The Progressive Party in Burlington wants to move two neighborhoods into different districts – not because there is any need to move them, but because two Progressive candidates want to run for a seat in one district. To restate: the proposal is to move two neighborhoods so two Progressives won’t have to run against each another for one seat.

Ok, they don’t say it exactly like that, but from all appearances, that’s what they’re trying to accomplish. There are many ways to accomplish redistricting without moving whole neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, there are ways that do so while adhering more closely to state law (more on that below).

The basic “strategy” appears to be to attempt to get two Progressives into the State House by redrawing districts to bump two of the most progressive Democrats out of the State House.

Um . . .

More below the fold.

:: First: The Obvious Problem

There’s a difference between good strategy and bad strategy. A strategy that injures your allies while strengthening your opponents should probably be set aside if there are other options. The Progressive Party in Vermont has a bizarre history of playing redistricting Russian roulette . . . and losing.

If the Progressives’ goal is to make the legislature more progressive, then why do they keep teaming up with Republicans to make it easier for Republicans to win? Why don’t they team up with Democrats on redistricting to make it harder for Republicans to win? I know, the hypothesis is that making it harder for Democrats makes it easier for Progressives, but that hasn’t really worked out very well, thus far. When a hypothesis is tested and fails, it’s usually because the hypothesis is wrong and it’s time to find a new one.

The people of our state are clearly worse off with “conservative” policies, and better off with more progressive policies. Yes, from the perspective of the Progressive Party, we’re not as much better off with Democrats as we would be with Progressives. But why a total crap-shoot? Why play enabler for “worse off,” when there’s a “better off” solution? There are real people who get hurt by those “worse off” policies. It doesn’t seem like the risk is worthwhile.

:: Second: The Statutory Problem

The Vermont Redistricting Law [17 VSA 1906b(c)] requires the Board of Civil Authority to use the following considerations:

(1) preservation of existing political subdivision lines;

(2) recognition and maintenance of patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests;

(3) use of compact and contiguous territory;

(4) incumbencies.

The proposed redistricting appears to largely ignore (1) and (4).

:: Third: The Transparency Problem

The group appointed to the subcommittee by Mayor Kiss has kind of forgotten to ask a good chunk of the people affected by the proposed new districts whether they want to move.

Committee member Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a city councilor, posted a request for feedback in the Front Porch Forum email list-serve for the Roosevelt Park neighborhood (one of the two getting bumped). She did NOT post the request in the forum for Lakeview Terrace residents. Word has it that folks in the Lakeview Terrace neighborhood are not supportive of the proposed change.

In addition, by listing only the “pros” of the proposed move, the resulting feedback may be slanted toward the outcome she’s hoping for:

. . . we have an opportunity to keep the district line the same in the I.A.A. neighborhood or try a different option. The working committee for the city council, for which I serve on, has considered an alternative which would pull the I.A.A. neighborhood back into the Old North End and into the 3-3 District (currently represents most of the Old North End). And would put the streets along North Ave on the western side of the Old North End into the 3-3 District. This would include Crowley Streets, Lakeview Street, Front St and some of the small streets around Battery Park. It seems more logical to include a part of the O.N.E. that are physically connected by a road (North Ave) and are also already somewhat use to being connected to the New North End because some streets are in 3-2 already over there (Ward St for example) and also by city wards (Ward 7 covers Lakeview). Plus students on that side of the O.N.E. already use the middle school in the N.N.E. versus the students in the eastern side (I.A.A. neighborhood) who go to Edmunds.

:: Fourth: The “Representativeness” Problem

Seven of the fifteen members of the Board of Civil Authority are Democrats. But the subcommittee has only 1 Democrat (Ed Adrian) out of its 5 members. The other subcommittee members are: Bob Kiss (Prog), Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (Prog), Karen Paul (Independent), Paul Decelles (Republican).

So from a committee that’s 1/2 Democrats, Kiss created a subcommittee that’s 2/5 Prog, 1/5 independent, 1/5 republican, and 1/5 democrat.

The lone Democrat has made several proposals, all of which have been voted down, including one that adheres more closely to the law than any of the others, thus far.

:: Fifth: The Pissing Off Your Legislators Problem

In response to all this, 7 Burlington State Representatives have registered their displeasure. Two key quotes:

“The maps in the plan that you have presented to us substantially alter the districts of Chittenden 3-1, Chittenden 3-2, and Chittenden 3-3 in a manner that we cannot support.

…

We understand the difficulty of the task before you, and realize that tough decisions have to be made, However, we cannot support the maps as presented. We urge you to please reconsider Councilor Adrian’s proposal (Democratic Plan C).”

Signatories are: Bill Aswad, Chittenden 3-1; Jean O’Sullivan, Chittenden 3-2; Jason Lorber, Chittenden 3-3; Jill Krowinski, Chittenden 3-3; Kesha Ram, Chittenden 3-14; Johannah Donovan, Chittenden 3-5; and Suzi Wizowaty, Chittenden 3-1.

:: Summary

All-in-all, it appears that redistricting in Burlington has been handled badly. Here’s hoping a sensible solution, with better communication emerges soon, though with Kiss at the helm of the subcommittee…