Letter — Council thwarts the voters’ will
To the editor;
The Town Council voted by majority this week to approve dividing Trumbull into seven voting districts, an ordinance I strongly urged the full council to unequivocally reject. This, after voting to bring a Town Charter change to voters in November to increase the majority vote to a minimum two-thirds vote - a hypocritical bait and switch on their part.
I have said before, no quantifiable data has been provided indicating voters are supportive of changing the current district model, regardless of what some politicos have said anecdotally. While it may have been a campaign pillar for Democrats running for office, producing factual quantitative data to indicate it is the voter’s interest should have driven the decision on a change in representation.
I asked the council members if they had pinpointed with any accuracy the number of council members residents know Trumbull has today? Number of districts? District residents themselves reside in? There were no answers to these questions.
Rubber stamping those who believe in establishing a “super minority” to thwart the expressed will of the voters by eliminating and thereby suppressing their right to choose their representatives is wrong for Trumbull. Why? Because a super minority will occur when the voter’s choice is so constrained it becomes meaningless.
The Democratic council has suppressed Trumbull voters by disallowing and impeding their ability of choice. What they have done, without quantifiable voter intent, is allocated enough council seats specifically intended to prevent the governance by either party of a potential two-third majority to pass legislation the Town Charter requires a super majority to do.
Council Democrats have discounted the current representative model. They have discounted proportional representation to guarantee minority representation. They have promoted minority representation by capping the number of seats a party can win in an election, the practice of limited nominations. Like limited voting, this prevents one voting bloc from gaining total control of an elected body at the expense of the minority party.
The purpose of this statute is to include a minority perspective and ideas to decision-making. They have chosen to excessively exceed the statute on minority representation thus suppressing the will of the voters. The minority voice existed before the ordinance changed this week. It was not silenced. It flourished.
The motivation behind this ordinance is not about polling locations or lines, nor is it about driving distance or district make-up. Equal representation of residents is already achieved through current districts whether the district lines themselves are equal in size.
The voter’s must have the ultimate say in their representation, not through a politically motivated one-party ordinance that increases what is already guaranteed - minority representation. The minorities voice, in either party is loud enough today for the voters to hear, yet the majority party chose to increase it more than statute through a super minority. It is not necessary, it is overreach, and it is not good governance to thwart the voters will.
Mark Block, secretary