It only encompasses half a page and is a holdover from prior redistricting bills. But members of a Rhode Island legislative panel recently received an earful from state residents and advocates on issues surrounding district committee membership.
The Rhode Island House Committee on State Government and Elections held a hearing on House Bill 7323 concerning the redistricting of the General Assembly. The two-hour meeting was the first of two days of testimony for the House panel; state Senators also are holding a similar one-day hearing on the bill.
About two-dozen people spoke in-person or by phone at the meeting, taking aim at the district committee provision, which is encapsulated in Section 9, near the bottom of the 175-page document.
Section 9 reportedly is a carry-over from prior state redistricting bills stretching back at least three decades. At its core, the language opens the door to giving chairs of the Democrat and Republican parties the ability to replace elected members of district committees with candidates of their choosing.
In Rhode Island, district committees consist of members serving a specific political party in each of the state’s House and Senate districts. Their role includes endorsing candidates if and when state primary races are held.
In an era where voting rights, gerrymandering and similar issues have been front and center ahead of the upcoming midterms, a number of speakers at the meeting implored state lawmakers to strike or overhaul Section 9.
“Due to redistricting, some committee members might no longer live in their redrawn district, creating a vacancy on the district committee that needs to be filled,” said Leonard Katzman, who serves as chair of the Portsmouth Democratic Town Committee.
Speaking to Section 9, Katzman said, “The power to appoint new members is vested in a single person for each political party – the chairperson of the political party.” He described the provision as “an inappropriate cut-and-paste” from previous redistricting bills.
Several speakers said they believed the continuation of Section 9 would especially imperil candidates running on a progressive platform on the left side of the political aisle.
“I normally focus on national issues, but this particular bill is so undemocratic, I feel I have to weigh in on it,” said Newport resident Catherine Hillery, who aligns herself with a political group known as the Swing Blue Alliance. “The language is confusing and unnecessary.”
State Rep. Robert Phillips, D-Woonsocket, co-chaired a reapportionment commission that was tasked with drawing up the once-in-a-decade legislative maps on the heels of the 2020 Census.
At the hearing, Phillips said the 18-member commission underwent a months-long review process that took public input into account.
“This process took a lot more energy out of me than I expected it to, but that’s OK,” Phillips said. “The committee made every effort to be transparent.”
Several House members on the Committee on State Government and Elections said they were concerned or confused about Section 9 and its placement in the draft bill.
Speaking to who serves on district committees, pre- and post-redistricting, state Rep. Teresa Tanzi, D-Narragansett, said, “I think it’s important to hear those who voted.”
State Rep. Evan Shanley, D-Warwick, is chair of the Committee on State Government and Elections. Shanley said he anticipates an amendment to HB 7323 before it advances to the full legislative branch.
“We’ll try to get answers to the questions that were raised by the public, as well, as members of the committee,” Shanley said.
