The relevant constitutional language is Article V, Section 44 (Colorado Constitution):
“The General Assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to this state by the congress of the United States for the election of one representative to congress from each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.”

The Colorado Supreme Court majority opinion in this case (Chief Justice Mullarkey, joined by justices Michael Bender, Gregory Hobbs, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice, with justices Nathan Coats and Rebecca Love Kourlis dissenting) relied upon creative redefinition of the term “General Assembly” in order to reach their decision.

The phrase “part of the General Assembly” was not a quote from the opinion, but a paraphrase - your assertion that I have “misquoted” the ruling is inaccurate. The actual language follows.

The majority opinion in the case states the following:
“1. Who May Redistrict
The Secretary of State and the General Assembly argue that three words in the state constitution grant the General Assembly exclusive power to draw Colorado’s congressional districts: “General Assembly shall.” At first blush, this logic seems persuasive; however, this argument is not consistent with existing Colorado law. Although the first sentence of Section 44 says that the “General Assembly shall” draw congressional districts, the term “General Assembly,” like the term “legislature” in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, has been interpreted broadly. The term “General Assembly” encompasses the entire legislative process, as well as voter initiatives and redistricting by court order.”

Later in the ruling, the court’s majority asserted:
“The term “General Assembly” in Section 44 also encompasses the courts”

and closed their argument on “Who May Redistrict” with the following statement:
“In sum, the term “General Assembly” in the first sentence of Article V, Section 44, broadly encompasses the legislative process, the voter initiative, and judicial redistricting. Regardless of which body creates the congressional districts, these districts are equally valid. Hence, judicially created districts are no less effective than those created by the General Assembly.”

Nowhere else - constitutional language, legislative language, statutory language, or even in any political lexicon, does the term “General Assembly” encompass “judicial redistricting” or include “the courts.”

In fact, the Colorado Constitution is quite explicit in delineating the distribution of powers between the three separate branches:

Article III, Distribution of Powers
“The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments,–the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.”

The Mullarkey Majority’s ruling in this case is nothing more than a judicial power grab of authority constitutionally delegated to another branch of government (the legislative) and blatantly violates the clear language of the Colorado Constitution and the principle of separation of powers.

As Justice Kourlis noted in her dissent:
“The majority concludes that the delegation of redistricting power in Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution to the “General Assembly” includes the courts and specifically imbues the courts with independent authority to undertake such redistricting. Further, the majority reads the word “when” in Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution to limit the exercise of all redistricting authority, by the General Assembly or the courts, to a window of time between a new apportionment by Congress and the next general election.

I fundamentally disagree. Courts cannot be lawmakers under Article V of the Colorado Constitution. Courts do not enact or create laws; courts declare what the law is and what it requires. To hold otherwise violates the clear language of Article V and also the mandates of Article III of the Colorado Constitution, which delineates the separation of powers among the three coordinate branches of Colorado government.

The only authority that courts have to intervene in this purely political, legislative process is to review the constitutionality of existing districts, as we would review the constitutionality of any law, in order to protect the voting rights of aggrieved claimants. Within that limited framework, courts may enter emergency or remedial orders for the purpose of allowing elections to go forward. Such court orders are interstitial, and cannot then serve to preempt the legislature from reclaiming its authority to redistrict.”

She adds:
“That circuitous process avails the majority little. Colorado law could not be clearer with respect to the meaning of the term “General Assembly.” Article V itself defines the General Assembly as “the senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people.” The term neither needs nor permits any further semantic gymnastics.”

Concluding:
“With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government.”

Justice Kourlis had it right - the Mullarkey court altered “our form of government” from a democratically representative republic to a “rule by judges.”

Time to depose our would-be rulers, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

I am interested in the substance of your arguments against these judges. This was the first I looked at. I visited the link to the case you so helpfully provided — the phrase “part of the General Assembly” is not in the document, i.e. you have misquoted it. What in that case does support your claim?