Currently Warren, Waitsfield and Fayston comprise one district with one representative. Moretown, Northfield and Roxbury comprise a district with two representatives and Duxbury is in a district with Waterbury with two representatives.
The split of Fayston is part of the board’s attempt to redraw the entire state so that each legislative district will have one representative. Such a split would require the Fayston town clerk to set up two distinct and separate voting areas for each election.
This proposed split unnecessarily divides Fayston residents into north and south voting districts, failing to account for the fact that Fayston belongs with the Mad River Valley. It also fractures the political unity of three towns that have long banded together to address intra-municipal issues from ski area development to watershed issues to recreation.
This one-rep district proposal is not the preferred choice of the entire board, which is currently split 4-3 on the proposal.
The reasoning of the four members who favor having all of the Vermont’s 150 state representatives coming from single member districts is not that plausible.
Board member Steve Hingtgen, who favors the proposal, suggests that single member districts are better because they are easier and cheaper to campaign in.
Excuse me? Easier to campaign in? For whom is this redistricting being done? For the ease and convenience of the representatives or for the best interests of the voters in Vermont?
Proponents of the single-rep district scheme suggest that that this will result in closer relationships between voters and their elected representatives. That is hogwash. Vermont is a small state with a small population and Vermont’s state reps are famously available to their constituents.
There’s no need to overly engineer that availability by splitting Fayston or any Vermont town in half.
{loadnavigation}
