judicial usurpation

Colorado Supreme Court approves 40% tax increase

Published November 4, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Although Colorado voters decisively repudiated a recent attempt to raise taxes at the ballot box this week (the “Proposition 103″ tax increase initiative, which at least did seek “voter approval in advance” as required by the Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’), on the day before votes were tallied, the Colorado Supreme Court approved what may have been the largest (percentage) tax increase in the history of Colorado – increasing a severance tax (on energy production) by over 40%.

Sadly, this latest ruling only continues a pattern of judicial assault on the rights of Colorado taxpayers that is both politically motivated (the court’s majority has frequently expressed antipathy towards the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’ – despite their oath to support and uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like) and entirely predictable.  (Indeed, Clear The Bench Colorado forecast the court’s decision over a year ago in this article):
Colorado Supreme Court prepares additional assault on taxpayer rights, hearing another stealth tax increase case (31 August 2010)

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Mullarkey Majority’ has now gone 0-16 in upholding TABOR, a “perfect season” establishing them as the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence
(Mullarkey’s replacement, Monica Marquez, recused herself from the decision due to her role as a former Deputy Attorney General arguing the case for violating taxpayer’s rights before the Court of Appeals)

Some of the most prominent examples of the court’s “perfect” record:

Following the pattern of earlier anti-TABOR decisions, the majority opinion tortures statutory language to extract a tenuous justification for a constitutional end-run in favor of tax increases, overturning a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that was a model of clarity and conciseness in legal language:
so simple, even a caveman could understand it:

We hold that TABOR precludes the challenged coal severance tax adjustments. Our holding is based on a simple syllogism:

(1) TABOR prohibits increasing tax rates without voter approval. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a); Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Auth., 896 P.2d 859, 867 (Colo. 1995).

(2) Applying the statutory formula increased the coal severance tax rate (initially from $0.54 to $0.76 per ton) without voter approval.

(3) Therefore, TABOR was violated.

So how did the Colorado Supreme Court get around this clear, concise language?

The ruling majority declared that the tax increase was merely an “adjustment” to the “tax rate formula” that the statutory language “required” the Department of Revenue to increase – a “non-discretionary” mechanism (despite the undisputed fact that the Department of Revenue did exercise discretion – and complied with the Constitution by not raising the rate – for 15 years previously).  The majority likewise ignored the well-established legal principle that constitutional language trumps statutory language, as Justice Coats pointed out in his dissent:

Not only is TABOR a constitutional provision to which legislative acts are subservient, rather than merely another statute itself, but its intent to limit the legislative taxing power by subjecting it directly to popular approval, see Bickel v. City of Boulder,885 P.2d 215, 226 (Colo. 1994), and to ‘s upersede” all conflicting state statutes could not be more clear, see Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20 (1) (“All provisions are self-executing and severable and supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, charter, or other state or local provisions.”). Starting November 4, 1992, the state is expressly required to have voter approval in advance for any tax rate increase that does not fall within a TABOR exception.

Colo. Const. Art X, sec. 20(4)(a). The language of TABOR simply does not admit of any construction permitting future tax rate increases without the constitutionally required voter approval, whether or not they were mandated by statutes enacted before the constitutional amendment, and this court has never suggested otherwise.

Despite the clearly-expressed intent of the voters, both in decisively repudiating a tax increase at the polls (in 2011) and in establishing constraints of the power of government to arbitrarily and without asking raise taxes (or “increase revenue” by any “tax policy changes”) by adopting a constitutional amendment (the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” in 1992), the Colorado Supreme Court continues its unbroken streak of raising taxes by judicial decree, usurping the power and authority both of the legislature and of “We The People” – the ultimate sovereigns.

As Justice Coats made clear in his dissent:

It simply strains credulity beyond the breaking point to assert, as does the majority, that raising the tax on every ton of extracted coal from fifty-four to seventy-six cents is not a tax rate increase.

A tax increase by any other name (be it “elimination of existing exemption“, “fee“, or now “adjustment“) still smells as foul.

A violation of your right to have a say before having your money taken from you is just as bad (arguably, much worse) coming from the courts as coming from the executive or legislative branches  - your wallet can’t tell the difference.

Know your rights – as a Citizen – and defend them.

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 Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in state legislative district reapportionment case on 9 November

Published November 2, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court has set a date (9 November 2011) to hear oral arguments in the case of eleven challenges to the constitutionality (filed predominantly by affected county governments) of the state legislative district maps filed by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission in early October for constitutional review by the Colorado Supreme Court (yes, these challenges… “go to eleven”).

(Hearings begin at 9AM in the Old Supreme Court courtroom, Colorado Capitol, 200 E. Colfax Avenue, Second Floor, Denver CO 80203)

UPDATE: Live audio streaming of the oral arguments also available online

Many of the challenges (from across the state) arose in response to the eleventh-hour introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member (and chair) Mario Carrera – the maps that were, in the end, approved – after earlier maps had been subjected to multiple rounds of public comment and scrutiny (beginning with meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout August, and a final commission meeting on 12 September.

The Colorado Latino Forum – the sole group that had filed a brief in support of the approved maps, prior to the challenges – also filed a reply brief in response to challenges of the maps.

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission legal counsel filed a somewhat lengthier reply brief in response to the eleven challenges as well.

Ironically, the Colorado Supreme Court must now review the approved maps – and challenges to the approved maps – which are largely the sole creation of Colorado Reapportionment Commission Chair Mario Carrera, appointed to the commission by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender.  The court will essentially be reviewing the work product of its own appointee – a potential conflict of interest that in other circumstances might warrant recusal, and which highlights the problematic involvement of the courts in deciding issues of policy and politics.

Additional references:

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 Review: Colorado Congressional Redistricting Trial

Published October 31, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The legal battle to re-draw the boundaries of Colorado’s Congressional Districts - sent to the courts for the fourth consecutive decade at the end of the legislative session in May 2011 after the legislature (specifically the state senate) failed to do its job by passing redistricting legislation as required by the Colorado Constitution – concluded trial proceedings in Denver District Court today (Monday, Halloween Day) with closing statements and the introduction of new and revised Congressional District maps.

democrat-statewide-20111031-crop

(New Democrat redistricting map – statewide)

Sitting through the hearings and witness statements is admittedly dry stuff, with topics ranging from pine beetles and educational funding (which Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin claimed is what ties Boulder and Larimer counties together into a common “community of interest”) to water and agriculture issues (which Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin claimed were issues tying Douglas County and the Eastern Plains together into a common “community of interest”), and transportation funding (which witnesses from Douglas County – including County Commissioner Jill Repella and county lobbyist Ken Butler – advanced as evidence of common ties between Douglas and the other Denver Metro counties).

Witnesses at the Congressional Redistricting trial included a “Who’s Who” of the Colorado political scene – including over half of Colorado’s Congressional Delegation (CD2 Congressman Jared Polis, CD3 Congressman Scott Tipton, CD6 Representative Mike Coffman, and CD7 Representative Ed Perlmutter) along with other political luminaries such as CU Regent Michael Carrigan (D-Denver/CD1) (just re-elected in 2010) and former director of the Department of Higher Education Rico Munn (for the Democrats) and former Deputy Treasurer Dick Murphy and former state representative candidate (and current Denver County GOP Chair) Danny Stroud (for the Republicans).

As might be expected with so much at stake, the attorneys participating in the trial were also a “Who’s Who” of the state’s legal profession: Democrats were represented by a team headed by perennial political litigator Mark Grueskin (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); Republicans were represented by a team led by former Colorado Solicitor General Richard Westfall (who also contested the constitutionality of the Colorado “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case, first successfully in Denver District Court in May 2008 before being overturned in a highly political decision by the Colorado Supreme Court in March 2009); the Colorado Latino Forum, which introduced a separate set of maps, was represented by Gina Rodriguez; and the City of Aurora, which intervened in the case in order to carve out an Aurora-centric district (keeping the city, although split between multiple counties, in a single congressional district) was represented by former state senator and CD7 candidate Mike Feeley (apparently taking a break from his participation in the “Fenster’s Folly” anti-TABOR lawsuit pursued against the state of Colorado in federal court).  A wag reportedly opined that the sum of billable hours over the several weeks of the Congressional Redistricting trial could feed, clothe, and bathe the “Occupy Denver” crowd for a year…

Media coverage of the trial ranged from the trivial (Denver Post Lynn Bartels tweeting about former Congressman Bob Beauprez having the zipper down on his jeans) to the mildly humorous (comments on repeatedly spilled water and “a huge, industrial-size roll of paper towels” along with Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin’s characterization of the GOP “Minimum Disruption” map as a “light-jazz band”) to the occasionally informative (a background piece on presiding Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt, “Colorado redistricting judge unafraid to issue controverial decisions“).

An interesting sideline to the overall Colorado Congressional Redistricting narrative was provided by the shifting fortunes of state senator Brandon Shaffer, running for Congress in CD4 in 2012, as district maps submitted by his own party first drew him out of, then later back within, the boundaries of the district (prompting him to submit his own map) – as chronicled in a series of article in the Colorado Peak Politics political website:

(NOTE: although residency within the district is not a requirement to run for Congress, it is certainly a political disadvantage to live outside the district one is seeking to represent)

The main themes of the Congressional Redistricting trial, however, were attempts by all parties to argue the constitutionality of the various map proposals.  All parties acknowledged the federal and state constitutional requirements in general terms, but sought to emphasize different aspects in making their case.  All sides attempted to define “communities of interest” via witness testimony (or refute the commonality of interests claimed by the other side during cross-examination).

For example, Democrat witnesses Michael Carrigan and Rico Munn advocated for combining Boulder and Larimer counties as a single “community of interest” based on the presence of Colorado’s two largest institutions of higher education in each (CU in Boulder, CSU in Fort Collins).  GOP witness Dick Murphy countered that the cultural differences between the two schools – to say nothing of the two counties – diverged sharply between “liberal” CU/Boulder and more traditionally rural/conservative CSU/Fort Collins.  (Ed.: Plus, how could a combined district deal with a candidate unable to take a stand on football matchups between the two universities, or alienating half the district?)  GOP attorney Westfall also pointed out that both CU and CSU have multiple campuses around the state, and that multiple institutions of higher education exist around the state in different congressional districts, eliminating any unique claim to a “Higher Ed” community of interest centered around Boulder and Larimer counties.

Bottom Line?

The GOP argument (as well as the title of the map proposal) centered around the theme that voters should suffer “minimal disruption” to their current congressional representation.  GOP attorneys emphasized the “clear legal guidelines” and precedents (including the rightly-maligned 2003 Salazar v. Davidson case when the Mullarkey Court usurped the legislative role in redistricting – a responsibility willingly abdicated by the legislature this year) binding upon the court.

The City of Aurora sought to be contained whole within a single congressional district (despite being split between counties, which enjoy a higher constitutional precedence for remaining intact than municipalities).  Interestingly, both the modified Democrat and Republican maps appear to have accepted this premise.

The Colorado Latino Forum maps were roundly panned by all sides – the original maps (which paired Scott Tipton and Ed Perlmutter in a single district, ranging from Cortez to Lakewood) were criticized both by Republicans:

“When I saw that I thought, ‘They can’t possibly be serious,’ ” said state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray. “We had public testimony earlier this year against this kind of proposal.”

as well as by Democrats (even after modifications to the original maps):

“When a map is driven by the issue of race, whatever the race, it becomes suspect.” (Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin)

(The Latino Forum’s lawyer returned the favor, “ripping” both Republican and Democrat maps)

The Democrat argument sought to create or define new “communities of interest” but most prominently promoted the principle of “competitiveness” as a basis for determining district boundaries.  However, it must be noted that reliance on ”competitiveness” is a political argument, NOT a legal or constitutional argument (since there is neither a clear definition, nor constitutional requirement, for “competitiveness”) – even notwithstanding the “Mary-mandering” legislation passed at the close of the 2010 legislative session in what has been confirmed by events as a preparatory move in the plan to send the question of redistricting to the courts all along (instead of being resolved in the legislature, as mandated by the Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44,

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.

Judge Hyatt, who has a reputation as being hardworking, independent-minded and well-versed in the law, is not expected to take long to reach a decision – and may have already reached some conclusions on the merits of the arguments advanced during trial, as indicated by an aside uttered casually during the second week of the trial, stating (and this may be more a paraphrase than a precise quote)
“Is there anything being presented here as testimony that is likely to influence my decision?”

In any event, all parties have indicated that whatever the outcome, the case is almost certain to be appealed to – and ultimately decided by – the Colorado Supreme Court.

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.

Eleven Challenges to Colorado Reapportionment Commission state legislative district maps filed with Colorado Supreme Court

Published October 26, 2011 | By CTBC Director

“These go to eleven…”

Unsurprisingly, the state legislative district maps filed by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission earlier this month for review of constitutionality by the Colorado Supreme Court have drawn a number of challenges based on constitutional shortcomings – as of press time, the challenges “go to eleven.”

Many of the challenges (from across the state) arose in response to the eleventh-hour introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member (and chair) Mario Carrera - the maps that were, in the end, approved – after earlier maps had been subjected to multiple rounds of public comment and scrutiny (beginning with meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout August, and a final commission meeting on 12 September.

Ironically, the Colorado Supreme Court must now review the approved maps – and challenges to the approved maps – which are largely the sole creation of Colorado Reapportionment Commission Chair Mario Carrera, appointed to the commission by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender.  The court will essentially be reviewing the work product of its own appointee – a potential conflict of interest that in other circumstances might warrant recusal, and which highlights the problematic involvement of the courts in deciding issues of policy and politics.

The eleven challenges to the commission’s maps were filed from around the state:

In contrast, only a single group (the Colorado Latino Forum, a special interest group which may have been involved with creating the chairman’s maps) filed a short brief in support of the final product, immediately after the commission filed the maps with the Colorado Supreme Court for review).

Justice Takes a Holiday?

In any event, the Colorado Supreme Court will have its hands full in the coming month (or more – the statutory deadline for completing review of legislative district maps is 14 December) reviewing not only the state legislative district maps and the eleven (and possibly counting) challenges to the maps for compliance with federal and state constitutional requirements, but also dealing with the inevitable legal challenges to the eventual outcome of the Congressional Redistricting trial in Denver District Court (set to end with closing arguments on Hallowe’en morning, 31 October).  Other court business must (by law) take a back seat to the resolution of these political issues.  Further complicating matters, both cases will ultimately be decided by a court including a new member to be appointed to the bench later this week (replacing outgoing Justice Alex Martinez, resigning to take a “city job” as Denver Manager of Safety effective 31 October).  Talk about a baptism of fire…

Additional references:

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 Reapportionment Commission files final plan for state legislative districts for review by Colorado Supreme Court

Published October 5, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) submitted the final (approved) set of state legislative district maps for Colorado, having completed two rounds of hearing public testimony (meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August) and a final commission meeting on 12 September, to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of constitutionality, as required by law. (Read Court filing here)

The competing plans for put forward for consideration and public review by the major parties (Democrats and Republicans) over the summer were modified significantly based on public testimony, but were ultimately all rendered irrelevant by the eleventh-hour introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member (and chair) Mario Carrera - the maps that were, in the end, approved.

The Colorado Supreme Court is now required to review the approved maps for compliance with constitutional requirements.  Ironically, since the approved maps were drawn up almost entirely by Colorado Reapportionment Commission Chair Mario Carrera, who was appointed to the commission by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender, the court will essentially be reviewing the work product of its own appointee – a potential conflict of interest that in other circumstances might warrant recusal, and which highlights the problematic involvement of the courts in deciding issues of policy and politics.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

  • Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size – Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
  • Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

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.  Article V, Section 47(2)

  • Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
  • Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(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. (Article V, Section 47(1))

  • Finally, communities of interest – ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic – are to be preserved whenever possible

(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. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority – i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for district maps to pass constitutional review.

Additional references:

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.

New Twist in Colorado Congressional Redistricting Court Battle? State Senator Brandon Shaffer files brief to include his own map

Published October 3, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The legal battle to re-draw the boundaries of Colorado’s Congressional Districts – sent to the courts for the fourth consecutive decade at the end of the legislative session in May 2011 after the legislature (specifically the state senate) failed to do its job by passing redistricting legislation as required by the Colorado Constitution – recently received a new twist when state Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont) filed an amicus curiae brief with the court introducing (and urging adoption of) his own map. (H/T Colorado Peak Politics for breaking the story earlier today: “BRANDON-MANDER GOES TO COURT: Brandon Shaffer Tries To Sue For A Seat In Congress“).

Although the filing of amicus curiae briefs to intervene in court cases of interest are not uncommon, certain aspects make THIS filing rather unusual (and rather ironic).

First, the fact that Congressional redistricting in Colorado has ended up before the courts at all, rather than being carried out by the legislature, which is unambiguously assigned the responsibility under the Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44,

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.

is due in no small part to an apparently long-term plan (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) finalized when state senate Democrats, under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader John Morse and Senate President Brandon Shaffer himself, filibustered their own redistricting legislation to prevent a vote.

Second, Brandon Shaffer’s interest in the outcome (along with the shape of the district maps) appears to be directly linked to his personal political aspirations; as the Colorado Peak Politics article points out,

Shaffer’s brief is a pretty brazen move, making Shaffer the only candidate or incumbent to file a motion with the court. Candidates and incumbents are generally expected to stay away from the process, since they have a very clear vested interest in the outcome.

Shaffer’s redistricting amicus brief begins by admitting, with complete irony and total lack of self-consciousness, the failure of the legislature (under his leadership) to do its job:

the Sixty-eighth General Assembly adjourned sine die on May 11, 2011 without discharging its constitutional mandate.

Shaffer’s plan then proceeds to advocate splitting Colorado’s Eastern Plains – defined as a distinct “community of interest” in the foundational and governing case law, Carstens v. Lamm (1982) – in order to consolidate a district around his “home base” (the Longmont-Fort Collins-Greeley triangle).  Curiously (or perhaps, not-so-curiously), Shaffer’s brief ONLY addresses the boundaries of the 4th CD, and advances no argument on the constitutionality of any other districts.

This intentional politicization of the judiciary, already adversely implicated by involvement in what is expressly mandated as a legislative branch responsibility, in order to advance one’s personal political advancement, is deeply troubling.  It is corrosive to our institutions, and undermines the sanctity of the rule of law and public confidence in our courts.

In any event, the case (combined cases, actually) bears careful watching as it plays out in court, scheduled to begin trial (open to the public) on 17 October.

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.

Colorado Reapportionment Commission adopts final state legislative district maps – Colorado Supreme Court to review

Published September 20, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) yesterday (19 September 2011) approved the final set of state legislative district maps for Colorado, having completed two rounds of hearing public testimony (meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August) and a final commission meeting on 12 September.

The competing plans for put forward for consideration and public review by the major parties (Democrats and Republicans) over the summer were significantly modified based on public testimony, but were ultimately all rendered irrelevant by the eleventh-hour introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member (and chair) Mario Carrera – the maps that were, in the end, approved.

All of the Democrat commissioners joined Carrera in voting for the maps, along with Republican commissioners Gayle Berry, Robert Loevy and Rob Witwer voting yes on the Senate map (Republicans Mario Nicolais and Steve Tool voted no, for a 9-2 vote) and Barry & Loevy again joining Carrera and Democrats in voting yes on the House Map (Republican commissioners Nicolais, Tool and Witwer voted no, for a 8-3 vote).

Earlier today, the Colorado Reapportionment Commission staff issued a release announcing the new maps:

On September 19, 2011, the commission voted to adopt Final Plan Senate 003v1 [Senate map] and Final Plan House 003v1 [House map].   The commission instructed staff to renumber some of the districts.  The commission also authorized staff to make minor technical changes to the plans before the final plans are submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Staff will send out another email once the final plans have been filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.  …

The page also contains a Google Earth map feature allowing the user to zoom in on a particular area of the approved final plans.  For this feature, the user must load the Google Earth application and then download the files of the approved final plans.

The minor technical changes (mostly re-numbering districts) will likely be completed in the next few days, and the maps will be submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of how constitutional criteria have (or have not) been met no later than October 7th.  Legal challenges can (and probably will) be filed with the court once they are submitted for review.  If the Colorado Supreme Court rules that the maps meet Colorado’s constitutional requirements, barring any unresolved legal challenges), the maps will be filed as final with the office of Secretary of State on 14 December.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

  • Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size – Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
  • Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

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.  Article V, Section 47(2)

  • Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
  • Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(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. (Article V, Section 47(1))

  • Finally, communities of interest – ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic – are to be preserved whenever possible

(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. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority – i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for district maps to pass constitutional review.

Additional references:

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 Reapportionment Commission to vote on final state legislative district maps – next stop Colorado Supreme Court

Published September 19, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) votes today on the final set of state legislative district maps for Colorado, having completed two rounds of hearing public testimony (meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August) at the Legislative Services Building (Hearing Room A) on 200 East 14th Avenue Denver 80203 (located just across the street to the south of the Colorado state Capitol building) starting at 11.  (Click here for meeting agenda)

The final plans for consideration have undergone significant changes in the last week alone; since the commission met last Monday to discuss what were then two competing sets of “semi-finalist” maps (below), the field of potential map finalists has expanded considerably (including revisions to previously introduced maps by both Democrats and Republicans, and the introduction of an entirely new set of maps by the commission’s sole unaffiliated member and chair Mario Carrera).

The most current set of proposed state legislative district maps can be viewed here.

Last week’s proposed State House legislative district maps:

Last week’s State Senate legislative district maps:

Following Monday’s meeting, at which the commission will adopt a single set of legislative district maps by majority vote, the commission must submit the final, approved maps to the Colorado Supreme Court for review of constitutionality no later than October 7th.

It is likely that much of Monday’s discussion, and the final vote, will center around how each map meets (or fails to meet) Colorado’s constitutional criteria for drawing state legislative districts.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public comprehension of what are sure to be both contentious and complex discussions.

Colorado Constitutional Requirements:

  • Equal population (with no more than 5% deviation;  ideal district size – Senate: 143, 691, House: 77,372) (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46)
  • Counties cannot be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts

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.  Article V, Section 47(2)

  • Municipalities may not be split unless necessary to achieve equal population between districts (Article V, Section 47(2))
  • Districts must be as compact and contiguous as possible, and consist of whole precincts

(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. (Article V, Section 47(1))

  • Finally, communities of interest – ethnic, economic, cultural, demographic, trade area and geographic – are to be preserved whenever possible

(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. (Article V, Section 47(3))

Note that per a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling (In re: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly), these criteria are listed in order of priority – i.e. there’s a hierarchy of constitutional criteria which must be satisfied in order for legislative districts to pass constitutional review.  Note also that “competitiveness” – however defined – is NOT a constitutional criterion and should not guide the court’s review of the proposed legislative district maps.

Additional references:

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 Judicial branch announces forty-five openings on judicial nominating commissions around the state

Published September 17, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Judicial Branch, “[o]n behalf of Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers and Chief Justice Michael L. Bender,” recently announced “the opening of the application period for 45 vacancies on judicial nominating commissions across the state of Colorado.”  (Colorado Judicial Branch press release, 15 September 2011)

Some positions are open now; the majority of vacancies will occur when current commissioners’ six-year terms end Dec. 31. All commissioners serve as volunteers. Applications are due on or before October 14, 2011.

Under Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” system of filling judicial offices, the judicial nominating commissions – at either the district level, or statewide – represent one of the few opportunities for Colorado citizens to have a say in the composition of our courts.  In essence, the commissions are the means by which Citizens can become involved in choosing our judges.

At the district level (Colorado is divided into 22 judicial districts),

Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. No more than four members can be from the same political party, and there must be at least one voting member from each county in the district. [Source: Colorado State Courts,  Judicial Nominating Commissions]

At the statewide level (including both the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals),

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission and is a non-voting member. This commission includes one citizen admitted to practice law in Colorado and one citizen not admitted to practice law residing in each of the state’s seven congressional districts, and one additional citizen not admitted to practice law in Colorado.  [Total of 15 commissioners] (Source: Judicial Nominating Commissions)

According to the state courts website (Judicial Nominating Commissions), there is one current vacancy on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission (a non-attorney who must reside in the 4th Congressional District); another position until recently vacant was filled with Jeffco Chief Deputy DA Charles Tingle (a Republican) for the 7th Congressional District attorney slot.  An additional 3 seats on the commission (one attorney, from the 5th Congressional District, and a non-attorney each from the 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts) are opening when the currently serving commissioners (all Republicans) term expires.  All commissioners serve as volunteers. Applications are due on or before October 14, 2011.

UPDATE: Law Week Colorado profiles the current members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission (“Meet Those Who Will Help Select Colorado’s Next Justice“)

(For a full list of district commission openings, view the Judicial Nominating Commissions and scroll to the bottom)

From the press release:

Application forms for vacancies on the various commissions may be found on the Colorado Judicial Department web site at http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Nominating.cfm. Completed application forms may be mailed to Romaine Pacheco, Governor’s Office of Boards and Commissions, 136 State Capitol Bldg., Denver, CO 80203.  They also may be faxed to 303-866-6368 or sent by e-mail to boards@state.co.us.

Article VI, Section 24 of the Colorado Constitution requires that for any nominating commission, “no more than one-half of the commission members plus one, exclusive of the Supreme Court justice serving as ex officio chair, shall be members of the same political party.” The Constitution also requires that at least one commissioner reside in each of the counties of the district. Applicants must reside in the judicial district – or, for the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, the Congressional District – to which they are applying for appointment.

Citizen participation in the judicial nominating commissions (either at the district level or statewide) is essential to ensuring that good judges – who understand that their role is to fairly and impartially uphold and apply the law – are elevated to hold judicial office, instead of more politicians in black robes.

This is particularly important in selecting the next Colorado Supreme Court justices – who all too frequently have exercised unrestrained power in violation of constitutional limits on their authority.

Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens – that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.

Our view: an informed citizenry and active citizen participation is vital in restoring accountability and transparency to the 3rd branch of state government, the judicial branch – most particularly for the Colorado Supreme Court.

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.

“Adequate Funding” unrelated to available state funds? Colorado judge rules out relevant evidence

Published September 13, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Lobato v. Colorado school funding lawsuit concluded its fifth and final week in trial court in Denver last Friday – with plaintiffs seeking

billions of dollars of additional funding for schools, though it’s unclear where that extra money would come from. (Denver Post, “Colorado school funding trial enters likely final week“)

This educational-funding lawsuit (seeking to force even higher state educational spending by court order) represents yet another abuse of the courts for the pursuit of political ends – unfortunately aided and abetted by an all-too-complicit (and highly political) majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which previously (October 2009) overturned two lower courts which had (correctly) dismissed the case (Lobato v. Colorado) as non-justiciable (meaning, a policy issue not to be decided by the courts).

Plaintiffs scored a major victory when Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport ruled to exclude evidence on the state’s budget and fiscal situation, as well as evidence on relevant constitutional provisions including the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the Gallagher Amendment (restricting property tax collections).

According to an article in last weekend’s Pueblo Chieftain (“State’s pocketbook won’t figure in schools suit“),

Kathy Gebhardt, a lawyer for plaintiffs in Lobato v. the state of Colorado, told the education collective Colorado School Finance Project on Friday that exclusion of evidence related to the state’s budget condition was a key victory for her side in five-week trial that concluded last week.

Gebhardt said her legal team filed the motion “thinking that we probably had a 5 or 10 percent chance of winning on that, and we won, which pretty much I think gutted a big part of the state’s defense.”

In lawsuits challenging the adequacy of school funding in other states, plaintiffs rarely have sought similar rulings.

Although Judge Rappaport “does not expect to rule on the case for at least another month” the preliminary rulings do not bode well for the state, which “cannot afford to lose.”

A court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could not only precipitate a constitutional crisis, but lead to a fiscal and budgetary train wreck of epic proportions.  Indeed, as Governor Hickenlooper correctly points out, the consequences for Colorado would be “devastating.”

If the courts are able to decide “the future of public education” by judicial fiat, Colorado citizens will have lost all control and accountability over our schools.

The issue of educational funding is NOT one for the courts, but rather for the legislature and/or local school boards. The Lobato lawsuit is a fiscal, legal, and political disaster in the making.

Read more about the Lobato school funding case in these recent articles:

These cases highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government.  Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government.  This is not it.

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.

Search
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Links & Resources
Archives