The incredible shrinking legislature: redistricting is hard enough, but to try to combine it with downsizing is more than just tough. This year the rhode island legislature had to eliminate a quarter of its members. It wasn't easy, but it's done.

Legislators are switching political parties and moving to new districts. Critics are decrying the impact on female legislators and minority voters. One lawsuit has been filed, and more are expected.

This is Rhode Island, where the voters agreed to slash the size of the House of Representatives from 100 to 75 members, and the Senate from 50 to 38.

It stems from a 1994 constitutional amendment and represents the biggest reduction in a legislature since the Massachusetts House in 1974 and Illinois House in 1983 each shrunk by one-third.

"It's like going to a family reunion every single year, and then, all of a sudden, having one out of four people not get an invitation," says Senator Joseph A. Montalbano, a North Providence Democrat who was vice chairman of the state's redistricting commission in 1992 and 2002. "It's a lot more stressful for individual legislators this time around."

Rhode Island is not completely alone in downsizing this year; North Dakota is reducing its legislature by 4 percent. But Kimball W. Brace the Rhode Island redistricting consultant who has worked on redistricting plans from Alaska to Florida, says the state had the most intriguing remap in the country this year. And with fall elections fast approaching, the 25 percent reduction in the General Assembly is having a big impact on the smallest state.

"It has been tumultuous because the redrawing of district lines is pitting incumbents against incumbents," says Brown University political science Professor Darrell M. West. "Change is startling to the political process, and a lot of incumbents are nervous about this because they are running in unfamiliar territory."

Brace said there's no doubt other state legislatures see significant turnover because of term limits and redistricting. But he said it is rare indeed for a legislature to face the possibility of having 25 percent of each chamber pitted against another 25 percent of that chamber.

"Everybody is going through redistricting this year," Brace says. "But as an overall exercise, Rhode Island is unique in this decade in the number of forced pairings being caused by downsizing."

THE IMPETUS

The downsizing idea flowed from a reform effort following a state banking crisis and a variety of associated scandals. A commission chaired by Gary S. Sasse, executive director of the business-backed Rhode Island Public Expenditure council, recommended a smaller, better-paid legislature as part of a plan to curtail parochialism while making the General Assembly more modern, effective and accountable.

In November 1994, voters approved a referendum for a constitutional amendment that increased pay for legislators from a maximum of $300 a year to $10,000 a year, eliminated pensions for new lawmakers and called for downsizing the legislature through the 2000 redistricting process. Instead of around 10,500 residents in a House district, legislators would now represent 14,000. Senate districts jumped from 21,000 to 28,000.

"The goal of downsizing was to increase responsibility and give individual legislators an opportunity to influence decisions and be more effective in representing their constituents," Sasse says.

H. Philip West Jr., executive director of common cause of Rhode Island, served on the commission with Sasse. He predicts another byproduct of downsizing: competition. In 2000, half of the 150 Assembly seats were uncontested. "We are certainly going to see more competitive races in this legislative session than we have seen in a long time," he says. And that's good, he maintains. "When there are competitive elections, you are more likely to have real debates about issues--whether you are talking about gambling, tax policies, environmental issues or educational fund distribution. I think it will help."

The size of legislative bodies was more of an issue in the 1960s and '70s when several states significantly reduced the number of lawmakers. The Connecticut House twice reduced the number of members during the 1960s going from 294 to 177 and later from 177 to the current 151. During the 1960s, Vermont reduced its House from 246 to 150; Georgia cut its House from 205 to 180; and Ohio slashed its House from 137 to 99. The Massachusetts House went from 294 to 160 members in the mid-1970s. Reformers often supported reducing the size of the legislature to create more visibility for the remaining members and enhance the prestige and attractiveness of serving. They felt cuts were needed to counter high turnover rates and the lack of public awareness of legislative activities.

But opponents in Rhode Island fought the proposal in 1994, and they continued battling this year, even after the redistricting commission held 21 public meetings and produced the new House and Senate maps.

Like others, Montalbano says a downsized legislature would be less personal. "There'll be 25 percent fewer people representing the average Rhode Islander." And when critics protested that the new district lines divided communities, he said, "The devil is in the downsizing."

Representative Charlene M. Lima made a last-ditch effort to stave off downsizing, saying voters should be given another chance to vote on the issue now that they see how the maps could diminish the presence of minorities, women and others in the legislature. "It sounded[ like a good idea on the surface," she says of downsizing, "but once we got involved in the process, we found out people would have less of a voice and neighborhoods would be broken up."

Lima questioned the legality of the 1994 vote, but a House committee rejected her attempt to seek a court opinion on the matter.

MALE LEADERS FARE WELL

When the new maps first came out, attention focused on how the legislative leaders fared. House Speaker John B. Harwood, a Democrat widely viewed as the state's most powerful politician, ended up with no other incumbent in his new district.

Senate Majority Leader William V. Irons, a Democrat, also has no other incumbent in his East Providence district. But two other members of the Senate leadership team did wind up pitted against each other in a Providence district. Senator Maryellen Goodwin, chairwoman of the Special Legislation Committee, and Senator Catherine E. Graziano, chairwoman of the Health Education and Welfare Committee, are expected to square off in a Democratic primary in September.

"It's unprecedented to have two committee chairs in the same district," Montalbano says. The pairing resulted from several factors, including the decision to keep most Providence Senate districts within city borders to avoid diluting minority voting strength, he says.

Attention also focused on how political rivals fared on the redistricting maps. A Providence Journal analysis showed that those who had opposed House Majority Leader Gerard Martineau and Senator Irons in their leadership battles were more likely than other Democrats to be facing an incumbent in the upcoming elections.

There was no systematic attempt to wipe rivals off the political map. But lawmakers such as Representative Charles J. Levesque said House leaders did a surprisingly efficient job of protecting favored legislators and targeting dissidents such as himself.

"On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give them an 11," Levesque says. "They took care of anybody who matters to them."

Levesque, a Democrat frequently critical of House leaders, was pitted against a Republican in a new district that contains 77 percent of the former GOP district. "I accept that I am being punished for some of the positions that I have taken," he wrote to a reporter at one point. "I do not mind being a martyr, but I want some publicity for my crucifixion."

Levesque found an alternative to martyrdom, however. He called U-Haul and moved to another neighborhood that is in a different House district. His percentages are more favorable in his new home.

But no one said moving would be easy. On the day he left, his moving truck broke down. "I opened the hood and the battery hookup was burned off. I looked around and I was convinced' the House leadership was not involved," Levesque jokes. "They couldn't affect a national company like U-Haul."

While Levesque changed addresses, other lawmakers began changing party affiliations. One Republican representative became a Democrat. And Representative Mary Ann F. Carroll left the Democratic Party in March, saying she probably will run as an independent.

Carroll accused Democrats of failing to support female candidates and blasted the redistricting plan, which pitted her against Democrat Deputy Speaker Thomas Winfield, in a district that's 84.5 percent his.

"It was designed to protect the 'good old boys' at the expense of everyone else," Carroll says of the redistricting plan. "As a result, towns such as mine were carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey."

Speaker Harwood denied any attempt to protect or punish legislators in the mapmaking process.

"It has probably been one of the most unique years," he says. "In downsizing, you don't have enough seats for all the members who want to run. It creates an unknown. You have representatives vs. representatives. It's a little edgy right now."

FEMALES FEAR LOST POWER

A Providence Journal analysis of .the new House and Senate maps showed that female lawmakers are more likely than their male colleagues to be in districts where they would face incumbents in the next election.

Seven of the 10 female senators face incumbents--a prospect awaiting fewer than half the 40 male senators. In the House, 62.5 percent of the women face incumbents, compared with 45 percent of the males.

Brown University Professor West says his biggest concern about redistricting and downsizing is the likelihood that women's political power will be eroded. "Rhode Island didn't have a lot of women in the legislature to begin with," he says, "and it's probably going to end up with fewer women after the elections."

Rhode Island is the most female state in the country, with women accounting for 51.9 percent of the population, according to the new census data. Yet women account for just 22.6 percent of the General Assembly.

Brace says mapmakers were not required to factor gender into their decisions. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, women are not considered a protected class. "Other than putting nunneries together," he says, "there are few ways to create a female-specific district."

Senator M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, a Newport Democrat who made an impassioned speech when the redistricting commission came to her city, urged the panel to go beyond minimum constitutional requirements. "How many of us want a house just built to minimum building code?" she asked.

Paiva-Weed, who faces a male incumbent in a primary, says she does not think the redistricting commission intended to pit a greater proportion of women than men against incumbents. It was probably an unintended consequence of having too few women in the existing power structure. Nonetheless, she says, it could have been avoided.

"I have talked with the women in the Senate, and we are not going quietly into the night," says Paiva-Weed. "We have to buckle down and win the primaries."

West, of Common Cause, says a negative impact on women and minorities is by no means an automatic consequence of downsizing. "It depends entirely on how redistricting is done," he says. "The devil is in the details."

Montalbano emphasized that the commission had no intention of diluting female political power, saying the panel avoided some potential match-ups between women. "We are proud of the finished product," he says. "We think we did a good job of not basing decisions on pure politics or discriminatory motives against women or minorities."

BLACKS PROTEST SENATE MAP

Although the potential impact on women has generated a lot of concern, the impact on minority voters has generated one lawsuit, and at least one more is expected.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in May, charging that Senate districts in Providence are unfair to black voters and seeking to halt Senate elections until new districts are drawn.

The suit was filed on behalf of seven plaintiffs, including the Urban League of Rhode Island and the Providence branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It alleges violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

"We believe the new Senate plan violates federal law because it divides the African American community and prevents them from choosing who will represent them," says the lead plaintiff, former Representative Harold M. Metts.

The suit focuses on changes made to the area of Providence represented by Democratic Senator Charles D. Walton, the state's only black senator. Walton's current district is 25.7 percent black, while the new Senate district for that area is 21.4 percent black.

At the same time, a coalition of Hispanic groups and individuals is planning to file a lawsuit, charging that the Senate map illegally dilutes Hispanic voting power in Providence. The Senate contains no Hispanic members.

Nellie M. Gorbea, president of the Rhode Island Latino Political Action Committee, noted the state's Hispanic population doubled in the 1990s, and says the Senate could have a created a majority-Hispanic district in Providence.

Instead, critics say, the Senate packed a high percentage of minorities--including the state's highest concentration of Hispanics--into Walton's district, undercutting the chances of electing minorities in other city districts while protecting white incumbents.

"We will not allow African Americans to be pitted against Latinos in a struggle for political crumbs," says Dr. Pablo Rodriguez, former president of the Rhode Island Latino PAC.

Brace contended that minority groups were in essence seeking to create an "open" district--where there would be no incumbent opponent--for Juan M. Pichardo, an Hispanic candidate who narrowly lost a race for the Senate in the last election. The new Senate map placed Pichardo in the same district as Walton.

Senate leaders say an open district might be possible in a normal redistricting year, but not with downsizing. They vigorously defend the Senate map, noting it maintains five nonwhite majority districts despite downsizing. And they say the four nonwhite majority districts in Providence provide fertile ground for minority candidates in the future.

"In Providence, the major driving force was to respect the minority voting strength," Montalbano says. "We bent over backward to respect those interests."

Rhode Island's Republican governor, Lincoln Almond, cited the objections of minority groups when he decided to let the redistricting bill become law without his signature.

Montalbano says the redistricting process was stressful, and he is glad he won't have to deal with downsizing again. "It was particularly challenging because certain friends ended up in tough races," he says.

For the mapmakers, the combination of redistricting and downsizing created a complex set of interlocking considerations.

"It's the Rubik's Cube of politics," Senate Majority Leader Irons says. "The difference is that when it's done, not everyone will cheer."

RELATED ARTICLE: DESCENDANT OF ELBRIDGE GERRY GERRYMANDERED?

Senator June N. Gibbs says her district was gerrymandered during the legislative redistricting in Rhode Island this year. And she should know gerrymandering when she sees it.

Gibbs is a descendant of former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who gave rise to the term "gerrymander" when in 1812 he approved a salamander-shaped district. (The hard "g" in Gerry has been long since mispronounced like a "j").

The new Senate map puts Gibbs in a district bisected by the miles-wide Sakonnet River. H. Philip West Jr., executive director of Common Cause of Rhode Island, dubbed the district "The Sakonnet Swim," noting Gibbs will have to drive 20 miles, pass through two other Senate districts and cross a bridge unless she plans to swim to reach her constituents on the far shore.

Gibbs, West and others say the district's odd configuration aims to get rid of Senator William Enos, former majority whip under Paul S. Kelly, who was ousted as Senate majority leader by William V. Irons. Senate leaders deny the charge.

But there's no denying that the new district pits Gibbs, a Middletown Republican, against Enos, a Tiverton Democrat, in a district that is 61 percent Middletown and 14 percent Tiverton.

Gibbs, who became the first woman to serve on the Middletown Town Council before she was elected to the Senate in 1984, said she is looking forward to the challenge of running in new territory. Rather than swim, she says she could always windsurf the two miles it takes to get across the Sakonnet from Middletown. The former Navy lieutenant has done it twice before, and she's thinking of doing it again this summer, when she'll celebrate her 80th birthday.

Gibbs is also looking for some assistance from voters. "When I'm going around," she said, "I'm asking people for their vote and their boat."

Edward Fitzpatrick covers the Rhode Island General Assembly for the Providence Journal.