Clear the Bench Colorado » legislative reapportionment

Published by CTBC Director on 02 Nov 2011

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

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 26 Oct 2011

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

“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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 05 Oct 2011

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

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 03 Oct 2011

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

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 20 Sep 2011

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

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 modified significant 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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 19 Sep 2011

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

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 12 Sep 2011

Colorado Reapportionment Commission reveals final state legislative district maps at public hearing today

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) has completed the semi-final set of legislative district maps for Colorado, having heard public testimony in meetings around the state throughout the month of August, and will be discussing competing versions for both state House and state Senate legislative districts in hearings today, 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 maps are only semi-final at this stage because the commission’s membership is split nearly equally between Republican and Democrat appointments (5 each) with an unaffiliated chair, Mario Carrera, as the 11th (and frequently tie-breaking) member, and each side has submitted their own version of a proposed “final” map (one each for House and Senate state legislative districts) which will be discussed in the Monday meeting.

Colorado’s state legislative district map semi-finalists:

State House legislative districts:

State Senate legislative districts:

Following Monday’s meeting, at which these maps will be discussed, the commission will have one more week to make any final adjustments to “tweak” the maps before holding a final vote at another public meeting next Monday, the 19th.  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 next Monday’s final vote, will center around how each map meets (or fails to meet) Colorado’s constitutional criteria for drawing state legislative district boundaries.

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.

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 29 Aug 2011

Final Week for Colorado Reapportionment Commission hearings - public testimony on state legislative district maps

The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) has completed the final set of preliminary legislative district maps for Colorado, having heard public testimony in meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July and bringing the maps to a vote in committee.

This week, the commission wraps up its road show, traveling around the state to solicit additional public testimony and feedback on the preliminary legislative district maps, with hearings in Greeley (Aug 29th), Castle Rock (Aug 30th), back in Denver (Aug 31st), and Broomfield (Sept 1st).

(Details on meeting times and locations available here)

The preliminary state legislative district maps approved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission may be viewed in their entirety via the following links:

Statewide House district maps (overview and detail)

Statewide Senate district maps (overview and detail)

The point of testifying before the commission in these public hearings is both to sway the voting members of the commission to alter the preliminary maps due to prevailing sentiment on how people in a given area wish to be represented, and to build the record for the Colorado Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the adopted maps.

The following quick-reference summary of constitutional provisions controlling how Colorado’s legislative districts are drawn is provided with a view towards informing public testimony - remember to keep your testimony succinct and know your facts to be more effective.

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 23 Aug 2011

New Maps Renew Focus on Colorado Congressional Redistricting Court Battle

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

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

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

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

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

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

View maps here.

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

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

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

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

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.

Commentary, PPC

Published by CTBC Director on 01 Aug 2011

Colorado Reapportionment Commission schedule summary and state legislative district preliminary map wrap

The Colorado Reapportionent Commission (charged with drawing our state legislative districts) has completed the final set of preliminary legislative district maps for Colorado, having heard public testimony in meetings in Denver from 31 May to 25 July and bringing the maps to a vote in committee.

The commission now takes the show on the road, traveling around the state to solicit additional public testimony and feedback on the preliminary legislative district maps, beginning Thursday August 4th and continuing through Thursday, September 1st.

For quick reference, a summary of the Colorado Reapportionment Commission travel schedule follows:
Salida (Aug 4th), Gunnison (Aug 5th), Montrose (Aug 6th), Grand Junction(Aug 6th), Aurora (Aug 8th), Golden (Aug 9th), Fort Collins (Aug 11th), Durango (Aug 12th),  Alamosa (Aug 13th), Trinidad (Aug 13th), Boulder (Aug 15th), Littleton (Aug 16th), Lamar (Aug 19th), Burlington (Aug 20th), Sterling (Aug 20th), Pueblo (Aug 22nd), Colorado Springs (Aug 23rd), Brighton (Aug 24th), Steamboat Springs (Aug 26th), Glenwood Springs (Aug 27th, Frisco (Aug 27th), Greeley (Aug 29th), Castle Rock (Aug 30th), back in Denver (Aug 31st), and Broomfield (Sept 1st).

(Details on meeting times and locations available here)

The preliminary state legislative district maps approved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission may be viewed in their entirety via the following links:

Statewide House district maps (overview and detail)

Statewide Senate district maps (overview and detail)

Maps by Region (with commission votes, as approved):

Region 1 (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano, Las Animas, Mineral, Rio Grande, Pueblo, and Saguache Counties)

House 7-4   (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 1 House districts)
Senate 9-2  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 1 Senate districts)

Region 2 (Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Otero, Phillips, Prowers, Sedgwick, and Washington, Yuma Counties)
House 11-0  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 2 House districts)
Senate          (No Senate plans have been adopted for this region)

Region 3 (Archuleta, Chaffee, Delta, Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Hindsdale, Jackson, La Plata, Lake, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Pitkin, Routt, Rio Blanco, San Miguel, and Summit Counties)
House 6-5     (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 3 House districts)
Senate 11-0  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 3 Senate districts)

Region 4 (Clear Creek, Custer, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Gilpin, Park, and Teller Counties)
House 7-4   (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 4 House districts)
Senate 8-3  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 4 Senate districts)

Region 5 (Larimer and Weld Counties)
House 6-5   (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 5 House districts)
Senate 6-5  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 5 Senate districts)

Region 6 & 7 (Region Six - Arapahoe and Denver Counties; Region Seven - Adams, Boulder, Broomfield and Jefferson Counties)
House 6-5   (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 6 & 7 House districts)
Senate 6-5  (Click here to view preliminary map for Region 6 & 7 Senate districts)

Additional references:

Additional information is also available on the Reapportionment Commission website.

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.

Commentary, PPC

« Prev - Next »