Testimony 01/06/2022 - Nathan Rybner, Lancaster
Hi there, first I would like to thank the commission on legislative reapportionment for allowing me to speak remotely, in my home county of Lancaster County we are expecting snow this evening so this is a wonderful accommodation. I would also like to thank every member of this commission for the hard work you all have put into this process, regardless of my feelings over the work done thus far. Thank you Chairman Mark Nordenberg, Republicans Kim Ward and Kerry Benninghoff, and Democrats Jay Costa and Joanna McClinton/Mathew Bradford. I am here to testify about my feelings and the feelings I’ve gathered from other Lancaster County residents about the maps that have been put forward. My name is Nathan Rybner, I am a 20 year old resident in Manheim Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, I am currently a resident of the 97th House District and the 13th Senate district. In the new maps, you put me in the 96th house district, and the 36th senate district. I am going to begin my testimony with the senate map. I can live with the senate map. I believe it to be a fair compromise map for my county. Lancaster County is currently split between two state senate seats, the 13th and the 36th, that contain no territory outside of Lancaster County. The 13th covers southern Lancaster County, and the 36th covers Northern Lancaster County. Manheim Township has a sister community in Lititz that votes extremely similarly to Manheim Township in elections, has an extremely similar culture, and has similar property values, more comparable than any other municipality in the rest of the county. That’s why our state house seat since the 60s has been comprised of Manheim Township, and Lititz. Keeping these sister communities together in the state senate is an excellent choice, and I must commend you for it. Considering there is no member of the commission from Lancaster County, you did do a good job. I’m afraid I do not have the same feelings about the state house maps. If necessary, I urge you to extend the framed deadline if needed, because this is a serious process that truly requires it to be done right. This happens once every ten years, and we need to make sure communities are represented correctly. If people don’t have proper representation at a local level, then we don’t have a democratic system for them to adhere to. At a local level, people want to be represented by like-minded communities. I’ll get started. For starters, you split Lancaster City. Lancaster City has never been split in the history of state house districts. The public reason it was allegedly split was to give Hispanics and underrepresented groups more representation in Lancaster County without them having to face a 32 year incumbent. This is allegedly why the 50th district was drawn as a new district in Lancaster County. Yet it does not amplify the Hispanic representation as claimed. It creates a new district that is 43% white and 37% Hispanic. Hardly different than the current 96th district that represents all of Lancaster City. I submitted several maps that were Lancaster County variations of the preliminary map that this commission has put forward. One of my maps, makes the 50th district a 40% Hispanic and 39% white district. But of course, you will still need to split Lancaster City, something that would cause great controversy. If you’re trying to create more Hispanic representation, you don’t put them in a district with Millersville, a borough that is 78% white, and an 87% white precinct of West Lampeter Township. Nor do you connect it to half of a Manheim Township Precinct that is 83% white. It simply doesn’t make any sense. If this fixes the dilemma, then I solved it for this commission. I would recommend choosing the submitted map titled “Plan B Modification for Lancaster County” But of course, if you are drawing a district map that is for keeping municipalities together, I would suggest the last map I submitted, “Plan D” Several additional problems with the current preliminary map I was able to identify are the following: part of the 41st district is surrounded by the 96th. In the past, especially if the population is only surrounded by a few people, having a block or two outside of the district usually isn’t a major complaint. But 300 people in Lancaster County are going to be residing, completely not contiguous with the rest of their district. This is why Manheim Township has always been paired with Lititz, and not East Petersburg. We try our best to avoid these issues. In the maps I submitted, I tried my best to avoid school district and township splits when avoidable, and I can say I would recommend any of them, as a fix to the current mess of a map in Lancaster County. The current map has been criticized as a democratic gerrymander in our local newspaper, referring to the new 96th district as having part of Lancaster City as a “sink” of democratic votes. Those that live in Lancaster City have very little in common with the suburbs to the north. I urge you to modify these current preliminary maps. They split communities that have had like-minded representation for decades, and it would greatly frustrate many. I know other complaints exist like Ephrata residents no longer being in the 99th district being a major complaint, but alas my point is simple: please change the maps to reflect our communities. Thank you, and I hope those of you driving home tonight have a safe drive if you’re driving through snow.