Lehigh /Northampton County Legislative Districts
Subject: Testimony on Legislative Redistricting-Lehigh and Northampton Counties To Chair Nordenberg and Distinguished Commissioner Members: My name is Rochelle Kaplan. I live in Weisenberg Township, Lehigh County, 187th Legislative District and the 16th Senatorial District. From 2017-2019, I coordinated efforts in the Lehigh Valley for local municipalities to pass resolutions to reform the redistricting process. In that role, I went to many township/borough meetings, spoke with residents throughout the two counties, and learned quite a bit about Lehigh and Northampton County’s legislative districts. I would like to share with you some of what I learned. First, several of the legislative districts were created by splitting townships unnecessarily: • In Lehigh County: o Two townships are split into three different legislative districts: South Whitehall (population 21,080) Salisbury (pop. 13,621) o One township is split between two legislative districts: Whitehall Township (pop. 29,173) • In Northampton County: o Four townships are split between two legislative districts: Lower Saucon (pop. 11,094) Palmer (pop. 22,317) Moore (pop. 9,322) Bethlehem Township, as distinct from the City of Bethlehem, (pop. 25,868.) In fact, in a recent meeting with the newly elected representative in the 138th legislative district, the representative expressed frustration at not knowing which part of Bethlehem Township was in her district versus that of the neighboring 135th legislative district. The LRC in 2010, gave no reason for any of the splits. Moreover, the splits divided up neighborhoods and communities without any thought to the impact on those municipalities. It led residents to conclude that the only reason for the municipal splits was for purely partisan reasons. Second, contiguity and compactness were clearly not a consideration in drawing some of the legislative district lines in Lehigh and Northampton counties. Several legislative districts cover two or three counties with only a small section of a county making up the district. For example, the 131st legislative covers pieces of three counties- Lehigh, Northampton, and Montgomery; the 134th and 187th legislative districts are divided between Lehigh and Berks counties, with the Berks county townships making up only a small part of each district. The best example of a noncompact or noncontiguous district is the 183rd. It starts in in the north with eight rural townships, six of which are in Northampton County and two in Lehigh County. The district then snakes down Rt 145 to include a part of Whitehall township which is urban and ends moving west along Rt 22 to include a small slice of South Whitehall, a suburban township. The shape of the district has been described by the incumbent legislator as a question mark without the period at the bottom. What could possibly be the community of interest among these different townships and municipalities? How can any legislator possibly serve these divergent interests? How can the residents of these townships possibly feel that their voices are being heard? Finally, I wanted to share with you some of the concerns expressed by the municipal leaders and the residents in these communities: • Municipal leaders are tired of municipalities being divided for no apparent reason • There is weak and ineffectual representation by the legislator of the township’s interests when it is only a small part of the legislative district. Quite frankly, it becomes more difficult to get the legislator’s attention in sprawling districts that contain divergent communities. • Municipal leaders rarely see their representatives, nor do they get responses to their concerns. • Municipal leaders have a much harder time drawing their multiple representatives’ attention to the issues they face. It dilutes their ability to have their needs met. • Legislators are not familiar with the municipalities in their district. • There are competing interests between communities that are far apart but in the same legislative district. • People living in these divided communities don’t know who their representative is. • Voters want their representative to be equipped to deal with the concerns of their community. This means that the representative must have the ability to travel the district easily meet with the different communities and learn what their issues are. In these large sprawling districts, that simply does not happen. I am asking the LRC to do the following when drawing state legislative lines: • Disclose to the public the LRC’s priorities and values in drawing maps. • Start with a blank slate, don’t rely on the current district lines. They are in a word, undemocratic, and were designed to protect incumbents and the party in power at the time of their drawing. As can be seen by my examples, they were not designed for the best interests of the residents. • Don’t consider the incumbent’s address when drawing district lines. Redistricting is for citizens to have a voice in their government, not for incumbent protection • Adhere to the constitutional requirement of not splitting municipalities unless absolutely necessary, compactness, and contiguity. • Explain the reasons for the maps, and any splits of municipalities, and make the report public. • Provide the public with the final maps and the rationale behind the maps BEFORE the LRC votes on them. After making public the maps, the LRC must give the public an opportunity to provide feedback on the maps. Respectfully submitted, Rochelle K. Kaplan