Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

happyjammy123 t1_iub6byt wrote

I just realized the 5th hasn't been represented by a Republican since Nancy Johnson man its been a while


spmahn t1_iubvqos wrote

The district was gerrymandered after the 2010 census to take a slice of the very blue third district and give it to the fifth making it much more difficult for Republicans to win there



Nope, that is a lie.

In 2010 the map was drawn by courts. It was done in a way to make the least possible change to the 2000 map, which was drawn to protect Republican Nancy Johnson.

CT requires a supermajority to draw legislative maps, which either requires bipartisan approved map or it gets drawn by a court which will make the smallest changes possible to balance populations.


spmahn t1_iubzvmx wrote

Yes, it’s the same song and dance every 10 years, there’s a bipartisan commission with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, the Republicans draw their map, the Democrats draw their map, neither side agrees, it gets sent to be decided on by a court run by judges who were all appointed and approved by Democrats, and coincidentally the map that gets approved always ends up looking exactly like the one Democrats wanted in the first place, funny how that works.



Here is what a real Democratic gerrymander of CT looks like.

That map makes the 5th district 5 points bluer than what it currently is by including Bridgeport in exchange for the rural northwest corner. It also shores up the 2nd district by putting Manchester in it and giving the heavily red northeast part of the state to the 1st. The current 2nd could be competitive if Joe Courtney ever retires, although it is quite safe while he is there.

The current map is not gerrymandered for Democrats. But they also know that the courts won't accept the kind of map I drew, so they just offer the least possible change map that they think courts will accept.