Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/27/2021
AMHERST – The Town Council met Oct. 18 to discuss several items, but the bulk of conversation from the night was focused on the new redistricting proposals.
In a presentation done by the Directing Advisory Board (DAB), proposed new districts were displayed to the town in hopes of finally getting a map approved by the town to be sent to the state. The DAB has worked through many different previous variations of the maps to try and not only keep community neighborhoods together, but also to abide by state regulation.
The redistricting comes following the results of the 2020 federal census that showed the town population rose by 1,444 people to 39,263 inhabitants. It also showed more Amherst residents are living downtown and on the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass) campus.
According to the state, precincts within districts must have under 4,000 residents and all must be within a 5 percent variance of each other in order to be legal. Before the new proposed redistricting maps, Amherst saw eight of their 10 precincts failing to meet the requirement. Precincts also must be adjusted to pair in different ways so the number of active voters in each district are similar.
The new proposed map also was focused on balancing the number of voters and works to keep neighborhoods with high numbers of Black residents, and Latino residents together and not isolate them in mainly white districts. This move could lead to an increase in electoral equity for Black and Latino residents, which was a goal of the project and something addressed as important by the committee.
According to the DAB, 82 percent of people remain in the same precinct as before, while 61 percent of residents remain in the same district under the proposed map. In terms of voters, 78 percent remain in the same precinct, and 67 percent remain in the same district. With the latest iteration of a proposed redistricted map, the town is required to submit the approved map by Oct. 29, with a possibly council vote coming on Oct. 25. If the town fails to submit an approved map, the state would be given the opportunity to create one that would be implemented on the town’s behalf. If approved by the state, precinct and district changes would go into effect in 2022.
According to the DAB, the state had not been able to follow their own regulations when they shared a version of a possible new district for the town as they sent an 11-precinct map that would also violate the town charter.
While many attending the meeting expressed gratitude for the DAB’s hard and continuous work in figuring out the best possible redistricted maps, there was one big issue with the latest version that two council members could not look away from.
Council member Evan Ross raised concerns for the way UMass was divided up into multiple districts. Ross claimed that while he appreciated the DAB’s efforts to prioritize racial equity, he was troubled by how students were moved. According to Ross, in conversations he has had with local students and others who are inside the UMass community, many feel as though this new proposed map suppresses students’ vote and in a town where 41 percent of the population is on-campus UMass students, why would they be shut out like they believe the proposed map shows?
Council member Mandi Jo Hanneke followed on that point asking if this proposal would even be legal considering its “deliberately” separating students in a way that would weaken their voice. She also brought up how on the proposed map the Southwest dorm buildings on the UMass campus would be split into two different districts, one half (Precinct 4) in the new District 3 with the South Amherst apartment complexes, and the other (Precinct 9) in new District 4 joining with downtown Amherst. Previous maps worked through did not have this issue, according to Hanneke.
Others within the council disagreed and felt as though the participation rate of college students in voting and town government do not provide enough of a reason for this version of the map to also be thrown out when many are pleased the DAB have finally come to a proposal that meets most of the requests from the town.
Committee member Peggy Shannon said keeping students together as best they could was at odds with the goal of ensuring the voices of people of color are heard. Ultimately, the map was settled the way it was for best meeting many of the states requirements as well as giving minority voices an opportunity to grow through the electorate.
Council member Dorothy Pam expressed that she did not believe there was any disenfranchisement of students in the proposed map and felt that the previous five iterations had too many issues compared to this one. She also made the point that due to UMass students’ track record with voting and involvement in the towns politics and her own experience trying to reach students, that there is a problem in achieving that.
“We have to deal in reality,” Pam said.
Pam did receive minor pushback from her fellow council member George Ryan, who disagreed with her point on students being unable to connect with students to get them involved.
“I’ve been to campus three times now and I go up and talk to them. Ninety-five percent of the time, students respond and are engaged and interested, and I speak to them about what we do on the Town Council,” Ryan said.
In making a larger point about students’ interests, it seems the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. It is a complicated process for the town to register voters who live on campus for a few reasons. The first being that many students do not live in Amherst and are only attending school there, so they may already be registered in their hometown.
While disputing there was ever an effort to discriminate against students, committee member Tracy Zafian said the density of Southwest was a significant challenge in redistricting.
Another issue is if students do register on campus, they must have the exact dorm room listed with their information or else mail fails to get to the students. Not only is that a concern, but typically many freshmen end up moving into off-campus housing after a year or two, switching their address again and throwing another wrench in the process of registering in the town to vote.
One possibly suggestion was putting UMass students all in one district, but there was not a lot of support for the idea.
The DAB was given time to respond to many of the topics brought up when discussing their map proposal. Dee Shabazz, a DAB committee member, wanted to make sure there were no thoughts that the group had purposely tried to potentially divide student voices.
“I think it’s important to understand this small but dedicated group did their due diligence and homework to base their decisions on what was allotted by the state and was required by the state,” Shabazz said. “This red herring that they were discriminating students is not so. This needs to be clear because that type of narrative going forward is damaging to this group that put the work in.”
According to Shabazz, the group looked at the numbers from 2020 based on residents in dorms and with the consistent flow of students moving in and out each year, it is not as black and white as its being made out to be. Shabazz also suggested that more of the issue is on the town’s behalf as they want students to be more involved, but do not do the proper things necessary in educating them and keeping them in the loop for elections and town information.
Mahek Ghelani, a member for the DAB committee and a student at UMass, said due to the constant moving of students in dorms, there is a roadblock to total uniformity in redistricting.
“This factor was taken into consideration, however this is no perfect way due to UMass populations continual growth. This is the best effort towards creating some sort of equity and abiding by state guidelines,” Ghelani said.
The council could vote on the plan as soon as Oct. 25 so they can submit it to the state’s Local Election District Review Committee by the end of October.