The unveiling of new map proposals by Democrat and Republican parties over the last few days has renewed focus on the legal battle to determine the boundaries of Colorado’s Congressional districts, since the legislature (specifically the state senate) failed to do its job by passing redistricting legislation as required by the Colorado Constitution and sent it to the courts for the fourth consecutive decade at the end of the legislative session in May) .

Republicans were first to file their proposed Congressional district map in court (on Friday); interestingly, it makes few changes from the map drawn by the courts (in violation of Colorado’s clear constitutional language assigning responsibility for Congressional redistricting to the General Assembly) a decade ago.

…under the GOP map, Baca County on the southeastern border is the only entire county to moved into another district. …

The GOP also said the map “moves the “absolute fewest number of Coloradans” possible in order to accomodate (sic) population shifts in the last decade, according to court records.

On Monday, the Democrats filed their map with the court - which “proposed dramatic changes to Colorado’s congressional boundaries.”  As noted in the Denver Post’s article, the most radical changes would be to the 6th Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Mike Coffman, moving the district significantly northward to include all of Aurora, dividing the western half of both Arapahoe and Adams counties and extending into Weld County, and moving Douglas and Elbert counties to the 4th Congressional District (currently represented by freshman Republican Cory Gardner), which would lose most of Larimer County to the 2nd Congressional District (represented by Democrat Jared Polis).

The 7th Congressional District (represented by Democrat Ed Perlmutter) would shift west to include the north-metro suburbs in western Adams County (which would thus be split between three different congressional districts) and the west-metro suburbs of northeastern Jefferson County (which would be split between two congressional districts, with the remainder in the 2nd District along with Boulder).

View maps here.

Neither set of maps seems ideal (the GOP map’s perpetuation of the unsightly court-created 7th CD “claw” around the northern metro Denver area remains troublesome); it remains to be seen whether the courts will strictly adhere to the constitutional criteria guiding the boundaries of legislative districts, according to established precedent, or if they’ll be swayed by more “non-neutral” political considerations (such as those enacted under the “Mary-mandering” legislation passed at the conclusion of the 2010 legislative session).

The “Hobbs Hierarchy” should be the decisive criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of Colorado’s Congressional and legislative districts; in priority order:

• Equal population (U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Equal Protection one person/one vote)
• Maintain County boundaries intact unless necessary to achieve equal population (Colorado Constitution Art. V, Section 47(2))
• Maintain municipal boundaries intact unless necessary to achieve equal population (Colorado Constitution Art. V, Section 47(2))
• Districts must be as compact as possible and composed of contiguous election precincts (Colorado Constitution Art. V, Section 47(1))
• Communities of interest - ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic - shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Art. V, Section 47(3))

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.

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.

In the latest development in the sad, sorry saga of Colorado Congressional Redistricting this year, Representative Ed Casso (D-Commerce City) announced Friday his intent to abdicate the legislature’s constitutional responsibilities - preemptively giving up any future legislative role in defining Colorado’s Congressional district boundaries, and completely removing the process from any public accountability.

Currently, the Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44, unambiguously assigns this responsibility to the legislative branch:

Text of Section 44:Representatives in Congress.
The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to the state by the congress of United States for the election of one representative to congress for each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

Casso proposes to remove this responsibility from the elected legislature, outsourcing it instead to an appointed (and unaccountable) commission, much like the process by which state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the state Reapportionment Commission.  Casso’s stated intent is to, quote, “permanently remove the politics associated with this process.”  However, as experience has shown with the Reapportionment Commission, particularly the battles over partisan affiliation of the legislative, gubernatorial, and judicial appointments who make up that commission’s eleven members, outsourcing has not removed the politics from the process; it has only removed the politics from public view.

Casso’s proposal also highlights a disturbing trend of outsourcing legislative responsibilities to boards, commissions, and bureaucrats who conduct public business out of the public eye and without public accountability.

This ‘Progressive’ ideal of “Expertism” - that if we simply hand over control to “experts” who will dispassionately analyze the facts and generate “ideal” solutions - is diametrically opposed to the founding American principles that the Citizen is sovereign, not merely a subject of the ruling class, however composed.

To the extent that this trend foists legislative and executive branch responsibilities onto the judicial branch, it also accelerates a dangerous trend of politicizing the judiciary, already exacerbated by the Colorado Senate’s intentional strategy of sending Congressional Redistricting to the courts, decreasing prospects for fair and equal treatment in the courts and undermining the foundations of the rule of law.

Casso’s legislative outsourcing proposal, since it seeks to overturn part of the Colorado Constitution, would have to overcome several obstacles before  it could become law:

Casso’s proposal would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and in the Senate to place a question on the November 2012 ballot asking voters if they would prefer that an appointed commission take the reins of the redistricting process away from state lawmakers.

Colorado voters would then have to agree to sign away their rights to maintain accountability over the Congressional Redistricting process.

Abdication or Accountability?

In fact, there are only TWO mandatory responsibilities of the legislature:

1. annually, draw up a state budget; and
2. decennially, draw up Congressional district boundaries.

Casso’s proposal would remove one of those two mandatory, constitutional legislative responsibilities.  If Casso truly believes that he and his legislative colleagues aren’t up to the task (resembling a student council, handing off all of the difficult decisions to the adults in the principal’s office), why bother with a state legislature at all?

As an alternative, perhaps providing an incentive to legislators to do the job for which they were elected might be effective.  Here’s a proposal:

Until state legislators discharge these mandatory duties (for which they are elected and paid), NO OTHER legislation may be enacted or go into effect - PERIOD.

Think they might be able to work something out under those terms and conditions?

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.

For the fourth consecutive decade, the ultimate decision on the shape of Colorado’s Congressional districts will fall to the courts.  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 responsibility to the judicial branch - further politicizing the courts.

This intentional politicization of the judiciary - increasingly seen as acting as just another category of politician, distinguished from the other branches only by a unique mode of dress (black robes) - is corrosive to our institutions, and undermines the sanctity of the rule of law.

The Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44, unambiguously assigns this responsibility to the legislative branch:

Text of Section 44:Representatives in Congress.
The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to the state by the congress of United States for the election of one representative to congress for each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

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.

The first step in the court battle over Colorado Congressional redistricting was taken even before the legislature had officially adjourned, with the filing of two lawsuits (one from the Democrats, one from the Republicans) on Tuesday, 10 May 2011, in Denver District Court (which has original jurisdiction).

As reported in Law Week Colorado,

Competing lawsuits over the redistricting of Colorado’s Congressional districts have been randomly assigned to Denver District Court Judge William Hood, who has been registered as an unaffiliated voter since April 2008. His previous political affiliation wasn’t immediately known.

Hood, a 2007 appointee of Democratic former Gov. Bill Ritter, was at the time of his appointment a lawyer with Denver law firm Isaacson Rosenbaum. Hood was retained in the 2010 judicial retention election [Ed. Note: Hood will therefore next be subject to a retention vote in 2016, since District Court judges serve a term of 6 years]

However, the case may not remain with Judge Hood, due to his past association (working together at the same law firm) with Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin, as also reported by Law Week online:

Denver District Judge William Hood, who was randomly assigned to hear Colorado congressional redistricting lawsuits filed Tuesday by Republicans and Democrats, once was a law-firm colleague of the lead attorney for the Democratic side.

Before his appointment to the Denver bench in 2007, Hood worked at Isaacson Rosenbaum, the firm that until recently employed Democratic Party lawyer Mark Grueskin.

Asked about a possible conflict between himself and the judge, Grueskin said, “Even before you get to the issue that he and I were formerly colleagues, he may have a docket that’s full.”

Astute observers of Clear The Bench Colorado (or of Colorado politics in general) may recall Mark Grueskin from his role in establishing a shadowy and well-funded special-interest group to counteract the Clear The Bench Colorado judicial accountability efforts during the 2010 judicial retention elections.

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.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the hot topic of Congressional Redistricting and state legislative district Reapportionment in Colorado - explaining the process and highlighting the differences in the process of drawing boundaries for Congressional and state legislative districts - on Backbone Radio (710 AM KNUS) Sunday evening, 8 May 2011.

Listen to the Backbone Radio podcast here (note: the discussion was interrupted briefly by an off-topic phone call referring back to another segment during which I was drawn into a discussion on the recent “Amycare” bill, SB 11-200 Healthcare Benefit Exchanges - and the subsequent El Paso County GOP “gag order” resolution to suppress criticism of the bill)

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.

For the second consecutive decade, Colorado is treated to the sad spectacle of the state Senate majority abdicating their constitutional responsibility to pass a Congressional redistricting bill, and intentionally sending the issue to the courts to decide.

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.

Senate Democrats even filibustered their own bill in order to avoid a vote…

Although no one said it would be easy, it IS the responsibility of the General Assembly - and no other body or branch of government, according to our state Constitution (Article V, Section 44) - to do the job.

In fact, there are only TWO mandatory responsibilities of the legislature:

1. annually, draw up a state budget; and
2. decennially, draw up Congressional district boundaries.

Senate Democrats intentionally abdicated their constitutional responsibility, to an imperial judiciary - failing to do the job they were elected to perform, and letting down the state’s voters.

We have never voted to be ruled by judges - yet tonight, another piece of control and accountability has been surrendered to the judiciary by a feckless Senate majority.

This intentional politicization of the judiciary - increasingly seen as acting as just another category of politician, distinguished from the other branches only by a unique mode of dress - is corrosive to our institutions, and undermines the sanctity of the rule of law.

Now more than ever - it’s time to support judicial accountability and Clear The Bench, Colorado!

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.

As the 2011 Colorado legislative session draws to a close (and with it, the prospects for the General Assembly to exercise its decennial constitutional obligation to re-draw Colorado’s Congressional Districts, the final chance for Citizens to weigh in comes down to the wire.  Since the legislative session MUST conclude by midnight Wednesday, and sufficient time must elapse between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd readings of a bill, Tuesday is the last possible opportunity for a compromise Redistricting bill to be introduced and for Citizens to express their opinion.

Last week on Thursday, 5 May 2011, both the House and Senate held hearings soliciting Citizen testimony on the competing maps under consideration.  MANY ordinary Colorado Citizens showed up to testify, most (overwhelmingly) critical of the Senate (Democrat) Redistricting map. Douglas County was especially well represented - perhaps they were perturbed by the Senate (Democrat) map’s placing them in the same Congressional District with Boulder?

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold offered testimony on the competing Congressional Redistricting maps, discussing the relevant constitutional and statutory language and applicable case law.  The following excerpt recreates that testimony as best as possible from memory and my scribbled notes.

“Good afternoon.

My name is Matt Arnold; I am representing myself as a Citizen, and also as the Executive Director of Clear The Bench Colorado, a nonpartisan, non-profit organization established to educate the public about, and promote accountability for, the Colorado judiciary, our third branch of state government.

Due to the high potential for the Congressional Redistricting issue to be ultimately decided by the courts and the troubling precedent of judicial usurpation of the constitutional responsibility of the legislature in the most recent redistricting court case (in which the Colorado Supreme Court essentially declared itself ‘part of the General Assembly’ for the purpose of redistricting), I rise to offer testimony on the relevant constitutional, statutory, and case law guidelines governing redistricting in Colorado.

I am not married to any particular map - but I am wedded to the Constitution.

Over a decade ago, I raised my right hand and swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution” - of the United States and the State of Colorado.  Each of you, on taking office, swore a similar oath - and are equally bound by that oath of office, as a condition of your service.

The Colorado Constitution - Article V, Section 47 - imposes several distinct mandates on the composition of Colorado’s Congressional and state legislative districts:

Text of Section 47:

Composition of Districts.

(1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap.

(2) Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as prescribed by law.

(3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible.

Nowhere in the relevant constitutional language, statutory language, or even relevant case law is there ANY reference to “competitiveness” as a criterion guiding the composition of Congressional districts.

“Competitiveness” is NOT - however defined - a factor to be considered in drawing Congressional district boundaries.

Indeed, the very notion of “competitiveness” is a false construct - a canard.

Particularly when defined on the basis of partisan affiliation among registered voters, the very notion is laughable.  Republicans, Democrats, and Unaffiliated voters differ significantly by area - a Denver “R” is different from a Douglas County “R”, as a Denver “D” differs from an Alamosa “D” or a Baca “D.”

People - and their interests - are defined by more than voter registration partisan affiliation.

Finally - I strongly urge the members of the General Assembly to keep it out of the courts!

Despite the apparent intentions of some to reprise the strategy from the 2000 Redistricting experience - indicated by passage of the so-called “Mary-mandering” legislation at the close of the 2010 legislative session which enables consideration of “non-neutral factors” in court evaluation of redistricting plans - it remains the constitutional duty and responsibility of the General Assembly, and the General Assembly alone.

Do Your Job! Pass a Redistricting bill, carry out - don’t abdicate - your responsibilities as legislators.

Thank you.”

Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado citizens to take advantage of what may be a final opportunity to weigh in on how - and whether - the Colorado General Assembly exercises its constitutional duty (it IS the responsibility of the General Assembly - and no other body or branch of government, according to our state Constitution (Article V, Section 44) - to do the job.  Contact your state representatives and senators and urge them to carry out their responsibilities, do their job, and pass a redistricting bill.

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 ongoing legislative battle over Congressional Redistricting remains the “hot” topic in the news - “Public asked, again, to weigh in on Congress maps” - with a final opportunity for Citizens weigh in on competing redistricting maps by publicly testifying at the Congressional Redistricting Committee hearing scheduled for today (Thurs, May 5) at 2:00 p.m. in House Committee Room 112 at the Colorado Capitol.

The latest news?  Both the Pueblo Chieftain (”Redistricting“) and the Grand Junction Sentinel (”Redistricting redux“) editorialized in favor of the Republican redistricting map.

From the Pueblo Chieftain editorial:

The proposal, House Bill 1319 by Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, is the best redistricting map yet to surface this year. Its first committee hearing is set for 2 p.m. today.

Garnering less media attention, but of equal and parallel importance for the composition of Colorado’s state legislative districts (contrary to confused coverage, a completely separate process), the state legislative district Reapportionment Commission was finalized yesterday afternoon with the press release announcing Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender’s appointments.

Chief Justice Bender’s appointments are:

• Dolores S. Atencio - A Democrat from Denver in the 1st Congressional District. Atencio is a partner at Garcia Calderon Ruiz, LLP, and practices litigation and employment law.
• Mario M. Carrera - An unaffiliated voter from Parker in the 6th Congressional District. Carrera is the vice president and general manager of Entravision Communications Corporation.
• Robert D. Loevy - A Republican from Colorado Springs in the 5th Congressional District. Loevy is a professor of political science and American government at Colorado College.
• Steve Tool - A Republican from Windsor in the 4th Congressional District. Tool is a former state legislator where he served on the Joint Budget Committee.

Chief Justice Bender’s “final four” appointments join Governor Hickenlooper’s previously announced three appointments

former state legislator, Gayle A. Berry, a Republican from Grand Junction, from the 3rd Congressional District; former Mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb, a Democrat from Denver, from the 1st Congressional District; and Arnold Salazar, a Democrat from Alamosa, from the 3rd Congressional District …

and the earlier legislative appointments (four total: two from each chamber, from each side of the partisan aisle, for an automatic 2:2 tie):

• Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D) selected Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora)
• Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp (R) appointed attorney Mario Nicolais
• House Speaker Frank McNulty (R) chose former Rep. Rob Witwer (R) as his delegate
• House Minority Leader Sal Pace (D) picked Boulder Democrat Matt Jones (D-Boulder), who served on the 1991 Reapportionment Commission and also co-founded and co-chaired the Democratic House Majority Fund.

Governor Hickenlooper’s press release announcing his appointments noted that “[m]y three appointments have committed themselves to creating more competitive districts, which should therefore create more competitive elections wherever possible” and ”expressed hope” that the sum of appointments from all three branches of government “would result in a commission with precise partisan balance.”  He expounded on this “hope” in an ‘open letter’ statement to Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender, who will make (and announce) the ‘final four’ commission picks by May 5th:

“When the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court makes the final four appointments to this Commission, I hope he will make sure that there is a precise balance between Democrats and Republicans,” Hickenlooper said. “That means appointing at least one unaffiliated voter to the Commission.  Neither political party should have a majority in this process and we ought to encourage consensus on the Commission.”

Chief Justice Bender’s appointments fulfilled the letter of Governor Hickenlooper’s request; in terms of party registration, the 11-member commission now consists of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one unaffiliated member.

However, appearances can be deceiving…

As previously noted, the single Republican appointed by Governor Hickenlooper, former Grand Junction legislator Gayle A. Berry (R- HD55) has worked for the past several years as a lobbyist - for Governor Ritter’s Energy Office, among others (click here for a list of her major clients).

Similarly, one of the Republicans selected by Chief Justice Bender, former Rep. Steve Tool (R-Windsor) has a record of hewing rather closer to Democrat positions on the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and Healthcare Policy & Planning issues; although the his policy leanings may have less impact on reapportionment decisions, his continued activity as a lobbyist may influence his willingness to upset potential clients.

On the positive side - in a departure from the practice of his predecessor, the openly partisan former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey - Chief Justice Bender’s appointments did at least achieve a relatively close partisan balance on the commission, at least pro forma.  The conduct of the commission over the next several months will demonstrate whether the apparent balance is borne out in practical terms, but the commission’s membership at least raises hopes that one side will not dominate and steamroller the other, and Colorado may end up with districts more representative of the state.

Some  have speculated that Chief Justice Bender’s willingness to ensure partisan balance on the commission may be due in part to the much greater scrutiny placed this year on Reapportionment Commission membership, the state legislative district reapportionment process in general, and - in particular - the role of the judiciary in determining Congressional and legislative district boundaries.

If so, then Clear The Bench Colorado has continued to provide a useful service beyond the judicial retention elections, which we certainly hope (and intend) to be the case.

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 with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful 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.

Since publishing an article (”Redistricting versus Reapportionment - the confusion continues“) some two weeks ago clarifying the different constitutional constraints and processes for drawing up Colorado’s Congressional and state legislative district boundaries, Clear The Bench Colorado has received renewed interest and feedback from multiple sources concerning the ongoing developments in each area (including gubernatorial and legislative appointments to the Reapportionment Commission) and the role of the courts in ultimately deciding our Congressional and state legislative district boundaries.

An additional article (”More discussion on Colorado Congressional Redistricting and state legislative reapportionment“) further discussed key terms and concepts relating to how Congressional and state legislative boundaries are determined.

Importantly, Congressional Redistricting is a mostly political process that we (as Citizens, via our elected representatives) have the MOST opportunity to influence - directly through voting to gain majorities in the General Assembly, influencing the vote and/or draft maps, and (currently) via the public arena by weighing in on the discussion to help shape public opinion (and provide electoral pressure).

As the legislative session draws near to a close, the deadline for our elected representatives to carry out their constitutionally-mandated duty to re-draw Congressional district boundaries (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 44) is down to the final week (the session must end by midnight, 11 May 2011).  In a colossal game of “chicken”, however, it appears that one side appears determined to send the issue to the courts, not as a response to an impasse in negotiations, but as the planned approach all along.

Around the state, media coverage of the Redistricting battle has noted - and almost universally condemns - the likelihood of the Congressional district maps being decided by the courts.

Last Friday’s Glenwood Springs Post-Independent editorial (”Keep Western Slope interests intact by preserving 3rd District“) noted:

It seems a matter of common sense that the 3rd District, historically configured as a predominantly Western Slope district, should be largely preserved under redistricting, Garfield County included.

This issue now looks to be headed to the Colorado Supreme Court for resolution, if it can’t be worked out across the wide partisan divide of the full state Legislature. …

Redistricting is not about protecting the interests of one political party or the other. It’s about keeping communities of common interest and geographical regions together in a congressional district where these interests are likely to be best represented.

Monday’s Fort Morgan Times weighed in from the 4th Congressional District, also threatened with being split in half (”Redistricting lacks bipartisan map for Congress“):

Committee Republicans have said that their best chances of getting a fair map would have come through negotiations within the redistricting committee, asserting that Democrats control the Senate, governor’s mansion and the Colorado Supreme Court. That body rejected a Republican map rushed through the General Assembly in the last three days of the 2003 session and instead ordered the state to adopt one drawn by a Denver District Court judge the previous year.

A Boulder Daily Camera editorial last week (”Drawing a fair Congressional map should not be about seat numbers“) decried both the idea of sending it to the courts and the false premise of “competitiveness” as a basis for drawing district boundaries:

The Democrats and Republicans on the committee unveiled about a dozen maps and have been picking those apart ever since, less “kumbaya” and more “the last time we did this, the Colorado Supreme Court had to intervene.”

Colorado’s Congressional Redistricting battle even made national news, with this Washington Post article: “Colorado deadlocks on redistricting, with plenty at stake”

The Denver Post alone ran about a half-dozen articles on Congressional Redistricting over the last week:

• Wednesay, 4/27/11: “Easy as pie? Bipartisan failure on redistricting“
• Thursday, 4/28/11: “Colorado Dems unveil new redistricting bill“
• Friday, 4/29/11: “GOP calls Democrats’ new Colorado redistricting bill unacceptable“
• Monday, 5/2/11: “Gerrymandering by any other name“
• Tuesday, 5/3/11: “Colorado Republicans unveil compromise redistricting map“
• Wednesday, 5/4/11: “Public asked, again, to weigh in on Congress maps”
  • “Democrats and Republicans are both inviting Colorado voters to the state Capitol on Thursday to weigh in on new proposals to redraw the state’s seven congressional districts.”

Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado citizens to take advantage of what may be a final opportunity to weigh in on how - and whether - the Colorado General Assembly exercises its constitutional duty (it IS the responsibility of the General Assembly - and no other body or branch of government, according to our state Constitution (Article V, Section 44) - to do the job.  Citizens can sign up to testify at the Congressional Redistricting Committee hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Thursday, May 5, in House Committee Room 112 at the Colorado Capitol.

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 with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful 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.