I am shocked at the redistricting proposal affecting Plainfield and Cornish. Shocked, but not surprised (“Proposal splits up Cornish, Plainfield,” Nov. 9). I knew redistricting was coming and the Sullivan 1 district would not remain in its current configuration. However, never in my wildest nightmare did I envision what the committee proposed.
As noted by both Democrats and Republicans, Plainfield and Cornish have close ties. Many residents see them as sister towns, wedded by shared activities and their ease of accessing each other, via Route 120 on the east and Route 12A on the west. According to the New Hampshire Constitution (Article 11): “In forming the districts, the boundaries of towns, wards, and unincorporated places shall be preserved and contiguous.”
Plainfield and Cornish fit this requirement perfectly, with the small deviation above the 3,444 resident per representative limit going to a floterial district. Under this scenario, Plainfield and Cornish would actually lose a representative, going from three (two dedicated representatives and one in a floterial district) to two (one dedicated and one floterial). But these two would more closely represent the interests of the two towns.
The Republican version of the proposed redistricting follows the letter of the constitution in offering “preserved and contiguous” boundaries. But it sure doesn’t follow the spirit. Plainfield does share a short boundary with Croydon — inside the private Corbin Park hunting preserve — but certainly not Springfield. You can’t even drive directly from Plainfield to Croydon. You must drive north to Lebanon, get on I-89 south and get back off, or drive south through Claremont, then east and back north. It’s an even longer drive to Springfield. In other words, “You can’t get there from here.”
Gerrymandering is by no means restricted to the Republican Party. Witness Illinois, which has a Democratic Legislature (“Gerrymandering spikes across US,” Nov. 11). Parties do what they feel is in their best interest. To my mind, the real villain in New Hampshire is Gov. Chris Sununu. He twice vetoed bills that would have created a nonpartisan redistricting commission.
RICHARD ATKINSON
Plainfield
The writer is a member of the Plainfield Democratic Committee. The views expressed are his own.
In your otherwise excellent article on the proposed redistricting that would tear Plainfield and Cornish apart in representation in the New Hampshire House (“Proposal splits up Cornish, Plainfield,” Nov. 9), there was one point that needs elaboration, namely that House districts are to include towns with shared community interests.
Cornish and Plainfield share multiple community interests, while there are none between Cornish and Newport and Goshen. There are official town committees that serve Cornish and Plainfield, such as the energy committees. The school systems have a common superintendent. The Cornish Rescue Squad serves both communities.
There are multiple interactions between Cornish and Plainfield centered on Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park and the summer location of Opera North. There are large tracts of forest that cross between Cornish and Plainfield, and residents of the two towns make use of these forests for recreation. And, of course, there is joint participation in the Cornish Fair and Plainfield’s July 4th parade.
No such interactions occur between Cornish and Newport. In fact, while Cornish and Plainfield have numerous roads that join the two towns and have shared commerce, Cornish abuts Newport at a single inaccessible point with no direct way of getting from Cornish to Newport. In fact, the only reason for going to Newport is to visit the DMV office.
Having shared community interests dictates that we should continue to have a shared representative. In addition, scanning the voting results of recent elections demonstrates that the planned division will dilute the Democratic votes of Cornish with the higher Republican registration of Newport and Goshen, an action that meets the definition of gerrymandering.
JONATHAN GLASS
and JANE CRANDELL-GLASS
Cornish Flat
I launched my campaign for Claremont City Council on Sept. 24. Over the course of my campaign, I met with countless voters to walk around downtown and talk about what matters most to them. I hosted six events, including two meet-and-greets and a dog meetup. My team of volunteers and I knocked on hundreds of doors to talk with our neighbors about the election, and along the way we created a movement and led a conversation about Claremont’s future. I am so thankful and humbled for the strong campaign we built and to have ultimately earned an at-large seat on the Claremont City Council.
Thank you to everyone who believed in and supported this campaign. This victory is about what we can do when we work together, and it belongs to everyone who believes that we can build a Claremont that works for all of us. I would also like to thank the candidates who did not make it but put themselves out there and ran for City Council. Our community is stronger because of the work you did to bring people in.
I’m looking forward to getting to work with the new council to address the issues that matter most to folks in Claremont. In the meantime, I am excited to continue connecting with folks and encourage anyone to contact me through my email at hello@mattmooshian.com. As I said during the campaign, together we can build a Claremont that works for all of us. Now let’s get to work.
MATT MOOSHIAN
Claremont