legislative district

Colorado Supreme Court approves state legislative district maps resubmitted by Colorado Reapportionment Commission

Published December 12, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court today approved the state legislative district maps re-submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission last week (adopted in a procedurally suspect manner on a 6-5 party-line vote, with “unaffiliated” Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats).

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is surprising, since the court had previously rejected the commission’s earlier maps for constitutional deficiencies less stark than those exhibited by the commission’s re-submitted maps.

Given the constitutional deficiencies remaining in the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s re-submitted maps, the procedural travesty by which the maps were adopted, and the availability of a more constitutionally-consistent alternative set of maps submitted as part of the ‘Minority Report’ appeal (which the majority commissioners had attempted to suppress), rejection of the commission’s maps – particularly given the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous set of constitutionally-deficient maps – appeared to be the only outcome consistent with constitutional and statutory criteria.

It will be interesting to analyze the reasoning by which a majority on the Colorado Supreme Court reached the conclusion that these maps were constitutionally valid once the court issues its full written opinion, which should follow within a week or so.

BOTTOM LINE:

The resubmitted maps retain a veritable plethora of constitutional deficiencies (in particular, failing to achieve the minimal splits in county lines, which was the primary rationale for the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous maps).  Municipal (city) splits were also multiplied, districts were not drawn to be as “compact and contiguous” as possible, and communities of interest were ignored or broken up. Additionally, the pairing of multiple incumbents into the same district raises additional constitutional issues – and one just-discovered “glitch” (”Glitch in new Colorado legislative map could unseat senator“) in the maps would result in “essentially airbrushing [State Senator Tim Neville] from the Senate after he serves next session.”

The ‘Minority Report’ challenge ably deconstructs the constitutional deficiencies of the commission’s re-submitted maps, and presents an alternative set of maps which better meet constitutional criteria (urging the adoption of the alternate maps by court order, per precedent established under similar circumstances several decades ago, as the best and most timely option).

The court’s decision is all the more surprising given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), and in the face of a set of legislative maps that were seemingly designed “out of spite” and apparently “calculated to antagonize the court.”

Unfortunately, it is possible that politics trumped law in this highly-charged case.

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 ‘Minority Report’ filed as challenge to legislative district maps in Colorado Supreme Court

Published December 9, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) officially submitted state legislative district maps rammed through on a party-line vote last week (6-5, with technically unaffiliated Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats) to the Colorado Supreme Court for review late Monday (6 December).

The Colorado Supreme Court, upon receiving the commission’s resubmitted maps, quickly announced accelerated filing deadlines for the inevitable legal challenges to the maps, putting appeals on a very tight timeline.  A total of eighteen groups filed briefs by the 5:00PM Thursday deadline (exceeding the dozen briefs, including eleven challenges, filed against the commission’s previously submitted maps - maps ultimately rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court for failure to meet Colorado’s constitutional requirements).

UPDATE:

The “minority” commissioners on the Colorado Reapportionment Commission – denied a fair procedural hearing and opportunity to discuss changes, submit amendments, or even file a dissenting ‘Minority Report’ (per standard practice in past commissions) as part of the commission’s official resubmission of state legislative district maps – filed their ‘Minority Report’ as a separate legal challenge to the “official” commission maps just prior to the filing deadline yesterday.

The fact that the commission’s minority was actually forced by the Democrat majority (including officially unaffiliated chairman Mario Carrera) to file their Statement of Opposition to the re-submitted maps as a legal challenge highlights the procedurally deficient path by which the maps were rammed through the commission, as well as remaining constitutional deficiencies in the re-submitted maps:

The intentional actions of the six-member majority created an irrevocably flawed process that led to adoption of unconstitutional maps

The commissioners’ ‘Minority Report’ filing also presents alternate maps for both House and Senate that better meet constitutional criteria and non-constitutional factors, including:

  • fewer county splits
  • fewer city splits
  • better preservation of communities of interest
  • better “competitiveness” (as a whole, and by district)
  • avoiding incumbent same-district pairings
  • avoiding unconstitutional sequencing of senate district elections

As a remedy to both the procedural failings of the commission’s adoption of the re-submitted maps, and the constitutional deficiencies of the maps themselves, the ‘Minority Report’ challenge urges the Colorado Supreme Court to adopt the alternate maps submitted as the most appropriate and timely remedy – for which there is precedent (“In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d 209, 213 (Colo. 1982).”)

Because the Court is not presented with plans that are “each consistent with the constitutional requirements,” it is not faced with a choice between alternative, competing maps.  Instead, because it is left with only one set of maps consistent with the constitutional criteria, a set drawn by members of the Commission, it is appropriate for the Court to [order] adoption of those alternate maps.

BOTTOM LINE:

The resubmitted maps retain a veritable plethora of constitutional deficiencies (in particular, failing to achieve the minimal splits in county lines, which was the primary rationale for the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous maps).  Municipal (city) splits were also multiplied, districts were not drawn to be as “compact and contiguous” as possible, and communities of interest were ignored or broken up. Additionally, the pairing of multiple incumbents into the same district raises additional constitutional issues – and one just-discovered “glitch” (”Glitch in new Colorado legislative map could unseat senator“) in the maps would result in “essentially airbrushing [State Senator Tim Neville] from the Senate after he serves next session.”

The ‘Minority Report’ challenge ably deconstructs the constitutional deficiencies of the commission’s re-submitted maps, and presents an alternative set of maps which better meet constitutional criteria (urging the adoption of the alternate maps by court order, per precedent established under similar circumstances several decades ago, as the best and most timely option).

Particularly given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey & the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), the court would seem likely to order the adoption of the more constitutionally-consistent ‘Minority Report’ map over the ratification of a set of legislative maps seemingly designed “out of spite” and apparently “calculated to antagonize the court.”

In any event – we expect that the Colorado Supreme Court’s reply will not be long in waiting.

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 legislative district maps draw challenges, supporters before Colorado Supreme Court

Published December 8, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) officially submitted state legislative district maps rammed through on a party-line vote last week (6-5, with technically unaffiliated Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats) to the Colorado Supreme Court for review late Monday.

The Colorado Supreme Court, upon receiving the commission’s resubmitted maps, quickly announced accelerated filing deadlines for the inevitable legal challenges to the maps, putting appeals on a very tight timeline.  A total of eighteen groups filed briefs by the 5:00PM Thursday deadline (exceeding the dozen briefs, including eleven challenges, filed against the commission’s previously submitted maps – maps ultimately rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court for failure to meet Colorado’s constitutional requirements).

Many of the same county and municipal governments that had challenged the commission’s previous maps did so again, on much the same grounds – emphasizing the repeated failure of the maps to meet the Colorado constitutional criteria of minimizing county and municipal splits, maintaining compact & contiguous districts, and preserving communities of interest. (Article V, Section 47)

Interestingly, a number of non-governmental special interest groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the commission’s maps – including representatives of the AFL-CIO, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Mi Familia Vota & “New Era Colorado” (a Boulder-based “progressive” group).

No county or city governments filed amicus curiae briefs in favor of the commission’s maps (one county, Garfield County, filed a “does not oppose” brief)

Briefs filed in Response to 12/5/11 Plan Resubmission (Opposing):

Briefs filed in Response to 12/5/11 Plan Resubmission (Does Not Oppose):

Briefs filed in Response to 12/5/11 Plan Resubmission (Supporting):

Once receiving written briefs, the Colorado Supreme Court would normally schedule oral arguments; however, due to the extremely constrained timeline (by statute, final state legislative district maps are due to the Secretary of State for certification no later than next Wednesday, 14 December), the court could conceivably issue a decision based on the written briefs alone as early as Friday (9 December) or even over the weekend, in order to allow time for any necessary adjustments.

BOTTOM LINE:

The resubmitted maps retain a veritable plethora of constitutional deficiencies (in particular, failing to achieve the minimal splits in county lines, which was the primary rationale for the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous maps).  Municipal (city) splits were also multiplied, districts were not drawn to be as “compact and contiguous” as possible, and communities of interest were ignored or broken up. Additionally, the pairing of multiple incumbents into the same district raises additional constitutional issues – and one just-discovered “glitch” (”Glitch in new Colorado legislative map could unseat senator“) in the maps would result in “essentially airbrushing [State Senator Tim Neville] from the Senate after he serves next session.”

It would be absolutely inconsistent of a majority on the Colorado Supreme Court to approve the commission’s most recently resubmitted state legislative maps in light of these glaring constitutional deficiencies (not to mention the procedural farce by which these maps were rammed through the commission absent discussion, opportunity for amendments, public transparency, or even the inclusion of an official ‘Minority Report’ as has happened in the past).

Particularly given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey & the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), the commission’s approval of a set of legislative maps seemingly designed “out of spite” and apparently “calculated to antagonize the court” may succeed in making history.

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 new state legislative maps with Colorado Supreme Court; appeals on tight timeline

Published December 6, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) officially submitted state legislative district maps rammed through on a party-line vote last week (6-5, with technically unaffiliated Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats) to the Colorado Supreme Court for review late Monday.

The Colorado Supreme Court, upon receiving the commission’s resubmitted maps, quickly announced filing deadlines for the inevitable legal challenges to the maps, proceeding this week on a very tight timeline (briefs are due to the court by this Thursday at 5PM):

Counsel and Parties to 11SA282 –  In Re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly

The Reapportionment Commission has filed its Resubmitted Plan for Districts for the Senate and House of Representatives with the Court Today, December 5, 2011, in advance of the deadline set forth in the Court’s Order of November 15, 2011.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has Ordered that the Simultaneous Briefs are now due from the Proponents and Objectors in this matter no later than Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 5:00 PM.  A copy of the order being mailed out today is attached for your perusal.

The court order was mailed out to each of the attorneys representing the eleven challenges to the commission’s previously submitted state legislative maps (the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the earlier maps and sent them back to the commission for a re-write).  Additional interested parties – either for or against the maps – may also “intervene” by filing briefs before the deadline as well.

Once receiving written briefs, the Colorado Supreme Court would normally schedule oral arguments; however, due to the extremely constrained timeline (by statute, final state legislative district maps are due to the Secretary of State for certification no later than next Wednesday, 14 December), the court could conceivably issue a decision based on the written briefs as early as Friday (9 December) or even over the weekend, in order to allow time for any necessary adjustments.

BOTTOM LINE:

The resubmitted maps retain a veritable plethora of constitutional deficiencies (in particular, failing to achieve the minimal splits in county lines, which was the primary rationale for the court’s rejection of the commission’s previous maps).  Municipal (city) splits were also multiplied, districts were not drawn to be as “compact and contiguous” as possible, and communities of interest were ignored or broken up. Additionally, the pairing of multiple incumbents into the same district raises additional constitutional issues – and one just-discovered “glitch” (“Glitch in new Colorado legislative map could unseat senator“) in the maps would result in “essentially airbrushing [State Senator Tim Neville] from the Senate after he serves next session.”

It would be absolutely inconsistent of a majority on the Colorado Supreme Court to approve the commission’s most recently resubmitted state legislative maps in light of these glaring constitutional deficiencies (not to mention the procedural farce by which these maps were rammed through the commission absent discussion, opportunity for amendments, public transparency, or even the inclusion of an official ‘Minority Report’ as has happened in the past).

Particularly given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey & the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), the commission’s approval of a set of legislative maps seemingly designed “out of spite” and apparently “calculated to antagonize the court” may succeed in making history.

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 rams through post-deadline Democrat maps, bars amendments or Minority Report

Published November 29, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) rammed through a pair of Democrat-proposed maps for state legislative districts today on a party-line vote (6-5, with officially unaffiliated Chairman Mario Carrera joining the commission’s other Democrats).

Despite the fact that the maps, submitted at 10PM on Sunday before Monday’s 11AM meeting to discuss revised map proposals, were submitted after the commission’s self-imposed Wednesday deadline for new submissions, the commission also voted 6-5 to close debate and discussion, bar any amendments, and suppress a Minority Report including an alternative map that better met constitutional criteria (further reducing the number of city and county splits).

The commission process in these final days has been a sham.

The unseemly haste of the commission’s majority to ram through these highly partisan revised maps (introduced at the 11th hour, with no opportunity for public review or comment) in back-to-back meetings of the commission without discussion, debate, or opportunity for amendment is a shameful chapter in the decennial circus that has characterized the determination of Colorado’s state legislative district boundaries.

As Commissioner Rob Witwer noted, “we’re under obligation – in compliance with the state Constitution and the court order to at least consider a map with fewer county splits.”

Commissioner Gayle Berry (the commission’s lone Western Slope representative) noted that even with the short notice, she’d received “LOTS of input” from people on the Western Slope about the Fv1 House map – “and they are NOT happy” (particularly with the split of Gunnison County).

Commissioner Mario Nicolais was particularly scathing in his indictment of the Fv1 House map, and of the short-circuited process in moving quickly to a vote without allowing discussion or amendments:

This is a politically vindictive map – this places GOP leadership at risk [pairing incumbents]

You want to subvert our state constitution to a matter of procedure… You can roll your eyes at me again, if you wish (to Atencio), but this map is out there – we have seen it, as a commission.

The vote on the Senate maps also proceeded without alternatives, discussion, or debate – passing on a 6-5 party-line vote.

Commissioner Gayle Berry added the following comment to her vote:

Unlike the sentiment expressed earlier by my colleagues, I hope we ARE the 1st commission to be remanded twice. I have concerns about the constitutionality of this map, and my vote is No.

Finally, Commissioner Dolores Atencio introduced a motion to suppress the inclusion of a “Minority Report” with the commission’s submission of the maps to the Colorado Supreme Court for review.

Again, Commissioner Mario Nicolais was scathing in his reply:

I don’t understand why we want to limit what the Court sees; the Court can consider other maps.

If this is just a cover-up, I think you’re going to fail miserably.  Personally, I don’t think the Court will go on [the commission's rules of] procedure and gut the Constitution.

BOTTOM LINE:

The commission has all but guaranteed additional legal challenges to the maps approved in today’s narrow (and partisan) vote.  The commission’s attorneys will definitely require all of the intervening period (cited by Commissioner Atencio as additional justification for rushing the process) to prepare for written and oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court, which may take a dim view of the commission’s perversion of the court’s intent in remanding the commission’s map the previous time.

Particularly given the more centrist makeup of the current Colorado Supreme Court (following the departure of former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and the more recent resignation of Justice Alex Martinez, replaced with Justices Monica Marquez and Brian Boatright, who just assumed his seat last week), the commission’s approval of a set of legislative maps seemingly designed “out of spite” and “calculated to antagonize the court” may succeed in making history.

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.

Contentious Colorado Reapportionment Commission meeting highlights partisan divide, post-deadline map submissions

Published November 29, 2011 | By CTBC Director

Monday’s meeting of the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative district boundaries) opened on a contentious note, with Commissioner Wellington Webb stating, “I don’t like the court’s ruling – I feel that it reduces the commission’s discretion” and failed to improve in tone until the meeting was summarily closed on a motion from Commissioner Dolores Atencio to end debate and bar any additional amendments or changes to the maps previously submitted (the motion passed 6-5, with (unaffiliated) Chairman Mario Carrera joining the 5 Democrat commissioners to overrule the 5 Republican commissioners who wanted to work out a potential compromise set of maps).

The meeting was also characterized by plenty of wrangling over process; the commission had earlier set a deadline of last Wednesday (23 November) for submission of new state legislative maps to the commission staff in order to ensure sufficient time for analysis (and posting on the commission’s website for public viewing).  However, the Democrat commissioners failed to submit and post their version of the maps until 10 PM Sunday evening (a mere 13 hours prior to the commission’s meeting on Monday).

Several commissioners took issue with the late submission of the map, decrying the failure to follow a public process and maintain the transparency established over a full summer schedule of public hearings (beginning with meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July, followed by meetings around the state throughout the month of August).

Commissioner Mario Nicolais was particularly incisive in his condemnation of the post-deadline submission of the maps, stating

I think the members who submitted those maps should just… absolutely be ashamed.
It bothers me most not because it’s cheating these commissioners, but because it’s cheating the people of Colorado… you’re cheating them of transparency, it’s unfair.

Commissioners also “cried foul” over the fact that the Democrat maps drew incumbent legislators into the same district.  Curiously, all of the incumbents drawn into the same district are Republicans, including House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, R-Monument paired with Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan; and Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, in the same Colorado Springs district as Sen. Keith King. (Other “incumbent pairings” – all GOP – include Bradford/Scott, Sonnenberg/Becker and Nikkel/Delgrosso).

Commissioner Bob Loevy – who had previously argued for the preservation of “competitive” districts in Colorado Springs and had earlier carved out Democrat-leaning districts in that “most Republican of major Colorado cities” – was particularly critical of this aspect of the Democrat maps:

This plan appears to be calculated to antagonize the court… The plan seems to go out of its way to place incumbents in the same district – especially Republicans.

Although it appears likely that the late-submitted (post-deadline) map will be voted out of commission when it meets later today for a vote (beginning Tuesday 29 November at 11:00 AM in Hearing Room A of the Legislative Services Building, located at 200 E. 14th Avenue, Denver CO 80203 – the meeting will also be broadcast online, audio only) it remains to be seen if the issue of violating the ‘public’ process (24-hour notice for “adequate time for the Commission to consider”), disputes over interpretations of constitutional requirements for minimizing county and city splits, and lumping incumbent legislators into the same district will indeed “antagonize the court” into remanding the commission’s maps for an unprecedented second time.  [Ed. we consider it not unlikely, given the changing nature of the court]

UPDATE: WSYS posted video of the meeting (“Colorado Reapportionment Commission Shenanigans“)

The maps under consideration by the commission for a vote today (listed in order of submission) follows:

House Maps:

Senate 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 Reapportionment Commission meets today to discuss revisions to state legislative maps rejected by Colorado Supreme Court

Published November 28, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) meets today (Monday, 28 November) to discuss revisions to the state legislative district maps submitted by the commission, but later rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court, following eleven challenges filed against the maps by county governments and other interested parties.

Today’s meeting, for the purpose of public discussion (by commission members) of revisions to the maps, will be held beginning at 11:00 AM in Hearing Room A of the Legislative Services Building, located at 200 E. 14th Avenue, Denver CO 80203.

The meeting will also be broadcast online (audio only)

The commission will meet again tomorrow (Tuesday, 29 November) same time/location, to vote on the revisions to the state legislative district maps to be re-submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court.

From the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s information release:

No public testimony will be heard at either of these meetings. However,comments may be submitted by email, letter, or phone call. Please use the following contact information for the commission to submit comments.

Mailing address: 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 122, Denver, CO 80203
Email: reapp2011@state.co.us
Fax: 303-866-3945
Phone: 303-866-3950

The commission will apply the instructions handed down by the Colorado Supreme Court in their ruling (“In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly”) to comply with Colorado Constitutional requirements (see below) guiding the composition of state legislative district boundaries, in order to generate a set of constitutionally-compliant maps by the court’s deadline of 6 December 2011.

Reference: Audio recording of the Colorado Supreme Court hearing on state legislative reapportionment (9 November 2011)

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, 2002), 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.

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 meets to discuss revisions to state legislative maps rejected by Colorado Supreme Court

Published November 17, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) will hold a series of meetings to discuss revisions to the state legislative district maps submitted by the commission, but later rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court, following eleven challenges filed against the maps by county governments and other interested parties.

The commission meets first on Friday, 18 November in executive session (which means that it will not be broadcast or open to the public) for the purpose of consulting with private counsel about the resubmission of the state redistricting plan.

The next meeting – for the purpose of public discussion (by commission members) of revisions to the maps, will be held on Monday, 28 November 2011 beginning at 11:00 AM at the state Capitol.

The final meeting – for the purpose of voting on revisions to the state legislative district maps to be re-submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court for review – will be held beginning at 1:00 PM on Wednesday, 30 November 2011.

From the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s information release:

No public testimony will be heard at either of these meetings. However,comments may be submitted by email, letter, or phone call. Please use the following contact information for the commission to submit comments.

Mailing address: 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 122, Denver, CO 80203
Email: reapp2011@state.co.us
Fax: 303-866-3945
Phone: 303-866-3950

The commission will apply the instructions handed down by the Colorado Supreme Court in their ruling (“In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly”) to comply with Colorado Constitutional requirements (see below) guiding the composition of state legislative district boundaries, in order to generate a set of constitutionally-compliant maps by the court’s deadline of 6 December 2011.

UPDATE: Audio recording of the Colorado Supreme Court hearing on state legislative reapportionment  (9 November 2011)

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, 2002), 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.

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 Supreme Court rejects state legislative district maps, remands to Colorado Reapportionment Commission for corrections

Published November 16, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the state legislative district maps submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission, remanding the maps back to the commission with instructions for addressing constitutional deficiencies.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, “ In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly,” rejected arguments putting “competitiveness” ahead of constitutional criteria for defining the boundaries of Colorado’s state legislative districts:

The supreme court holds that the finalized Reapportionment Plan is not sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirements of article V, section 47(2), and the Colorado Reapportionment Commission has not made an adequate showing that a less drastic alternative could not have satisfied the hierarchy of constitutional criteria set forth in In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237 (Colo. 2002). The supreme court returns the plan to the Commission for further consideration, modification, and resubmission by 5:00 p.m. on December 6, 2011.

The court’s decision followed challenges to the commission’s maps submitted by eleven Colorado counties and other interested parties, based primarily on violations of the constitutional requirement to maintain county integrity to the extent possible.

The commission’s maps split counties more than necessary to maintain numerical parity between districts, and failed to apportion a number of “whole” state legislative districts within counties that qualified based on population.

The court also rejected the notion, advanced by Democrat plaintiffs, that “competitiveness” – a concept lacking constitutional or statutory definition -could trump constitutional criteria in drawing state legislative boundaries.

Several plaintiffs also cited the fact that the commission’s maps submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court for constitutional review were introduced at the 11th hour by the commission’s lone unaffiliated member, Chairman Mario Carrera, in substitution for other maps which had been scrutinized in public hearings over the course of the summer (one round of hearings in June, followed by another round of public hearings on maps incorporating public comment and testimony throughout the month of August).  The maps voted out of commission and submitted to the court were not subjected to public comment or testimony, and in many cases contradicted the views expressed by individual citizens and county governments.

Since the maps failed to meet the criteria set forth in the Colorado Constitution, particularly the requirement to maintain county integrity where possible, the eleven challenges filed by county governments around the state were inevitable.

Clear The Bench Colorado had the most complete and accurate coverage of last week’s hearing by the court, and even predicted the outcome (down to the 4-2 margin of decision).

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.

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 Supreme Court hears oral arguments in challenges to Colorado Reapportionment Commission legislative district maps

Published November 9, 2011 | By CTBC Director

The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of eleven challenges to the state legislative district maps that were approved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission and submitted for review in early October this morning in the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the Colorado Capitol.

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.

Although the specific examples varied somewhat, attorneys for the challengers (a variety of county government officials, from around the state) consistently cited the failure of the Commission maps to meet the constitutional criteria, particularly the requirement to maintain county integrity and allocate “whole” districts within counties Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 47(2), except as necessary to meet the equal population requirements of Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 46.

Some examples:

  • Only 43 single-county districts were formed (out of 47 possible); of the 11 most populous counties, 4 lacked full representation “whole districts.”
  • Colorado Springs, qualifying for 5.38 House seats, was instead split into 8 districts (the total number of districts for which El Paso County qualified as a whole), “fracturing” the city’s representation while failing to minimize municipal splits.
  • Weld County qualified for 3.27 House districts, but was assigned only 2 “whole” districts
  • Arapahoe County qualified for 3.98 senate districts but failed to receive 4 whole districts (while in 2002, the court rejected maps failing to assign 4 “whole” districts to Arapahoe when the county qualified for 3.87)
  • Jefferson County, qualifying for 7 House districts, was assigned only 6 “whole” districts with the remaining 66,000 population placed into 2 ‘split’ districts

Attorneys for the various parties also challenged the “ripple effects” of attempting to preserve a “community of interest” for Aurora and creating “competitive” districts forcing further county splits.  The concept of “competitiveness” was frequently criticized, as an “extra finger on the scale” that is “not defined in law or the Constitution” and therefore an “illegitimate non-constitutional criterion put ahead of [actual] constitutional criteria” (particularly Article V, Section 47(2), county integrity).

An additional objection raised against the commission’s maps was the last-minute nature of the introduction and approval of the final maps without any opportunity for public input and/or comment (the commission’s chair, Mario Carrera, introduced “his” maps on Wednesday September 14th before the commission vote on Monday September 19th) citing “competitiveness” as a primary objective.

The Commission’s attorney argued that although county integrity was a high priority, “other factors may be taken into consideration” at the “discretion” of the commission.  He argued that the commission’s “discretion” is sufficient to “allow a break with the mathematical requirement to grant “whole” districts to counties.  In particular, he stressed “implications” of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as a U.S. constitutional requirement that “supercedes” Colorado state constitutional requirements, even absent a judicial finding or documented evidence that VRA violations had occurred.  (“Supposition” or “good-faith” inference of potential VRA violations was argued to be sufficient).

Several questions asked by the Colorado Supreme Court justices may have been the most interesting indicators of how the court might rule in the case (either accepting the maps as submitted, or remanding the maps back to the commission with instructions for remedying deficiencies).

  • Chief Justice Bender asked only one question of note (Justice Rice asked none at all) – regarding the last-minute introduction & approval of the maps , without public comment.
    • (Answer: “no process mandated to require public testimony after maps adopted.”)
  • Justice Eid followed up on that point – twice noting that the maps received “no public input” and the public was provided “no opportunity for comment”
    • (Answer: “no process called for,” “opportunity to comment throughout total process”)
  • Justice Hobbs asked several questions about where ethnic “community of interest” criteria (Article V, Section 47(3)) fall in order of precedence in relation to other state and federal constitutional criteria (along with a number of short “definition”-type questions)
  • Justice Coats asked several questions about the conditions under which some criteria might be set aside or supercede others – such as
    • Is “where it’s necessary” the only basis to break county integrity?
    • How do we construe the Constitution to allow the commission “discretion” to break county integrity?
    • Is it necessary to have a Voting Rights Act violation in order to split counties?
    • Is a violation of U.S. law necessary to trump the Colorado constitutional requirement for county integrity?  (Noting: “this seems to be fundamental”)
    • Is the commission able to not follow the Colorado Constitution if it ‘suspects’ VRA violations?
    • Is there anything in prior decisions (esp. 1992) showing justification for splitting counties that did not have to be split?

Perhaps most interesting, from a court-watcher’s perspective (and because of the lack of prior rulings on which to rely for context) were the questions posed by Justice Marquez, the Colorado Supreme Court’s newest justice (the most-recently appointed justice, Brian Boatright, has not yet fully joined the court, and was absent from today’s hearings).  Justice Marquez asked several astute and penetrating questions, indicating on several occasions that she was “troubled” by the commission’s arguments:

  • “What constitutes an adequate explanation” for violating county integrity?
  • Where in that list [of constitutional criteria] does “competitiveness” play a role?
    • (Answer: Court is entitled to take into account other factors, including “competitiveness” – not arguing that it trumps other criteria)
      • (Marquez): “Competitiveness” can’t trump “less drastic” alternative
  • Do other criteria trump county integrity “if Voting Rights Acts concerns are active?”
    • (Answer: Yes – understanding that this isn’t part of constitutional hierarchy – but the commission membership being “diverse” afforded more “insight”)
  • Questioning the argument that Voting Rights Act concerns take priority (based on 1992 case precedent), Marquez noted that in 1992, those issues were “hotly contested” and that the commission was attempting to resolve disputed issues – but in 2011, “no such disputed issues” exist outside San Luis valley
    • Marquez noted “the only way the commission’s argument stands is if VRA issues exist in order to trump Article V, Section 47(2)” – without such violations, no legal grounds exist to trump that constitutional requirement”

Quo Vadis?

Although “reading the tea leaves” in such a complex and highly political case is fraught with danger, based on the arguments presented (both orally today and in previous written statements by both sides), questions posed by the Colorado Supreme Court justices, and in light of relevant case law precedent and Colorado Constitutional requirements (see below), Clear The Bench Colorado will hazard a guess on the outcome:

  • CTBC predicts that the Colorado Supreme Court will not accept the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s state legislative district maps as submitted, and will remand the maps back to the commission with instructions to remedy deficiencies (and will do so before Thanksgiving), most likely on a 4-2 vote.

Any takers?

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.

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.

Search
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Links & Resources
Archives