That meeting takes place on July 11 at 8 a.m. at a Fayston Board of Civil Authority meeting at the town offices on North Fayston Road.
Members of the public, representatives from intra-municipal Valley organizations, elected officials and officials from Warren and Waitsfield are expected to attend the meeting to discuss the proposal to create one legislative district featuring Waitsfield, Warren and the portion of Fayston that is south of Route 17 and a second district featuring Moretown, Duxbury and the balance of Fayston.
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 Legislative Apportionment Board recently voted 4-3 to put forth a plan that redraws voting districts in the entire state so that each district has one representative.
“We don’t want to be split up,” said Fayston Select Board member Ed Read. “We’re starting our strategy now and expect that lobbying will be a combination of townspeople, the Mad River Valley Planning District and local towns and organizations.”
Select board member Jared Cadwell said the board discussed the reapportionment proposal at its June 28 meeting and was hopeful that with the same level of activism that occurred during reapportionment in 2000, The Valley towns could stay together without Fayston being split.
In 2000, a reapportionment proposal would have paired Warren with Lincoln and Ripton, Waitsfield with Northfield and Fayston with Starksboro and Huntington. Kinny Perot, state representative at the time, joined with local officials to successfully rally against splitting up The Valley towns.
Adam Greshin, currently state rep for Warren, Waitsfield and Fayston, said he thinks the proposal is a noble effort and that he agrees single-member districts are better for constituents but says he nonetheless opposes splitting Fayston into two districts.
“I don’t think this is ideal for The Valley. It’s something that looks fine on the map to the apportionment board because Route 17 makes such an easy place to split the town. The proposal may work on a map, but it doesn’t work in practical terms and I think it’s a bad idea for Fayston voters,” he said.
The 2010 census data suggest that every 4,172 Vermonters be represented by one state legislator and the population of the three Valley towns together is approximately 4,770 or some 14.4 percent over the target number.
“The first and best option is to remain the district that we currently are even though we are over the ideal population. Historically the Vermont Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have generally not interfered with deviations of less than 20 percent, although there is no hard number written down that says ‘you shall not deviate any more than X percent,’” Greshin said.
“So the best solution is to leave the district as it is. That will require substantial argument and effort – and I’ll make a stink to make it work. A second choice might be the minority proposal from the apportionment board which would leave Waitsfield and Fayston together and pair Warren with Northfield and Roxbury. A third choice would be to create a two-member district of Warren, Waitsfield, Fayston, Moretown and Duxbury,” he explained.
{loadnavigation}
