Officials make case for five districts

A fifth state representative could be joining South Burlington’s fearless foursome if local officials can make their case to the Legislative Apportionment Board. If not, South Burlington could end up sharing a representative with Williston and losing residents to a district in Essex.

With the 2020 U.S. Census data in hand, the Legislative Apportionment Board has spent the fall poring over state maps in an effort to redraw House and Senate districts to fit changing demographics, as it does every 10 years. Since districts were last redrawn, 2,388 people have moved to South Burlington — just over 13 percent growth — which pushes the city over the maximum number of people per district in many cases.

South Burlington city clerk Donna Kinville has been looking over the maps as well and brought her own proposal to the local Board of Civil Authority for discussion at a meeting Oct. 28. She does not think it makes sense for a fast-growing South Burlington to share with its neighbors.

“There’s a lot of shifting of residents from one district to another; there’s going to be a lot of confusion,” she said.

The apportionment board sent its map proposal to local municipalities in October and are open to feedback until Nov. 15, after which they’ll turn in a proposal to the Legislature.

Now it’s up to local officials to make their cases.

Reshuffling districts

In a letter to city and town clerks, Legislative Apportionment Board chair Thomas Little described House districts as “an interlocking constitutional, geographical and political ‘jigsaw puzzle.’”

He noted that when a district is adjusted to corresponding population changes, those changes ripple throughout the state, not just affecting neighboring districts.

The board’s proposed map gives South Burlington four lone districts and one shared district, which would mix 2,571 voters in with Williston; another 673 South Burlington residents would be moved into an Essex district.

Kinville argued that the major shifts in districts will create massive confusion as residents re-learn where to vote and who represents them. Not only that, the proposed districts do not conform with town borders — something local officials argued is important to maintain, and many people in an apportionment board survey agreed with.

Local representatives Martin LaLonde, John Killacky, Ann Pugh and Maida Townsend all joined the Board of Civil Authority meeting, sitting together in a row.

At 30 percent, Killacky’s district had the biggest growth deviation in the state, with Pugh’s district close behind him at 27.5 percent.

LaLonde briefed board members on the apportionment history and process before offering advice on what would be most effective in making the South Burlington case. While he noted that where district lines are drawn is important, it’s not the priority right now.

“It’s my understanding that they’ll give a lot of deference to how we draw the lines within the city. But first is to try to convince them that we need five districts,” he said.

Chris Shaw, chair of the Board of Civil Authority, also reminded folks not to get lost in the weeds but to focus on the big picture.

“We could sit here with calculators all night long, but that’s not going to mean anything to the Legislative Apportionment Board,” he said. “It’s not make it or break it tonight, we want big picture commentary.”

Kinville argued that five districts, five reps, all within South Burlington is the sweet spot. The number of people per district would fall just below the legislative limit, but within the accepted 5 percent deviation range and still have room to grow, Kinville said.

Four districts composed only of South Burlington residents would spill over the limit by 786 people, and it would supply less governance per resident than other towns, she argued.

Five districts with one shared would meet limits but wouldn’t allow for much growth, and six insular districts would be too much for staff to handle, and not necessary for the number of voters, she said.

“Neither Essex nor Williston want to share with South Burlington,” Kinville added — communities in agreement is good news for their case.

She plans to gather firm numbers on projected growth, based on new and in-progress housing, to confirm that South Burlington’s census numbers are not a fluke. Based on the number of housing units approved or in the permitting process, she expects the city to grow over the recommended number of people per district within five years.

Board of Civil Authority members were unanimous in their support of a five-district South Burlington, and voted for Kinville, Shaw and vice-chair Chris Trombly to send a letter on their behalf to the Legislative Apportionment Board.

Discussion stopped with the House as local officials have no say in how the legislative board redraws Senate districts. Still, the Chittenden Senate District could likely gain a seventh senator, considering the county’s growth — about 7 percent since 2010, per census data.

The census’ late arrival has tightened the overall timeline, LaLonde added. He’s looking at April next year as the tentative end date to solidify new voting districts, which leaves a limited window for prospective candidates to decide to run.

While local officials do not have a say in Senate redistricting, opportunities for public comment will come when the Legislature kicks into session in January.