61°
HARTFORD, Conn. The failure of Democrats and Republicans to make a deal by Wednesdays noon deadline on new Congressional boundaries means that the state Supreme Court will redraw the map for the first time in Connecticut.
It also means that no one will know whether Bridgeport is remaining in the 4th Congressional District, where it has been linked with southern Fairfield County for 125 years, until the court makes its decision by a Feb. 15 deadline.
U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, a Greenwich Democrat, won election in the 4th District in 2008 and 2010 with overwhelming voter support in heavily Democratic Bridgeport, the state's largest city, and in Stamford, another Democratic stronghold.
But as part of the once-a-decade update of voting districts, state Republicans led by House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, proposed moving Bridgeport out of the 4th Congressional District and into the 3rd District with New Haven.
Democrats were strongly opposed, saying the purely political plan by the GOP would greatly reduce minority representation in Bridgeport. But in the end, Bridgeport was not the issue that kept the two sides from reaching an agreement, with a disagreement over other districts preventing a deal.
To some, the inclusion of Bridgeport in the 3rd Congressional District was the most objectionable proposal to come from our side, said Cafero, co-chairman of the Redistricting Commission. We dropped that issue and placed Bridgeport back in the 4th District in order to move forward with negotiations.
Ultimately, we were unable to reach an agreement because while our side truly did compromise on our earlier proposals, the Democrats did not alter their positions in any significant manner, Cafero said. Now the court will decide."
Democratic leaders said they refused to accept map changes proposed by the GOP because no major population shifts occurred that warranted them.
It is unfortunate the commission did not come to a resolution regarding congressional redistricting, said Senate Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, co-chairman of the redistricting commission.
Unlike those instances in other states where huge population shifts necessitated major change and resulted in court resolutions, no such outcome was necessary here, the Democrats stated. Minor population shifts required only minor boundary changes.
Democrats said during the negotiations they were concerned with the need to protect communities, avoid unnecessary and radical change of district borders, and engage in good faith negotiations to resolve minor shifts in population.
Over the last decade population shifts have been minimal. The current map is 99% in compliance and requires only minor tweaking to make it fully compliant, the Democrats said. The current, fair, competitive districts should remain in place.
Cafero disagreed.
How can they say its fair and competitive when Democrats hold every Congressional seat in the state? he said. The fact they (Democrats) would not compromise even after we agreed to keep Bridgeport in the 4th District proves this was never about minority representation as they insisted. It was about controlling the entire Congressional delegation.
Democrats countered that the congressional districts are demonstrably competitive, pointing out that during the past decade, Republicans have held three of the five congressional seats.
Click here to follow Daily Voice Stamford and receive free news updates.
