Colorado’s Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) takes a time out for Independence Day week before resuming the summer schedule of meetings and hearing of public testimony for the final marathon round (covering six metro Denver counties) on 11 July in Denver.

The commission’s most recent meeting (27 June) discussed the preliminary district maps for state House and Senate districts for Region 4 (central Colorado - Custer, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Gilpin, Park, and Teller Counties - public testimony on districts in that region actually occurred a week earlier, on 20 June).

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette’s report on Monday’s meeting,

Democrats won both rounds at the reapportionment commission meeting on Monday, when their maps for the state House and Senate were approved with the help of two of the five Republican commissioners.

Although the count differed by one vote, the ultimate outcome was the same:

The Democrats’ Senate map was approved 8-3, with two Republicans in support, and the Democrats’ House map passed 7-4, with one Republican in support. The commission’s unaffiliated chairman, Mario Carrera, sided with Democrats both times.

(Click here to view preliminary map for Region 4 Senate districts)

(Click here to view preliminary map for Region 4 House districts)

The commission is also heard public testimony on Larimer & Weld County districts; preliminary maps for those districts will be released and voted on at the next meeting of the commission on 11 July 2011, beginning at 9AM (meeting agenda TBA).

Click here for the full schedule of public hearings on state legislative districts.
Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state government website which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Colorado’s Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) continues the summer schedule of meetings and hearing of public testimony this week in Denver.

Last week’s meeting (20 June) discussed the preliminary district maps for state House and Senate districts for Region 3 (Western Slope) - public testimony on districts in that region actually occurred a week earlier, on 13 June.  In an almost exact mirror image of how districts were decided for Region 2 (Eastern Plains) the previous week, the commission unanimously approved a preliminary map for the region’s Senate districts (11-0), but voted 6-5 to narrowly approve a preliminary district map for the Western Slope House districts.

(Click here to view preliminary map for Region 3 Senate districts)

(Click here to view preliminary map for Region 3 House districts)

This week’s meeting will likely introduce new preliminary maps for central Colorado districts (Custer, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Gilpin, Park, and Teller Counties - public testimony on those districts took place last week, on 20 June).  The commission is also scheduled to hear public testimony on Larimer & Weld County districts starting at 2PM in the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue, Denver CO 80203 (which is located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building).  The hearing will also be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend in person.  (View meeting agenda here)

Click here for the full schedule of upcoming hearings on state legislative districts.
Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state government website which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Colorado’s Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) continues the summer schedule of meetings and hearing of public testimony this week in Denver.

Last week’s meeting (13 June) discussed the preliminary district maps for state House and Senate districts for Region 2 (Eastern Plains) - public testimony on districts in that region actually occurred a week earlier, on 6 June.  Interestingly, unlike the split decision on drawing boundaries for southern Colorado districts, the commission unanimously approved a preliminary map for House districts (11-0) but voted 6-5 to delay completing a preliminary Senate district map until after public testimony from Weld County (scheduled for one week from today, on 27 June).

(Click here to view preliminary map for Region 2 House districts - HD63 & 64)

This week’s meeting will likely introduce new preliminary maps for Colorado’s Western Slope districts (public testimony on those districts took place last week, on 13 June).  The commission is also scheduled to hear public testimony on central Colorado districts (Custer, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Gilpin, Park, and Teller Counties) starting at 2PM in the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue, Denver CO 80203 (which is located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building).  The hearing will also be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend in person.  (View meeting agenda here)

Click here for the full schedule of upcoming hearings on state legislative districts.
Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state government website which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

P.S. an interesting footnote - the Colorado Reapportionment Commission on Friday (17 June) issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) seeking legal counsel ” to advise and guide the Commission throughout the reapportionment process and to provide appellate representation, if necessary.”

This would seem to indicate that the commission expects that Colorado’s state legislative district maps will be joining our Congressional district maps in going to the courts…

Premature declarations of victory have been all the rage in Wisconsin this year…

April’s hotly-contested Wisconsin Supreme Court elections - putting Wisconsin at “Ground Zero” for an attempted political ploy to overturn recently-passed legislation by seizing control of the state supreme court - saw union-backed challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg prematurely declare victory in what could have been a decisive strategic takeover (she actually lost by thousands of votes).

Earlier this week, supporters of the legislation restricting some elements of public employee collective bargaining similarly declared victory when the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision (Justice Prosser, who had just defeated Kloppenburg in April’s election, cast the tiebreaking vote) upheld the law against a court challenge pressed by the state employee’s union.

The challenge hinged upon a provision of the state’s open meetings law calling for 24-hour notice and posting of government meetings.  A lower court (Judge Maryann Sumi, presiding) agreed with the challenge and temporarily barred the law from taking effect; however, that court’s ruling was marred by the close ties of the judge with union activists (Judge Sumi’s son, Jacob Sinderbrand, is a political operative for the state union plaintiffs), warranting her recusal from the case.

As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported (”Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law“),

The court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi’s ruling, which had held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was in the void ab initio, Latin for invalid from the outset.

“The court’s decision …is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the act,” the majority wrote. “Choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court’s task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the Legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the act. We conclude that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used.”

The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, “invaded” the Legislature’s constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling set off another wave of celebrations and recriminations - both once again premature, since

almost without missing a beat, these same unions filed a federal lawsuit the very next day (June 15) in the Western District of Wisconsin.

The new lawsuit presses wide-ranging constitutional claims of 1st and 14th Amendment violations (including the bizarre claim to “constitutional right to automatic dues deductions” - the removal of which “interferes with “the ability to finance their unions’ free speech and associational activities.”) (Click here for a more detailed analysis of the federal lawsuit and its implications, including):

But this issue has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts authored an opinion in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that upheld Idaho’s ban on automatic payroll deductions for the union dues of state government workers.  That ban did not violate the unions’ First Amendment rights since the government has no obligation to subsidize unions’ political speech.

Despite the lawsuit’s tenuous (at best) legal basis and overwhelming weight of precedence against them, the union plaintiffs have cause to be at least cautiously optimistic for near-term success.  Why?

Under the current assignment order in the Western District of Wisconsin, this new case has already been assigned to Chief Judge (and Obama appointee) William M. Conley, who was confirmed last year.  The unions were probably cracking open the champagne as soon as they found this out on June 15.

Conley has a track record of supporting plaintiffs making identical arguments in a number of past cases as a litigator, including an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case, as well as several federal circuit court cases.  As a just-released analysis notes,

So the unions have, unfortunately for the citizens of Wisconsin, snagged a federal judge who is clearly in line with their views on forced dues payments to unions.  Whether Conley can set aside his biases on this issue and render an objective opinion on the unwarranted claims the unions have advanced in this political lawsuit is an unanswered question.   But given the history and background of the overwhelmingly liberal, activist, “empathetic” judges that President Obama has advanced to the bench, there are reasons for grave concern.

The ongoing “progressive” takeover of the courts is the greatest single threat to individual liberty and our system of government that exists today.

The battle lines are clear; and the fight is unrelenting.  Those who would use the courts to advance a partisan political agenda - instead of insisting that the courts maintain their proper role of defending the Constitution and the rule of law - are ruthless, well-organized, well-funded, and pervasive.  Although it is an uphill battle - they must be stopped.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary (and working with allied groups, nationwide), informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Colorado’s Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) continues the summer schedule of meetings and hearing of public testimony this week in Denver.

Last week’s meeting introduced the first preliminary district maps, for state House and Senate districts in southern Colorado (public testimony on districts in that region actually occurred a week earlier, on 31 May).  As reported in Friday’s Colorado Statesman political news weekly (”Reapportionment Commission already approves first map“),

The commission, on a 9-2 vote, drew new boundaries for two Senate districts in southern Colorado and on a 7-4 vote approved new maps for three House districts in the same region.

Noteworthy in this initial map is the fact that two state senators just voted into office in 2010 (Senate District 5’s Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass & Senate District 2’s first-term Kevin Grantham) were drawn out of their respective districts.  The commission’s action would leave each of them representing a district in which they no longer live and for which they could not seek re-election (irrelevant to the term-limited Schwartz, but problematic for Grantham, who many observers have tagged as a rising GOP star in the state senate).  The 9-2 vote (4 of the 9 “yes” votes were appointed to the commission by Chief Justice Michael Bender) may indicate why the commission chose to ignore both informal tradition regarding incumbent districts and statutory guidelines to preserve existing district boundaries “to the extent possible.”

Click link to view the Region One (Southern Colorado) preliminary Senate district maps and preliminary House district maps.

This week’s meeting may introduce new maps for Colorado’s mostly rural Eastern Plains districts (public testimony on those districts took place last week, on 6 June).  The commission is also scheduled to hear public testimony on Colorado’s Western slope districts beginning at 2PM in the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue, Denver CO 80203 (located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building) and is set to be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend in person.  (View meeting agenda here)

Click here for the full schedule of upcoming hearings on state legislative districts.
Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (state government website which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.”  (again, with apologies to Mark Twain)

Clear The Bench Colorado has publicized the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including an attempted exploitation of a court ruling to impose what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on gun sales and permits, the ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry by the CU Board of Regents and an abortive CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and developments in both cases).  After the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling which in April struck down the CU ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban), we warned Coloradans that another attack on our constitutional and statutory rights was coming.

The threat materialized in October 2010 when the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear) the CU Board of Regents appeal of last April’s Colorado Court of Appeals ruling (which upheld state law and the rights of Colorado citizens against CU’s assertion of a right to ban licensed concealed carry in any area “governed” by the Board, including areas open to the public).

On Wednesday (8 June 2011), the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys representing CU (on one side) and various individual citizens and other interested parties on the other.  The arguments lasted for one hour, and can be heard in their entirety via this link (audio recording, Regents v. Concealed Carry 10SC344).

The attorney for the CU Board of Regents argued that the CU Board has “constitutional authority” to “enact legislation governing the campus” - essentially, putting the CU Board of Regents “above the law” of the state of Colorado.  The attorney cited some past rulings by the Colorado Supreme Court which had established some legal precedent for this view.

However, as the Colorado Court of Appeals had previously noted in its April 2010 ruling, the CU gun ban policy violates “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits:”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The law - both constitutional and statutory - is clearly on the side of the plaintiffs, wishing to exercise their legal right to responsibly carry concealed weapons after undergoing an extensive background check, practical and legal training, and acquiring a permit for that purpose.  The Concealed Carry Act applies to “all areas of the state,” except as specifically limited by the Act. The Regents lobbied to be included in the list of exceptions, but the legislature refused. The CU Board is now asking the Colorado Supreme Court to re-write the law to include the exception the Regents sought, but didn’t receive, when the legislation was passed.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that the Colorado Supreme Court has legislated from the bench.  The fact that the Colorado Supreme Court even agreed to hear the CU Regents appeal of a very clear and well-grounded ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals does not bode well for the preservation of another set of Coloradans’ constitutional rights.

There is a great deal more at stake than the relatively narrow issue of whether responsible adults can be denied the exercise of their rights (licensed concealed-carry pursuant to state law) - as if that wasn’t important enough.  In hearing the case, the Colorado Supreme Court will also rule on whether state law, as a matter of principle and precedent, can be ignored by certain quasi-governmental entities (such as the CU Board of Regents).  Most importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on the standard of review for laws regulating the right to bear arms (or any constitutional rights) in Colorado.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held (correctly, in my view and the view of most legal scholars) that the standard of review for assessing the law, and CU’s attempt to ignore state law via an illegal gun ban (and for reviewing any law regulating any constitutional right) is the ”reasonable exercise” standard (in other words, is the law a “reasonable exercise” of the government’s authority to restrict a constitutional right).  The CU Regents argue (and the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority has in the past agreed, on other issues) that the standard for legal review should be the ”rational basis” standard of review (which gives virtually unlimited deference, and leeway, to the ability of government to pass laws restricting the individual exercise of fundamental constitutional rights).  Adoption of that standard in this case would set a very dangerous precedent, and would effectively nullify the Colorado Constitution’s recognition of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This case - and so many others of this nature - isn’t about guns; it’s about freedoms.  Allowing the government to pass laws further restricting our rights (or allowing courts to unilaterally impose new laws or restrictions by re-writing or interpreting our rights out of existence) runs counter to the very foundations and ideals of this country.

Our Constitution is the Citizens’ rulebook for government - restricting the powers and authority of government to rule our lives.  It is what distinguishes us as Americans from the historical example of every other nation on earth: we are Citizens, not subjects.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

Although the drawing of Colorado’s Congressional district boundaries has been sent to the courts (since the state senate failed to consider redistricting legislation, abdicating their constitutional obligations), the Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing state legislative districts) is meeting over the summer and will hear public testimony both in Denver (initially) and throughout the state (once a draft district map has been developed for review and comment).

The commission has divided the state into 7 regions for the purpose of hearing public testimony.  Public testimony on the first region to be considered (southern Colorado, including Pueblo, Saguache, Rio Grande, Huerfano, Las Animas, Alamosa, Mineral, Conejos and Costilla counties) was held on Tuesday, 31 May 2011.  Additional public testimony will be held by region on a weekly basis, continuing today (Monday 6 June) through the middle of July:

Meetings will be held in Hearing Room A of the Legislative Services Building, located at 200 E. 14th Ave. (just south of the Capitol building).  The public testimony portion of each meeting is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m.  and will also be broadcast over the Internet for those unable to attend in person.

Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

The legal battle to determine the boundaries of Colorado’s Congressional districts (since the legislature failed to do its job, sent to the courts for the fourth consecutive decade) has been scheduled: the redistricting case will be heard by Denver District Court Chief Judge Robert Hyatt on 17 October 2011.

Despite Colorado’s clear constitutional language assigning responsibility for Congressional redistricting to the General Assembly, the state legislature again failed to pass a redistricting bill and abdicated their responsibility to the judicial branch - further politicizing the courts.

For the second consecutive decade, Colorado is treated to the sad spectacle of the state Senate majority blocking any possibility of compromise legislation and intentionally sending the issue to the courts.  The plan has apparently been in the works for at least a year - with the 2010 session closing out with the “Mary-mandering” bill (HB1408) enabling the courts to consider “non-neutral factors” such as partisan affiliation when evaluating redistricting plans.

It’s truly unfortunate that certain elements of the Democrat party leadership apparently pursued this outcome from the start - abdicating their constitutional responsibility to pass a redistricting law.

However, they may have overplayed their hand this time around; the combination of constitutional and statutory guidelines, clear case law and legal precedent, and (last not least) increased attention to the role of the judicial branch - promoting transparency and accountability to “keep ‘em honest” - make it much more difficult (albeit not impossible) for the courts to pull another “mullarkey” power grab.

Additionally, the testimony of numerous Citizens from across Colorado - although falling short of convincing the legislature (particularly the state Senate) to do its job and at least attempt to pass redistricting legislation - will be of value as the courts consider the various constitutional and legal requirements for determining Congressional district boundaries.

In any event, the case (combined cases, actually) bears careful watching as it plays out in court.

• Read the Republican redistricting lawsuit here.
• Read the Democrat redistricting lawsuit here.

Additional references:

• Constitutional Provisions Controlling Reapportionment/Redistricting (official Colorado state website, which collates relevant constitutional language on Congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment)
• Redistricting in Colorado (Ballotpedia site - although the site contains several errors, some of which are being corrected, it does provide useful context and historical background on past restricting battles.  As with any Wiki site - contributions come from a variety of sources and are frequently edited - proceed with some skepticism)

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.