Colorado Re-Districting by Republicans . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Is found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Next on the list of 'Un-Constitutional Re-Districting by Republicans' will be Texas.
It's also headed to a Supreme Court decision, State fisrt, then Federal.

You have to play fair, not change the Constitution to support only your Party Agenda
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
"the court said in a closely watched 5-2 decision that followed party lines." Figures;)

Anyway -the Texas case and Colorado case aren't the same. It seems that Colorado has much more strict guidelines and timelines than Texas does.

The only bad thing for Colorado is that they may not be properly represented for quite a few more years.

CkG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Georgia went through this a couple of years ago but it was the Democrats that re-drew lines in an attempt to favor themselves. It back-fired big time with Republicans winning in the new Districts thats traditionally were Democrat since the Civil War.

 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Georgia went through this a couple of years ago but it was the Democrats that re-drew lines in an attempt to favor themselves. It back-fired big time with Republicans winning in the new Districts thats traditionally were Democrat since the Civil War.
your post has brought humor into my day :D thank you sir.

i just find it hilarious that the Democrats plans backfired. i would also find it funny if the Republicans plans backfired here in Texass.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Is found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Next on the list of 'Un-Constitutional Re-Districting by Republicans' will be Texas.
It's also headed to a Supreme Court decision, State fisrt, then Federal.

You have to play fair, not change the Constitution to support only your Party Agenda
Redistricting midcensus isnt unconstitutionial, according to the Federal Constitution OR the Texas constitution. The only way the new texas congressional lines can be declared unconstitutional would be to fight it on the voters rights act. However it will likely pass that test, seeing as the previous 2 redistricitings did.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


The only bad thing for Colorado is that they may not be properly represented for quite a few more years.
I like when they use this statement. Hmmm, improperly represented? So parties should decide how one is represented?

Maybe if people vote (as some do), that would be their representation. Let the voters decide, but that's just me.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
UNfortunately, most House seats have been districted in such a way as to make them safe for one party or the other- once you're in, you're in forever. They're not competitive. As much as the Republicans claim to value competition, that apparently doesn't apply to politics.

The redistricting in Colorado, my home state, was an effort to protect the first term republican incumbent in a rare competitive district. He only won by 200 votes or so, and hasn't proven to be particularly effective or popular. His pals want him to stay, however, so they tried to stack the deck in his favor.

With modern demographic mapping and computer modelling, redistricting can effectively deny the minority party anything more than token representation, which basically deprives voters of their right to choose. In a state with a near even registration split, much higher ratios of majority party candidates can be made winners, on the order of 80/20. As was said by insiders about the Texas redistricting, it can guarantee one party the majority despite the mood of the electorate.

That's not really my idea of Democracy. The notion that redistricting should occur whenever the majority party finds itself in the rare position to really screw over the other side isn't necessarily very smart, either. It can lead to partisan bloodbaths on a much shorter schedule than the usual 10 years, at needless expense to the taxpayers, in states controlled by either party... While that looks good to the Texas and Colorado Republicans, it might not work out so well in other states or in the future... Things change, and people do remember, particularly when you've done them dirty...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


The only bad thing for Colorado is that they may not be properly represented for quite a few more years.
I like when they use this statement. Hmmm, improperly represented? So parties should decide how one is represented?

Maybe if people vote (as some do), that would be their representation. Let the voters decide, but that's just me.
I said "may" ;)
I think you fail to understand how this all works. It isn't a big pool of votes - it is a regional(district) vote and when one district is too big in comparison to another(population wise) it can lead to those people being under represented. So yes - redistricting to change with the population shifts is a fundamentally solid procedure.

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
True, CAD, but the districts in Colorado were already redrawn by the courts after the census, on the occasion that a republican house and democratic senate couldn't come to an agreement in time for the 2002 election. The same happened in Texas. States have various fail-safe measures to insure redistricting actually occurs as necessary to meet the federal election rules. AFAIK, the attempted redistricting in off-years just because you floated to the top is a new twist, and an extremely dangerous one, at that...

EDIT- I shouldn't say the same happened in Texas, but it was something similar...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
True, CAD, but the districts in Colorado were already redrawn by the courts after the census, on the occasion that a republican house and democratic senate couldn't come to an agreement in time for the 2002 election. The same happened in Texas. States have various fail-safe measures to insure redistricting actually occurs as necessary to meet the federal election rules. AFAIK, the attempted redistricting in off-years just because you floated to the top is a new twist, and an extremely dangerous one, at that...

EDIT- I shouldn't say the same happened in Texas, but it was something similar...
Ah, but it didn't happen in Texas. In 2000, the Texas legislature failed to reach a consensus on a redistricting plan and what a judicial panel did, left the 1990 district maps mostly intact except for creating two new Hispanic seats.

Colorado also had problems finalizing a district map and it failed multiple times. lots of good info on Colorado's situation.

So as you can see - they are not just cut and dry cases of political power trips. There is much more to it than that.

CkG
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So as you can see - they are not just cut and dry cases of political power trips. There is much more to it than that.

CkG
The fight over redistricting in Colorado had meant that the last several times after censuses that the legislature debated gerrymandering, it ultimately went to the courts who made the final decision regarding congressional boundaries, since the legislature consistantly reached a deadlock. The fact the Republicans suddenly saw a problem with such an occurance and felt the need to override the judicial decision suddenly bringing a secretly written redistricting bill up in congress with only 72 hours before the congressional session closed, is increadibly suspicious. The way the redistricting was done was even more suspicious given it focusses on shoring up close districts controlled by Republicans.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Aegion
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So as you can see - they are not just cut and dry cases of political power trips. There is much more to it than that.

CkG
The fight over redistricting in Colorado had meant that the last several times after censuses that the legislature debated gerrymandering, it ultimately went to the courts who made the final decision regarding congressional boundaries, since the legislature consistantly reached a deadlock. The fact the Republicans suddenly saw a problem with such an occurance and felt the need to override the judicial decision suddenly bringing a secretly written redistricting bill up in congress with only 72 hours before the congressional session closed, is increadibly suspicious. The way the redistricting was done was even more suspicious given it focusses on shoring up close districts controlled by Republicans.
The judiciary does not make legislation. It is the Legislature's job to redistrict - not the court's. So yes - those evil, mean Republicans have cause to see a problem with it.

"The initial responsibility for drawing both the legislative and congressional districts lies with the legislature. Democrats control the state senate and Republicans control of state house. Republican Governor Bill Owens has veto power over any redistricting plans." - From my previous link.

CkG
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The judiciary does not make legislation. It is the Legislature's job to redistrict - not the court's. So yes - those evil, mean Republicans have cause to see a problem with it.

"The initial responsibility for drawing both the legislative and congressional districts lies with the legislature. Democrats control the state senate and Republicans control of state house. Republican Governor Bill Owens has veto power over any redistricting plans." - From my previous link.
Oddly enough, when the judiciary ended up doing the redistricting in previous decades, the Republicans never had a problem with it. This is whats so increadibly suspicious about the situation. If the judicial branch's plan is not considered valid, you end up with a problem of what happens with elections if the congressional branch reaches a complete deadlock and can't pass a plan, which does happen. Note, the real reason the Republicans wanted to redistrict by legislature all of a sudden was they took control of the Senate again so they no longer had to worry about the Democrats blocking a blatantly partisan redistricting plan.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
In both cases, Legislative gridlock led to judicial intervention and the establishment of new districting scenarios that met state and federal guidelines. This isn't the first or last time such action has accurred- I suspect that may be fairly common.

Having acquired enough muscle after the fact, Republicans in both states have sought to stack the deck in their favor, to discard and overwrite the court-mandated districts. They failed in Colorado, and will likely do the same in Texas. If they'd had the means to overpower the Democrats in time for the 2002 elections, things would be different, and are different in states where either party had such abilities.

It doesn't speak well of Republican concepts of respect and fair play, and invites retaliation in states where Dems have gained or will gain the requisite after the fact majorities.

It's not complex at all, it's just extremely sleazy brute-force politics, part of the all out quest to transform America into something more to their liking- ends justifying the means, in their own minds, anyway..
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yep - cry me a river. When the other party has a majority....it's "brute-force" or "blatantly partisan" politics

You guys(Democrats) have to come up with a different whine line - this one is getting old. Elected officials who have the power and authority to pass legislation can do so, just as was done when the Democrats had the majority....but I suppose that was "brute force" and "blatantly partisan" politics then too


CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We'll fix them... we'll move out of and into the appropriate districts. What will they do then?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
What, CAD, is the truth getting to you? That's usually when you start in with the rolleyes... As the Colorado Supreme court has shown, the legislators didn't have the power and authority to come back for a second bite at the apple whenever circumstances were more to their liking.

States other than Colorado and Texas have heavily gerrymandered districts- the parties in control of the legislatures at the proper time took advantage of the situation. That's not to say that such maneuvering by either party serves the public interest, or the interests of Democracy in general.

It's the Colorado Republicans who are crying at the moment, whining about the partisan court, and just how terribly unfair legal niceties like constitutions and 200 years of legal precedence can be to a truly noble cause such as their own...
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - cry me a river. When the other party has a majority....it's "brute-force" or "blatantly partisan" politics

You guys(Democrats) have to come up with a different whine line - this one is getting old. Elected officials who have the power and authority to pass legislation can do so, just as was done when the Democrats had the majority....but I suppose that was "brute force" and "blatantly partisan" politics then too


CkG
Actually it was evently split with the Republicans controlling the house, and the Democrats controlling the senate. This is why it led to gridlock and went to the judicial branch in the first place. If the legislature had passed the old redistricting plan, the Republicans would have known that they didn't have a prayer of not having it overruled since the Colorado Supreme Court had thrown out an attempt by the Democrats to gerrymander election boundaries between censuses under similar circumstances in 1934. I am willing to aknowledge that the attempt in the 1930s was a bad idea and probably blatantly partisan. (I haven't studied the circumstances surrounding the situation in details so I currently can't say so with absolute certainty.)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What, CAD, is the truth getting to you? That's usually when you start in with the rolleyes... As the Colorado Supreme court has shown, the legislators didn't have the power and authority to come back for a second bite at the apple whenever circumstances were more to their liking.

States other than Colorado and Texas have heavily gerrymandered districts- the parties in control of the legislatures at the proper time took advantage of the situation. That's not to say that such maneuvering by either party serves the public interest, or the interests of Democracy in general.

It's the Colorado Republicans who are crying at the moment, whining about the partisan court, and just how terribly unfair legal niceties like constitutions and 200 years of legal precedence can be to a truly noble cause such as their own...
No, actually you are pretty far from the truth...which the eye rolls highlight. I use them alot when talking with people who don't seem to know what the deal is or when people use absurd language and arguments - such as "brute-force" or "blatantly partisan" accusations against the majority.
The court may have that power to say it was unconstitutional for them to do so because it was past the deadline but I'd think that if they looked at the constitutionality of a judge drawing up districts instead of the Legislature - they'd find in favor of the Legislature;) Also the State constitution provides no avenue to resolve deadlocks on redistricting - but for a Judiciary to step in and trump everything is wrong - period.

No, again you have it wrong. The problem is that a court drew up the districts. I've heard people around here chanting things like "just because that's the way it's always been done - doesn't make it right". Well....? So when the Republicans of Colorado try to change what is wrong, they are "crying"? I don't think so. The courts have NO place in setting districts for the Legislature - no matter how many times it's been done.

CkG
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY. The problem is that a court drew up the districts. I've heard people around here chanting things like "just because that's the way it's always been done - doesn't make it right". Well....? So when the Republicans of Colorado try to change what is wrong, they are "crying"? I don't think so. The courts have NO place in setting districts for the Legislature - no matter how many times it's been done.

CkG
This is clearly a stupid argument. Its possible to have legislative deadlock, and you can't use old boundaries when the number of seats in your state and population has changed. Clearly under these circumstances some mechanism has to be in place to at least temperarily resolve the issue so elections can occur. Even a temperary boundary plan may need to be in place permantly if the legislature remains at deadlock in the future. At best you can argue that a judicial restricting plan is ideally a temperary measure that should hopefully eventually be replaced by a plan from the legislature. Of course, this has not been how this issue has been treated in the past, and some people will certainly question your motivation for establishing this new principle.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The court may have that power to say it was unconstitutional for them to do so because it was past the deadline but I'd think that if they looked at the constitutionality of a judge drawing up districts instead of the Legislature - they'd find in favor of the Legislature;) Also the State constitution provides no avenue to resolve deadlocks on redistricting - but for a Judiciary to step in and trump everything is wrong - period.

No, again you have it wrong. The problem is that a court drew up the districts. I've heard people around here chanting things like "just because that's the way it's always been done - doesn't make it right". Well....? So when the Republicans of Colorado try to change what is wrong, they are "crying"? I don't think so. The courts have NO place in setting districts for the Legislature - no matter how many times it's been done.

CkG
Do you have a link or something that shows the CO Supreme Court is actually drawing up the districts? It sounds to me like they're reverting the districts back to the way they were previously. Because the legislature missed this constitutional window, the districts are to remain as they were in 2000 and would not be altered until after the next census in 2010.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The court may have that power to say it was unconstitutional for them to do so because it was past the deadline but I'd think that if they looked at the constitutionality of a judge drawing up districts instead of the Legislature - they'd find in favor of the Legislature;) Also the State constitution provides no avenue to resolve deadlocks on redistricting - but for a Judiciary to step in and trump everything is wrong - period.

No, again you have it wrong. The problem is that a court drew up the districts. I've heard people around here chanting things like "just because that's the way it's always been done - doesn't make it right". Well....? So when the Republicans of Colorado try to change what is wrong, they are "crying"? I don't think so. The courts have NO place in setting districts for the Legislature - no matter how many times it's been done.

CkG
Do you have a link or something that shows the CO Supreme Court is actually drawing up the districts? It sounds to me like they're reverting the districts back to the way they were previously. Because the legislature missed this constitutional window, the districts are to remain as they were in 2000 and would not be altered until after the next census in 2010.
It wasn't the COSC that drew it up;) Seek and you shall find. You are correct though - the Districts are reverting to pre-Republican redistricting maps.

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Aegion
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY. The problem is that a court drew up the districts. I've heard people around here chanting things like "just because that's the way it's always been done - doesn't make it right". Well....? So when the Republicans of Colorado try to change what is wrong, they are "crying"? I don't think so. The courts have NO place in setting districts for the Legislature - no matter how many times it's been done.

CkG
This is clearly a stupid argument. Its possible to have legislative deadlock, and you can't use old boundaries when the number of seats in your state and population has changed. Clearly under these circumstances some mechanism has to be in place to at least temperarily resolve the issue so elections can occur. Even a temperary boundary plan may need to be in place permantly if the legislature remains at deadlock in the future. At best you can argue that a judicial restricting plan is ideally a temperary measure that should hopefully eventually be replaced by a plan from the legislature. Of course, this has not been how this issue has been treated in the past, and some people will certainly question your motivation for establishing this new principle.
No - It's not a stupid argument. The Courts have no legislative powers - PERIOD. Now if it was a "temporary" map - it may not have been as big of deal but that wasn't the case. The power clearly lies with the Legislature according to the State Constitution...unfortunately there are no State Constitutional guidelines in place to resolve such "deadlocks". Now the problem is that there will have to be a constitutional amendment to provide such guidelines but that will likely be a whine fest and court battle - once again setting the court up to decide law.:p

CkG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
So, uhh, you'd rather that Coloradoans not have any representatives in the US House? Because that was the only real alternative to judicial intervention. We had to find a way to redistrict in time for the 2002 elections, and the legislature didn't get the job done. Very much the same in Texas, except that their system actually provides for the judicial panel that drew the districts used in the 2002 election...

And, quite frankly, the court did a good job here in Colorado- some congressional districts are actually competitive, a good thing for voters, a good thing for democracy.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, you'd rather that Coloradoans not have any representatives in the US House? Because that was the only real alternative to judicial intervention. We had to find a way to redistrict in time for the 2002 elections, and the legislature didn't get the job done. Very much the same in Texas, except that their system actually provides for the judicial panel that drew the districts used in the 2002 election...

And, quite frankly, the court did a good job here in Colorado- some congressional districts are actually competitive, a good thing for voters, a good thing for democracy.
No - I'd rather have the Legislature retain it's authority in regards to these matters. Does the ends justify the means?;) Allowing the Judiciary to set districts is pretty far from a Democracy(even a Republic).
Again - there needs to be guidelines for resolving such matters instead of allowing the judiciary to trump the process.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY