Conn. editorial: Draw fair electoral lines

This editorial appeared Dec. 29 in The Day of New London, Conn.

Connecticut is among the bluest of blue states, with Democrats controlling the governor's office, legislature, both U.S. Senate seats and all five congressional districts.

There may be plenty of Republicans in the state's rural communities, but for the most part the cities and their large Democratic populations dominate.

Within this liberal bastion a pocket of Republicans is hunkered down in Fairfield County -- the brokers, bankers and CEOs who form an epicenter of prosperity and conservative ideals in such tony Gold Coast towns as Darien, Greenwich and New Canaan.

Yet this GOP stronghold is represented in Congress by Democrat Jim Himes -- not just because Mr. Himes, a donkey in elephant's clothing who is liberal despite having worked as a Goldman Sachs banker, but because his Fourth District includes Connecticut's heavily populated and grittiest city, Bridgeport, where Republicans are even rarer than Popeye's Fried Chicken franchises in Cos Cob.

Meanwhile, just to the north, the Fifth District thrusts like a tentacle into New Britain to grab another Democratic citadel, ensuring Christopher Murphy his seat in Congress. And the misshapen First District surrounding Hartford juts like a jigsaw puzzle piece into New Haven County, while eastern Connecticut's Second District oddly crosses the Connecticut River just below the Massachusetts border to snag the town of Suffield.

Much of this gerrymandering resulted from Connecticut's loss of one congressional district a decade ago because the state's population grew more slowly than other parts of the country, mostly the South and Southwest, which added representatives to the House.

The borders of the Fifth District were redrawn then to give both incumbents from the old Fifth District and former Sixth District, Democrat James Maloney and Republican Nancy Johnson, a fair shot at re-election. The two no longer are in office, and the state is again looking at how to divide its congressional districts.

For months an eight-member reapportionment committee made up of both Democrats and Republicans tried to come up with a new map, but after both parties insisted on configurations based on establishing political beachheads, negotiations broke down.

Last week the panel missed its deadline and on Tuesday the state Supreme Court announced that it plans to appoint a special master to help settle the boundaries.

Then on Wednesday the court ordered both parties back to the table, saying redistricting should be a legislative decision. The court may yet have to rule on a map if the panel can't decide by Feb. 15.

Given the high stakes of a congressional seat and continuing contentiousness between Democrats and Republicans, we are not surprised the panel couldn't agree on a reconfiguration. In the end, tossing a political hot potato to an independent arbiter may be for the best.

This newspaper encourages the committee, or the special master if it can't reach a consensus, to avoid creating misshapen districts that give one party or another unfair advantage.

As much as is possible given the Democratic advantage in registration, the new districts should include a balance of Democrats and Republicans and of blue- and white-collar constituents so that elections every two years will be competitive, not just guaranteed victories by a party-endorsed candidate.

This is good governance, and the public deserves nothing less.

Visit The Day at www.theday.com. Distributed by MCT Information Services.