 Okay, it is at 7pm. I'll call the board of civil authority to order. The one item on the agenda today is to discuss the proposal for a reapportionment for the Montpelier house district. Do you want to know if anybody satisfied with the agenda? Okay. To get our, to frame the debate or the discussion, I'll put together a very brief presentation on PowerPoint. And John has just started sharing it to talk about the history of this topic. Next slide, please. Are you all saying this okay? Yes. Okay, good. Traditionally in Vermont from 1777 all the way to 1962. The House of Representatives was on a one town, one vote basis. So every town from the biggest to the tiniest had had the same power in the House of Representatives. In 1964, the US Supreme Court decided Reynolds versus Sins. And Vermont Supreme Court decided Buckley versus Hoff. And in both of those decisions, the Supreme Court's found that the Constitution required representation to be proportional to the population. And so the first reapportionment under that system was adopted in 1965. Next slide, please. And the law that we're applying is found in Title 17 chapters 34 and 34 a And the purpose is established by 17 VSA 1901 is that we're required to establish legislative bodies in such a manner as to achieve substantially equal weighting of the votes of all voters in the choice of legislators. And apportionment. The House of Representatives total population in the state divided by the number members of the House of Representatives. So 150. And the statute sets forth the standards as preserving existing political subdivision lines in so far as practicable, recognizing, maintaining patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties, and common interests, and the use of compact and contiguous territory. The definition of a representative district is a district from which one or two representatives are elected. There is no preference in the statutes for either one member district or two member district. They stand on equal footing under the statutes. And we can. This is just the provision requirement that the apportionment board issues a standard proposal. It goes before the boards of civil authority. And we can take a position as to whether we approve it or do not approve it. From what we could tell. As of 1967 month period actually had three single member districts. Although one of those districts. Apparently had part of the part of Berlin. And it was that way. Right up until 1982. And since 1982, the apportionment there. The city of Montpelier is comprised composed of two or one two member district. And there's been a little. Cutting around the edges. Population balance sake. So there's been times where there's been. A little bit of Montpelier out of the district or a little bit of surrounding towns. In the district, but. So we're now just the city of Montpelier. For the entire two member district. And what we have here is the map, which you've probably all seen. Of the two proposed districts. I'll just mention the video is going to be a little blurry, even if I zoom in to see that. So I would refer folks to, if you can get to it to the clerks portion of the city webpage. And under departments go to city clerk. You'll see links right there on that front page to get a better look at them. Cause this is. It's looking pretty blurry and I don't think it's just because I don't have my glasses. Yeah, I. Going online, I found it to be very hard to read too, but. But there we have it. The. The legislative apportionment board this time. Decided that they would make. All the house districts to the single member districts. And doing it to my period, the same as they've done to, to all the other single member districts. Or multi-member districts down to one member district. And. If this carries forward, this would be my period would be Washington, seven four or seven one and Washington seven. Is that a two? It should be a two. It is. Yeah. Okay. Good. I couldn't see it. And I think that's it. I think we're open for. For debate on the, on the proposal. Our options tonight are to. Tell the apportionment board that we agree with their proposal. Or we do not agree with their proposal. Do we have to give rationale or is it just yes or no. I think it's whatever you want it to be. Yeah. The board doesn't need to follow our. Recommendation. No, that's, that's right. They don't need to follow our recommendation. And it's ultimately decided by the legislature, not by the board. Okay. So what is the point of doing this? As far as the legislature is concerned. Do you want to answer that? I know. Because the legislature is going to be interested in what the, what the towns have to say. I've been told by one of our local legislators that it's a Republican proposal. I had a conversation with, with Tom little. Who shared the, the effort. And. It seems as though. It's just a one vote difference between. You know, for and for and against. I don't think it was all Republicans. All dams are all progs. Okay. Thank you. Just as a reminder, the legislative apportionment board is created by statute and it calls for the. So the governor appoint some positions and the legislature appoint some positions and. What are seven members? I haven't studied this, but it is. Several parties interests are represented on the board is probably the best way to say it. And so I think it would be. Hard to say it is a Republican or a Democratic proposal. It is a mix of opinions is the way I've understood it. Yeah. I believe the state Supreme court has a review of this as well. Okay. I don't know that. Ron. Ron. Okay, Ron. Thank you. Thank you for helping me figure out who's trying to be recognized. A couple of things, I guess the. To page a second point is that the vote was four to three. So this plan is not something that's being overwhelmingly supported by the. The reapportionment board. It's a recommendation for our consideration, but. If you want to give any weight. To the message coming out of the board as, as Mary said, it's divided. My question is. Is there any benefit to either the city. Or the state. For Montpelier to have two distinct. Voting districts. One member districts. Anybody. That's a valid question. I'm, I'm. Does anyone have a response or is anyone up next, Rob? It looks like you're up next. Yeah, so I'm going to take it on the position to kind of answer Ron's question, because I believe having two districts is actually much more representative to the neighborhoods. And I feel myself. Just kind of like our city council, how we have a couple of members in different points. And even like I was talking last week about some other issue regarding to our city council and somebody's like, Oh, I got to talk to my city council member on this. Like, I'm like, who's your city council? And they referred to who it was. I'm trying not to get this into a political debate. So I think it's much more representative by us having. Split districts. Just like we do over our city council. Otherwise, if we want to go that, we should have out large for the whole. For the city council. So that's my take on that. I'm not sure everybody else's view, but that's how I see answering your question, Ron. So I kept coming back to, you know, I know this, this isn't apples and oranges, but it isn't quite apples and apples. But I thought about the sense that we're all in both a one member and a two member district in terms of, you know, we have Peter Welch representing us as an at large representative. And then we have our two senators. Do I feel inherently less represented? Or is there any way that I can point at that I'm less represented by Bernie and by legy. Then I am by Peter Welch. And I'm just not coming up with anything. You know, I'm sort of grateful to have both of our senators there and don't like the idea that I have to pick just one, but that notwithstanding, I'm not sure that I would see with a direct comparison. One is more democratic than the other. Kim, Kim, did you want to be recognized or you? Well, up and then down. I can't tell when my hand is up when it's down, but. But it was up and so I'm calling on you if you want to talk. Okay. I think against the national backdrop of. The gerrymandering that's going on, it's a serious threat to our democratic processes. And I, I'm really disturbed about what's happening at the national level. And I think the state level having single member districts is inherently more representative. And I think it more fits the general purpose of apportionment is to give everybody every voter an equal say in what's going on. So I would support having two single member districts. And I thought that the Carnahan's letter, which hasn't been mentioned. It's very persuasive to me. Maggie then page. I mean, I guess Kim's sort of answer. My question was really just not to put anyone on the spot, but I was hoping to hear somebody who supports this proposal. Lay out the reasons why they support it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He sent it. John sent it to all of us. I missed it. I missed it too. Sent it. To all of us. I expect John couldn't read it. Right. I could pull it up. It's from the Carnahan's. On my phone would be probably easier. Just. Okay. Yeah. If you're, if you're pulling it up, that would probably be better. I can read it. It might make more sense to. Sum it up. But I do have it. Exactly short, but I'll go ahead and read it. Yeah. Go for it. Dear Montpelier board of civil authority. We urge you to support the legislative apportionment board's proposal to create 150 single member house districts in Vermont, including two single member districts in Montpelier for the simple reason that this is the fairest approach to representative democracy possible. Multi member districts have historically been used to suppress minority representation in the country. How by diluting the power of minorities by combining them with more powerful groups in larger legislative districts. The influence of a group that might have enough strength in a smaller geographic area to elect a representative is reduced. If the area is expanded to include another group with more power, instead of electing one member from each group in two single member districts, the community gets two representatives from the more powerful group. This technique has been used to disenfranchise blacks in the south, but can be used in many other situations and with other types of minorities as well. Multi member districts also tend to discourage candidates by younger, less well known leaders because a multi member district is larger than a single member district. It takes more resources, time, money, community, prominence, etc. to be elected from a multi member district. It is harder to challenge incumbents of powerful groups in larger districts. It is often argued that multi member districts are better for individual voters because they give voters multiple voices in the legislature. This may be true, but it is not democratic. Why should an individual voter in Montpelier get two voices in the house while other voters get only one? If two voices are good, are three better? Four, if Montpelier insists on having two voices, what is to stop larger communities from insisting on even more? Vermont may be relatively homogeneous, but it is important to give potential minorities of all types an opportunity to achieve representation in Montpelier. The legislative apportionment board got it right when they proposed a full complement of single member districts. We note that the U.S. House districts are all single member districts. With democracy in this country being attacked, it is important for Vermont to stand on the side of our democratic values. There is no reason for Montpelier to oppose the principle of single member districts for our city. Sincerely, Paul and Paul Carnahan and Eve Jacobs Carnahan. And you were just going to summarize it. You didn't have that. And Paige, did you want to be up next? Well, I was thinking that with the single member districts, and I'm actually disturbed by the fact that political affiliation and social contacts are included as part of the definition of how you create a district. That seems like an invitation to gerrymandering. And I feel like if we divide it up, then it gives people, and I guess the people maybe as us, so maybe it's not relevant, but it gives the legislature an opportunity to move the district lines around in ways that define one district as one way and another district as another way that would separate people rather than I can see arguments on both sides, but I guess I'm feeling like that gives to divide it up into two single member districts gives further opportunity for future gerrymandering to sway the boat one way or the other. So I think that's a good idea. Okay. I think Ron was actually ahead of me. Okay. Sorry, Ron, go ahead. I wanted to echo what Paige is saying. And Paul Carnahan in his letter, he cites the single member house districts, but I think we're well aware of the weird configurations that take place in these house districts. I lived in Austin, Texas for a number of years, and they created the legislature. They created a voting district of a narrow slice of Austin that stretched all the way to the Rio Grand border. So it bore no meaningful political configuration or any of the, any of the attributes that the Vermont legislation calls for. I think once we go down the path of slicing and dicing, and this could be particularly true, on the county level, if that's what happens. I personally feel we open the door for gerrymandering, not protecting ourselves from it. Carrie. And then Rob and then Paige. Carrie. Yeah. So I'm kind of going in the same theme as the, the previous couple of people. I'm, I've been doing a ton of reading and research about this. And I'm, I'm not totally sure what I think we should do, but I kind of approached this from the perspective of, we really need to think about what's best for Montpelier. And what, what works well here, what might work, might not work. And the arguments about equity are very compelling to me. Historical use of, you know, historical use of multi-member districts to, to shut people out is, is really, you know, obviously very compelling. But I think we need to, we need to look at what might be, does this plan do that? And I don't, I don't think it does. And, and, but then we also, if we're going to look at, you know, kind of historically what's good for equity, multi-member districts, I don't think it does. And, and, but then we also, if we're going to look at, you know, multi-member districts, women do better in multi-member districts nationally than they do in single-member districts. And so, but I don't say that to argue for the multi-member districts because I still feel like we really need to look at what's going on in Montpelier. And are there people who are currently being excluded in the current structure that we have, the, the idea that placing, or, you know, dividing Montpelier in some way, I think is always very tricky and risky. And the three districts that we have for city council, I don't actually think they very well represent neighborhoods. I'm part of district three. And in this little bit, you know, in downtown and the rest of the district is across the river. It's, it's not the same neighborhood at all. And I look at the proposed separation that this plan suggests. And I don't think it aligns with the way people actually live and the way communities actually work in Montpelier. And, and so I think it's important for us to be, to take seriously the part about the statutory requirements that reapportionment looks at existing, not just political divisions, but also things like trade and community and et cetera, et cetera. And, and then for us to think about, how do we want to actually be represented in the legislature? And is what we have working well for this particular community in other communities that might or might not work well, but I think that's really the question before us. I think Rob. And Rob, why don't you go first? Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Carrie, for your, your take there. I was, I was going to ask about the question about the districts, the way the board is actually a proposed. And I'm looking at the division as being a fair assessment. I don't see this as being any particular gerrymandering going on. And I think it kind of does the best we can possibly do for representative democracy, the way it's divided. Is it perfect? I don't think it's perfect. The division lines, but I am accepting of the way the lines are drawn up to the best in order to reach that fair representation. So a, is that the question? Do we want to do this for this particular proposal or B? For future. I'm happy with the way it is. The way they're proposing it. Page. Donna and Anne, I think I just had a question. And that is how many people are there supposed to be in each district? I know there were some numbers on the, on the pictures, the pictures of the different divisions, but I don't remember what they were. Ideally, it's roughly 4,200. I'm not mistaken. Yes. Okay. So I think we're going to start by dividing the total. Um, population of Vermont or the, uh, voting population. Total population. Total population. Okay. By the number of positions. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Johanna. Yes, I. Unfortunately missed the, uh, presentation of the maps. Um, so I, I hear that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The proposed division in my pillar. Um, I'm wondering what happens if. We did have these two districts. And, uh, say. For one district, nobody ran. I didn't hear the last thing you said. What do we do if, if we have two districts. And in one district, nobody runs. Nobody won. Run. Runs. Yeah. Yeah. I suppose that could happen. Or the governor would end up. There would be that would be that would create a vacancy. Yeah. Hard to picture that happening, but I suppose it could. Um, So I'd like to hear what other people think about the division. That's proposed. Uh-huh. Uh, Donna, I think you're up next and then and. Actually, and was ahead of me. So go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to express that. Um, I. I'm in support of the two, uh, single member districts. I think that makes sense for the equity reasons. And sort of like what Carrie was saying earlier. I think the question is. For me is, is this the right division? And, uh, so. And it's interesting. Uh, to hear you say, Carrie, that, you know, the different five houses. Does that make sense? Yeah. And the neighborhoods work. And. That, uh, does, I agree that this. The way this is divided. I'm not sure it makes sense. I'm curious. So. If I were going to divide my failure into roughly equal maps. prepared to do right now. And that like, I'm also the opinion that like, you know, if you don't like something, you better come with a separate different proposal. And I have that. And to be fair, on principle, do I like two districts? Yes. Would this be fine? Sure. Do I think it's gerrymandered? No. The only part that seems odd to me is that route two is I got this funny little slice that is, you know, taken out of one, added to the other, doesn't make much sense to me. I kind of wonder like how much conversation went into like these specific things. And Mary, I wonder if you know that. Okay. So I guess that's all I have to say at the moment. And I think to get into details about the exact alignment of these lines would be the like, weeds that I don't think we really can afford or want to go into now. Okay, thanks. I put myself in the queue, but Donna, you're up. I'm glad to have this discussion. I came in thinking I preferred the current two district and everything I've heard, I'm still preferring the two district. And part of that is, is what I've read is that when you go to the one district, it'll definitely need more moving, more manipulating. One district now is 41,000 and the other is 39,000. And so you get these shuttle shifts. I think you get what I've read, you get more shifts when you go to the one person membership. So it would be changing. And maybe that's good. Maybe it's not. But I like the more holistic approach of the whole city being in a two member district. And we can work because the inequalities to me aren't between for Monterey. We're not a huge city. So I think the inequality comes that we need to put things out there to help people run because we have school board people who run for the whole city. It's only the city council that has districts. And so I think we can do much to help more equality of candidates and issues than just to divide the city in half. So that's my two cents worth. And I agree with much. It's already been said about the two district situation. Thanks. I'm going to make a couple of comments. I don't support this proposal. I do support the split of the two member district the way it is now. We have a couple of observations about that one. It is true that there have been times in various parts of the country where at large districts have been created as a means of disenfranchising minority groups. It's I don't think there's any evidence that that's playing any role in the in the definition of Montpeliers district. People have suggested well. It makes sense for the neighbors neighborhoods or parts of neighborhoods to have different representation. I agree that that's true at the level of the city council because we are acting at a very granular level for what are the city policies and how they might affect different parts of the city at the level of the state legislature and the house of representatives. The legislature is not acting in a way that's going to affect different neighborhoods of the city in different ways. And so I don't think it makes sense to say well we need to split the city up in order to have a representative delegation in the legislature. I don't think that it's reasonable to say well we're getting by having a two member district Montpeliers getting and a disproportionate representation in the legislature because each person you can say well everyone in Montpeliers has two house members who are representing them. But really each of us only has half of a vote for each of those house members because there are two of them and and so we do not have either way either a single member district or two member district gives each individual an equal say in what's happening in the in the state legislature. I do not think and we had this discussion 10 years ago too and and one of the questions that came up was well do we have such different differently composed populations in the in the city that the interests of one proposed district or one area of the city are so different from the interests of another area of the city that it makes sense to split those into two separate representative districts and and I really don't see it. I think what we have is a really a quite homogeneous population and the particular I would guess that the where the line was drawn was mostly not to to track the the goals set forth in the in the statutes existing in and those are again patterns of geography social interaction trade political ties and common interests but I I would guess that the the biggest criterion for where the line would be is to make the make the sizes of the diff districts come out so they're as close to the ideal population as possible. So I really do not think that this is a proposal that we should adopt. Vote on this now. I wasn't planning on speaking to this for for fear that that it seemed self interested and let's but let me offer a couple of observations. I'm thinking about the times when I've worked at the voting tables here for elections in the city and people pause and look at the map and debate they come to the wrong table because people don't know where their districts are and and that's fine and we're always very kind and and make sure that they get to the right place but what concerns me about that is the degree of embarrassment that comes with that people feel like they ought to know that know where they you know which district they're in and I worry that people are less engaged if they don't know which district they're in. I I I can remember who my counselors are and I know who to pick up the phone and call or had a right to somebody but a lot of folks don't know that and I am worried that it's easy to remember in a two-member district who my two reps are under this proposal I have to remember what the dividing line is it's not Montpelier it's some line that doesn't really make sense logically it doesn't tie to our voting districts it's not a logical as we've discussed we don't really see the logic there so I don't know who my rep is necessarily so I may not be as willing to get in touch with that person or I'm embarrassed or I'm confused and that's not good we want folks to be able to to know who we are I mean that's one of the beauties of having such small districts it's so personal you know who to get in touch with it it's it's straightforward so I worry about that as a state representative perhaps I shouldn't admit to this that I pay attention when people write to me and people write to me from all over Vermont saying please do this please pay attention to that I'm interested in I want you to do this I'm amused by how many people tell me that that they're my constituent but they live in Washington County or they live even outside of Washington County but they're my constituent but in fact if you live in Montpelier I pay double attention and if I have to triage who I can respond to of the hundreds of emails that I get on a weekly basis it's a Montpelier resident that I pay attention to in a way so I'm maybe undermining the equal representation argument but I'm saying and I think one of what we need to do is to think about what is best for Montpelier I'm saying that you have almost double power because of that and if we're interested in what is best for Montpelier I think that's a good argument you know you you have a stronger voice in the city of Montpelier I the the argument for equal representation across the state is is very wise and important but let's also pay attention to how do we make sure that Montpelier is as strong as possible in the legislature to do accomplished goals that support our residents so I just wanted to offer those two observations about how people interact with us and and how important that interaction is and that we make it as simple and straightforward and understandable as possible and to me that uh says I I believe the two-member district works very well in that way so I support I do not support this map I do support the continuation of having a two-member district Rod yes first first of all I want to comment about Jack I agree with you about your your statements about you know for pretty like we're not that diversified in opinions into different neighborhoods so it's not like we're dividing up our opinions and gerrymandering anything and I appreciate Mary Hooper's take on everything because she actually is one of the most responsive legislators I know of and I feel the closure we get to smaller districts the we have like each person is represented as one four thousand seat district give or take some is it closer people have a connection to their district and Mary is much more open and connects with people and but I hear from other people in other states on other districts that are like oh my representative is this we're going to have a meeting with our community with them and I feel like in some other districts it doesn't work we need to have one person and equal representation that four thousand I think is the the key that we need to have um and like but I said like before it's not a perfect division line there's no way we're ever going to get it even we can compare it to the two district it's not perfect because we're numbers are not if we total them together is we're under the median line so but thank you um thanks uh Kerry uh your hands down did you decide not to get no I'm fine thanks okay John so can we call the vote now we have uh speaker um I would just I mean just just to be clear I don't think we're in a position then just just to Rob's concern I don't think we have to vote whether all single member just the whole idea should be taken up or dropped I mean if there are issues in other towns I think you know I think the legislature is capable of looking at them individually I think we're really just talking about Montpelier or at least we should be right I think it would probably be a little out of line for us to to make a you know have the Montpelier BCA make a you know pat overreaching you know statement about how it should be or shouldn't be I think it's just about us that's beyond our pay grade yeah I want to make sure everybody who's here has a chance to say anything they they want to say I do sense that the we're getting toward the uh toward the conclusion of the discussion but I do want to make sure that no one goes away wishing they had a chance to speak Johanna I see your name your hand up yes I just want to say I really like both of our representatives so much they're both really responsive and responsible and you know really representing as well and it would feel much better if if um if one of them decided well I'm not going to run again anyway so we didn't have to make some kind of decision between two people that we were all represented by because we're going to split into two districts and we've got two people in one district is that true yes yep yes I thought so um gosh I I don't like that situation at all I just want to say that I am not seeing any other hands would somebody like to make a motion I'd like to make a motion that we call the vote I'll second that there's no vote to call I can make a motion I thought we had to decide well we do but there has to be a motion on the table and I can move I'll go ahead and move that the Montpelier board of civil authority recommend the legislature reject the reapportionment board's proposal to split the current two person district in Montpelier into two single member districts is there a second second any further discussion um because this is a zoom meeting we yeah we'd call the roll right so so I will call the roll uh Michael Bidamo no Jennifer just to be clear no means that you want the two member district no no the proposal is to keep the two member district so I'm sorry no means you want two two one member districts you want two districts by voting no yes right and voting yes keeps them the same yes okay so uh Jennifer oh are you still with us me yes I'm still here no Jennifer Jennifer Morton I guess we don't have no I'm here oh okay uh how do you vote uh yes I'm confused now okay the proposal is to reject the split and to keep it the way it is got you and the split is that weird line that goes right through my neighborhood uh come back to me okay Kim um no okay carry yes run yes Val Jude sorry no no Maggie yes page yes Rob no Connor's still here yes he's yep and yes and no jack why did you come back to me because I mean I get to vote right I was supposed to come back to Jennifer anyways Jennifer go ahead go ahead well I'll vote yes and what is your vote no you haven't called on everybody no oh Donna geez and Catherine Catherine oh why why aren't you on my list oh well Donna yes Catherine yes now I got to count this up is that everybody did I miss anyone that I haven't voted yet but make sure make sure everyone else has voted okay all right it's a lot of people we got all right has everyone on the board of civil authority voted yes okay all right so I have eight to seven yes seven eight to seven yes so uh uh my one vote the motion passes so in that case the chair is not voting wow that is a tight division well interesting the chair can vote besides the tie yeah you can vote sorry what Donna the chair can vote without it being a tie I agree I vote yes then thank thank you for that reminder wow do you think I mean I feel just if I may um it's such a close division it does seem a little unfair to have such a uniform statement I wonder if there's any way to essentially pass a minority report or well I mean the motion the motion wasn't anything but courage to oppose the proposal so there's not a rationale given I think that's it reflects the close division of this board and of course in fact of the apportionment board right the vote itself speaks to that's true yeah okay there being no further business before the board really can be Robert are you raising your hand yeah I was just saying I'm confident in representative Mary Hooper representing this board on any debate on the legislative legislative process even without a minority report yeah yeah so I don't think we need to do that okay thanks um without objection we'll adjourn at 5 56 p.m thanks everybody thank you thank you