Dems blast plan to alter congressional district lines (Colorado)

Denver Post ^ | 5/5/03 | Michael Riley

[LdSentinal]

In a hastily arranged counterattack to Republican plans to shift the lines of Colorado's congressional districts for the second time in less than two years, state Democrats labeled the plan Sunday "undemocratic," "arrogant" and "a raw power grab."

It's also, as far as Democratic researchers scouring law books over the weekend can tell, never been accomplished by any other state legislature and no court has ruled whether it's legal.

Always a contentious process, redistricting is normally a once-a-decade event that follows each census. Though the Colorado Constitution gives the power to redraw the boundaries of congressional districts to state lawmakers, a divided legislature failed in 2001 to agree on a new map, eventually leaving the new boundaries to be drawn by a federal judge.

Now in control of both the state House and Senate, Republicans say they are ready to make another try.

A bill to be introduced today will shift the lines of five of Colorado's seven districts, most notably shoring up U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez in District 7, which the Republican won by a razor-thin margin last November. The effort would shrink what had been months of debate and public testimony into the legislature's final three days.

"In the dark of night, Republicans in the state Senate have decided that (Beauprez's) 121-vote margin was too close for comfort," U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette said at a press conference at the state Capitol on Sunday. "So they've decided to come up with a plan that will completely upset the results."

If successful, the redistricting is bound to set off a lengthy court battle as both sides test the Republicans' legal theory that a state legislature can revisit redistricting once the lines have been settled.

"The Colorado Constitution is very clear," said state Rep. Rob Fairbank, R-Littleton, the redistricting bill's House sponsor. "The General Assembly is responsible for drawing the map, not a judge."

Still, the effort raises some prickly questions.

If Democrats are serious about taking the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that could put Colorado's election boundaries in question well past next year's vote - making it difficult to determine who ought to be voting for whom.

And state parties across the country could begin pushing redistricting onto federal judges as a political tactic, hoping to revisit the issue after new elections give them better leverage in deciding district boundaries.

"This seems like a recipe for government instability," said Christopher Gates, the Colorado Democratic Party chairman. "If power changes hands in the middle of a census period, you just go ahead and change the lines?"

In a legislative session chock- full of budget cutting and controversial legislation, the redistricting proposal caught most Democrats - and some Republicans - by surprise. As of Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Golden, said that she had yet to see the Republican redistricting map and that Senate Republicans planned to allot only one hour to debate the proposal.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Ideally, we should not only shore up Beauprez's district, but also seriously diminish Udall's seat as well (which could go GOP). I'd even go so far as to carve up DeGette's seat, but that would probably be pushing it.

[Free the USA]

fyi

[jmaroneps37]

"RATS CRYING IN THE STREETS OF DENVER!!"
film at eleven. Hee hee hee.

[JohnnyZ]

Aren't there tons of other states doing the same thing, or close to it? North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, et al?

[Kuksool]

{state Democrats labeled the plan..."undemocratic," "arrogant" and "a raw power grab."}

If the RATS were more bi-partisan and fair-minded last year, the Pubbies wouldn't have to fix the mess that a judge created when he drew the political landscape of CO.

[Kuksool]

Texas is trying to redraw the Congressional Districts as well as New Mexico. Georgia is attempting to redraw both the General Assembly and Congressional boundaries. I don't know if these attempts will pass.

I know North Carolina has to redraw the boundaries for the General Assembly only. That is going to be very interesting with the NC General Assembly having Co-House Speakers.

[JohnnyZ]

Not really as interesting as you may think. The "Republican" co-speaker will just want to draw he and his RINO friends into safe districts, pair a couple conservative Republican incumbents in a few districts, and give the Democrats everything they want.

[fieldmarshaldj]

How true, how true. I won't repeat the story about what happened in TN under its trash RINO leadership. Until Republican leaders can truly grow a pair and exercise a fraction of the level of ruthlessness that the 'Rats do in holding power or increasing their share of it, we're going to continue to get shafted.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Ideally, we should not only shore up Beauprez's district, but also seriously diminish Udall's seat as well (which could go GOP)."

---

Let's not get greedy. The only way to make Udall vulnerable is by making McInnis's and/or Beauprez's districts more Democratic, which could send them over to the RAT side. I think we should allow DeGette and Udall to continue to win in heavily Democratic districts, while making the other 5 districts heavily Republican. It sounds like that's what this plan does.

[G Larry]

>"undemocratic," "arrogant" and "a raw power grab."<

Ummm....how's that different than the way the districts got to be so lopsided left in the first place???

[fieldmarshaldj]

Udall's seat SHOULD elect a Republican (it's been a marginal 'Rat seat since they initially won it in 1974), and I think we should go ahead and try and get that one as well. Even Denver's 1st sent a Republican in 1970. I would try and get as creative as possible. Take no prisoners !

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Take no prisoners!"

---

Believe me, when it comes to redistricting, I take no prisoners. I still can't believe that cowardly Bob Taft was afraid of Brown and Strickland running against him and gave them safe districts. I could have drawn a map with 14 districts where Bush got at least 54% of the vote in 2000 and only 4 (heavily) Democratic districts (one that combined Toledo with Lorain and Elyria, a second that combined Youngstown and Warren with most of Akron, a third that would preserve a black-majority district in Cleveland and a fourth that combined west Cleveland with parts of Akron). But if there aren't enough Republicans to go around, it would be foolish to draw an additional "Republican" district. For example, if one tried to decrease the number of Ohio Democrat districts to just 3 in the entire state by drawing three 47% Republican districts in NE Ohio instead of two 54% Republican districts and one 33% Republican district, we could well lose in all three districts instead of winning in 2 and losing in 1. The same holds true in Colorado. I think Bush got 54% of the vote in McInnis's district, and if one were to send Democrats from Udall to McInnis, it might turn it into a 50% district. While McInnis should be able to win, what would happen when McInnis steps down? And I don't have to tell you what would happen if we put Udall RATs into Beauprez's district. Democrats in Colorado are concentrated in Denver, Boulder, a few skiing counties west of Boulder, Pueblo and a few Hispanic counties south of Pueblo. While we can use stacking and cracking to keep the Democrats from winning in the Pueblo area, the heavy RAT concentration around Denver, Boulder and the liberal ski counties makes it necessary to use packing to concentrate them into two districts. Bush received 51% of the vote in Colorado in 2000 (BTW, the 2000 election is an excellent proxy for partisan voting trends, since Bush and Gore were both viewed as being smack in the middle of their party---another good proxy is adding up the Dole and Perot vote in 1996 and comparing it to the Clinton vote), so the GOP being unbeatable in 5 out of 7 congressional districts (71.4%) is a very good result. Just like we need to store a few acorns for winter, we need to keep our incumbents relatively safe in order to withstand a bad political year. Let the Democrats spread themselves too thin through redistricting---it bit them in the a$$ in GA in both the 90s and the 00s---we can continue to have House majorities for years to come by choosing our battles and thinking long-term.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, you do make some good points, although I'm still willing to take the risk. McInnis's seat was marginal, and sent a then-'Rat Ben Nighthorse Campbell prior to '92. Even drawing a seat somewhat safe GOP doesn't necessarily guarantee it stays in our hands (for example, the 'Rats won in GOP districts in the State Senate, getting an unthinkable majority in '00, but they are clearly overrepresented in that body). I think we can still take down Udall with someone like Bob Greenlee with even just a modest addition of GOP voters.

[JNB]

From what I read the CO-03 district that McInnis represents is a odd hybrid that combines very heavily GOP areas such as Grand Junction with ultra liberal ski towns such as Aspen and the Blue Collar Hispanic Pueblo(Though its not as Democratic as it once was).

The secret to a sucessful redistricting, and Burtons redistricting map in California for the 80s was a perfect example of this is to pack one party as much as possible in districts, while splitting up other areas. Despite the fact the GOP was in the upswing for most of the 80s in CA, especially with the 84 and 86 elections, the GOP only managed to defeat one Dem incumbent, and that was Bob Dornan defeating the incumbent Democrat in 84 when that seat was giving almost 70% of the vote for Reagan.