Opinion ID: 1962344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: number of house districts

Text: The plaintiffs contend that their plans CT 125 and CT 125-1A (see appendix) demonstrate a violation of the town integrity principle because the adopted plan does not employ the number of house districts, in this case 125, which minimizes the number of town cuts. As previously noted, under article third, § 4 of the constitution, the house of representatives may vary from 125 to 225 districts. [13] In the reapportionment plan of 1971, the plaintiffs point out, [t]he choice of ... reducing the house from 177 to 151 seats was made deliberately because the resulting electoral district population figures best fit the equal population principle and cut the fewest town lines. Miller v. Schaffer, supra, 16. There is no claim that a house of 151 districts was retained in the plan now under challenge for the same reason. [14] In fact, the legislative history of the adoption of the current plan indicates that 151 districts were used because that number was workable; 24 H. R. Proc., Pt. 29, 1981 Spec. Sess., p. 9722 (remarks of Rep. Antonina B. Parker); and had a proven track record on which to base judgments. Report of the 1981 Reapportionment Committee. The plaintiffs' contention, in effect, amounts to a claim that the town integrity principle requires the General Assembly to adopt the number of districts of the house of representatives which most effectively minimizes the cutting of town lines. Such a claim, however, is incorrect because it is based on a misunderstanding as to what it is in any reapportionment plan which requires that town lines be cut. It is not the number of house districts in a reapportionment plan which requires the cutting of town lines, it is the federal one-person, one-vote principle that mandates equality of population to the extent practicable. The number of house districts determines only the ideal population for each district. Although the difference in the number of house districts results in different numbers of town cuts, it is the federal requirement that causes the cutting of town lines. The General Assembly, therefore, is not required by the town integrity principle to adopt any particular number of districts for the house of representatives. [15] Of course, the effect of the number of house districts on the number of towns cut is a factor which the legislature can and has in the past taken into account in developing its reapportionment plan. See Miller v. Schaffer, supra, 16. But it is not the only or controlling factor. Ultimately, the number of districts of the house of representatives is a judgment which our constitution entrusts to the two-thirds vote of each house of the General Assembly under article third, §§ 4 and 6, of the constitution, as amended. [16]