Colorado justices toss redistricting map

The Tacoma News Tribune ^ | December, 1, 2003 | STEVEN K. PAULSON, Associated Press

[Impy]

DENVER (December 1, 6:59 a.m. PST) - In a decision that could have national implications, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the state's new congressional districts Monday because the GOP-led Legislature redrew the maps in violation of the constitution.

The General Assembly is required to redraw the maps only after each census and before the ensuing general election - not at any other time, the court said in a closely watched decision. A similar court battle is being waged in Texas.

Under the ruling, Colorado's seven congressional districts revert to boundaries drawn up by a Denver judge last year after lawmakers failed to agree.

The issue before the court was whether the redistricting map pushed through the Legislature by Republicans this year was illegal. Colorado's constitution calls for redistricting only once a decade and Democrats contended the task was completed by the judge.

Republicans said the map drawn by the judge was temporary and the law requires redistricting work to be done by the Legislature.

Republicans now hold five of the state's seven congressional seats. Democrats hope to pick up two of those seats if they win the court fight.

State GOP Chairman Ted Halaby had said the case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court if there are conflicting decisions in Colorado and Texas, which also has a pending court challenge.

[Impy]

This was not unexcepted since the Colorado Supremes were mostly appointed by Rat Governors. On to the US Suprmemes.

[AntiGuv]

In my understanding, this case was decided under provisions of the Colorado constitution and Colorado statute. Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court consequently has no jurisdiction.

[mewzilla]

The General Assembly is required to redraw the maps only after each census and before the ensuing general election - not at any other time, the court said in a closely watched decision.

This sounds pretty straightforward if true.

[BlackRazor]

The General Assembly is required to redraw the maps only after each census and before the ensuing general election - not at any other time, the court said in a closely watched decision.

I haven't read the court decision or Colorado's constitution, so I may just be picking on poor reporting of the facts. But just because the consitutution only requires redistricting at certain intervals, does that necessarily mean that it explicitly prohibits redistricting at more frequent intervals?

[Dane]

The arguement will be that the legislature didn't redraw the maps, a court did.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"In my understanding, this case was decided under provisions of the Colorado constitution and Colorado statute. Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court consequently has no jurisdiction."

---

If the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the CO Supreme Court, violates a federal law or constitutional provision, the U.S. Supreme Court most definitely has jurisdiction. Not allowing the state legislature to redistrict could be one of those instances in which activist state courts overstep their bounds and step on the toes of federal political rights. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court sends them a message once and for all that legislatures, not courts, make laws.

[AntiGuv]

If the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the CO Supreme Court, violates a federal law or constitutional provision, the U.S. Supreme Court most definitely has jurisdiction.

Of course, I'm well aware of that. However, courts in several other states - California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia - have issued quite similar holdings in the past. The U.S. Supreme Court has never intervened to reverse a court ruling upholding any interpretation of a given state's statute that redistricting may occur only once per decade by whatever process.

Conversely, courts in South Carolina have held that its statute explicitly permits that the "General Assembly may at any time arrange the various Counties . . . into Congressional Districts . . ." (S.C. Constitution - emphasis added) As for the U.S. Supreme Court, please don't hold your breath expecting that court to ever again place any issue beyond judicial review, as this will merely result in one less Pubbie in the world..

[Kuksool]

Who needs governors and legislators when we have judges dictating policy for the people. Either way, the current configuration of the CO Congressional Delegation will stay the same.

[Torie]

State constitutions are mischievious things. I am against them.

[Bubba_Leroy]

So how hard is it for the legislature to amend the Colorado state constitution?

[Impy]

F...ing Bastards. Thanks for Perlmutter.