A Registrar's Approach to Redistricting Fairfield

This article was posted by Fairfield Patch Editor Caitlin Mazzola. It was written and submitted by Matthew Waggner, Fairfield's Registrar of Voters (D). 

As one of Fairfield's two Registrars of Voters, I've attended most of the Redistricting Committee meetings over the past 14 months, and wanted to share with the public and RTM some ideas about how the group can move forward to finish their task. 

Fairfield's Town Charter was revised in 2006, charging a party-balanced committee with recommending a plan to the whole RTM by majority vote. The change was meant to force bipartisan cooperation, requiring any proposal to win support from at least part of each caucus. 

The Committee has worked in fits and starts, but members have been able to find common ground. In September, the group did agree on a number of districts, by a 4-2 vote, pledging to bring maps to the next meeting. However, that meeting was five months later, by which point the deal was apparently off. 

Now, the group should re-commit itself to the process, withdrawing threats and meeting as often as needed to finish a plan. With 6 weeks remaining, 9 of the 25 Connecticut towns that redraw local lines are still working on – or haven't yet begun – redistricting. There is ample time to meet, discuss, and pass a plan before the June 1 deadline; the guidelines are specific, and the Registrars can expedite the process by providing information at Committee meetings about whether a proposal meets their criteria. 

As the Charter requires a bipartisan vote to redistrict and Fairfield is closely divided politically, plans that create a partisan advantage in a majority of districts or force one party's incumbents from office will be dead on arrival. Committee members should refrain from making these kinds of proposals, and take care that their public comments work towards achieving a good-faith agreement. 

Beyond Charter requirements, working together is important to protect the legitimacy of elected government in Fairfield. It should be possible to meet Committee members’ goals by focusing on what they want to achieve for the town and forgetting lines previously drawn in the sand. 

One possibility – which arose over a conversation with an RTM member in the party opposite my own – is to consider establishing single-member districts as a way to accommodate a smaller RTM and fewer polling places while improving (rather than diluting) neighborhood-based representation in town government. 

The plan shown here has 40 RTM districts, organized into eight polling places. It meets the Charter's technical requirements, with districts averaging 1485 residents, 920 voters, and 425 households; each district would elect a single neighborhood representative. Democrats have a registration advantage in 20 districts; 20 have a Republican advantage. And, while reducing the RTM membership displaces incumbents, this proposal affects an equal share of both caucuses. 

While larger districts reinforce partisan voting patterns (as fewer voters know candidates personally), small, single-member districts promote person-to-person campaigning, increase accountability by emphasizing individual records over party platforms, and could reverse the long decline of voter turnout in our local elections. 

Apart from meeting the aims of the political parties, this proposal could also significantly improve the quality of service received by town residents from the RTM. Members could communicate with every constituent personally; voters would have improved access to and dialogue with their representative. An RTM member would serve as the neighborhood's access point to town government; it might be appropriate to consider moving the more prominent office to the front of the ballot – after the Board of Selectmen – in the redistricting ordinance. 

This plan is not the only way forward: while it has merits, it would be a dramatic change. However, it's offered here to illustrate that the interests of the Committee members are not mutually exclusive, that we haven't exhausted the range of possible solutions, and most importantly, that continued dialogue is the only way to find a resolution. 

For more on redistricting, see: 

• Republican Leaders Endorse 'Bold' Redistricting Plan to 'Modernize' RTM
• RTM Democrats: Nothing 'Bold' or 'Modern' About Plan with Less Districts