SENATE
590
REPORT
OF
THE
JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
December 2, 1953
BOSTON
WRIGHT
&
POTTER PRINTING CO., LEGISLATIVE PRINTERS
32 DERNE STREET
[954
Ct)c Commontuealtt) of spassactmsetts
MEMBERSHIP.
ippointed by the President of the Sena
Newland H. Holmes, Weymouth, <
Ralph Lerchb, Northampton.
J. Evans, Wakefield
John Adams, Andov
George
John E. Powers, South Boston
William D. Fleming, Worceste
Appointed by the Speaker
of the House of Representativ
Clarence F. Telford, Plainville, House Chairman
Charles F. Plolman, Norwood.
Nathaniel Tildbn, Scituate.
Charles E. Ferguson, Lexington
J. Philip Howard, Westminster.
George E. Rawson, Newton.
Stanley
E. Johnson, Worcester
Theodore J. Vaitses, Melrose.
Edward J. DeSaulnier, Jr., Chelmsford.
Charles A. Bisbeb, Jr., Chesterfield.
C. Henry Glovsky, Beverlj
Charles Kaplan, Dorcheste
John J. Toomey, Cambridge
Joseph F. Walsh, Lynn.
John F. Thompson, Ludlow,
1
Because of the resignation in the House of Representative C. Henry Glovsky, the .Speak*
Frank S. Giles, Jr., in his place to serve as a member of the Committee.
appointed
C&c Commontoealti) of Massachusetts
REPORT OF THE JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
December 2, 1953
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives.
The Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting, created by a Resolve, chapter 85 of 1953, signed by
the Governor on July 2, 1953, herewith submits its
report.
The President of the Senate appointed the following
senators to serve on this committee: Newland H. Holmes,
Ralph Lerche, George J. Evans, John Adams, John E.
Powers and William D. Fleming; and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives appointed the following members of the House; Clarence F. Telford, Charles F. Holman, Nathaniel Tilden, Charles E. Ferguson, J. Philip
Howard, George E. Rawson, Stanley E. Johnson, Theodore J. Valises, Edward J. DeSaulnier, Jr., Charles A.
Bisbee, Jr., C. Henry Glovsky, Charles Kaplan, John J.
Toomey, Joseph F. Walsh and John F. Thompson.
Subsequently, the Speaker appointed Frank S. Giles,
Jr., to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
C.
Henry Glovsky.
Organization.
Your committee met and organized on Monday, August 31, and elected Senator Newland H. Holmes of
Weymouth, chairman, Representative Clarence F. Telford of Plainville, House chairman, and George P. Anderson of Boston, secretary.
Official notice to the committee from the Governor
that His Excellency had been notified by the clerk of the
House of Representatives in Washington of the popula-
6
SENATE —No. 590.
[Jan.
tion figures of the Commonwealth, as shown by the seventeenth decennial census, revealed a total of 4,690,514,
established the figure of 335,081 as the unit for the several congressional districts in this Commonwealth, as
provided by the Constitution, and placed the duty upon
your Committee to arrange the districts in such a manner
to conform with existing law
Your committee therefore proceeded with its duty to
arrange fhe districts in such a manner as to be “compact
and contiguous,” with due consideration to the geographical considerations and the size of the unit to be dealt
with as set by the U. S. Census figure. The Committee
considers this a mandate owing to the fact that the State
Constitution provides that the Senatorial, Representative and Councillor Districts shall be contiguous and
compact.
Meetinc
Your committee has had numerous executive meeting;
md made extensive studies and analyses, and consid
ered many proposals. It herewith presents for your
approval an arrangement of the districts which it believes to be in accordance with the directives of the
Constitution of Massachusetts.
Statistical Data.
The Secretary of State, through Daniel F. Mulcahy,
supervisor of the division of elections, supplied the committee with printed and photostatic data on election returns, and assisted the committee by making available
city and town election statistics in advance of the final
publication for the year 1952.
All population figures used in this report are taken from
the federal census statistics, as published in a pamphlet
entitled “The Population of Massachusetts as Determined by the 17th census of the United States in the
year 1950,” compiled by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and edited by the State Census Director, Ralph
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590
7
R. Currier, dated October 3, 1951 (See House Document
No. 2860.)
All present members of the Congress were invited by
the committee to attend an executive hearing, to consult
with the committee in connection with the proper arrangement of the various districts. Several Congressmen were either out of the country or unable, for various
reasons, to come. Several did accept the invitation and
attended the meeting, and others who were unable to attend contacted the committee in other ways.
The committee received a large number of letters and
telegrams recommending changes in Congressional lines,
or requesting the retention in various districts of specified towns or cities. All these suggestions were given
consideration and many of them were adopted, but for
quota reasons a large number of them could not be followed without throwing a district out of balance, or
lessening a desired quota in some other district.
The following plan, being the most acceptable in meeting the difficulties encountered, and supplying the required fourteen districts, was endorsed by a majority of
your Special Committee and is herewith recommended
to the General Court, with accompanying legislation
marked Appendix “A”.
SENATE
8
[Jan.
No. 590.
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
Summary.
[Populat
figures
from United States Gen
of
1950.
Population.
I
348,968
301,224
320,184
334,113
370,361
305,119
333,143
303,376
340,651
360,615
313,453
362,862
354,679
4
6
/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
341,766
Total
4,690,514
District No. 1.
Berkshire County.
Adams
Alford
Becket
Cheshire
Clarksburg
Dalton
Egremont
Florida
Great Barrington
Hancock
Hinsdale
Lanesborough
Lee
Lenox
Monterey
Mount Washington
New Ashford
New Marlborough
North Adams
12,034
212
755
2,022
1,630
4,772
731
479
6,712
445
1,560
2,069
4,820
3,627
367
34
118
989
21,567
1954.]
SENATE
Disi
Otis
Peru
Pittsfield
Richmond
Sandisfield
Savoy
.
Sheffield
Stockbridge
Tyringham
Washington
West Stockbridge
Williamstown
Windsor
Ash field
Rernardston
Buckland
Charlemont
Colrain
Conway
Deerfield
Pirving
Gill
.
Greenfield
Hawley
Heath
Leverett
Leyden
Monroe
Montague
New Salem
Northfield
Orange
Rowe
Shelburne
Shutesbury
Sunderland
Warwick
Wendell
Whately
.
.
No. 590.
9
10
SENATE —No. 590.
District No. 1
[Jan.
Continued.
Hampden County.
Population
District
54,661
Holyoke
Westfield
20,962
Hampshire County.
Belchertown
Chesterfield
Cummington
Goshen
4,487
496
620
321
1,861
295
579
228
10,145
2,056
462
Granby
Middlefield
Pelham
Plainfield
South Hadley
Williamsburg
Worthington
Worcester County.
Ashburnham
Athol
2,603
11,554
5,662
4,908
.
Fitchburg, Wd. 3
Fitchburg, Wd. 4
Fitchburg, Wd. 5
4,240
Gardner
Hubbardston
Petersham
Royalston
Templeton
.
.
Phillipston
.
Westminster
Winchendon
Total
District No. 2.
Hampden County.
Agawam
Blandford
Brimfield
10,166
597
1,182
1954.]
SENATE
District No. 2
District
No. 590.
11
Continued.
Popu!
Chester
East Longmeadow
Granville
Hampden
1,292
4,881
Holland
Longmeadow
Monson
Montgomery
Russell
Southwick
Springfield
Tolland
Wales .
West Springfield
Wilbraham
.003
.
Amherst
Easthampton
Hadley
Hatfield
Huntington
Northampton
Southhampton
Westhampton
.
Brookfield
Charlton
East Brookfield
New Braintree
North Brookfield
Sturbridge
Warren
.
West Brookfield
Total
478
3,444
2,805
3,406
1,674
301,224
12
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
District No. 3.
Fitchburg, Wd. 1
Fitchburg, Wd. 2
Fitchburg, Wd. 6
Hardwick
Lancaster
Leicester
Leominster
Millbury
Oakham
Oxford .
Princeton
Rutland
Southbridge
Spencer
Webster
Worcester, Wd. 3
Worcester, Wd. 4
Worcester, Wd. 5
Total
320,184
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590.
13
District No. 4.
Middlesex County.
District,
Populatic
Ashland
Framingham
Hopkinton .
Sherborn
3,500
28,086
3,486
1,245
2,596
47,187
4,407
5,026
Sudbury
Waltham
Wayland
Weston
Worcester
County.
Auburn
Berlin
Blackstone
8,840
Boylston
1,700
2,624
8,281
1,349
4,908
Douglas
Grafton
Holden
Mendon
Milford
Millville
5,975
1,619
15,442
1,692
3,122
Northborough
Northbridge
10,476
1,066
10,594
2,760
2,166
Paxton
Shrewsbury
Southborough
Sterling
Sutton
3,102
Upton
2,656
7,007
7,378
2,570
Uxbridge
Westborough
West Boylston
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Worcester, Wd.
Total
.
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
19,004
24,337
19,323
19,010
15,134
18,959
17,426
334,113
14
SENATE —No. 590.
[Jan.
District No. 5.
Middlesex County.
District.
Population,
3,510
44,363
1,464
5,740
6,234
Acton
Arlington
Ashby
.
Ayer
Bedford
Belmont
27,381
11,101
439
3,250
10,959
9,464
876
9,407
8,623
Billerica
Boxborough
Burlington
Cambridge, Wd. 7
Cambridge, Wd. 8
Carlisle
Chelmsford
.
Concord
Dracut
8,666
522
2,889
17,335
Dunstable
Groton
Lexington
2,427
Lincoln
2,349
Littleton
Lowell
97,249
3,460
.
Peppered
4,271
Shirley
Tewksbury
7,505
.
.
2,817
.
37,329
Townsend
Tyngsborough
Watertown
2,059
Westford
4,262
7,039
Wilmington
Woburn
20,492
Worcester County.
Harvard
3,983
Lunenburg
3,906
Total
370,361
1954.]
SENATE
15
No. 590.
District No. 6.
District.
Essex County.
Boxford
Danvers
Essex
Georgetown
Gloucester
Groveland
Hamilton
Haverhill
2,340
2,764
47,280
6,895
8,176
22,405
2,868
13,765
'l
2,804
v
24,477
2,679
1,994
14,111
4,231
1,768
41,880
2,695
11,580
1,412
Ipswich
Lynn, Wd. 2
Lynn, Wd. 3
Manchester
Marblehead
Merrimac
Methuen
Nahant
Newbury
Newburyport
Rockport
Rowley
Salem
)■
Salisbury
Swampscott
Topsfield
Wenham
West
Population
10,851
28,884
926
15,720
1,794
2,411
25,167
Amesbury
Beverly
1,644
y
1,598
Newbury
305,119
Total
District No.
7.
Essex County.
Lawrence
Lynn, Wd. 1
Lynn, Wd. 4
Lynn, Wd. 5
Lynn, Wd. 6
Lynn, Wd. 7
Middleton
North Andover
Peabody
80,536
6,606
16,976
18,853
20,333
6,389
2,916
8,485
22,645
16
SENATE
District No. 7
No. 590.
[Jan.
Concluded.
District
Everett, Wd. 1 .
Everett, Wd. 5 .
Somerville, Wd. 1
Somerville, Wd. 4
Somerville, Wd. 5
Chelsea
Revere
Winthrop
Total
Andover
Lynn field
Saugus
Everett,
Everett,
Everett,
Everett,
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
2
11,227
3
12,885
4
7,160
6
6,956
Malden
Medford
59,804
66,113
Melrose
26,988
North Reading
4,402
14,006
Reading
Somerville, Wd.
Stoneham
Wakefield
Winchester
Total
6
11,938
13,229
19,633
15,509
303,376
1954.]
District.
Barnstable
Bourne
Brewster
Chatham
Dennis
Eastham
Falmouth
Harwich
Mashpee
Orleans
Brovin cetown
Sandwich
Truro
Wellfleet
Yarmouth
Acushnet
Dartmouth
Fairhaven
Fall River, Wd. 6
New Bedford
Westport
Chilmark
Edgartown
Gay Head
Gosnold
Oak Bluffs
Tisbury
West
Tisbury
Nantucket
Cohasset
SENATE
No. 590.
17
SENATE —No. 590.
18
District No. 9
[Jan.
Continued.
Plymouth County.
District,
Population,
Abington
7,152
9,612
1,530
3,167
Bridgewater
Carver .
Duxbury
East Bridgewater
Halifax
Hanover
Hanson
Hingham
4,412
944
3,389
3,264
10,665
Hull
3,379
Kingston
Lakeville
Marion
Marshfield
Mattapoisett
Middleboro
Norwell
Pembroke
Plymouth
Plympton
Rochester
Rockland
Scituate
Wareham
Whitman
3,461
2,066
2,250
3,267
2,265
10,164
2,515
2,579
13,608
697
1,328
8,960
5,993
7,569
8,413
Total
340,651
District No. 10.
Middlesex County.
Newton
81,994
Norfolk
County.
57,589
Brookline
Suffolk
Boston,
Boston,
Boston,
Boston,
Boston,
Boston,
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Total
4
5
12
19
20
21
County.
35,889
40,701
36,880
29,525
39,053
38,984
360,615
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590.
Disthict No.
11,
Middlesex County.
District.
19
Cambridge, Wd. 1
Cambridge, Wd. 2
Cambridge, Wd. 3
Cambridge, Wd. 4
Cambridge, Wd. 5
Cambridge, Wd. 6
Cambridge, Wd. 9
Population
13,726
15,337
9,020
10,405
10,407
15,631
7,966
8,982
8,844
16,958
Cambridge, Wd. 10
Cambridge, Wd. 11
Somerville, Wd. 2
Somerville, Wd. 3
12,883
Somerville, Wd. 7
14,093
Suffolk
County
53,296
31,332
50,644
Boston, Wd. 1
Boston, Wd. 2
Boston, Wd. 3
Boston, Wd. 22
33,930
313,453
Total
Disteict No. 12
Suffolk
County
Boston,
Boston, Wd. 7
9
10
11
13
14
30,328
34,484
29,355
33,357
30,281
30,456
29,805
52,580
15
26,661
16
Boston, Wd. 17
32,322
Wd. 6
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
Boston, Wd.
8
13,233
362,862
'otal
District No. 13.
Norfolk
Avon
Braintree
Canton
Dedham
County.
2,666
23,161
7,465
18,487
No. 590.
SENATE
20
District No. 13 Concluded.
Norfolk County Con.
District.
[Jan.
Population,
4,004
22,395
16,313
Holbrook
Milton
Needham
Norwood
.
16,636
83,835
Quincy
Randolph
9,982
Westwood
5,837
32,690
Weymouth
Plymouth County.
62,860
Brockton
Suffolk
County.
Boston, Wd. 18
48,348
354,679
Total
District No. 14
Bristol County.
Attleboro
23,809
1,284
Berkeley
2,950
6,244
Dighton
Easton
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Fall River,
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
Wd.
1
2
22,968
15,686
3
8,882
9,796
4
5
7
8
9
8,054
4,884
12,682
13,020
2,104
7,184
Freetown
Mansfield
North Attleborough
12,146
Norton
4,401
2,426
Raynham
Rehoboth
Seekonk
Somerset
Swansea
3,700
6,104
8,566
6,121
40,109
Taunton
Middlesex
Holliston
Natick
.
County
3,753
19,838
1954.]
SENATE
District No. 14
No. 590.
Concluded.
Norfolk County.
District.
21
Bellingham
Dover
Foxborough
Franklin
Medfield
Medway
Millis
Norfolk
Plainville
Sharon
Stoughton
Walpole
Population.
4,100
1,722
7,030
8,037
4,549
3,744
2,551
2,704
2,088
4,847
11,146
9,109
20,549
5,341
Wellesley
Wrentham
Plymouth County.
4,059
West Bridgewater
Worcester County.
3,479
Hopedale
341,766
Total
Respectfully submitted,
NEWLAND H. HOLMES.
CLARENCE F. TELFORD.
CHARLES E. FERGUSON.
NATHANIEL TILDEN.
CHARLES F. HOLMAN.
J. PHILIP HOWARD.
CHARLES A. BISBEE, Jr.
GEORGE E. RAWSON.
THEODORE J. VAITSES.
RALPH LERCHE. 1
STANLEY E. JOHNSON. 1
GEORGE J. EVANS.
FRANK S. GILES, Jr. 2
JOHN ADAMS. 1
Reserves his
rights,
Appointed a member to succeed Henry Glovsky, resigned,
22
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
MINORITY REPORT.
December 2, 1953.
In 1941 the Republican legislature, of which the
present Republican Governor, Christian A. Herter, was
Speaker of the House and the then Governor, Leverett
Saltonstall, destroyed the community of interests of the
various Congressional Districts in Massachusetts.
The present Republican Legislature, on the basis of
proposed changes suggested by the Legislative Redistricting Commission appointed this year, will make the
political steal of the 1941 Legislature resemble petty
larceny. The law provides penalties for various misdemeanors and crimes, but unfortunately no punishments
are provided for the political mayhem committed in this
instance under the guise of legality.
The proposed changes in Congressional Districts Nos.
1 and 2 liken the Republican majority on the Legislative
Committee to Machiavelli, who also made claim to being
a statesman but whose political doctrine allowed for any
means, however unscrupulous, to maintain power.
If Congressman Heselton of the First District approves
the suggested changes in the District he now represents,
he most certainly will sacrifice any claim to being a
fair-minded American. The treacherous layout of the
proposed No. 1 and No. 2 Districts reeks of dictatorship
on the one hand, and can well be likened to the tactics
of Stalin.
A glance at the proposed map of the Second District
makes one think of nothing other than a dead dog lying
on its back stretched out across the Connecticut border,
the resemblance so striking that it conjures all the malodorous conditions that can be associated with such a
state of decay. The nausea of this political situation
must extend clear to the State House in Hartford.
Democrats are never lacking in the zest for a fair fight,
and we are hesitant to employ extreme language in pic-
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590.
23
Turing the issues. Certainly we do not want to wage a
campaign next year with “Stop, thief,” banners, but the
proposals of the Republican Controlled Legislative Redistricting Commission, if accepted, leave no alternative.
The newly proposed layout of the Third District,
presently represented by Congressman Philip J. Philbin,
causes wonderment if cinerama and three dimensional
ideas have generated into the conduct of the Republican
hierarchy. In this particular scheme, has there been a
desire to make Massachusetts the laughing stock of the
nation? A study of the proposed layout would make an
ordinary person feel that at last he has met with something that defies the laws of kinetics. This political
engineering contrivance surely was done with mirrors.
Then we come to the Fourth District. What a travesty!
If the Third District was a maze, then the newly planned
Fourth is an amazement. A candidate in the district
would have to spend six months training in revolving
doors to enable him to tour the district. We honestly
think that even die-hard Republicans will rebel against
this proposal.
The Fifth District should not be touched. It is represented at present by one of our most capable members of
Congress, beloved by Democrats as well as Republicans.
In this case it is obvious that advantage is being taken of
the fact that the Representative is a woman, but that is
no reason why her personal protests should be ignored
and her district invaded for Republican strength to
bolster a district already Republican, namely the Eighth.
You have forced us to make recommendations in Congresswoman Rogers’ District which we do with the utmost
regret.
In order, however, to somewhat relieve the
pressure put upon your majority group we have made
recommendations and at the same time have tried to
ease the blow by further recommendations with respect
to Wards 7 and 8 of Cambridge which we recommend
be added to this District.
Geographical layouts determine the limits in the Sixth
District, and we do not agree that any change is neces-
24
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
sary. Last year we did not have a candidate available to
run in the District; two years previous the Republican
majority was over sixty-five thousand. Theoretically, if
as proposed, Nahant is added to the district, Congressman
Bates will have to get an outboard motor to campaign.
The Seventh District was poorly planned in 1941 from
both a geographical and population standpoint. We
Democrats are not responsible for that situation. We
realize that here the population figure is low, and something should be done. We decry the practice of cutting
up city wards because of the population problem, but in
the Metropolitan area we realize that some changes are
necessary to reach the desired population quota. We are
strongly opposed to these same tactics in the central and
western cities where the only necessity is Republican
expediency, based upon a desire to perpetuate the thin
Republican control in Congress. We have helped the
Eighth District by tacking on Wards 4 and 5 of Somerville to the Seventh District.
In the Eighth District we have made a great sacrifice.
We are conceding an additional 18,000 Republican majority in addition to its present majority.
In the Ninth District we presume we will be criticized
within our own party for recommending additional
strength to the present incumbent, but in fairness we
honestly believe there is no loss of interests.
We appreciate that the Tenth District is overbalanced
with respect to population, and that it contains, with few
exceptions, a population with similar interests. However, we have made certain recommendations for the
purpose of reducing the population representation without getting away from the necessity of preserving a
community of interests.
The Eleventh District does not impose a problem
except to aid the Eighth District by votes and the Seventh
by population, as well as to replace in the Fifth District
enough Republican strength to help offset the loss in
the Fifth to the Eighth District.
In the Twelfth District we have added one more
Boston Ward, which of course brought the total popula-
1954.1
SENATE
No. 590.
25
tion beyond the established quota, but again we have
the problem of population center to contend with.
In the Thirteenth District our recommendations tend
to set up a less confused appearing district, and again we
have in effect, as in the Ninth District, aided the Republican representative.
No comment is necessary on the Fourteenth District.
We have recommended the transfer of one small and
one medium-size town to the Ninth and Thirteenth. We
do not think House Speaker Martin can seriously object.
There is a map 1 indicating recommended changes in
redistricting. It must be understood, however, that our
original recommendations of preserving the status quo
still holds.
If changes are to be made, we are sure that a presentation
of our layout as compared to the recommendations of a
majority of your committee would, to any fair-minded
citizen, Republican or Democrat, prove to be a choice.
In the First District, under our plan we have without
changing the character of the rural and industrial areas,
set up a proposed district which is within four per cent
of the unit population figure of 335,037. In addition,
we have picked up the loose ends and consolidated the
cities and towns to present a more compact looking
district.
In the Second District we honestly believe we have
saved the Republican Party from becoming a laughing
stock or subject to more serious charges, to say nothing
of the peril to its own self-respect. The district proposed
under our plan is more consolidated, and by surrendering
votes we have made it a real battleground. We challenge
the opposition, from the standpoint of fair play, to go
along with us on this recommendation.
In the Third and Fourth Districts we believe we have
effected an even greater consolidation, and again, as in
the second district, we have made the Fourth a district
in which all fair-minded persons will experience a good,
clean political contest for Representative.
We have made our position clear with respect to the
On file in
the office of the Clerk of the Senate
26
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
Fifth District. There should be strictly a hands-off
policy here. Our recommendation merely aids the Re
publican Party in the Eighth District and helps establish
a normal population unit.
With respect to the Sixth District, again this is a
district which for geodetic and geographic reasons should
not be disturbed.
Considering the Seventh District, perhaps the lack of
population here requires changes. Let us concede this,
and without interfering with the Republican majorities
in other districts we offer our recommendation.
While the Eighth District should be left intact, we are
willing to give the Republican candidate further odds by
increasing the Republican majority and again making it
another good battleground.
Concerning the Ninth District we have already commented, and the attached papers indicate we propose to
increase further the Republican majority.
In the Tenth District we have taken out a Democratic
majority of 6,600 by transferring Wards 10 and 21 and
adding Ward 18 with only a 3,700 Democratic majority,
giving the Republican candidate a net gain of 2,900
votes.
In the Eleventh District we have again come to the
aid of the Republican candidate from the Eighth District
by tacking on Ward 7 of Somerville with its Democratic
majority of 1,000 votes.
In the Twelfth District we have added Ward 10 of
Boston to relieve the over-unit strength of the Metropolitan area, but again we are faced with the problem of
a heavy concentration of population.
The changes made in the Thirteenth District tend
toward a better consolidation and certainly provide a
tremendous concession on our part wherein we increase
the majority for the Republican nominee.
Finally, with reference to the Fourteenth District any
comment would prove unnecessary. The changes recommended here are too trivial to provoke argument.
The federal law provides that Congressional Districts
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590.
27
shall be compact, contiguous, and in so far as possible,
equal in population. The only purpose of redistricting is
to provide for changes as a result of population shifts in
a preceding ten-year period which have tended to conflict with the spirit of the federal law. Naturally, in
providing for such changes, the party in ascendancy
looks for and tries to obtain political advantages incidental to conformance with the spirit and intent of the
law.
In this case the Republican majority of the special
Legislative Redistricting Commission has made a mockery
of the federal law. It has seized upon the opportunity to
redistrict as an opportunity to provide a Congressional
representation from Massachusetts of ten Republicans
and four Democrats. The outrage involved here is evident when consideration is given to the fact that in the
last general election the Democrats elected three out of
six Constitutional Officers and their candidate for U.
S. Senator.
This whole scheme will not work with
the fair-minded people of Massachusetts, and we are
confident that if the majority report is accepted and
this gerrymander made law the basic spirit of fair play
for which the Massachusetts electorate is renowned will
come into force in the next Congressional elections, and
Governor Herter and his Republican-controlled Legislature will be resoundingly repudiated for this brazen
political thievery.
Proposed Changes.
District No. 1.
Present population
Towns of;
Add
City of;
Deduct Towns
of:
Winchendon
Ashburnham
Gardner
Belchertown
Pelham
Net population after changes
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
299,623
6,585
2,603
19,581
4,487
579
323,206
In this proposed change we are taking a Democratic
majority of 4,300 out of the Third District and a Re-
SENATE
28
No. 590.
[Jan.
publican majority of 772 out of the First District. This
leaves a net loss of 5,000 to the Republican candidate.
Present Republican majority, 50,000.
District No. S.
Present population
Add
Towns of;
Deduct Towns of:
Pelham
Population
Belchertown
Brimfield
Holland
Monson
Wales
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
Net population after changes
343,206
579
4,487
1,182
377
6,125
497
340,091
This represents a Republican majority of 772 transferred to the Philbin Third District.
Coincidentally, it represents, on the basis of the Congressional vote of Pelham and Belchertown, a 772 Republican majority to the Second District, and leaves the
district with a net population of 340,091.
In other words, this is a so-called stand-off.
Present Democratic majority, 7,000.
District No. S.
Present population
Add
Towns of:
Deduct Towns of:
Ashby
Population
Population
Townsend
(From sth District)
Grafton
Population
Brimfield
Population
Holland
Population
Monson
Population
Wales
Population
(All from 2d District)
Auburn
Population
(From 4th District)
Winchendon
Population
Ashburnham
Population
Population
Gardner
City of:
Net population after changes
318,447
1,464
2,817
8,281
1,182
377
6,125
497
8,844
6,585
2,603
19,581
319,263
In effect, this transfers 4,000 Republican majority to
the Third District, on the basis of the last Congressional
election.
Present Democratic majority, 56,000.
1954.]
SENATE
Present population
Deduct Towns of:
No. 590.
29
District No. 4.
Auburn
Grafton
Population
Population
Net population after changes
352,509
8,844
8,281
335,384
On the basis of last year’s Congressional returns, these
two towns are a stand-off with a 2,000 Republican majority in Auburn and a 2,000 Democratic majority in
Grafton.
Present Democratic majority, 16,000.
District No. 6.
365,724
Present population
Add:
Deduct:
Wards 7 and 8,
Cambridge
Population
Arlington
Population
Ashby
Population
Net population after changes
20,423
44,353
1,464
337,513
This change, we must admit, will result in a net loss
of 12,300 votes for the Republican nominee, but in view
of the fact that at present he has a Republican majority
of 100,000 we do not think that any one will be hurt.
We hesitate to make this recommendation in view of
the fine character of the present incumbent, Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers.
District So
Present population
305,119
We do not recommend any changes in the 6th District
where the Republican majority averages from 60,000 to
100,000.
District N
Present population
Add: Wards 1, 4 and 5, Somerville Population
Net population after changes
281,589
54,278
335,867
This will give the incumbent Democrat a net gain of
approximately 7,000 votes. The 1952 Democratic majority was 70,000.
30
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
District No. S.
Present population
Add:
Arlington from sth District
Deduct: Wards 4 and 5, Somerville
Net population after changes
Population
Population
328,937
44,353
32,597
339,693
The town of Arlington gave the Republican candidate
for Congress a majority of 13,121.
The two wards of Somerville gave the Democratic
candidate a majority of 4,800 votes.
The Republican majority in 1952 was 4,000 votes.
This gives the Republican candidate a potential of
approximately 22,000 vote gain in the district.
District No. 9.
Present population
Arid
Town of:
Deduct Towns of:
344,710
Freetown
Cohasset
Hingham
Hull
Net population after
Population
2,104
Population
3,731
10,665
3,379
329,039
Population
Population
changes
This leaves a net loss of 1,500 Republican majority in
this district.
Present Republican majority in the last two elections
ran from 25,000 to 30,000.
District No. 10.
Present population
Add:
Ward 18, from 13th District Population
Deduct: Ward 10
Population
Ward 21
Population
Net population after changes
390,896
48,348
30,281
38,984
369,979
These changes represent a net loss of 6,000 Democratic
majority.
Present Republican majority 17,000 to 25,000.
District No. 11
Present population
Add:
Ward 7, Somerville
Ward 21, Boston
Deduct: Ward 1, Somerville
Wards 7 and 8, Cambridge
Net population afte r changes
Population
Population
Population
Population
334,672
14,093
38,672
14,889
20,423
352,125
1954.]
SENATE
31
No. 590.
District No. 13.
Present population
Add:
Ward 10 of Boston from 10th District
Net population after changes
332,581
30,281
362,862
These changes increase present Democratic majority
from 80,000 to 86,000.
District No. 13.
Present population
Add
Towns of:
Cohasset
Hingham
Stoughton
Hull
Deduct Ward 18,
Boston
Net population after changes
Population
Population
Population
Population
Population
354,679
3,731
10,665
11,146
3,379
48,342
335,258
In this district we deduct a Democratic majority of
3,700 in Ward 18, and add a Republican majority of
4,650, giving the Republicans a net gain of 8,360 votes
in this district.
The present Republican majority is from 30,000 to
35,000.
District No. 14
Present population
Deduct Towns of:
Freetown
Stoughton
Population
Population
Net population after changes
Present Republican majority, 40,000.
340,481
2,104
11,146
327,231
Net Republican
loss, approximately 1,900 votes.
Sen. JOHN E. POWERS.
Sen. WILLIAM D. FLEMING.
JOHN J. TOOMEY.
Rep. JOSEPH F. WALSH.
Rep. CHARLES KAPLAN.
Rep. JOHN F. THOMPSON.
Rep.
32
SENATE
No. 590.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILLIAM
FLEMING OF WORCESTER.
[Jan.
D.
The majority report is an alarming proposal with its
constant drive, demonstrated by the sponsors of the new
district lines, to divide the major cities of our State so
that a municipality winds up with two or three Congressmen instead of one official to speak for the entire community.
The fourth district is a case in point
and the proposal of the majority does violence to our basic philosophy of representation of local municipalities as a political
entity.
Three wards, wards 3, 4 and 5 have been lifted out of
the fourth district and arbitrarily placed in the third
district.
In fact, the recommendations of the majority threatens
the solidarity of Worcester as a city worthy and deserving
of the services of a single Congressman, and should not
be faced with division so that the inhabitants must appeal to two federal legislators for assistance and representation.
For the reason that it would be neglect of my obligation
to sit idly by and see my home city split into two districts,
I dissent from that portion of the recommendations which
weaken the role of the city of Worcester in the election
of a Congressman.
WILLIAM D. FLEMING.
1954.]
SENATE
No. 590.
33
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE JOHN J.
TOOMEY OF CAMBRIDGE.
I have agreed with the minority members of the Commission and have endorsed the minority report, but in
addition it must be noted that the outline as submitted
by the majority members of the Commission is not only
unfair, but is entirely inequitable and inconsistent in a
State which has voted Democratic more often than Republican in the past two decades.
The majority has continued a vicious practice of carving two of the larger cities of the Metropolitan area into
small pieces and tossing them into the Congressional
Districts to balance a population tally and deny Cambridge and Somerville residents a united voting force in
the selection of Congressmen.
The legislative district I represent includes portions of
both Cambridge and Somerville, and it is destructive to
remove Wards 7 and 8 of Cambridge from the present
eleventh district to reassign them to a Congressional
District which will force the inhabitants of those wards
to search out a Congressman from Lowell in the fifth
district when they need help and assistance.
There is absolutely no logical reason why the citizens
of Somerville should be maltreated and portioned among
three Congressional Districts.
It is unreasonable to have inhabitants in Wards 1, 4
and 5 assigned to a district, including the populous city
of Lawrence, almost forty miles away.
Others in the city are disenfranchised by splitting a
community by putting Ward 6 in the eighth district and
the remainder of the city in the eleventh district.
A more reasonable approach to the problem would be
to leave Cambridge and Somerville intact, and as complete units of government they should be joined together
with other wards from the city of Boston to create one
contiguous Congressional District in which all the inhabitants would possess a definite community of interest.
JOHN J. TOOMEY.
34
SENATE
-
-
No. 590.
[Jan.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH F.
WALSH, LYNN.
From an over-all standpoint the majority report of the
legislative Redistricting Commission is grossly unfair.
It is designed basically to enforce the voters of Massachusetts to elect ten Republicans and four Democrats to
Congress, instead of the present 8 to 6 division, favoring
the Republican party.
Even now, the representation because of the last redistricting is not fair because it is generally believed that
Massachusetts is a State that can go either way politically
because of the strength of the liberal-minded and independent vote.
The real damage has been done to the Democratic
Party through this Commission’s work in central and
western Massachusetts, where through an outlandish
layout of the first, second, third and fourth districts both
Democratic Congressman Boland and Donohue have
been marked for defeat.
Part of the plan had been to further cut up the city of
Lynn, now represented by Congressmen Lane and Bates.
The idea had been proposed to give some of the city’s
Republican areas to Congressman Goodwin’s district
because of his close margin of victory one year ago. I
was pleased to direct my efforts on the Commission
principally toward prevention of a further dissection of
Lynn as a political entity. The federal law provides that
Congressional Districts must be compact, contiguous and
equal in population in so far as possible. The slicing up
of our great city areas for the advantage of the party
now in power is a violation of the spirit of fair play, and
will be resented by a majority of persons, regardless of
political affiliations.
JOSEPH F. WALSH.
1954.]
SENATE
35
No. 590.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE
JOHN F.
THOMPSON, LUDLOW.
I am somewhat amazed and chagrined at a redistricting proposal that eliminates the city of Chicopee and the
town of Ludlow from the present second district.
Ludlow and Chicopee, of course, are part and parcel of
Metropolitan Springfield, and enjoy common feelings and
objectives.
It can be said without fear of contradiction that the
point in question is to do away with Congressman Boland
of Springfield and Donohue of Worcester.
Assuming that Congressman Philbin were re-elected
and Boland and Donohue were defeated, as per schedule,
there would not be a Democratic representation from
Clinton to the New York border which is two thirds of
the state.
In adding figures to prove that the State is evenly
divided between Republicans and Democrats, it should
be pointed out that of the fourteen Congressional Districts in the State, less Congressman Bates, who had no
Democratic opponent, the total votes for all Republicans
and Democrats were practically even.
Without question it is difficult to conceive a plan which
puts Chicopee at one end of the district 65 miles away
from the other extreme.
A glance at the proposed map 1 of the second district
makes one think of nothing other than a dead dog lying
on its back stretched out across the Connecticut border,
the resemblance so striking that it conjures all the maloderous conditions that can be associated with such a
state of decay.
In conclusion I should say that this type proposal will
go down in Massachusetts history as the day that fairness and common decency were discarded from the
Republican vocabulary.
JOHN F. THOMPSON.
On file in the office of the Clerk of the Senate.
SENATE
36
No. 590.
Appendix
[Jan.
A.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
Ct)c Commontoealtf) of Soassaci)Uoetts
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-Four
An Act
to establish
congressional
districts
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:
1
Chapter 57 of the General Laws, as amended by
2 chapter 556 of the acts of 1941, is hereby further
3 amended by striking out section 1, as appearing in
4 said chapter, and inserting in place thereof the fol-5 lowing new section:
6
Section 1. For the purpose of electing representalives
-7
in the Congress of the United States until
8 otherwise provided by law, the commonwealth is
9 divided into the following fourteen districts, each of
10 which shall elect one representative:
Number One,
Consisting of the cities and towns
11
12 in Berkshire county; the towns in Franklin county;
13 Holyoke and Westfield in Hampden county; Belcher-14 town, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Granby,
15 Middlefield, Pelham, Plainfield, South Hadley, Wil-16 liamsburg and Worthington in Hampshire county;
17 and Ashburnham, Athol, Fitchburg, wards num-18 bered three, four and five, Gardner, Hubbardston,
19 Petersham, Phillipston, Royalston, Templeton, West-20 minster and Winchendon in Worcester county.
Number Two,
Consisting of Agawam, Blandford,
21
22 Brimfield, Chester, East Longmeadow, Granville,
1954.]
23
-24
25
26
27
-28
29
30
31
32
33
-34
35
36
37
-38
39
40
41
SENATE
No. 590.
37
Hampden, Holland, Longmeadow, Monson, Montgomery, Russell, Southwick, Springfield, Tolland,
Wales, West Springfield and Wilbraham in Hampden
county; Amherst, Easthampton, Hadley, Hatfield,
Huntington, Northampton, Southampton and Westhampton in Hampshire county; and Brookfield,
Charlton, East Brookfield, New Braintree, North
Brookfield, Sturbridge, Warren and West Brookfield
in Worcester county.
Number Three,
Consisting of Chicopee, Ludlow
and Palmer in Hampden county; Ware in Hampshire county : Hudson and Marlborough, Maynard
and Stow in Middlesex county; and Barre, Bolton,
Clinton, Dudley, Fitchburg, wards numbered one,
two and six, Hardwick, Lancaster, Leicester, Leominster, Millbury, Oakham, Oxford, Princeton, Rutland,
Southbridge, Spencer, Webster and Worcester, wards
numbered three, four and five, in Worcester county.
Number Four,
Consisting of Ashland, Framingham, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Sudbury, Waltham,
Wayland and Weston in Middlesex county; Auburn,
Berlin, Blackstone, Boylston, Douglas, Grafton,
Holden, Mendon, Milford. Millville, Northborough,
Northbridge, Paxton, Shrewsbury, Southborough,
Sterling, Sutton, Upton, Uxbridge, Westboro, West
Boylston, and Worcester, wards numbered one,
two, six. seven, eight, nine and ten in Worcester
-42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 county.
51
Number Five,
Consisting of Acton, Arlington.
52 Ashby, Ayer, Bedford, Belmont, Billerica, Boxbor-53 ough, Burlington, Cambridge, wards numbered seven
54 and eight, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Concord, Dracut,
55 Dunstable, Groton, Lexington, Lincoln, Littleton,
56 Lowell, Peppered, Shirley, Tewksbury, Townsend,
57 Tyngsborough, Watertown, Westford, Wilmington
58 and Woburn in Middlesex county; and Harvard
59 and Lunenburg in Worcester county.
Consisting of Amesbury, Beverly,
60
Number Six,
61 Boxford, Danvers, Essex, Georgetown, Gloucester,
38
SENATE
No. 590.
[Jan.
63 Groveland, Hamilton, Haverhill, Ipswich, Lynn,
64 wards numbered two and three, Manchester, Marble65 head, Merrimac, Methuen, Nahant, Newbury, New'
66 buryport, Rockport, Rowley, Salem, Salisbury
67 Swampscott, Topsfield, Wenham and West New
68 bury in Essex County.
69
Consisting
Number Seven,
of Lawrence, Lynn
70 wards numbered one, four, five, six and seven, Mid71 dleton, North Andover and Peabody in Essex county;
72 Everett, wards numbered one and five; Somerville,
73 wards numbered one, four and five in Middlesex
74 county; and Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop in Suf75 folk county.
Number Eight,
1
76
76
Consisting of Andover, Lynn
77 field and Saugus in Essex county; and Everett
78 wards numbered two, three, four and six, Malden,
79 Medford, Melrose, North Reading, Reading, Somer-80 ville, ward numbered six, Stoneham, Wakefield, and
81 Winchester in Middlesex county.
Consisting of Barnstable, Bourne
82
Number Nine,
83 Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth,
84 Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Provincetown, Sand-85 vvich, Truro, Wellfleet and Yarmouth in Barnstable
86 county; Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Fall
87 River, ward numbered six, New Bedford and West88 port in Bristol county; Chilmark, Edgartown, Gay
89 Head, Gosnold, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and West Tis90 bury in Dukes county; Nantucket in Nantucket
91 county; Cohasset in Norfolk county; and Abington,
92 Bridgewater, Carver, Duxbury, East Bridgewater,
93 Halifax, Hanover, Hanson, Hingham, Hull, Kings94 ton, Lakeville, Marion, Marshfield, Mattapoisett,
95 Middleboro, Norwell, Pembroke, Plymouth, Plymp96 ton, Rochester, Rockland, Scituate, Wareham and
97 Whitman in Plymouth county.
Consisting of Newton in Middle
98
Number Ten,
99 sex county; Brookline in Norfolk county; and
100 Boston, wards numbered four, five, twelve, nineteen
101 twenty and twentv-one in Suffolk county.
1954.]
102
103
104
105
106
SENATE
No. 590
39
A umber Eleven,
Consisting of Cambridge, wards
numbered one, two, three, four, live, six, nine, ten
and eleven, and Somerville, wards numbered two,
three and seven in Middlesex county and Boston,
wards numbered one, two, three and twenty-two in
107 Suffolk county
Consisting of Boston, wards
108 Number Twelve,
109 numbered six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thir110 teen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and seventeen in
county.
111 Suffolk county
Consisting of Avon, Brain112 Number Thirteen,
113 tree, Canton, Dedham, Holbrook, Milton, Needham,
114 Norwood, Quincy, Randolph, Westwood and Wey115 mouth in Norfolk county; Brockton in Plymouth
116 county; and Boston, ward numbered eighteen in
117 Suffolk county
Consisting of
Attleboro,
118 Number Fourteen,
Berkley,
Easton,
River,
Fall
wards
numDighton,
119
120 bered one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight and
121 nine, Freetown, Mansfield, North Attleborough,
122 Norton, Raynham, Rehoboth, Seekonk, Somerset,
123 Swansea and Taunton in Bristol county; Holliston
124 and Natick in Middlesex county; Bellingham,
125 Dover, Foxborough, Franklin, Medfield, Medway,
126 Millis, Norfolk, Plainville, Sharon, Stoughton, Wal127 pole, Wellesley and Wrentham in Norfolk county;
128 West Bridgewater in Plymouth county; and Hope-
129 dale in Worcester countv.