By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — There was little support for Republican plans for redrawing the boundary lines of the state’s Congressional districts or for New Hampshire House seats.
At a public hearing Monday before the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee, only one person outside of lawmakers who drew the maps, testified in favor of the plans which have already passed the House.
The controversial plan for the state’s two Congressional districts makes major changes moving about 25 percent of the state’s population from one district to the other and it drew the most criticism.
Dorthea Seybold of Jackson told the committee the plan was blatant partisan gerrymandering and needs to be changed.
She said she was alarmed at the maps for the Congressional seats and for the New Hampshire House as well.
If the Congressional plan goes into effect, the representative would have no need to talk to people in the North Country or be reflective of the people he or she represents.
“These are blatantly partisan districts that further erode the will of people and only serves the interest of the majority and the growing national effort to obtain power at any cost,” Seybold told the committee. “This does not reflect the will of the people, but the will of Washington.”
Others said the House and Senate redistricting committees ignored the will of the people.
“New Hampshire voters all want our votes to count and we want to vote in competitive districts,” said Corrine Dodge of Derry. “Yet you have produced maps against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of New Hampshire citizens who showed up and testified. You blatantly ignored the will of the people.”
But Rep. Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, who chaired the House redistricting committee that produced both plans, defended the Congressional map, saying it followed all federal and state requirements producing a difference of 88 or 89 people between the two districts.
She said the state’s population did not increase at the same rate in the two districts.
Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, D-Portsmouth, asked why there was such a significant change in the districts when there was not a significant change in population, noting it moved hundreds of thousands people from one district to the other.
Griffin said the change did not move anyone, but did move the boundary lines, noting some people are confused today what district they are in.
She claimed the change would better address the issues for both districts noting the second district would have more post secondary institutions while the first district would be centered along I-93.
Sen. Donna Soucy, D-Manchester, asked if there would be an amendment to change the districts. Gov Chris Sununu and other Republicans have criticized the plan, but Griffin said she was not aware of any new amendment coming forward.
The change is expected to create one Republican leaning district and one Democratic leaning district, while both districts now have Democratic U.S. Representatives.
The Republican plan would create a district that stretches from the southwestern corner of the state to the southeastern corner with a reconfigured district in the lower middle part of the state.
The changes would move the largely Democratic communities in the Seacoast like Portsmouth, Dover and Durham from the 1st to the 2nd District and move the Republican communities along the Massachusetts border like Salem and Windham from the 2nd to the 1st District.
Democrats proposed a plan that would have moved the town of Hampstead from the 1st to the 2nd District to adjust for the 18,000 more residents in the 1st District according to the 2020 US Census data.
Democrats have controlled the congressional delegation after the last two elections, but the 1st District changed hands between Democrats and Republicans for a decade before that.
The only public member to support the Congressional map, former state Rep. Dan McGuire of Epsom, said New Hampshire has an outsized influence due to having the first-in-the-nation presidential primary and needs to be able to increase its influence in the House.
He said having two districts that would produce a Republican and a Democrat would ensure New Hampshire would have a House member in the Majority.
Having safe Republican and Democratic seats would allow the representatives to stay in their positions and build up seniority to have a leadership role.
But most people objected strenuously to the plan saying it threw out 140 years of tradition that has not significantly altered the two districts.
Ellen Farnum of Tamworth, said her town has a fairly even mix of Republicans and Democrats, and passed a resolution calling for a fair and transparent redistricting process by an overwhelming majority as did many of the other 74 communities voting in favor of the resolution.
“Both Republicans and Democrats are dismayed at the Congressional maps we see today. They destroy the competitive districts in our state and instead create two highly partisan, clearly gerrymandered districts,” she said. “You need to keep the process transparent. We have to live with these maps for the next 10 years, you need to get it right.”
She and several others called for another public hearing if the plan is changed.
The plan for the 400 House seats also drew a great deal of criticism from those attending the hearing, including a proposed amendment, that Henry Klementowicz, senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union – NH, said would make the House plan even more favorable to Republicans than the one the House passed earlier this month.
In the new amendment changes are made to districts in Manchester, and Concord and their surrounding towns, as well as to Berlin and in Rockingham County.
He said the changes increase the Republican leaning districts by 9.6 percent.
The Rev. Gail Kenney of Canaan said her town was robbed of its own representative 10 years ago, and the new plan does not fix that, instead it includes Canaan in one large floterial district and a three-town district.
“This can be fixed. Show the residents and the taxpayers of Canaan the constitution matters,” Kenney told the committee. “…(D)on’ t do this to the state of New Hampshire. Follow the plan we like to follow. Thou shall not gerrymander.”
Others were critical of the plan saying it denies 56 communities who deserve their own representative, which the constitution requires, and includes a number of very large floterial districts
Senate Bill 255
The committee also held a public hearing on Senate Bill 255, which would set the criteria for redrawing the state’s political boundaries.
The bill is sponsored by all 10 Democratic Senators.
Under the bill, political gerrymandering to favor one political party would be prohibited.
Under the bill, the redrawing should also favor compact districts without jagged edges or extension, and take into account community interests such as racial, ethnic, economic, social, cultural, geographic or historical identities, but not political parties or candidates.
The changes should not favor nor disfavor political parties nor candidates, nor incumbents.
“At the core, redistricting is about fair and equal representation – every district in every election should allow each qualified New Hampshire voter’s vote to count equally,” said the bill’s prime sponsor Perkins Kwoka. “Current state legislation allows the redistricting process to happen behind closed doors and without public input. This can lead to gerrymandered districts aimed at keeping one political party in power for a decade.”
Others said the plan denies 56 communities who deserve their own representative, which the constitution requires, and includes a number of very large floterial districts better suited to be state senate districts.
The committee did not make any immediate recommendations on the bills.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
