US House Redistricting: Colorado

[jimrtex]

The GOP took back the two rural districts and now holds a 4-3 advantage in the delegation for the 2011 session.  The Dems have Governor Hickenlooper and the State Senate, but the GOP took the State House (by 1 vote).  To make things even more contentious, they are probably due for a VRA Hispanic district after the 2010 Census.  What sort of map do you think they will agree upon?

1 and 7 have the largest minority populations, and are the most underpopulated.  So logically it makes sense to take the Arapahoe county portion of 1 out of the district, and replace it with the Adams County portion of 7.  Then take the Jeffco and Arapahoe portions of 7 combined with 6 add in the upper Arkansas (Lake, Chaffee, Fremont), and split into two districts.  Move all of the lower Arkansas Valley into 3, and shift Pitkin to 2.

[jimrtex]

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/14455/dems-colorado-house-remains-in-play

The Dems might actually keep the State House. Unlikely, but possible.

Whistling past the grave.  Ramirez (R) did better in the election day voting than by mail.  And the provisional ballots are probably by-mail voters who have to vote provisional if they vote at the polls.  At least some will have voted by mail, but panicked that their ballot had not been received.

Benefield would need 65% of the outstanding ballots to go her way.  The percentage increases for each ballot that doesn't count.

Democrats are probably trying to get some late contribution $$$ to make up for their overspending before the election.

Since the Democrats are calling for a hand count of all the ballots in HD 61, they may have probable belief that they have lost that as well.

[jimrtex]

I am reading that the legislative leaders have reached some sort of agreement to create a bipartisan committee. There is a recognition that if there is no agreement the court will intervene, and as CO learned in the last cycle, the legislature cannot have a mid-decade remap after a court-drawn one. The impact of the governor elect's statement on competitiveness is also interesting, and it remains to be seen if he insists on that as part of any bill he signs.

The addition of a new district in 2002 had ambitious legislators salivating.  In states that have relatively few districts, and where the number doesn't change much from election to election ordinarily don't have the opportunity or reason to propose a radical redraw.

Adding a 7th district requires a pretty radical redraw.  The least disruptive map would take 1/7 of the territory of the other 6 districts.  It is pretty unlikely that an agglomeration of fringe areas of the other districts will form an identifiable core.

The reason that the legislature failed to draw a plan in 2001 was that the Democratic senate wanted to split Denver, and refused to appoint conference committee members, because they realized that a more reasonable plan would have picked off individual members.  Most all of the senator leaders of that time, including Perlmutter, have gone on to seek higher office.

When redistricting got to the district court, the Democrats submitted the senate plan, and the judge threw it out as a non-starter because it split Denver.  He then took the Republican plan and let the Democrats tinker with it and that was the court's final plan.  The judge then went through an explanation and defined a theme for each of the districts.  When he got to the 7th, he admitted that there was none, but that at least the district would be competitive.

Had the legislature known that the Supreme Court would make a partisan decision that a local district court is a branch of the legislature, the boundaries would probably ended up being drawn by the Supreme Court or the legislature.

Hickenlooper as a former mayor of Denver who styles himself as an outsider rather than a political hack probably would veto a plan that split Denver.

[jimrtex]

CO-04 is contiguous across Cameron Pass between Larimer and Jackson Counties. This should not be controversial. Cameron Pass is in fact easier and more often open in winter than the very difficult Berthoud Pass between Clear Creek and Grand Counties that is the only route connecting the two parts of CO-02 on the current map.

Boulder to Vail 108 miles, 2H 2M via Vail Pass.

Fort Collins to Steamboat, 157 miles 3H 31M (73% longer) over both Cameron and Rabbit Ears passes.

Even if you insist that the route stay within CD-2 (via Nederland up Boulder Canyon and the Peak-to-Peak Highway) it is only 114 miles and 2H 32M.

I don't see what Berthoud Pass has to do with anything.

And your circuitous connection from Springfield to Montrose is 750 miles and 13-1/2 hours.  This is double the distance and time of a direct route instead over Monarch Pass and almost the entire route on US 50.

Even if you were only talking about Fort Collins to Grand Junction, you would drive through Denver and save 2 hours rather than using Cameron Pass. 

[jimrtex]

Vail Pass is not in CO-02 at the moment. You would have to go through CO-06 to get from Boulder to Vail through Vail Pass.

Nonsense.  I explained how to avoid going through CO-06 to get from Boulder to Vail.  Vail Pass is too in CD 2.  And it is way shorter and quicker than Fort Collins to Steamboat over two three mountain passes.  You do realize that Cameron Pass does not cross the Continental Divide don't you, and then you have to go over both Muddy and Rabbit Ears passes.

And please explain what Berthoud Pass has to do with anything.  If Jared Polis wanted to go from Boulder to Granby, wouldn't he take the train?  The bus from Boulder stops at Union Station.

And if I wanted to drive from Fort Collins to Grand Junction, I'd go through Denver (or at least to I-76).

[jimrtex]

Given the split in the legislature, it seems inevitable that the map will be drawn by the courts (who presumably will try to maintain the current map as much as possible, since I'm pretty sure they drew the last one), so this is really just posturing.

On the other hand, the Democrats control the Colorado State Supreme Court...

Given that the Colorado Supreme court has now misinterpreted the state constitution, a court will be unlikely to step in until the last possible opportunity.  So a court won't step in until next Spring.

[jimrtex]

Here's what I think makes most sense from a court/neutral perspective:

It doesn't make sense to split the mountain counties, Garfield, Grand, Chaffee.

So instead have CD-4 come down in the lower Arkansas, let CO-7 go up into Weld County which is commuter suburbs.  There is no justification for a 3-way split of Arapahoe County, so CO-1 should switch entirely to the north (and Holly Hills and Glendale decreed to be contiguous and placed in CD-7).

This makes CD-7 more of an Aurora/east metro district like it should be.

[jimrtex]

It doesn't make sense to split the mountain counties, Garfield, Grand, Chaffee.

So instead have CD-4 come down in the lower Arkansas, let CO-7 go up into Weld County which is commuter suburbs.  There is no justification for a 3-way split of Arapahoe County, so CO-1 should switch entirely to the north (and Holly Hills and Glendale decreed to be contiguous and placed in CD-7).

This makes CD-7 more of an Aurora/east metro district like it should be.

Some splits are necessary for population equality.  I could give the rest of Grand to CD-3 and give CD-2 more of Garfield to get rid of one of them, I suppose.  

For the Denver district, I just kept its current territory (which happened to be on the Arapahoe side) and then added what made most geographic sense (which happened to be on the Adams side).  Incidentally I realize now that I got these two names mixed up in my previous post. 

@krazen: I wasn't trying, honest!  

If you are going to convince a court to reduce the number of split counties, there is no reason to 3-way split Arapahoe Count, just because it already is.

[jimrtex]

If you are going to convince a court to reduce the number of split counties, there is no reason to 3-way split Arapahoe Count, just because it already is.

When it comes to splits for the court, I'm not sure that keeping Denver intact should have any special preference.

There are historical reasons (Denver had its own congressional district for close to 70 years, and has basically had its own for the past 40 more).  The city and county of Denver are coterminous, which would mean that a split of Denver County would split Denver city.  At the legislative level, integrity of cities is a requirement.

In 2001, the two houses of the legislature deadlocked, and the Democratic-controlled senate refused to even send conferees because they realized that there was a risk that a reasonable person would see the House plan and vote for it.  The Democrats filed in district court in Denver figuring they would get a favorable judge.  They submitted their plan, which would have divided Denver.  The judge threw it in the trash can, and took the Republican plan, and then let the Democrats redraw District 7.  The judge then went into detail about the community of interest that the other districts represented.  When he got to 7, he couldn't think of anything (they do both include a portion of Colfax) but said it was politically balanced.  He was as surprised as anyone that it was the final map.

So given past history and the fact that you would be splitting a city it is quite unlikely a court would order a split, or treat the other counties as equivalent.

Consider that the four big counties Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, and Jefferson are all between 60% and 85% of a CD, so none are substantially larger all smaller than the others. Next, consider that the four counties together are just barely less than the population needed for 3 CDs - in fact at 99.67% of the total they could fall within the 0.5% limit that the court has permitted when a state makes a compelling case to have some population deviation. Otherwise a small amount of population from either Bloomfield or Douglas would make up the difference.

If the big four are to make up 3 CDs, then either one county must be split three ways, or two counties must be each split two ways. I'll assume the goal is to have no county split between more than two districts, since that appears in the GOP plan, and The Dems only show a three-way split of Jefferson for connectivity between Park and Douglas.

If Denver is intact then Arapahoe must be split, since discontiguous parts are surrounded by Denver. If Denver combines with parts of Arapahoe, the natural combination of the remainder is with Adams which becomes the other split county.

A majority HVAP district is not possible at the precinct-level, and probably not at the block level without long tendrils up and down the Front Range. However, a strong influence district is possible, and even if not required it might be a desirable goal given the large Hispanic population in the state. If one is created, Denver must be a part of it. If the Arapahoe inclusions are ignored for the purposes of counting splits, and Denver is kept intact, the best HVAP comes from a combination of Denver and parts of Adams. That would be about 30% HVAP.

So, why not recognize that Denver is no more special than the other big counties, and could be split. If Adams is kept intact, and combined with the most Hispanic areas of Denver a district with a 39% HVAP can be achieved. That would be a substantially better influence district than what could be made by keeping Denver intact. The remainder of Denver would then combine with Aurora and most of Arapahoe, leaving some southwestern parts of Arapahoe to combine with Jefferson.

I don't think that Glendale and Holly Hills should be treated as splits of Arapahoe County.  I would keep them with Arapahoe County, but a judge probably would simply treat them as part of Denver.

Can you keep Aurora, Lakewood, and Denver whole, and draw 3 districts in the 4-county area?

[jimrtex]

Those maps are a pretty radical re-shifting of the deck chairs, Muon2. Do you really think Judge Hoyer will go there?  By the way, he apparently is a highly respected judge and not a hack, which is good.

On a minor note, there is absolutely no road access between Park and Pitkin Counties, which is why I abandoned an earlier draft that appended the two counties together in the Colorado Springs CD. Where I had to reach into the mountains, I hunted around for the few available roads. Judges seem to like roads.

http://www.colomar.com/ColoradoPlaces/mosquito_pass.html

It would also unite the burro racing community.

[jimrtex]

Well the rationale is that the bit of Denver chopped is a jut because of the new airport, and has some empty land in-between, so if one is hyped up about upping the Hispanic percentage, and given the 8 Hispanic majority precincts in that little square in Aurora right next to Denver, that seemed like something a judge might do. I wouldn't, but Hoyer might.

There's a substantial neighborhood of over 28K people that you chopped out with the airport. It's also a very diverse neighborhood with roughly equal numbers of whites, blacks and Latinos.

It really should be considered an extension of Montbello, which is the area between the old airport and the road to the new airport.  If you are going to include the SW and SE extensions of Denver, there is no reason to chop that off.

Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred.

I understand that the connection exists today, but I can't find a rational basis to maintain it other than Pueblo is currently in CD 3 and constituent services would be disrupted by a shift.

When Colorado created 4 congressional districts (it never had 3), CO-4 was created on the Western Slope, CO-1 was Denver, CO-2 was northern Colorado (it was always a doughnut), and CO-3 was southern Colorado, which included Pueblo, El Paso, the lower Arkansas, the upper Arkansas, the San Luis Valley and the headwaters of the Rio Grande.

You're seeing the front range as the natural dividing line rather than the Continental Divide.

CO-4 was created underpopulated, and by the time OMOV came around, it was severely so.  CO-1 and CO-3 were about right, and CO-2 which had grown because of the suburbs, was overpopulated.  So they added CO-4 to CO-3, and dropped Colorado Springs and some of the High Plains.

Maybe you should create a southern Colorado district Holly-Pueblo-Leadville-Gunnison-Grand Junction, and put NW Colorado with Boulder.

Anyway, Highway 80 links Boulder to the nearby ski resorts, and folks in Boulder ski a lot, and that is the way the lines are drawn now. I saw no reason to change them. I did cut back a bit the reach of the Boulder CD into the mountains as it happened. However, it may have some appeal for a judge because it does unite the mountains and the plains, provided it does not otherwise screw up the map.

Where the folks in Boulder ski shouldn't matter since they don't permanently reside or vote there. There's not even a road connection from Boulder County west over the mountains, so I don't see why a judge thought they should be connected other than politics and historical precedent. The current district only connects Boulder to the I70 pass over rugged terrain through tiny Gilpin County.

There is passenger rail service though.  And Trail Ridge is accessed from Lyons which is in Boulder County.   Lake Eldora is near Boulder.

[jimrtex]

Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred.

I understand that the connection exists today, but I can't find a rational basis to maintain it other than Pueblo is currently in CD 3 and constituent services would be disrupted by a shift.

When Colorado created 4 congressional districts (it never had 3), CO-4 was created on the Western Slope, CO-1 was Denver, CO-2 was northern Colorado (it was always a doughnut), and CO-3 was southern Colorado, which included Pueblo, El Paso, the lower Arkansas, the upper Arkansas, the San Luis Valley and the headwaters of the Rio Grande.

You're seeing the front range as the natural dividing line rather than the Continental Divide.

CO-4 was created underpopulated, and by the time OMOV came around, it was severely so.  CO-1 and CO-3 were about right, and CO-2 which had grown because of the suburbs, was overpopulated.  So they added CO-4 to CO-3, and dropped Colorado Springs and some of the High Plains.

Maybe you should create a southern Colorado district Holly-Pueblo-Leadville-Gunnison-Grand Junction, and put NW Colorado with Boulder.

Interesting ... and it explains how Pueblo and Grand Junction got united. How did Boulder end up linking across the Divide?

Since you didn't ask, in 1900 the 1st district was Arapahoe, Washington, Yuma, Phillips, Sedgwick, Logan, Morgan, Weld, Larimer, Boulder, Jefferson, Park, Lake.

Arapahoe is the original county in Colorado when it was in Kansas Territory (east of the Rockies, south of Nebraska.  As a territory, Arapahoe County included what is now Adams and Arapahoe from their western boundary to the Kansas line, including Denver which was the county seat.  Washington and Yuma were originally north of that area.  When Denver was created as a city and county around 1900, Adams and Arapahoe were split, and the east parts were truncated (I'd have to check the order of events).  Part of the reason for the unequal split between Adams and Arapahoe is that Colfax is just south of Downtown Denver, but also that Adams is 3 townships wide (18 miles) and Arapahoe is 2 (12 miles).

The interesting part of the split is that Gilpin and Clear Creek were in District 2, but Lake was in District 1, connected by Park County over Mosquito Pass (there is never anything new under the sun).

Beginning in 1902, Colorado's 3rd representative was elected at large, and in 1912, two representatives were elected at large.  4 districts were first used in 1914.

In 1960, CO-4 was Jackson, Grand, Summit, Park, Chaffee, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Archuleta and points west, so it was not quite the Continental Divide.  CO-2 was Douglas, Elbert, Lincoln, and Cheyenne and points north.  This was based on the 1921 apportionment.

The original 4 district plan had Gilpin, Clear Creek, Jefferson and Park in CO-3, and El Paso in CO-2.  So CO-3 had more of a Front Range (mountains) flavor and CO-2 was more plains.

In 1920, the district relative share of the population was:

CO-1 1.09
CO-2 1.22
CO-3 1.10
CO-4 0.59

By 1960 it was:

CO-1 1.13
CO-2 1.49
CO-3 0.94
CO-4 0.45

In April 1964, a special session was called to do congressional reapportionment (this was only two months after Wesberry v Sanders, so I don't know if there was any litigation involved or not.  There was with regard to legislative redistricting, and there was a 2nd special session in July for the legislature.

The goal of the legislature was to keep districts within 15% and not split any counties or cities (which appears to translate to: we can keep Denver whole if we set our standard at 15%, and it just so happens that the 4-county suburban ring plus Gilpin and Clear Creek is almost perfect, and we can make the other two districts almost perfect).

I had misremembered the original modification to 4 districts.

The San Luis Valley (minus Costilla for some unknown reason) was switched to CO-4 along with Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick in the Lower Platte Valley.  CO-3 went north to include Douglas, Elbert, Washington, Yuma.

CO-1  1.13
CO-2  1.001
CO-3  0.95
CO-4  0.93

So the change was to shift the northern area to the CO-4.  This make sense from a simple population balancing (move area of excess to area of deficit).  There could have been political reasons.  CO-1 and CO-4 had long time Democrats who had worked themselves up in the committee structure.

Democrats took all 4 seats in 1964, though that was more to do with LBJ-Goldwater than redistricting (the Democrats would later knock them both in primaries over the Viet Nam war, in 1970 in CO-1, and in 1972 in CO-4).

I found some historical maps.

http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15525

Colorado got its 5th district after the 1970 census.   The districts are rotated clockwise to make room for the 5th district south of Denver and including Colorado Springs.  This pushes CO-3 to the west and brings more of CO-4 to northern Colorado.  Ir was this shift that would have helped defeat Aspinall in the primary.

CO-2 may have included a bit of Denver - by that time more exact population requirement meant splitting counties.  The longtime Republican Congressman was from Boulder and would have felt relatively safe.  He lost in 1974, in the Watergate election, plus the 18 YO vote and ease of registering based on campus residence.

After 1980 Colorado got its 6th representative.  You almost are forced to put new districts in the Denver area because there is more population to contribute to a new district.  But adding CO-6 forced CO-5 to move south and southwest, and also up into Jefferson which forced CO-2 more into Adams, which meant that CO-4 would need some population in eastern plains, and CO-3 rotates up to the NW corner of the state.

With no new representative in 1990, CO-3 needed to creep back to the east.

After 2000, the 7the district was added, centered in Adams that is still more of a connector.  CO-4 took Longmont, and so CO-2 was forced to pick up some population which put it over the divide.  CO-5 moved back to look more like 1980 but completely out of the Denver area. and CO-3 then took a bit more of its old territory south of Pueblo.

Pueblo is the only real industrial city in Colorado because of its former steel industry.  Denver had more industry but it was a smaller portion of the economy.  So it would have links to the south in the Walsenburg and Trinidad areas where the coal for the steel was mined (I'm not sure where the iron ore came from - perhaps this is why there is no steel mill anymore).  Pueblo is also further east than any city, at a lower elevation, further south, and along a river which made it more suitable for agriculture (irrigated and a longer growing season).  So like Greeley it was more of an agricultural center.  These would attract Hispanic farm workers and also in the steel mill, so that Pueblo has a significant Hispanic population plus ties to southern Colorado.

[jimrtex]

Here you go. Only the 3rd hasn't been drawn yet. And it will be 55.3-44.7 Republican.

I like it a lot.  Also like 1970 all over again.

http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15525

[jimrtex]

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Colorado's constitution bans redistricting outside the x1-x2 cycle (in response to Republicans trying it). Whether it would be theoretically possible this spring, I have no idea. Would require some research.
Doubt it would happen even if it might, though.

The 2001 redistricting was done by a court.  In 2001, the two houses of the legislature deadlocked.  The Republican majority in the House wanted a reasonable plan.  The Democratic majority in the Senate wanted to split Denver.   The Senate refused to even appoint conferees, because they knew that they would lose votes.

So it ended up in a district court.   The two sides presented their plans.  The judge tossed the Democrat plan that split Denver.  Then took the Republican plan, and let the Democrats tweak CD-7.  He described a community of interest for each district but 7, and said it didn't have one, but that it was politically balanced.  He had no idea that it was not an interim plan.  The Supreme Court reviewed it, and had no idea it was not an interim plan.

After the Republicans gained control of the legislature in 2002, they redistricted.  The Supreme Court then came up with a novel interpretation of the Constitution.

The original constitution had said that Colorado's single representative should be elected at large, and that when it was apportioned additional representatives they should be elected from districts drawn by the legislature.  That is, it simply said congressmen should be elected from single member districts.  "when" meant the instance of additional representatives, and not the instant it occurred.  It was describing the manner of election, not the process of drawing districts.

When Colorado was apportioned its 2nd representative in 1892, Colorado was divided into 2 districts.   When Colorado was apportioned its 3rd representative in 1902, he was elected at large.  When Colorado was apportioned a 4th representative in 1912, two were elected at large.  And then for 1914, 4 districts were created (somewhat malapportioned because the Western Slope formed one district).   A couple years later the 4 districts were tweaked.

And then they were left unchanged until after Wesberry v Sanders.  When the 5th and 6th representatives were added there was litigation and eventually districts were created.   Somewhere along the line, a cleanup of the Constitution had removed the original provision for a single at-large member.

So the Constitution had not really been followed; and if interpreted like the Supreme Court did, would mean that there was no legislative authority to redistrict after a Census, but only after an increased apportionment.  Perhaps the legislature had no authority under the Colorado constitution to even consider redistricting.

The Supreme Court also ruled that a district court was part of the legislature, and wasn't simply drawing an interim plan so lawful elections could be held.  If the court was exercising legislative authority in 2001, perhaps it did not have that authority in 2011.  Only a federal court could draw the lines.

There is an issue whether a state constitution may restrict the authority of a state legislature to prescribe the manner of election of representatives.  The federal constitution grants the authority to the legislature, rather than to the State.   This is currently being litigated in Florida.

I doubt that a 32:1:32 House would undertake redistricting this year.