Redistricting in Connecticut after the 2010 census

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

Redistricting in Connecticut

General information

Partisan control: Democrat

Process: Legislature first, Commission if legislature fails before deadline

Deadline: September 15, 2011 (legislature); November 30, 2011 (Commission)

Total seats

Congress: 5

State Senate: 36

State House: 151

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Connecticut following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

The Connecticut General Assembly bore primary responsibility for redistricting. The legislature appointed a bipartisan committee tasked with drafting new maps. These maps were then presented to both chambers and required a 2/3 majority vote for approval. If the legislature did not agree on a plan by the deadline, a nine-member redistricting commission was selected to complete the task. Minority and majority leaders in both chambers each would appoint two members, and the eight appointees would select a ninth tie-breaking member. The commission, which did not require legislative approval, had until another deadline to create new maps, or the Connecticut Supreme Court would intervene and complete the maps itself.

With respect to redistricting, the Connecticut Constitution stated in Article III, Section 5 that "The establishment of districts in the general assembly shall be consistent with federal constitutional standards."

Constitutional Amendment 16, Sect. 2 (1980) laid out the guidelines for the creation of a reapportionment committee by the Connecticut General Assembly.

Leadership

The legislature appointed eight members to its reapportionment committee. The 2011 members were as follows:

Democrats (4)

• Representative Christopher Donovan (D, Meridian)
• Senator Martin Looney (D, 11th District)
• Representative Sandy Nafis (D, Newington)
• Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams (D, 29th District)

Republicans (4)

• Minority Leader Representative Lawrence Cafero (R, 142nd District)
• Senator Len Fasano, (R 34th District)
• Senate Minority Leader John McKinney (R, 28th District)
• Representative Arthur O'Neill (R, 69th District)

Census results

Figure 1: This map shows the Connecticut Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau shipped detailed information to Connecticut on March 10, 2011, numbers that showed the state's growth owed to minority expansion, particularly Hispanics.

As Connecticut neither gained nor lost seats, there was a possibility of leaving the state's five Congressional seats largely intact and shifting boundaries slightly to accommodate internal population shifts. Specific population imbalances were as follows:

1st -3,868 2nd +14,952

3rd -2,480 4th -8,079

5th -523

The Fairfield area remained Connecticut's most populous, with the state's eastern half overall growing faster than the west.

Congressional redistricting

On Friday, April 8, 2011, the legislature convened its first redistricting meeting, with the next session set for May 16, 2011.

Public meetings, with at least one guaranteed in each Congressional district, were scheduled for the summer, most likely in late June and early July. As of mid-April, lawmakers, who had the discretion to create or abolish legislative seats as part of redistricting, said it was too early to be definitive about how much districts would change at either the state or the federal level.

Of note, the House was required not to split towns among districts, something that does not bind the Senate.

The 2011 process began with the state retaining its current five seats. Under Connecticut's Constitution, the next step was naming an eight-member committee. The head of each caucus in the General Assembly named two members under the law. Connecticut's reapportionment committee had four state Representatives and four state Senators, with membership evenly split between the two major parties.

Legal deadlines for 2011 redistricting were set at February 15, 2011 for naming committee members and September 15, 2011 for passing redistricting plans. Each plan, for Congressional, House, and Senate Districts, was required to pass both chambers of the state legislature on a two-thirds majority. Historically, committee members from each house took the lead on drawing boundaries for their own chamber's seats. Drawing the Congressional seats then became a joint endeavor.

An additional provision was made if the committee failed to pass its plans by the September deadline, which involved forming an eight-member redistricting commission. Those members could be the same as the committee and select, within 30 days for being formed, a ninth member.

The potential commission received a limited span, until November 30, 2011, under the law to draw maps, without necessarily requiring legislative approval. If the commission failed, the boundaries would then become a matter for Connecticut's Supreme Court, who had a legally set deadline of February 12, 2012 for any work they did. The Supreme Court also heard any challenges to the committee or commission, which must be filed within 30 days and heard within 45.

Connecticut law required all House and Senate District be contiguous, as well as mandating that, when forming assembly district, towns borders may not be bisected. In 2000, the Second District, which had shrunk from 1990, was the first suggestion on the chopping block when the state lost a Congressional seat. Debate later shifted to the Fifth and then to the no-longer existing Sixth.

August 2011: Public input

The General Assembly's reapportionment committee held a series of public hearings around the state to discuss redistricting. The schedule can be found here.

Additionally, the public had until August 31 to submit comments.

September 2011: Failure to meet deadline

In a repeat of the redistricting process following the 1990 and 2000 censuses, the reapportionment committee failed to adopt a plan by the September 15 deadline. On September 13 the committee sent a letter to Gov. Dan Malloy (D) telling him they would not be able to finish on time.

The eight members expected to be reappointed by the governor to the commission that was to take over the process. The first eight then had 30 days to select a ninth member, with a deadline of November 30 for a plan.

September 2011: Call to remove Speaker

Following the announcement that the committee would not meet their deadline, Mark Greenberg, a Republican candidate for U.S. House called for Speaker of the House Christopher Donovan (D) to remove himself from the committee due to an alleged conflict of interest - Donovan was also running for the congressional seat. Greenberg stated, "A declared candidate sitting on the panel that is recommending new district boundaries gives the absolute worst appearance.”

Speaker of the House Chris Donovan (D) resigned his seat on the commission, handing his position to House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey. Donovan, who was running for a congressional seat, said his presence "turned into a political issue. I don’t want politics to be involved in the process.”

November 2011: Ninth member added

The redistricting panel added former Democratic state auditor Kevin Johnston as its ninth member of November 3. "I was honored to be asked by the leaders, obviously by both parties, to serve on this committee. I know that the mission is a very sensitive and difficult one and it's not quite as clear-cut as a lot of people might think," Johnston said.

December 2011: Second failure to meet deadline

The commission received a 15 day extension, giving them a deadline of December 21. The commission failed to meet the new deadline, sending the task to the Connecticut Supreme Court. It was the first time in state history that the Court drew new congressional districts.

The court had the choice to redraw the map itself, seek an outside source for the task, appoint a special master to do it, or order the redistricting committee back to work. They had a deadline of February 15, 2012 for a final plan.

December 2011: Commission ordered back to work

The court ultimately ordered the commissioners back to work on December 27, adding that a special master would be appointed to oversee the court's redrawing of the map. According to the court order, "The (legislative redistricting) commission shall continue working to agree on a redistricting plan, and we maintain hope that legislative action will be forthcoming. If at any time during these proceedings a redistricting plan validly is enacted, the court will then take such action that it deems appropriate."

December 2011: Special master appointed

Republicans and Democrats on the committee were asked to submit a list of nominees for the special master if they could not agree on a single candidate. The parties submitted the names of two out-of-state professors, with the court agreeing to name Nathaniel Persily, a political science professor at New York's Columbia University, to the position on December 30. He had a January 27 deadline to produce a new map.

While Republicans and Democrats were able to agree on Persily, they disagreed on how he should proceed. Democrats defended the 2001 map and pushed for minor changes to it, with attorney Aaron Bayer stating to the court that “deference has to be to the last successful redistricting process.” He also argued that Persily should ignore the traditional redistricting criteria of compactness and communities of interest. Republican attorney Ross Garber, meanwhile, said those principals should be the starting point. He went on to say deference should not be made to the 2001 map, but that other maps should be included.

The court issued their instructions for the special master on January 3. Seen as a victory for Democrats, the court instructs Persily to make minimal changes to the map. The order states that the special master “shall modify the existing congressional districts only to the extent reasonably required to comply with the following applicable legal requirements: a. Districts shall be as equal in population as is practicable. b. Districts shall be made of contiguous territory. c. The plan shall comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) and with other applicable provisions of the Voting Rights Act and federal law.”

A public hearing was held on January 9 to allow Republicans, Democrats, and members of the public to present their ideas and plans for new districts to Persily. Ross Garber, attorney for the Republicans, said the map proposed by Republicans satisfied the court's order. Democrats, meanwhile, continued to argue that as few changes as possible should be made to the 2001 map.

The dispute came down to the 5th District, part of which was surrounded by the 1st District like a clamp. Democrats pushed to move 523 residents of the 5th in order to meet population requirements, while Republicans wanted to move the entire city of New Britain into the 1st. Rep. Arthur O'Neill (R), the only member of the 2011 reapportionment commission to have served on the 2001 commission, said they never saw the 5th District lines as a permanent solution, but rather a move that was fair to the two incumbents at the time.

Along with the proposed plans from Republicans and Democrats, Persily also considered maps from the Coalition for Minority Representation and a resident associated with Democracy for America.

January 2012: Special master proposal

Persily submitted a draft report and plan to the state Supreme Court on January 13, and his final proposal January 19. It had three districts with 714,819 people and two with 714,820, and kept Bridgeport in the 4th District and New Britain in the 5th.

Persily's plan resembled the map submitted by Democrats, making only minor changes to the existing map. Persily explains, “It moves only 28,975 people (0.81 percent of the state’s population) out of their current districts, splits one fewer town than the existing congressional plan and provides districts slightly more compact than the existing plan."

Objections could be filed with the court until February 1. The Connecticut Supreme Court held oral arguments on February 6 and submitted its final plan to the Secretary of State on February 15.

Attorney for the Democrats, Aaron S. Bayer, defended the plan and said, "I'm not sure this court has the same expertise to figure out what's politically fair and have it come out as competitive as the political process does."

Republican attorney Ross H. Garber criticized the plan, and said, "What we do know is that the Democrats want you to turn a blind eye to the facts and there's a reason why they want you to do that, because the current map, regardless of history, benefits them."

The court rejected the Republican's challenge on February 10, accepting the map drawn by Persily. Persily received $36,400 for his work.

Legislative redistricting

With time running out to meet their November 30 deadline, the redistricting commission agreed on a new House map on November 28.

In the final hours before the deadline, the commission approved a plan for state Senate districts.

April 2012: Possible NAACP lawsuit

The city and state branches of the NAACP planned to file a court injunction against the redistricting plan by May 1, 2012. They argued that the plan was created by white legislative leaders at the expense of minority voters and incumbent Sen. Edwin Gomes (D). Their focus was on the movement of voters between the 22nd District, held by Anthony Musto (D), and the 23rd, held by Gomes. While the legislature said 3,000 voters were moved from the 23rd to the 22nd in exchange for 2,000 in return, Quinnipiac University political science professor Khalilah Brown-Dean said there were actually 6,584 people moved from the 23rd to the 22nd, most of whom were minorities, while most shifted into the 23rd were white.

Timeline

Connecticut 2010 redistricting timeline
Date	Action
February 15, 2011	Deadline for committee members to be named.
Early Spring 2011	Detailed U.S. Census date were released for Connecticut.
April 8, 2011	Legislature held first redistricting meeting.
September 15, 2011	Deadline for legislature to adopt a plan.
November 30, 2011	If a Commission is required, deadline to complete work.
February 12, 2012	Deadline for Connecticut Supreme Court involvement to be completed, with 30 days to file complaints and 45 days to be heard.

History

2001 redistricting

Figure 2: This map shows the Connecticut Assembly Districts after the 2000 census.

Figure 3: This map shows the Connecticut Senate Districts after the 2000 census.

Connecticut lost a seat in 2000, something they had staved off in the past two cycles. The eight-member Reapportionment Committee was charged with collapsing six seats to five. Both parties agreed that the final plan would affect the 4th and 5th seats.

Rep. James H. Maloney noted the bipartisan focus on his seat and anticipated a primary against one of his Congressional colleagues in 2002. Maloney's seat briefly looked to go unaltered, when the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments voted to cut the 2nd in half. Days later, they reversed themselves. Meanwhile, the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments declined to take an official position on redistricting. Reshaping the 5th got public support due to its odd shape and the process by which it was created in 1961.

In spite of public meetings wrapping up on schedule, the Reapportionment Commission was not on track to deliver by the September 15, 2001 due date. On September 12, 2001, members officially announced they would not meet the deadline. They still had until November 30, 2001 before a ninth member, meant to act as a tie-breaker, would be appointed, and the committee continued to work for another month. By mid-October, they were willing to add the ninth member. As expected, Nelson Brown, who had filled the same position in 1991, was tapped.

Days ahead of the deadline, the Commission of nine voted unanimously on a plan for three dozen Senate seats. Three days later, they passed a map for the Connecticut House of Representatives. However, on the last day available, an attempt to merge the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts became delayed examining the meaning of the word fair. Despite working until midnight, the Congressional map remained unfinished. At that point, the courts took over. The state Supreme Court had to finish what the Commission left undone, with a February 15, 2002 deadline.

Prior to 2001, the state's courts had been involved in resolving various challenged to redistricting but had never before drawn any maps. Republicans requested more time from the courts, a motion Democrats seconded. In a December 4, 2001 hearing, the judges agreed, allowing the Commission a second chance to finish the work.

They completed the Congressional map on December 21, 2001 and approved it. Soon after the new year, the map saw its first challenge, when a petition was submitted to the state's Supreme Court to throw out the maps on the grounds of bad data and intentional gerrymandering. Following the January 16 2002, hearing, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recommended throwing out the petition.

Deviation from "ideal districts"

2000 population deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional districts		0.00%
State House districts		9.20%
State Senate districts		8.03%
Under federal law, districts could vary from an Ideal District by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable was preferred. Ideal Districts were computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Partisan registration by district

Partisan registration and representation by Congressional district, 2010
Congressional district		Republicans	Democrats	Unaffiliated	Minor parties	District total	Party advantage*	111th Congress	112th Congress
1 (Hartford Metropolitan Area)		-	-	-	-	-	-
2 (Eastern Connecticut)		-	-	-	-	-	-
3 (New Haven and Naugatuck Valley)		-	-	-	-	-	-
4 (Fairfield County)		-	-	-	-	-	-
5 (Litchfield and Hartford Counties)		-	-	-	-	-	-
State Totals		438,473	794,512	904,054	13,594	2,150,633	12.12% Unaffiliated	5 D, 0 R	3 D, 0 R
*The partisan registration advantage was computed as the gap between the two major parties in registered voters.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• General Assembly Reapportionment Website
• Detailed summary 2010 Census files for Connecticut