Colorado redistricting Unconstitutional (Court rules)

[cjbuchanan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20031201/ap_on_re_us/redistricting_lawsuit

let's hope this kills the Texas re-redistricting!

however, this might end up at the Supreme Court, so let's not get too excited.

happy December!

[Frodo]

1. It won't do anything to TX

The TX courts are not subject to CO rulings. (And the makeup of the court is substantially different - and that's what counts these days)

I'm not sure the Supreme Court would consider taking an appeal. The states get to draw their own lines. It isn't a federal issue.

[slinkerwink]

2. actually, it has to do with the Voting Rights Act which is a federal issue

[Frodo]

3. Not in this case

The state Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the state constitution requiring lines be drawn once after each census (and before the next election). They took away the legislature's right to draw the lines after that point.

I dont' think there was a VRA issue to review, and the USSC is unlikely to overturn the state's interpretation of it's own Constitution.

[damnraddem]

43. But still won't affect Texas unless a court with jurisdiction over Texas .

rules the same way.

[Frodo]

45. Even then it's doesn't necessarily control.

They would be ruling on the state Constitution (Unless they come out and say "you only get one shot, period" - which they can't since re-redistricting has been done dozens of times). The TX Constitution has different language and would be approached seperately.

[janx]

5. That's what I wondered. This isn't a federal matter.

It's a Colorado matter. And even if Texas and Colorado don't come down the same way on a ruling, why would it then have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The USSC should have to stay out of it.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. Actually the Texas case is a federal case

since the opponents are claiming that the districts do not conform to the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act.

The legal maneuvering is the latest chapter in a bitter political battle that could swing as many as seven House seats to the Republicans if the redistricting plan is upheld in court and cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The GOP drive to redraw the state's congressional district lines provoked two walkouts by Democratic state lawmakers that precluded a quorum, stalled the measure and required Gov. Rick Perry (R) to call three special sessions of the legislature before the plan was enacted.

<snip>

Several lawsuits challenging the Texas redistricting plan were filed and have been consolidated into a single case that will be heard by a panel of three federal judges in Austin. The trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 11.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4808-2003Nov21.html

[Frodo]

8. TX, yes. CO, no.

Though the TX case also swings on the same "once a decade" interpretation if the state court wanted to take that road. It would also depend on the language of the two documents.

[janx]

14. Methinks the state court should take that road, as you say.

If it worked here, maybe it'll work there.

It depends on their constitution, I suppose.

[Frodo]

16. Ahhh that brings in a wiff of nostalgia.

Oh for the days when it "depends on the Constitution"


Of course, you are right. But it also depends on who is interpreting that Constitution. And the TX court is not quite the same makeup as Colorado. It's too often political.

I'm not just accusing the conservative. Frankly, I'm not sure I agree with the CO court on this "interpretation". But I'm glad for a win any day.

[janx]

29. It seemed fairly cut-and-dried to me:

Unconstitutional.

It goes against our state's constitution. The rules are there; the right-wingers tried to break those rules. They tried to cheat for political gain. They got caught.

There wasn't a lot of room for interpretation in this case.

I hope Texas fares well with its case also.

[Frodo]

35. It's still an interpretation.

The state constitution says "you will do this" it is silent on what happens if you DON'T. They interpreted that to mean "you can't do anything" which is their prerogative, but it isn't forced by the language.

Texas is shakier. It doesn't have the clear provision for court involvement that Colorado has.

[janx]

13. Thank you kindly for the clarification. I should have followed

the Texas case more closely.

Let's hope that they can fare as well as Colorado did and ward off that kind of corruption.

[w4rma]

49. Yup. This ruling was based on the CO *state* constitution. TX will be

based on the *federal* Voting Rights Act.

[niyad]

4. thank you for the tiny bit of good news to come out of this state --let's

hope that the texas court shows some backbone as well.

[janx]

26. This isn't a tiny bit of news. It's a magnanimous piece of news--

especially for those of us who live here.

And I hope it will serve as an example to other states and to the corrupt politicians who tried to pull this stunt.

[joeybee12]

6. Whoo-hoo! F**k Bill Owens and his pregnant nanny!

That's the next big story to come out of Colorado!

[janx]

11. Pregnant nanny?

?

[Hawkeye-X]

17. Owens knocked up his nanny?

That I gotta read.. Got a link? First it was seperating with his wife, and now he knocks up his nanny?

Hawkeye-X

[otohara]

23. I Heard He Was Having Affair

w/ a lobbyist - his kids are just a tad old to be having a nanny

[janx]

25. Where did you hear this? A lobbyist for what--Victoria's Secret?

?

[goobergunch]

9. Excellent!

It's about time we won something.

AMENDED PREDICTIONS:

CO-3 (Open, vice Scott McInnis (R)): TOSS-UP/possible LEANS GOP
CO-7 (Bob Beauprez (R)): TOSS-UP

[Hawkeye-X]

18. Yo goober...

try CO-7 TOSSUP-LEANS DEM

I know these folks -- they are angry at Beauprez.

Also CO-6 is at risk as well. Xenophobe Tancredo isn't making his part happy.


Hawkeye-X

[janx]

21. Are they angry at Beauprez in general, or are they angry

because of what he was trying to do with the map?

Because if I lived there, I'd be livid. I'd make sure that guy was run out of town!

[goobergunch]

10. TEXT OF THE RULING - Salazar vs. Davidson

http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/opinions/2003/03SA13303SA147.doc

In two original proceedings, consolidated for opinion, the Supreme Court holds:
(1) The Attorney General may bring an original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21 to challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 03-352, a congressional redistricting law enacted by the General Assembly to replace the court-ordered congressional districts applied in the 2002 general election.
(2) Senate Bill 03-352 is unconstitutional because the Colorado Constitution requires the General Assembly to redistrict after each census and before the ensuing general election, and does not allow redistricting at any other time. Because the General Assembly failed to redistrict during this constitutional window, it relinquished its authority to redistrict until after the 2010 census.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Noordam]

12. I like "relinquished its authority" heheheheh

:evilgrin:

[janx]

19. Well it did! It first relinquished its authority, and then it

went about trying to do something that was blatantly unconsitutional.

(I think that sounds even better.)

[Hawkeye-X]

20. Let's see if Texas SC can read the same thing we're reading

re: relinquishing its authority after the census, and after the first general election after the census is done.

[Rose Siding]

31. You saw this one coming!

Congratulations HawkeyeX :toast:

Haven't you been reassuring us about this one since the get go?

[janx]

32. He has. He keeps track of this stuff!

Frankly, I had my doubts.

I'm still worried that the repukes will try and take this to the US Supreme Court. There's no basis for them to do so, but I'm willing to bet they'll try.

[janx]

15. Salazar is the greatest!

He stood up to greedy politicians who want to choose their voters instead of the voters' choosing the politicians.

[Hawkeye-X]

22. Ken Salazar for Governor

in 2006. He has my full support. It is widely expected that this will happen.

Hawkeye-X

[janx]

24. I'd love it if that happened! I'm frankly tired of all of this

development, for one thing. When they said Owens liked roads, they weren't kidding. He liked roads all right--and so much more.

And I can't stand having a FOC (Friend of Chimpy's) as our governor.

[janx]

33. Hawkeye, there's some other state--PA?--caught up in this

redistricting garbage. Is is PA?

I'm trying to remember. There were three that Dean mentioned once, I believe.

[goobergunch]

47. In PA, our state legislature passed a ridiculously partisan Repub plan

and the Supreme Court (Vieth vs. Jubelirer) agreed to take the case. The precedent is the Bandemer case, which makes it almost impossible for a plan to be overturned on grounds of partisanship. However, I'm hoping that the SC lowers that standard and overturns the PA plan on grounds of hyper-partisanship.

Because it's rather weird to have your neighbor live in a different district (PA-7) than you do (PA-6).

[janx]

51. Thanks for that info (I think?)

This quest for power is insane. I've never seen anything like it. It's totally disrespectful to voters.

[NewJerseyDem]

52. Will Feeley run again?

I would love to see him outs Beauprez next year. I would guess that there might be enough backlash against the republicans to defeat Beauprz and maybe help us pick up the CO-3 open seat which does lean narrowly to the republicans though. If we can keep the Greens from running a candidate there than we have a strong shot.

[goobergunch]

53. I don't know

You'd have to ask Hawkeye...he knows much more about Colorado politics than I do.

[janx]

55. Please see my post #40!

I still haven't figured out who that is, even after a search. Maybe Hawkeye will know.

[janx]

34. Also--sorry for all of the questions--there was some possibility

that Udall would run for the US Senate if he didn't have to worry about the redistricting flap.

In a way, I'd hate to see him go (he's my Rep.), but we do need him in the Senate, and I'd love to see that happen.

Do you know anything about this?

[janx]

27. HEE!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1031532/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1031564/posts

[politicat]

28. Glory Be to Frika in the Highest, I'm not in Marilyn Muskey's District!!!!

YEEE HAAA!

(We were scared to death there for a while.....)

And now, to get that twit out of her chair and into a small plane serviced by Valu-Jet.....

Come on, Marilyn... nice steak... good doggy....


Cynical?

Just a little.

[janx]

30. Would you actually have been in her district if this crime

had proceeded unhindered?

I can't imagine being represented by someone like that. I'd move.

[angka]

36. BOOM

thank you, attorney general ken salazar!
thank you, brave colorado dems!
fuck you, GOP criminals! violate parliamentary rules at your peril.

we will fight your illegal power grabs and we will NEVER surrender!

[SilasSoule]

37. Clear Channel's flagship station in San Antonio

Reported this with obvious and pathetic dissapointment in the News Announcer's voice. Said that Texas Redistricting may have all been for naught if this goes to USSC and is upheld.

[angka]

38. good!

at some point, these bastards must be shown that they are not above the law. since 9/11, they truly believe they can get away with anything!

[proud patriot]

39. Thank Goodness

Whew!

[janx]

40. TO ALL COLORADANS IN THIS THREAD: PLEASE CHECK

THIS OUT:

To: Timesink

The CO GOP has already lined up plantiffs for a federal lawsuit (I am among those contacted). There was no doubt the SCOCO would rule against the new plan. The CJ was allowed to make the most appointments to the original (in 2000) redistricting commission (so the commission would be "non-partisan"). She appointed a bunch of left-wing hacks, whose sole purpose was disruption (so the decision would be thrown to the liberal-dominated courts). The district drawn by the Denver judge is patently unconstitutional, as it uses election "performance" as the first criteria, not the last as dictated by the SCOTUS interpretation of the VRA.


Bob (Beauprez) is my friend and neighbor. If this absurd decision stands, we will spare no effort to re-elect him and consolidate the district for GOP control. Feeley is the typical Colorado democrat...he runs as a "conservative" and votes as a liberal (rated the most liberal senator in the Colorado legislature). I've been fighting his election to various offices since I was party chairman in 1995-96, when we nearly took him out despite his status as Senate Minority Leader (he spent all of the Dem's money on his own campaign, causing the other Dem candidates to throw a fit in the caucus of the new legislature the following year). IMHO he can be beaten just by spreading the word on his voting record.


59 posted on 12/01/2003 11:54 AM MST by 2Hot4You (Don't Be The Bunny)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1031532/posts#31


I suspected the GOP would try to go federal with this, and it looks as if I was right. This has no business in any federal court of any kind; it's a state matter.

I hope it goes nowhere, but if the feds think they can barge into the politics of our state, they have another thing coming. I also want to know who this guy is. It probably wouldn't be hard to find out. I'm off to do a search now.

"Absurd decision," indeed!

[Hawkeye-X]

58. Bob Beauprez may be already on his way out..

There's enough proof of his ineptiness and being a Bushbaby that has already upset many Arapahoe County residents. This reeks of a guy named Tracy Baker who is an Arapahoe County Commissioner who is a GOP, and is trying to get away with his sexual explicit e-mails to a co-worker. Ironically enough, Baker lives in Beauprez's district and has already made Republicans look very bad. BTW, I think Tracy Baker has since been recalled because he lost the trust of the public. Now he's suing the County Commissioners whining about not being able to do his job.. LOL!

The efforts to re-elect a jerk like Bob Beauprez by a freeper will fall flat, big time. The laws exist clearly to make sure that a jerk like Beauprez doesn't have the opportunity to piss more people off. Too bad it did, and he's already endangered, big time. His 132 vote victory will seem like nothing when he's kicked out by a Democratic landslide.

Granted this was from before the general election last year but it's still key:

(from the DCCC.com Must-Read)

CO-07: Feeley Gaining Momentum

According to a Harstad Strategic Research poll conducted October 5-8, “Bob Beauprez has already lost his initial 6% lead for Congress in Colorado’s 7th CD., and Mike Feeley has gained support to draw this race into a deadheat now tied at 39% for each candidate. This momentum has occurred despite the fact that Republicans started their TV a week earlier… Furthermore, Feeley now enjoys narrow but significant leads among the modest majorities of voters who are most informed…. At the end of the day - in this case Election Day - the last two elections show Democrats narrowly win this 7th C.D…. Whatever edge Bob Beauprez may have claimed after the August primary has evaporated as voters get to know the candidates better…. Feeley is gaining support while Beauprez has plateaued. In campaigns, momentum matters.”

And every day, as the constitutents got to know Mr. Beauprez, they HATE him. They don't like what they are seeing from him.

Hawkeye-X

[janx]

61. Hawkeye, you're great. Thanks for this information.

I could not figure out who that guy was!

Also, from looking at a map in the Denver Post today, it looks as if had this whole thing been permitted to happen, Broomfield would have switched from the 2nd district (Udall) to the 7th (Beauprez)(I think--hard to tell from looking at the map). The Post also mentioned calls from D.C., specifically Karl Rove.

In my back yard? How dare they!

[MoonAndSun]

41. Here is a portion of the ruling from the Court:

<http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1802239,00.html>

--- "Limiting redistricting to once every 10 years maximizes stability. In its brief, the General Assembly, however, argues that it should be allowed to redistrict two, or even 10 times in a single decade. If the districts were to change at the whim of the state legislature, members of Congress could frequently find their current constituents voting in a different district in subsequent elections. In that situation, a congressperson would be torn between effectively representing the current constituents and currying the favor of future constituents." --- "The only authority that courts have to intervene in this purely political, legislative process is to review the constitutionality of existing districts, as we would review the constitutionality of any law, in order to protect the voting rights of aggrieved claimants. Within that limited framework, courts may enter emergency or remedial orders for the purpose of allowing elections to go forward. Such court orders are interstitial, and cannot then serve to pre-empt the legislature from reclaiming its authority to redistrict." - From the dissent written by Justices Rebecca Love Kourlis, joined by Justice Ben Coats.









love the way they slapped down the GOP legislature. :evilgrin:LOL

[Frodo]

44. That opens an interesting question.

Perhaps they CAN get this into the USSC. The court left open that they could still challenge the constitutionality of the court's lines. If the SC (or even the DOJ?) says that district violates the VRA... then what happens?

Now the court plan is out and the legislature's plan is out... who gets to come up with a new one? Why would the state court have priority in what is, essentially, a legislative matter?

[goobergunch]

48. I think the part at the end is from the dissent (n/t)

[damnraddem]

42. It will have no effect anywhere other than Colorado unless ...

it ends up at the SCOTUS.

[mndemocrat_29]

46. Great news for Democrats!

Two possible pickups in 2004! With this, we come even closer to recapturing the House!

Speaker Pelosi in 2004!

:toast:

[Hawkeye-X]

50. Veiled hints to federal court

Link from: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2469253,00.html

"The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that states have primary responsibility in congressional redistricting and that federal courts must defer to states," the ruling said.

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. "

Basically what the state SC are saying that it's not a federal matter, and state matter. Let's hope the federal courts agree and overturn the Republican lawsuit and order the Texas federal courts to do the same.

Hawkeye-X

[otohara]

54. Thank Attorney General Ken Salazar

[phone]
In state - 1-800-222-4444
Denver Metro Area 303-222-4444
Out of State 303-222-4444

[e-mail]

[janx]

56. Great links and info, thanks!

.

[BlueCollar]

57. Whoo Hoooo!!!

I love this kind of news. Let's just hope they toss the Texas map too.....

:kick:

[goforit]

59. One step further to 1776 !.........And this should be the #1 goal!!!!

Bear down Colorado!!!

[AlFrankenFan]

60. Hooray!

Can't get much by us Colorado people! (mind you I am of the inconvienience of living in California)
Texas should be the same way, too.