July 11, 2001
prh REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.
PRESIDING CHAIRMAN: Senator DeLuca
MEMBERS PRESENT:
SENATORS: Cappiello, Crisco
REPRESENTATIVES: Currey, Lyons, O'Neill,
Ward
SENATOR DeLUCA: -- third in a series of hearings on reapportionment in the state of Connecticut. We're happy to see so many of you here this evening and look forward to hearing your comments.
If I can introduce those members of the Committee who are here with me this evening, starting from my right, your left, Senator Cappiello, Senator Crisco, Representative and Minority Leader Bob Ward, Representative Currey and Representative O'Neill.
This evening, Senator Sullivan is unable to make it. And Speaker of the House Moira Lyons is stuck in traffic, we understand, and she will be here as soon as possible.
We do not put time limits on our speakers. But we ask you to be concise and prompt as you can so -- out of courtesy to those others that would follow. And we have a number of people who have already signed up. So out of courtesy to each other, we hope that you will keep your remarks concise and to the point.
With that in mind, I will start this evening by calling on Tom Moorehead, to be followed by Richard Bond. If you would state your name and town and title, if any, when you start please?
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you, Senator. I am Thomas B. Moorehead and I am Chairman of the Town Council of New Canaan. At its meeting on May 9, 2001, the Council unanimously passed the following Resolution:
"Whereas, the Town of New Canaan is incorporated by the State of Connecticut and this year is celebrating the 200th anniversary of its incorporation; and Whereas, since the Town of New Canaan has a population of 19,393 people, with a growth of almost nine percent since 1990 according to Census 2000, New Canaan ought to send a Representative to the General Assembly for the next decade. However, with a population of 17,864 at the 1991 redistricting, New Canaan also had the reasonable expectation to return a Representative to the General Assembly as it had for the Town's first 190 years;"
"And Whereas, the reapportionment of 1991 not only singled New Canaan out as the only town, with almost 18,000 people, not to send a Representative to the legislative, but also allowed 26 towns smaller in population than New Canaan to send a resident Representative to Hartford. This malapportionment has led to renewed community vigilance and this Resolution;"
"Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Council of New Canaan, in meeting assembled, hereby petitions the Reapportionment Committee to return a single Representative for the entire, undivided town of New Canaan to the General Assembly in the years 2002-2011."
I ask that this Resolution be received into the record of the Committee, if that is possible.
I find the results of the 1991 reapportionment as applied to New Canaan incomprehensible in that 26 towns smaller in population were able to send a Representative to Hartford and we were not. The result of the 1991 travesty was to partition New Canaan into three voting districts.
To further confuse the matter, two of the districts have separate Representatives and Senators and the third district has a Representative from one district and the Senator from the other district.
Now, we accept the fact that we will always be part of a larger Senatorial District. But one Senator should cover New Canaan, not two or three. There is no rational reason why a town of New Canaan's size should not have a single Representative in the General Assembly.
It would be inexcusable if this Committee recommends single representation for 26 smaller towns and again divides New Canaan into two or three pieces.
I respectfully ask that you recommend that New Canaan obtain the single representation that it needs and deserves in the General Assembly.
Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you. If you would give it to the Clerk on that side?
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Any questions or comments from the members of the Committee?
Thank you, sir.
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you, sir.
Next is Richard Bond, to be followed by John Pollack.
RICHARD BOND: Gentlemen, ladies, thank you for the opportunity of speaking to this subject. Mr. Moorehead certainly brought out the points that we all are concerned about. As he stated, we have a population a little bit different this year with 19,395 through the census, up approximately eight percent. If you take the 26 towns that he referred to in the prior census, even if you add 15 percent to any one of those towns, which is not likely, not true, they would still not be equivalent to the residents of New Canaan.
The point that I think is very important to make -- and I'll keep it short. In 1999, New Canaan paid in State income tax $110,700,000.00. And at the same time, we received in aid from the State two percent of our revenue, which was less than two million dollars. It was one million-three.
My only comment at this point in time, that sounds like taxation without representation. And that is certainly one of our founding fathers' problem and we are faced with that now. We hope, sincerely hope, that you consider the fact of what we contribute to the State, what we get from the State -- we're not complaining. But we do think we need representation. We are a major part of the state. We are a town that's larger than 26 other towns who have representation or significant representation.
So we would be very pleased and happy that you recognize what we are contributing to the town by giving us Representatives. Thank you. We have, you know, in the past had representation up until 1990, both from the Senate and the House, which we don't have any at this time directly.
Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Bond.
Any questions? Comments?
REP. WARD: Mr. Chairman?
SEN. DeLUCA: Yes. Representative Ward.
RICHARD BOND: Please.
REP. WARD: First, I thank you. And I take it that your point -- and not for you to speak for the prior speaker -- is principally not wanting the town to be divided into multiple Districts.
RICHARD BOND: Yes, sir.
REP. WARD: As opposed to being guaranteed a Representative. Because, in theory, if there were 2,000 people from another town, in theory that person could win the election, could run from the minor part. What you really don't want is the town divided.
RICHARD BOND: That's absolutely correct.
REP. WARD: And because misery sometimes loves company, you're right when the census -- I'm sorry. Ten years ago when it started -- the town of Cheshire actually has 25,000 residents and no citizen of the town of Cheshire serves in either the House or Senate. So there is another place that we need to look at, a town a little bit bigger than yours that's divided up. They did at one time have a Representative. But it changed in another election. But I do -- and I don't mean to -- just to point out that somebody else is in the same boat. I think we need to address that as well. And I don't mean to minimize your point. I think that's a valid point.
RICHARD BOND: Absolutely. I just want to make an apology for one thing. I'm Chairman of the Municipal Planning Organization, which is the governing body for the Southwest Regional Planning Association representing the eight towns from Greenwich to Westport. And I want to apologize because our major function is transportation. And I apologize for those people being late. We're working on it.
SEN. DeLUCA: Okay. Thank you.
RICHARD BOND: Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Mr. John Pollack, to be followed by Representative Newton.
REP. NEWTON: Did you just call Mr. Pollack?
SEN. DeLUCA: Yes, Representative Newton. Mr. Pollack, to be followed by Representative Newton.
JOHN POLLACK: Good evening. I'm John Pollack, a 15-year resident of New Canaan and a registered Democrat. Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone in New Canaan is a Republican.
I'm here tonight to speak in support of the return of the New Canaan resident to serve in the Connecticut General Assembly. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is a New Canaan issue.
This is a matter that speaks to the integrity of a town that has made significant contributions to the state for over 200 years and, just as you heard earlier and know, continues to make an even more vital contribution to the state today.
This should be a simple matter of facts and numbers. In 1991, when the majority position that New Canaan in an Assembly District was reapportioned to a neighboring town, a town with almost 10 percent fewer people than New Canaan, it was an outrageous mistake. To repeat that error would invite -- would be to invite a very reasonable and well-founded legal challenge.
Let me repeat the numbers. For example, New Canaan has a population of 19,395 people. Wilton has a population of only 17,633 people. Not an overwhelming number but a statistically significant number.
There's never been a town with as many as 19,000 people that didn't send a resident Representative -- though, obviously, I stand corrected when I just heard about Cheshire -- not to send a Representative to the State Legislature where the town holds a majority position in one of its Districts.
This year around there will be no last-minute arrangements at this time to split New Canaan down the middle to be reapportioned into the minority in two Districts.
The 19,395 people of New Canaan is not a statistic that Democrats can dismiss or Republicans take for granted. With 19,395 people -- and I keep repeating that number -- New Canaan is not a population to be divided to fill out the dance cards of other Districts and towns, not to be a pawn in a chess game between the two major parties and not to be an unwitting victim of racial gerrymandering. Simply, the representation of New Canaan is not negotiable.
And, finally, when you complete your redistricting in the fall, keep the population, hopefully, of New Canaan whole within one District or divide it into two Districts with New Canaan being in the majority of one of those two Districts, make sure this year it fairly represents, respects and reflects the integrity of these 19,395 people. And also note the significantly smaller population of Wilton.
When you sit down over the next several months with your computer-generated maps and weigh the elements you need to measure, reconcile and compromise, do not compromise the Town of New Canaan with its population of 19,395 people, who by every standard you may apply merits a citizens' voice in the State Legislature in Hartford.
And I thank you very much.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Pollack.
Any questions?
Yes. Senator Cappiello.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you. Just a brief comment. I appreciate all the speakers from New Canaan who are expressing they don't want their town to be divided. But just a quick question.
I'm not sure -- a former colleague of mine in the House, Les Young, served in that District, in one of those Districts. Was he from New Canaan or --
JOHN POLLACK: Yes, he was.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Oh, he was. So it's not as if, though, there hasn't been representation from New Canaan for the past ten years.
JOHN POLLACK: New Canaan has had representation up until 1995. While Les Young was still alive, he retained that seat. But on his seat, the seat reasonably transferred to a resident from Wilton, a smaller town, but a much larger town in terms of the number of people it has in the 143rd District.
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: (Indiscernible - not using microphone)
SEN. DeLUCA: Well, Mr. Pollack is really up at this minute. After he finishes, if you'd like to come up again and --
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you for your answer.
SEN. DeLUCA: Any other questions? Comments?
You could come up again then, Mr. Moorehead.
JOHN POLLACK: Can we just leave this here to be entered into the record as the other people did?
SEN. DeLUCA: The Clerk will take it from you, Mr. Pollack.
JOHN POLLACK: Thank you very much.
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: Thank you. I understand the import of your question. But to be --
SEN. DeLUCA: Could you just state your name for the record again?
THOMAS MOOREHEAD: It's Tom Moorehead, New Canaan. But to be completely clear, prior to the 1991 redistricting, New Canaan always sent a Representative to the Assembly. Les Young was that Representative. After the redistricting, a small portion of New Canaan was included in Wilton. Because of Les' stature in the legislature and his seniority, Wilton continued him in that role until Les died. And then at that point, the seat went to Wilton because they had the most voters.
But it was not a situation where, after the redistricting, a small sliver of New Canaan sent somebody. It was a carryover from the previous districting. And I just wanted to be clear on the record for that.
Thank you.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Moorehead.
Next is Representative Ernie Newton, to be followed by Herb Rosenthal.
REP. NEWTON: Let me just say good evening and welcome to the new center of the universe. You all heard that, that this is the new center of the universe. So we want to welcome you here. Let me --
SEN. DeLUCA: Would you state your name and title please, Representative?
REP. NEWTON: I'm Senator DeLuca by way of Bridgeport, Connecticut. No. I'm Representative Ernie Newton from Bridgeport. I'm sorry, Senator. That's a step down.
Let me just say that when you look at the minority population in this state, it's increased. There's roughly 630,000 Afro-American and Latinos combined. Less than one-fifth of this state is minorities. 18 members of the House, combined with the Senate, make up a minority caucus.
There's definitely, as you look at these maps, room for improvement on fair representation. So we've got to look at those areas that have increased in minority participation and make a conscious decision that, no, we're not going to redraw minority lines; but we do have to make sure that people are included.
And I can tell you from the last redistricting, we picked up quite a few seats from -- since 1990 reapportionment up until now. The numbers increased. And as you all are aware, people have shifted in population. So they have left the urban areas and moved to suburbs and to rural areas.
So I would just hope that this Committee takes that under consideration as you sit down and deliberate where that population shift has moved, to make sure that those areas, like Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Meriden -- I can think of some other places. But Representative Santiago is here and I'm sure he's studied it more than I've studied it, on where we can pick up additional seats. And so I would hope that you all would look at that.
And Senator Penn told me to tell you all after you all finish, he will take you out to dinner.
Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative Newton.
Does anyone have any questions or comments?
Thank you.
Next is Herb Rosenthal, to be followed by Representative Lydia Martinez.
HERB ROSENTHAL: Good evening. My name is Herb Rosenthal. I've lived in Newtown since 1953 and, since 1997, I've been the First Selectman.
Newtown is proud to be part of the Housatonic Valley region, including the 5th Congressional District towns of Bethel, Brookfield, Danbury, New Fairfield, Redding and Ridgefield.
The Housatonic Valley is very much a community of interest. We share and are part of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce, as well as having representatives on the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, our Regional Planning Association, the Housatonic Valley Economic Development Partnership, the Housatonic Valley Tourism District and the Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority. We are also served by the Housatonic Area Regional Transit Elderly Bus Service.
In addition, our residents read the Danbury News Times and many of our families commute to work on Interstate 84. There is a special pride we take in knowing that we live in a beautiful area like the Housatonic Valley with its great resources, such as Candlewood Lake and the Housatonic River lakes, Lowanona and Zoar.
I am here this evening not only to describe the pride we take in being residents of the Housatonic Valley, but also to stress that it is important for our community to stay together during redistricting.
The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing our community. I respectfully ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee keep as much of the Housatonic Valley together as possible in the 5th Congressional District.
The Housatonic Valley communities are part of the I-84/I-684 corridor. This is the main route of transportation that brings us together. For Newtown, I-84 connects to Southbury and Waterbury on the east/northeast and Bethel, Brookfield and Danbury to our west. Thus, our primary orientation is to the west and northeast and not to the south.
Danbury serves as a hub of activity for Newtown as our families shop at the Danbury Fair Mall and some of our young people are educated at Henry Abbott Technical School, the State's regional technical high school, or, like my stepson, at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury.
The State and Federal offices we use are all located in Danbury. For example, the Social Security Administration office, the IRS, the State civil and criminal courts, the State Labor Department, the State Department of Motor Vehicles, the Greater Danbury Mental Health Authority and even our central postal facility is located in Danbury.
Since 1964, Danbury, Newtown and most of the Housatonic Valley have been part of the same Congressional District, the 5th. That tradition of 37 years and our community of interest, which has grown even remarkably more vigorous through the past four decades, should be preserved.
Prior to that time, Newtown was part of the 4th Congressional District. And although I was in school, my father was actively involved in government. And he has told me that the town was not as well served in that situation.
From 1972 until 1982, Newtown was divided between the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts. And that was also unacceptable.
For our success to continue, it would be better to be linked together as we are now. Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for Federal grants, for higher education, economic development, open space and transportation improvements with more than one member of Congress, if the Danbury area is again divided.
The cities and towns of the Housatonic Valley have stayed together and are now the fastest-growing area of Connecticut. I ask that the members of the Redistricting Committee honor our spirit and the integrity of our community and keep our cities and towns together in the 5th Congressional District.
Another redistricting issue that is very important to us in Newtown is to have our own State Representative. And what I say now is in no way to diminish the fact that Julia Wasserman lives in Newtown and does represent us. We have some very fine Representatives in Representative Wasserman and Representative Shay, Representative Stripp and so forth.
But our 2000 census population of over 25,000 people should entitle us to that and to be part of another district rather than our current situation of being part of three Assembly Districts; the 106th with part of Bethel, the 112th with part of Monroe and the 135th with Easton, Redding and part of Weston.
Through the years, Newtown has been in some rather interesting configurations. At the time we were divided into the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts, we were also moved from a State Senate District with Danbury to a division with the 28th and 32nd State Senate Districts and an Assembly District with Redding. Finally, we were in a single State Senate District. Albeit totally dominated by Fairfield, at least we're in a single State Senate District.
Please give us our own Assembly District and keep us with Danbury in the 5th Congressional District. We have been shifted around too much over the years.
Thank you very much.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal.
Representative Ward.
REP. WARD: One quick question. Mr. Rosenthal, last night at a hearing in Waterbury, we heard a lot about the 5th and the 6th. Some talked about Meriden really having a close relationship to many of the towns in the District. I didn't hear you mention that. Is there much connection with folks from Newtown to Meriden?
HERB ROSENTHAL: No, I wouldn't say that Meriden is -- with Waterbury and those -- I would say in the direction of Waterbury along the I-84 corridor. Meriden is really not a town that I would say we have a lot of contact with.
REP. WARD: Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Senator Cappiello.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thanks for coming, Herb.
HERB ROSENTHAL: Thank you, David.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: You spoke about the Housatonic Valley Region. And you and I work a lot together on a number of issues in that region. But can you tell me, do you see a problem with the fact that some of the region is in right now the current 6th District, New Milford, Washington? Are you still able to work together even though they're in two separate Congressional Districts?
HERB ROSENTHAL: Well, I think we are. I think most of our -- other than the meetings. I mean New Milford and Bridgewater are not part of the same Tourism District with us. And New Milford is in the same Economic Development District with us. I mean there are some differences in the region.
I would say our most -- most of our contacts are with, you know, the Danbury -- the towns surrounding Danbury, although New Milford is certainly an important part of our District. And I guess if we were to be shifted in a direction, I would much prefer to have Newtown shifted in the direction of the northern with Danbury, in the direction -- and Waterbury in the direction of the northern towns, like New Milford, rather than to be cut off and go into a District like the 4th where we really have very little normal contacts with the lower towns in lower Fairfield County.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Last night, quite a few people said "Please keep the Naugatuck Valley together, again with Waterbury" and that it was very important to keep those towns together. I don't know if it's possible -- it may be -- to keep the entire Naugatuck Valley and Waterbury and the entire Housatonic Valley together in the same District.
Can you tell me how important it is to you to have Waterbury? Or is it -- or is it more important to have simply the Housatonic Valley? What are your thoughts on that?
HERB ROSENTHAL: Well, I think I would have to say primarily the Housatonic Valley being kept together. But I would think that many people in Newtown commute in the direction of Waterbury and along the I-84 to the east and north. We certainly have people commuting to New York. We don't have as many probably commuting to Stamford or Westport, although we have some. The New York commute generally goes west along I-84 and then down 684.
But there are certainly, I know, a large number of people who do commute to the Waterbury area from Newtown. So I think there would be -- again, it's very hard, you know, to start -- to say which parts of the 5th District could be lost and which couldn't. I would like to see the 5th District stay together, if it's possible. But, as I say, certainly if there has to be a division, I think Newtown would be more in line with the part of the 5th that would include Waterbury and up north rather than somehow being cut off to the south. I think that would be a bad thing for us.
SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thanks. I appreciate it.
SEN. DeLUCA: Just one last thing. You mentioned about many people commute from Newtown to Waterbury and so forth. If they were to be in two different Districts, it wouldn't affect their commute and where they work and their transportation or anything. Would it? It wouldn't change their habits.
HERB ROSENTHAL: I don't think that so much as the orientation of the, you know, communities of interest kind of thing. When you're in different Congressional Districts, different people representing you in Congress, when you start competing for some of the other things I talked about, open space issues, grants, and you try to get some uniformity, you know -- I would just see us like a fish out of water if we were in with southern Fairfield County, with all due respect to the Speaker and the fine city of Stamford. Dan Malloy is a good friend of mine. But I don't see us having similar --
SEN. DeLUCA: No. I understand your concerns. But wherever -- there's going to be five Districts. There's going to be a number of lines. And wherever it happens, somebody is going to be at the end of a District. Not everybody can be in the center of a district.
HERB ROSENTHAL: Right.
SEN. DeLUCA: So no matter what we do -- and we have no preconceived notions. So I was just bringing the point that many people talk about the economic, talk about the Route 84. Last night, that was the primary point of coming from the Danbury area and their association with Waterbury and so forth. But those things don't change because if they were to be in two separate Districts, a wall doesn't go up and stop people from using 84. So all those things are still in effect.
I understand your point about communities of interest for recognition on national grants, Federal grants and so forth and so on.
Thank you.
HERB ROSENTHAL: Thank you very much, sir.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you.
Next is Representative Lydia Martinez, to be followed by Representative Reinoso.
Good evening.
REP. MARTINEZ: Good evening. I'm Lydia Martinez, State Representative and also Councilwoman for the City of Bridgeport. Please allow me to welcome you to Bridgeport. I hope you have a good day here today. It is nice that you have this meeting here in Bridgeport. I'm sure that the residents of Bridgeport appreciate this as much as I do.
I would like to thank you for working with us. I know from the beginning the Committee have been working -- some members of the Committee have working with the Senators and the State Representative in Hartford. And I deeply appreciate that very much.
I would also like to recommend you to work or to continue working -- because I don't know if you're working already -- with the different organizations that we have in Connecticut that has shown the interest that have been in Hartford in meetings talking about redistricting. These committees are the Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut, Democracy Works, African-American Affairs Commission, the Latino and the Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, the Urban League of Greater Hartford and any other organizations. I don't know if you have a means for these people to communicate by E-mail or if you have a place that they could write to this organizations about ideas that we might need or concerns. But I would appreciate if you would address that, if you don't have done that already. And excuse my ignorance because I don't really know if you already have done something like that.
And for Bridgeport, I would like to ask you to keep us together. We have communities that have common interests. We have communities that are make up of people that speak one language, especially the Hispanic language, the Spanish language. We also have in our communities churches that are very close to the community, stores, schools, clinics, people that walk into the community. And as you know, being politicians, all this services that we have in the community need representation in Hartford when we go about deciding where the money in Hartford goes or where we make the laws or the decisions that we need to make for our cities.
Again, I'm here to help, to serve, if I could do anything else. I do appreciate the communication that we have already in Hartford. And I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative.
Questions or comments?
Thank you. That's fine. Thank you.
Representative Reinoso, to be followed by Senator Penn.
REP. REINOSO: Senator DeLuca, Speaker Lyons and distinguished members of the General Assembly, good evening. And, again, thank you for coming to Bridgeport.
I guess I'm going to take only a couple of minutes. And I will focus on the youth and also in urging communities in our state. In our schools, we always emphasize kids to be responsible. And a number of families and kids are quickly learning the responsibilities as they arrive to these shores.
Now, we all share the same responsibilities as far as responsibilities where the State, taxes and so on and so forth. But also along with responsibilities we have, we also reinforce to our kids rights.
I really don't know how can I face a young student, junior or senior, when that student asks me -- if a student asks me, "What is the representation of the Latino community in the General Assembly?", understanding that we are 10 percent of the population in the state of Connecticut. We are only five. And ten percent is supposed to be 15. In the Senate, the same, the same issue. Ten percent, it's 3.6, almost 4. And we don't have any.
So I -- basically what I'm asking is to please consider this request and also for the emerging communities in our state who are vividly -- they're working very, very hard to make it. And that's the future of our state. Communities who are going to stay -- they're not moving from our cities. They are contributing. And in the future, they will be our -- probably the labor force of this state. Along with rights and responsibilities, these communities, which are my -- my community, I can tell you that they understand also that the economical advancements, controlling power goes hand to hand with the political control. They know that very, very well.
I'm asking you to please consider my request to provide the best opportunity, a fair opportunity for my communities and communities along the state. Let's provide hope, respect and justice for all. Justice for all.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Representative.
Any questions or comments?
Thank you. There are none. Thank you.
REP. REINOSO: Thank you very much.
SEN. DeLUCA: Senator Penn, to be followed by Arthur Bogen.
SEN. PENN: Thank you. Let me just say first good afternoon and welcome to all my Senate brothers and definitely to my House friends. Welcome to Bridgeport. Be careful of the mikes, though. You've got to be careful.
Let me just say again that it's important that you decided to come on the road. And the Speaker and I were walking in together and she was so articulate in saying that, you know, this is the only time where people get the opportunity to feel that they have some input into the process of the things that we do. And she's so -- she's so right in that concept. And so I just applaud you for your efforts. And you're doing -- I basically really came down to say Hi. And I'm shifting my office around today. So -- and it's not going to the Federal bill. So I will make sure my wisecracking Senate President is not here. If Lou was here -- and he did leave a dollar to get you some Kentucky Fried Chicken, Lou. So -- you know, Ernie, he thinks a lot about it.
But, on a serious note, again, I listened to some of the words of some of my colleagues and I do know what the issue is. I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago and I talked with the CBC President, Congressional Black Congress President, A. Bernice Johnson. And we was going over some of these issues. And Charlie Rango. And also Mel Watts, who you know had taken his -- out of North Carolina whose case had already went to the Supreme Court based upon the redistricting avenues. And it's something to follow.
Let me speak more initially to my home, which is the city of Bridgeport. Obviously, you heard people talk about one of inclusion. But it's so sad that in this year, in 2001, that we have to talk about inclusion to have somebody who looks like us or look like you to maintain some kind of open forum either in the Congress or in the General Assembly.
Hopefully -- and I've always thought and looked forward to that day that we wouldn't have to worry about the tone of someone's skin color to represent them as far as being able to speak in a parliamentary matter on issues of concern. The Supreme Court in their wisdom also spoke about common communities of interest. And I'm one who can respect communities of interest. I don't think it have to be a community of ethnicity to be represented. But somehow it seems to fall amongst the crack.
We find that out basically about even what happened in Florida when you had people who were disenfranchised and the votes -- and people are very wary of the things that we do, particularly when we start demarking lines as far as voting and voting strength. So, but we have to be careful about how we delineate that and how we talk about that, particularly the minority community, because it could come back to haunt you. That's one thing that seems to fall short with American being the melting pot. I think we need to talk about communities of interest. People can have that but not have a community of agendas. So I understand somebody doesn't have to look like me to be on the wrong page or be on the right page. But I think it's very cognizant that we make people comfortable in the representation that they ask for.
So you don't have an easy task. But based upon population shifts as they are -- and I'm the only one, the only Senator who represents the city of Bridgeport entirely in the city. That's -- out of 23 Senators, I think that I am -- I don't think. I know that I am the only one whose boundaries lies totally within the impact of the city of Bridgeport.
So even though we have a large, diverse community, which is very important, we have to make sure our lines are not drawn where the state's largest cities becomes impotent in the General Assembly or in Washington. And that can easily happen. We may have loud voices here. And that's a good thing to have in the houses of power. But we also have to make sure that those lines are not drawn so, no matter what we say, somebody goes to do something different. That's irrelevant to our common interest in the city and it's not representative of the folks who live here in the city of Bridgeport.
So, again, I know I will have time to speak on this later because I believe it has to take a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if I'm not mistaken. And so I believe I would have ample opportunity to speak on this issue again. And I will shut up so people can come up and espouse to the able community about their concerns.
Welcome to the city of Bridgeport. Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Senator.
Just before Mr. Bogen comes, I'd just like to recognize in our audience some other State legislators who are here to -- I assume to observe. I'd like to recognize Senator Finch, Senator Friedman, Representatives Backer -- I saw him here. I guess he must have left. Oh, he moved. I thought he was over there. He moved. Representative Cocco and Representative Dickman, Representative Stone, Representative Keeley. And I saved the best for last, Representative Tymniak. Welcome. And thank you for all coming.
Mr. Arthur Bogen, to be followed by Michelle Petamak?
ARTHUR BOGEN: Good evening.
SEN. DeLUCA: Good evening.
ARTHUR BOGEN: I have just a few pages which I would like to read. Thank you for the time. My name is Arthur Bogen and I reside in Milford. And I'm here this evening to discuss a fair and equitable way for the Redistricting Committee to divide the state and reduce the number of Congressional Districts from six to five.
To potentially force any two incumbents to run against each other, either in a primary, if they're in the same party, or in a general election, the Redistricting Committee should look to a factor that cannot be labeled as political maneuvering. That factor should constitute a fair standard that all can look to and determine that it's right.
In accordance with the redistricting principle of the U.S. Constitution, the factor that should be used is the size of the growth or lack thereof in the state and the various Congressional Districts during the past ten years.
In Connecticut, there's a notable shift between the two sides of the state. While some small communities on the eastern side of the state saw solid growth, New London County, however, had the second-lowest growth of any county over the past decade. It grew just 1.6 percent, surpassing only Hartford County, which is also largely on the eastern side of the state, which grew by one-tenth of one percent.
The other side of the state presents a very different story. Fairfield County led the state in growth as its population increased by 6.6 percent and it accounted for nearly half of the state's overall growth with 54,922 new residents, while the entire state of Connecticut added only 118,449 people.
This population boom was most reflected in the 5th District, for it added the most new residents and now has the largest population of any Congressional District in the state, fueled in part by having Danbury add more than 10,000 new residents and Danbury suburbs such as Newtown, Brookfield and Ridgefield all have more than double-digit percentage growth.
The neighboring 4th Congressional District was the second-fastest growing. Connecticut's growth is clearly concentrated on the western part of the state. As a result of that growth, the new Congressional Districts, in accordance with the fundamental constitutional redistricting principle, should reflect new population centers.
In brief, there should be two Districts on the eastern side of the state and three on the western side. Under this scenario, the Committee would create a southeastern shoreline district and a central northeastern district that runs from Hartford to Thompson. The new shoreline district would be comparable to the southwestern shoreline district that already exists in Connecticut, the 4th. And the current 1st District, which already touches Andover and Hebron, would continue east into the outer Hartford suburbs and add the balance of Windham County.
I admit this is not a new idea. Michelle Jacklin, the political columnist for the Hartford Courant, noted in her March 28 column, and I quote, "The melding of the 2nd and the 3rd Districts, which would put Democrat veteran Rosa DeLauro of New Haven in a newly drawn shoreline district with Republican freshman Rob Simmons of Stonington, the top half of Simmons' eastern district would be severed and reattached to Democrat John Larson's 1st District", end quote. Jacklin goes on to say, "That configuration makes sense, given that the Groton/New London area has more in common with New Haven than it does, for example, with the small rural towns of Union, Woodstock and Thompson.
In fact, this very suggestion was voted upon and approved by the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in late June. The Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments supported a reconfigured District and linking the northern part of the 2nd with the 1st.
The Associated Press reported that, in quotes, "By a six-to-one vote, members of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments said they think their towns have more in common with the 1st District."
While I know that the NCCOG later voted again and reversed this plan, citing its unwillingness to embarrass Representative Simmons, it should be noted that, absent any political pressure, the overwhelming vote of local leaders thought it made more sense to join Hartford than to stay in the 2nd District.
Those in eastern Connecticut should not be concerned about losing a member of Congress. They'd be more than compensated as there would now be two advocates for the interests of eastern Connecticut in the House of Representatives instead of just one.
This two-for-one approach with smaller, more compact Congressional Districts would enable residents to be closer to their members of Congress District office in every way, including physical proximity. That's important, considering that many offices handle large volumes of Social Security, Medicare and immigration cases where personal attention is needed.
Finally, I want to stress that each of our current members of Congress does an outstanding job representing the many needs of their constituents. After redistricting, the members of Congress representing a new city, town or area will make a great effort to build relationships, to help residents with problems and ultimately seek their support for upcoming elections. No constituent, no city and no town are going to be left behind after redistricting.
It only makes sense that a member of Congress who already grasps the concerns and problems in one area of his or her Congressional District will make a strong commitment to understand and become an advocate for those newer residents, courtesy of redistricting.
I strongly encourage the Redistricting Committee to use the legitimate factor of population growth of the past decade as the measuring stick for deciding how to redraw the Connecticut Congressional Districts. Such a standard serves to underscore the integrity of the committee and protect you from being falsely accused of politicizing the process.
Along with the testimony that I am providing to the Committee, I am also giving you a copy of a map dividing the state as I outlined above. I've already given that to the secretary.
There are several ways to draw the specific lines. But I just wanted to show that it can be done in a manner that is both sensible and technically correct. Each of the Districts as shown on the map has an equal population down to a single digit.
I wish you the best of luck as we move forward with redistricting. I appreciate your time this evening.
Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: Thank you, Mr. Bogen.
Any comments? Questions?
Thank you very much.
ARTHUR BOGEN: Thank you.
SEN. DeLUCA: I hope I pronounced your name properly, Michelle. To be followed by Americo Santiago.
MICHELLE RETAMAR: The first was great.
SEN. DeLUCA: How about your last name?
MICHELLE RETAMAR: I'll tell you in a minute.
SEN. DeLUCA: Okay.
MICHELLE RETAMAR: Good evening, honorable members of the Redistricting Committee. Welcome to Bridgeport. If I seem uneasy, it's because this place always welcomes me. And that's an inside joke.
My name is Michelle Retamar in English and Michiella Retamar in Spanish. I'm a lifelong resident of the city of Bridgeport. I'm here speaking as a member of the Latino Voting Rights Committee of Connecticut. I know that you have heard members of the Committee make presentations in the city of New Haven and Waterbury where we had a lot of fun last night. And you will hear them again in Norwich and in Hartford.
That is because we want to make sure that our message to the Committee is not lost or misunderstood. We continue to ask you to post On-line all relevant information about the redistricting process. In addition, public access terminals with census and political data should be established at libraries and other State offices. Develop and publish the criteria the Committee plans to follow in redistricting, including languages other than English.
Let the public know if you are planning to change the number of House and Senate Districts. We don't want to be caught off guard. So please let us know if any discussion is taking place with regard to increasing or decreasing the numbers of House or Senate Districts.
We understand that you have a difficult task ahead and that there are many factors that you must take into consideration when drawing a redistricting plan. That is why we want to be clear. We want you to keep the Latino/Hispanic community together. We want to have the opportunity to elect people of our choosing that understand our needs and concerns.
Today, the Latino community is the largest minority group in the state of Connecticut and growing. According to the U.S. Census, which I had a great time doing last summer, there are over 320 Latinos in the United States -- 32