILDA SANTIAGO:  Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  And I'm not Americo's wife.  So don't think we're related.

 

I'm here tonight as an involved citizen --

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  You say that with some relief, I sense.

 

HILDA SANTIAGO:  I didn't hear you.

 

SEN. SULLIVAN:  I said you say that with some relief.

 

HILDA SANTIAGO:  Oh.  Well, no -- no comment.  I've known Americo for a long time.  No comment.

 

My name is Hilda Santiago.  I live at 650 Broad Street in the great city of Meriden.  I'm an involved citizen in the city of Meriden, a community activist.  And I'm also a member of the Connecticut Latino Voting Rights Committee.

 

A lot of what I was going to say was already said tonight.  So I'm not going to repeat that.  But I have a couple of recommendations that you can either take or not take.

 

One of the recommendations is that there should be public access terminals with census and other political data easily accessible across different locations or in all the cities of the state of Connecticut.  This information should be accessible in English and Spanish.  And even in the case of Danbury where the school system reports that they have 57 languages.  So I don't know how that could be worked out.

 

But also to develop and publish the criteria the commission plans to follow in redistricting in terms that are accessible to the general public, 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 the serious consideration, including their wide dissemination.  California, Texas and other states have provided extensive public access to data.  And Connecticut should follow their example.

 

These are only just ideas that we have that came out of the Connecticut Latino Voting Rights Committee.  Also, in reference to the State redistricting, my Representative is State Representative Chris Donovan and he represents a heavily populated Latino and African-American District in the city of Meriden, which is the inner-city core.  And in that District, there are also a lot of Polish, Italians, working, non-working, poor, middle-class residents.  And the reason that Chris is still there is because he works for our community.  He represents us.  So at this point, as long as Chris, Chris Donovan, is representing our interests and our needs in the city of Meriden, that's one District that I would like to keep intact.

 

I know everybody here is worried about Danbury and Waterbury.  And I respect that because -- but I live in the city of Meriden.  So -- and our Meriden delegation is -- and we think and I think is doing a great job for the city of Meriden.  So if we can keep that District together because, some time in the future when Chris Donovan plans to retire or move on, I plan to run for that seat.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you.

 

Gerald Weiner, to be followed by Reverend Donald Dolberry.

 

GERALD WEINER:  Thank you.  My name is Gerald Weiner.  I am the Democratic Town Chairman in Woodbridge.  But I'm here tonight speaking for myself as an individual citizen.

 

I would first like to read a letter that was given to me by Mr. Mitchell Goldblatt, who is the First Selectman of Orange.  He couldn't be here tonight and he asked that I read this very brief letter to the committee.  I'm one of the few people -- I'm the only person to speak about the 3rd CD tonight.  So I hope you bear with me.

 

It's addressed to the Connecticut General Assembly Reapportionment Committee, Suite 5100, Legislative Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut.  "Dear Members of the Committee, As First Selectman of the Town of Orange, please leave our town in the 3rd Congressional District.  Orange is a suburb of New Haven and identifies with the Greater New Haven community and needs to remain part of this region."

 

"It is imperative that our region be kept together as much as possible.  The South Central Regional Council of Governments, composed of 15 Greater New Haven communities, works closely with the State and Federal Government, especially in the area of transportation.  These municipalities should be left in the same Congressional District to work on these issues together and, hopefully, with just one Congressional Representative."

 

"Please keep the Greater New Haven area in the Congressional District with the City of New Haven.  This can only help us grow positively as a region within our state."

 

"Additionally, speaking for my own town, we have a regional school district and, as such, share many resources and ideas with Woodbridge and Bethany.  Further, we work closely with Milford and West Haven on other regional and neighborhood issues.  It would not be wise to split these close-knit communities into separate Congressional Districts."

 

"Finally, I hope that with whatever changes are made, that all communities find themselves in only one Congressional District.  As Chief Elected Official, I would find it very difficult for myself and my constituents to be working with more than one Congressman.  We already have this difficulty on the State level and it would be a much worse situation to deal with on the Federal level."

 

"Thank you for your time.  And best of luck in this very difficult effort.  Sincerely, Mitchell Goldblatt, First Selectman."

 

Keeping in line with what Mitch Goldblatt has indicated in his letter, I would like to first have one unique comment about my town.  Woodbridge is one of the few towns in the state that is divided up into two Congressional Districts.  Substantially all of the District is in the 3rd CD, with a small sliver in the 5th consisting of about 500 people.  I would urge the Committee to try and correct this.  I know Senator Crisco will be working very hard in this effort and I hope you all can join him in keeping Woodbridge in the future as one -- as a town in one Congressional CD.  It has caused tremendous disruption in our town at voting time.  Plus, people really are more connected with the remaining part of the 3rd -- of Woodbridge which is in the 3rd CD.  So that is something that I would urge the Committee as an ongoing basis to try and avoid for any community and, hopefully, Woodbridge will now be in a column with one Congressional District.

 

Secondly, about the 3rd CD.  I've heard a lot of comments tonight about community of interest.  And I've got to say I've lived in this state since I was 13, which is a long time ago.  I believe that the 3rd Congressional District, speaking in terms of community of interest, has more things in common than most other cities -- New Haven County, which consists of the 3rd Congressional District, has one newspaper, the New Haven Register.  I don't care whether you're from East Haven, Branford, Woodbridge, Wallingford, everyone reads the New Haven Register. 

 

We have primarily one television station, Channel 8.  Again, no matter what community you live in in the 3rd Congressional District, everyone watches Channel 8.

 

No matter where you live, East Haven, Wallingford, Branford, Milford, West Haven, you either go to work in New Haven, you perhaps go to New Haven for social occasions or cultural occasions.  There is no one in the 3rd Congressional District that does not have an integral connection to New Haven as a city.

 

I would urge this Committee to actually look at the 3rd CD in terms of is this a community that really relates and needs and identifies with New Haven or is it not?  I maintain that it is.  I maintain that we have strong ties to New Haven.  And disrupting this community of interest that has taken place for many, many years would be a disservice to the people in the 3rd Congressional District.

 

Finally, I recognize that this Committee has a huge job.  Going from six to five is virtually impossible.  I would hope that you take some of these factors into consideration.  I am part of the Regional Growth Partnership, which is an organization made up of business representative and government representatives.  We have been working hard to try and attract businesses to the 3rd Congressional District, bio-tech companies.  We work on remediation efforts.  We do this as a region.  The region has strong identification.  I would hope you take that into consideration in trying to come up with some conclusion.

 

Again, this is almost an impossible task.  Anybody that comes up here that's going to speak about why one CD should be kept together is going to have the same comments to make.  But I would urge you, in spite of all the comments that you've heard about the 5th Congressional District -- we in the 3rd have as many, if not more, community interests.  And I would hope that we'd come out as an intact community.  And by changing the District, you can easily take the population that needs to be taken to add to the 3rd Congressional District from contiguous towns as opposed to breaking up what has been a very, very successful Congressional District.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you for your remarks.

 

REP. WARD:  May I just ask a quick question?

 

REP. LYONS:  Yes.  Representative Ward.

 

REP. WARD:  Stratford, I believe, is in the 3rd CD.  Is it fair to say Stratford is sort of more Bridgeport-oriented than New Haven-oriented?

 

GERALD WEINER:  Stratford, as you know, Representative Ward, is the one town in our District that is probably more oriented toward Fairfield County and the 4th Congressional District and probably doesn't read the New Haven Register as much as the Connecticut Post.  So Stratford is probably the one community that's not strongly identified with New Haven as a community.

 

REP. WARD:  I kind of thought you talked cooperation with Milford, who was going to sue New Haven if they wanted to build a mall.  So I don't think that everybody's always been all that cooperative within the 3rd District.

 

GERALD WEINER:  We can't have a 100-percent scorecard.  But I think we have 99.99 percent.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Representative O'Neill.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  Just to make clear -- and I think it's implicit in what you're saying.  But I guess I just want to put it out so it's explicit.  In order to save the 5th District, the suggested plan that's been kicked around the most, in the media at least, is to divide the existing 2nd District, take the north half and put it together with a Hartford-based District and the southern half of it, running from essentially Stonington to the border of the current 3rd District, would then be combined with part of the 3rd District.

 

Now, in order to achieve that result, you have to take a goodly chunk, at least 100 or 150,000 people out of what is now the 3rd District, to get the new 3rd District that would run from New Haven to Stonington down to a small enough size so that it would be the right size in terms of the legal requirement how the maximum population would be for a Congressional District, what it would be allowed to be.  So that significant pieces of the existing 3rd District would have to be shed into some other District in order to achieve that. 

 

So my question is, since I think that's at least the most frequently discussed alternative to consolidating the 5th into 6th and the 4th into, you know, some sort of consolidation into the western part of the state, the eastern part consolidation is the alternative.

 

Are you saying that you don't like the idea of having a District that would be created that would consist of New Haven running to Stonington?

 

GERALD WEINER:  Absolutely.  I think that in terms of what I said, if I made anything clear, that we have this huge community of interest.  I maintain and submit that the community of interest would be totally dissipated if it was to be extended to Stonington and up toward New London.  I've seen plans, I think, that even went further than Stonington.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  Well, Stonington is as far as you can go.

 

GERALD WEINER:  Right.  Okay.  That's true.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  Next stop is Providence.  The Rhode Island border. 

 

GERALD WEINER:  You can't go any further than the Rhode Island border.  And I submit that there is absolutely no community of interest with the 3rd Congressional District with that part of the state.

 

Likewise, by taking off some of the existing 3rd CD and distributing it among other parts of the state would be a total disservice to the people of the 3rd CD.  It would break up that strong identification with the City of New Haven.  There is one major city that we have in our CD and that is New Haven.  People work, socialize and go there on a regular basis.  Those people would be not -- would be given a great disservice, as well as adding us to the New London corridor.  And that is the thrust of my comments.  I agree with you 100 percent.  I hope you agree with me.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  Well, I haven't made up my mind yet.

 

GERALD WEINER:  Right.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.

 

GERALD WEINER:  Yes.

 

REP. O'NEILL:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Representative Ward.

 

REP. WARD:  I apologize for taking -- we were in session the night the public hearing was in the 3rd District.  So I wasn't there.  And since I live in the 3rd -- oh, Cheshire is one of those other towns that's now in the 5th but, at least from my perspective, in some ways is oriented to Waterbury but in many ways is oriented to New Haven.  I guess given that five remaining Districts have to grow, somebody from that general area, do you think Cheshire is a community we should consider as possibly being in either place?  I mean do you think that Cheshire also shares some commonality with New Haven?

 

GERALD WEINER:  I do.  I agree with that comment as well.  I think if you had to take either New Haven or Waterbury, I would say, based on my observations over the last 25 years, that Cheshire would probably have more commonality with the 3rd Congressional District than with Waterbury.  But there's -- I've looked at some maps.  And I haven't studied this extensively.  But I think there's a huge amount of area to choose from if the concept of keeping the 3rd CD intact -- we can go toward Cheshire.  You can go -- other parts of the state that are contiguous with the current 3rd Congressional District.

 

REP. WARD:  Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much.

 

Reverend Donald Dolberry.  Please proceed, sir.

 

REV. DONALD DOLBERRY:  How are you this evening?  My name is Reverend Donald Dolberry.  And I'm from Danbury, Connecticut.  And I'm also representing the NAACP as their President.  And I thank you for this open session to hear the concerns of the people.

 

I find that in this growing age there has been a lot of changes since the 1960's and a lot of different awareness of technology.  I'm happy to see that the young man at age 13 is so concerned about his future because that's where it starts.  If they don't get involved, then they'll be left out.

 

In this wide range of technology, we find ourselves dealing with the Website and different aspects of that type.  In dealing with that, we find ourselves moving so fast.  In dealing with the Latino community, we have come together and we're trying to knit together a program where we put in progress for ownership of housing instead of renting to help the population. 

 

And we find that in Danbury back in the 1960's it was mostly Portuguese, German, African-Americans.  And now we find in 2000 that most of the Portuguese have moved back to Portugal or moved out of those areas and those areas have been taken over by other cultures.

 

We find here in Waterbury the same thing has happened here in Waterbury.  But one thing, as far as the economy, Waterbury's economy has been up and down.  But Danbury has been a steady-growth economy.  And I think that's due to the participation of the government of Danbury looking to help the community grow in all areas.

 

And my task as Reverend of the church there and also as President of NAACP is to bring the communities together.  We have started programs where different neighborhoods have Neighborhood Watch and they've conversed and come together and met.  And we push the voting, that everyone's vote is very necessary to find -- to help us grow.

 

Our main concern here is that we all get a fair shake in a dividing of the District.  Now, I've heard a lot about Danbury, about Waterbury, about Meriden, about other cities.  And we'd like you to take in consideration the numbers that you're showing right now, that Danbury has a tremendous growth.  Waterbury has a tremendous growth in Hispanic.  Bridgeport has a tremendous growth.  But we'd like to try to keep the 5th District as it is now so that we can continue doing the things that we've already put in progress.  And that is to bring the communities together.

 

And forgetting about the race of the different colors.  Our main goal is to bring the communities together because Danbury has offered the opportunity for us to grow up in one community and be able to get a job, go to school and get educated and move to any part of the community that you want to live without any static or any problems.  And we find that Danbury is a very great place to live.

 

Waterbury is a great place to live because housing has seemed to go so enormously out of range.  When you work in Danbury, you're paid high wages.  You have a good job.  But some of the affordability of housing has gone so far out that you have to move 20 to 30 miles away to afford to take care of your family.  And that's where Waterbury comes into play.

 

But if we get together and strategize, we can help bring Waterbury up by looking within the community to help the people in the community that want to be owner of businesses, to help them find the capital that they need to open these businesses, to create jobs in the community.  And that makes a strong community.  Not just cutting them off and leave them out there astray and look for outside businesses to come in, which they will come in.  Sure, they'll bring the tax revenue up.  They'll bring all, you know, funds and things like that.  But how long will they stay?  That's been our main problem here in Connecticut.

 

How long will the outside companies stay in Connecticut after they bring that high wage and that high volume up?  And when they leave here, we're here static.  We're here looking for ways to better life for our future generations.

 

So I'd like to take you in consideration that you look at these aspects and how they consider the fast-growing minority communities around.

 

And I thank you for your time.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you very much for your testimony.

 

Kevin McSherry, to be followed by Miguel Fuentes.  Is either gentleman with us?

 

If not, are there any other folks who would like to make any other comment?  If you would --

 

LAWRENCE DEPILLO:  Thank you.  Good evening.  My name is Lawrence Depillo.  And I'm here tonight as a Democratic candidate for the Mayor of Waterbury.  And I'm here to speak in favor of the 5th District and Congressman James Maloney.

 

I know there's a -- certainly has to be a reduction in the Districts from six to five.  And I know there's much consideration about the possibility of actually having the 5th and 6th District, which involves James Maloney and Nancy Johnson, somehow end up being competition with one another.  I believe that is very counterproductive for this region.

 

Both Representatives have served their Districts very well.  Waterbury -- Jim Maloney is a -- I guess a resident of Danbury, has his office here in Waterbury.  And I believe it's important to keep those two cities in this District.

 

Jim Maloney is extremely important to the City of Waterbury.  He's on a number of committees.  He's brought money into Waterbury to help us offset what has been a very burdensome sewer rate.  He's brought money into the library for Waterbury.  He has been very active in the brownfields legislation where, if Waterbury is ever going to recover economically, we need to remediate our brownfields in the city and start to make them productive again.

 

And I'll tell you, I don't believe there's been a harder-working Congressman for people's issues in the Greater Waterbury area, and I'm sure in Danbury as well, than Congressman James Maloney. 

 

On the other side, you have Nancy Johnson, who is a Republican.  And maybe people feel that these are two people who should compete with one another.  I don't.  Nancy Johnson is a Republican.  But she's also been an advocate of medical rights.  And, again, I believe she serves her constituency very well.

 

And, also, both these Congresspeople serve on very influential committees within Washington.  And I do not see where it is any benefit to this region to lose at this point either one of those people.  Certainly, there will be elections coming up.  Certainly they'll be challenged.  But I believe that they have both served their constituency very, very well.

 

And I would ask that if this Committee is going to look at redistricting, don't look at people and -- don't look at the Congresspeople that we have that are currently serving on influential committees, currently bringing much-needed help to their areas that they serve.  I would ask that the 5th and 6th Districts be expanded to allow those two Congresspeople to continue to serve in Washington and not that somehow those Districts be changed in a manner that these two people are now going to have to go head to head because I believe it's going to be counterproductive to this region.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir.

 

Are there any additional individuals who would like to make a comment?  If not, this public hearing will be -- sir, would you like to?  Please.

 

MIGUEL FUENTES:  Please.  Good evening, Committee and fellow members of our community.  My name is Miguel Fuentes.  I reside in 286 Oak Street here in Waterbury.  I know you've heard many, many comments of the growth of the Latino community.  And that's not only in the city of Waterbury.  That's nationwide.  But I'll stick to comments more closely to home.

 

In all of our urban areas, you notice that that's the phenomenon of late.  And in order to keep developing those communities, which is a community in its infancy since maybe the 50's and the 40's, we need to take those things into consideration when we draw the lines for redistricting.  People go to church in the same places, schools in the same communities, business and commerce is done in this really tight-knit area.

 

We need to try to maintain those -- the integrity of those communities so they can feel -- we can feel like we have representation and develop leaders for the future.  In order to do that, we've got to make sure that we plant the seed for tomorrow today as we draw the lines.

 

Hopefully, we can work together in partnership with you in some sort with a fair and open redistricting process, maybe sharing some of the software, giving some input on how those lines should be considered to be drawn and any other way we can help.  We'd appreciate the opportunity to do that.  And, hopefully, those things will be taken into consideration going forward.

 

Thank you.

 

REP. LYONS:  Thank you, sir, for your comments.

 

Are there any other individuals who would like to put anything on the public record?

 

If not, then I would declare that this public hearing is currently closed.  Thank you very much for your attendance.

 

(Whereupon, the public hearing was adjourned.)