Commentary –

Connecticut Democracy – An Oxymoron

By William A. Collins

Run for office?

Think again;

Challengers,

Can never win.

New York State must enjoy the best government in the world. Every one of its state representatives and senators who sought reelection won. Cuba has more turnover.

But don’t sell Connecticut short, either. Every Democratic incumbent also won. It was the Republicans who let down the side. One of their senators lost, and two of their representatives, including the state chairman.

Those losers must have been really naughty. The deck here is so stacked against challengers that in 40 percent of the House races and 31 percent of the Senate races, none even bothered to run. Further, in most races where someone did bother, the contest was perfunctory. Serious races could easily be numbered on one’s fingers and toes. Maybe just the toes.

The wicked reasons for this absence of democracy are clear enough: gerrymandering, the franking privilege, and money. Right after every census, including 2001, legislative leaders of both parties closet themselves with the data to re-gerrymander all the districts. Nowadays, with the benefit of computerized voter lists, they can tell exactly where their strengths and weaknesses lie. After due study, they begin to trade neighborhoods – even streets – the way kids might trade baseball cards.

The goal is to strengthen every incumbent, adding voters of his/her party, while trading away the opposition. In the end an occasional member may need to be sacrificed – usually a maverick – and a few irreconcilable seats may have to be left to a bipartisan commission to iron out. But overall, it works like a charm.

Thus protected by gerrymandering, incumbents next set up their second line of defense – the franking privilege. Anyone nervy enough to contact a legislator is sure to get a puffy letter in return, either responding to the writer’s concern or not. We all pay for that correspondence, of course, and there’s probably no way to avoid it.

Legislative rules also allow, however, for mass-mailings that no constituent has ever asked for. These are free too, meaning that you and I pay for them. Their total cost over a term can approximate the cost of a whole campaign. Such mailings speak chiefly of items on which the incumbent thinks you might agree with his/her position. Then, the next thing you know, it’s time to raise funds to run again.

Assertive moneyed interests are well aware of the reelection rates. They know that in virtually every case, the incumbent wins. Therefore, why give more than token help to those who you know will lose, even if they might be more on your side. It makes better sense to keep winners happy. And so the bulk of “smart” money goes to incumbents, even those without opponents. Not surprisingly then, with money, publicity, and district lines so stacked against them, most potential challengers don’t even bother.

But nationwide now, voters are rebelling. Several states, including Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, have passed campaign finance reform. Candidates there may opt to have the state pay for their campaigns (just like the President), as long as they don’t take money from the outside. Hallelujah! A number of challengers last month used this provision to win. This may be the biggest victory for American democracy since women won the right to vote.

Connecticut likewise passed a reform law last spring, at least in the General Assembly. But as you may recall, the governor vetoed it. Surely it will come up again next spring, too, and once more democracy will be on the line.

(Columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk.)