Lamoille-Washington-1 Stands

by Amy Kolb Noyes

The Vermont Supreme Court, last week, upheld the 2002 reapportionment of
legislative districts in the sole case challenging the latest
legislative reapportionment. The towns of Worcester and Woodbury
challenged their placement in the newly created Lamoille-Washington-1
two-member House district, where they were partnered with Morristown and
Elmore.
The Legislature redraws House and Senate district lines every 10 years,
following the release of census data. Reapportionment challenges by
towns are made directly to the Supreme Court. In this case, all four
Associate Justices signed the decision. Chief Justice Amestoy sat for
oral argument, but did not participate in the decision.
In redrawing district lines, Vermont law states the Legislature must
"seek to maintain geographical compactness and contiguity and to adhere
to boundaries of counties and other existing political subdivisions."
The Lamoille-Washington-1 District was created after the boards of civil
authority in at least 47 towns criticized the initial redistricting
plan. That original plan placed Worcester and Woodbury in a district
with fellow Washington County towns Calais, Middlesex and East
Montpelier. Elmore was grouped in an all-Lamoille district with Wolcott
and Morristown.
After an unsuccessful challenge to the Lamoille-Washington-1 district in
the Legislature, the Woodbury and Worcester boards of civil authority
voted to divide the two-member district into two single-member
districts. That plan, which would have split Morristown, was rejected by
BCAs in Elmore and Morristown, as well as by the House of Representatives.
In last week's ruling, the Supreme Court cited its 1993 decision
regarding Reapportionment of Towns of Hartland, Windsor & West Windsor
which states, "...the redistricting plans approved by the General
Assembly are presumed to be valid, and there is a heavy burden of proof
on those who allege that a redistricting plan violates the
Constitution..." The court ruled Worcester and Woodbury failed to meet
that burden of proof.
Lamoille-Washington-1 Representatives Warren Miller (R) and Shap Smith
(D) both said they understand Worcester and Woodbury's grievances, but
the high court decision was what they expected.
"I'm not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision and I understand why
Worcester and Woodbury are not happy about the district they're in,"
Miller commented. He added Elmore was in a similar situation before the
2002 redistricting.
"I'll do my very best to represent them as well as I can...I'm very
accessible," said Miller.
Smith said he had been following the case closely, and believes
Worcester and Woodbury had some legitimate grievances based on
geography. However, he said he thinks the court made the right decision.
"I really enjoy representing Worcester and Woodbury," Smith told the
News & Citizen. He added on behalf of himself and Miller, "We're going
to do whatever we can to make them feel as welcome as we can in our
district for the next eight years."
Worcester BCA Chair Paul Hanlon has taken a lead role on this issue, on
behalf of Worcester and Woodbury. He said he will now focus his
attention on persuading legislators to "open the process" of
redistricting. He said the question now becomes whether the process will
allow his town to fare any better in future reapportionments. He said he
would like to see reasons given for why a district is created, noting he
was never offered the rationale for putting Lamoille-Washington-1 together.