US House Redistricting: Colorado

[5280]

That's a really competitive map! (sarcasm) Welcome to Colofornia, looks like I'm moving out of Denver (LA east) in a couple of years. Enough of this crap the state has become.

[Landslide Lyndon]

FWIW, Wasserman is skeptical about how much of a win for the Democrats the adopted map is.

I agree. I don't see it as a terribly great map.

Right. Why settle for 3+1 when you can have 5?



1st 72.5, 2nd 58.9, 3rd 55.6, 4th 34.3, 5th 42.0, 6th 57.1, 7th 57.0 Obama.

I'm sure it could be optimized further.

I assume the court would have rejected such a map.

[minionofmidas]

I assume the court would have rejected such a map.

Quite so.

[minionofmidas]

Improved; carved up Denver.



Also, now with closeup.



1st 60.8%, 2nd 61.4%, 3rd 56.9%, 6th 62.1%, 7th 61.2% Obama
4th 62.4%, 5th 61.0% McCain

4th district is roadlinked by Route 40 and State Highway 14 except within Steamboat Springs city limits.

[Sbane]

That's a really competitive map! (sarcasm) Welcome to Colofornia, looks like I'm moving out of Denver (LA east) in a couple of years. Enough of this crap the state has become.

Better than Texas!

[Bacon King]

That's a really competitive map! (sarcasm) Welcome to Colofornia, looks like I'm moving out of Denver (LA east) in a couple of years. Enough of this crap the state has become.

It's a bit silly to move out of a state just because its congressional delegation isn't what you'd prefer, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That's a really competitive map! (sarcasm) Welcome to Colofornia, looks like I'm moving out of Denver (LA east) in a couple of years. Enough of this crap the state has become.

It's a bit silly to move out of a state just because its congressional delegation isn't what you'd prefer, no?

You would have had to pick up stakes from both your domiciles a long time ago. Ole Georgia and Lousianna just ain't what it used to be.

[5280]

Colorado high court rejects the new map for legislative districts. Back to the drawing boards.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19342272

[Bacon King]

Colorado high court rejects the new map for legislative districts. Back to the drawing boards.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19342272

One would hope this silences conservatives' cries that the Colorado courts are biased towards the Democrats with stuff like this; only two of the five Democratic appointees on the court dissented.

[BigSkyBob]

Colorado high court rejects the new map for legislative districts. Back to the drawing boards.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19342272

One would hope this silences conservatives' cries that the Colorado courts are biased towards the Democrats with stuff like this; only two of the five Democratic appointees on the court dissented.

Given that the Colorado Constitution reads in part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is hard to conclude that anything other than bias drove two Democratic appointees to attempt to strike down their own Constitution. Two Democratic appointee could not go that far. The Republican appointees adhered to the Constitution.

[Torie]

Does that Dem map make CO-02 kind of marginal?  And CO-07 looks like it moves a couple of points in the Pubbie direction. But yes, CO-06 moves 9 points in the Dem direction. The ying and the yang.

Still, the Dems were kind of gutsy perhaps?  Things might go quite wrong with their little plans, no?

[Verily]

Boulder has very high Independent registration. Don't be fooled; they all vote straight-ticket Democrat (and are probably registered Independent because the Democrats aren't liberal enough). CO-02 is still extremely safe. I am a little curious on the Longmont/Loveland decision. Loveland is a lot more Republican than Longmont (which is around 55% Obama while Loveland is more like 55% McCain), yet they put Longmont in the Republican district and Loveland in the Democratic district. Nothing like inertia, I guess.

It does move CO-07 a couple of points towards the GOP, but Perlmutter is quite safe and personally popular, and that area is trending Democratic regardless.

[Sbane]

Does that Dem map make CO-02 kind of marginal?  And CO-07 looks like it moves a couple of points in the Pubbie direction. But yes, CO-06 moves 9 points in the Dem direction. The ying and the yang.

Still, the Dems were kind of gutsy perhaps?  Things might go quite wrong with their little plans, no?

You don't think the judge chose this plan precisely because it makes so many districts swingable? Or do you think the judge is in the pockets of the Dems? That's kind of ridiculous considering your hopes and dreams about what happens in Arizona, with a Republican judge stepping in as the knight in shining armor to make everything alright.

BTW, CO-2 becomes something like 60-61% Obama, so it's not really marginal unless the congressman is an idiot that deserves to be thrown out. It has already been worked out and posted earlier in the thread. So I wouldn't say that is a marginal district. CO-7 most certainly is, and CO-3 stays about the same. Those two lean the opposite way of course, but still competitive. CO-6 is a dead even swing district, though should be fine with Coffman? I wouldn't have drawn this map, but I'm actually fine with it until I see what the Republican response was. Didn't the judge have to choose between maps?

[Torie]

Boulder has very high Independent registration. Don't be fooled; they all vote straight-ticket Democrat (and are probably registered Independent because the Democrats aren't liberal enough). CO-02 is still extremely safe. I am a little curious on the Longmont/Loveland decision. Loveland is a lot more Republican than Longmont (which is around 55% Obama while Loveland is more like 55% McCain), yet they put Longmont in the Republican district and Loveland in the Democratic district. Nothing like inertia, I guess.

It does move CO-07 a couple of points towards the GOP, but Perlmutter is quite safe and personally popular, and that area is trending Democratic regardless.

OK. I think as to Longmont, the speculation is that some Dem lives there who wants to challenge the Pub in CO-04.  I am not sure where I read that - maybe on this thread.

Sbane, I think the judge had to pick one of the plans, and superficially, the Dem plan looks better than the Pub plan to me, which I didn't like much. I am not sure the judge emphasized competition in his ruling. And at least CO-07 got a bit more competitive too, and I suspect CO-06 still leans a tad Pubbie no?  Do you know the McCain percentage there?

[Sbane]

Yes, Longmont was put in the 4th because the representative from there wants to run in the 4th. The most egregious part about the map is the choice of what was put in the Denver district. Other than that it creates a nice and competitive map that mostly sticks to communities of interests. I wonder what the hispanic % is in that 7th district and Aurora isn't split in the 6th.

Edit: CO-6 is 54% Obama, so probably right about the state average or a little more Republican. I think on DKE they also posted the "average" numbers and there it was almost as Republican as the 3rd. Definitely the sort of district that would like Obama more than generic Dem.

Here we go:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1035111/43907765#c339

[Verily]

Anyway, here's a Democratic gerrymander that goes way above and beyond Lewis's efforts (although for only a few more Democratic points in some seats):

CO-01: 60-37 Obama
CO-02: 63-34 Obama
CO-03: 58-39 Obama
CO-04: 34-63 McCain
CO-05: 36-62 McCain
CO-06: 60-37 Obama
CO-07: 62-35 Obama

I also took into account some other pressures that would exist on the Democrats if they did split Denver. CO-07 is 37% Hispanic (32% Hispanic VAP), not the highest that could be achieved in the Denver area but still quite concentrated. Additionally, CO-06 concentrates the black vote and the remaining Hispanic vote to be 25% Hispanic and 13% black, though still 52% white (on VAP, 57% white, 13% black, 21% Hispanic). As the remaining whites in the district are fairly Republican, this is a pretty decent minority opportunity seat. As a result, whites in the Denver area are packed into CO-01, which is 78% white (81% on VAP).

Maps follow.

State:



Colorado Springs and Pueblo:



Denver area:



Fort Collins and Greeley:

[5280]

I don't understand the whole point of making CO-06 and CO-07 competitive when it's clearly a favor for the DEM, or will trend their way in the future.  Don't you think it would be fair to make CO-06 lean REP or something.

[Verily]

I don't understand the whole point of making CO-06 and CO-07 competitive when it's clearly a favor for the DEM, or will trend their way in the future.  Don't you think it would be fair to make CO-06 lean REP or something.

CO-06 does not at all favor the Democrats. It's marginal.

Consider. Colorado is more Democratic (barely) than the nation as a whole. There are, on this map, two solidly Democratic seats (CO-01 and CO-02), two solidly Republican seats (CO-04 and CO-05), one lean Republican seat (CO-03), one lean Democratic seat (CO-07) and one marginal seat (CO-06). That's pretty close to the "appropriate" result. If CO-06 leaned towards the Republicans, the map would be biased towards the Republicans as it would produce more Republican than Democratic seats despite the state being marginally more Democratic than Republican.

[krazen1211]

Colorado redistricting discriminates against women! OMG!

http://www.coloradopeakpolitics.com/

If the Colorado Supreme Court upholds the maps they will be endorsing a destruction of the hard fought gains Republican women have made in legislative representation. They will be, effectively, endorsing the disenfranchisement of conservative women in Colorado.

The maps purposefully put the highest ranking Republican women in the Legislature into the same districts as fellow Republicans, setting up a scenario that could see a significant reduction not only in GOP women legislators, but the seniority of incumbent female legislators.

[Devils30]

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/17185/laura-bradfords-threeday-weekend-from-hell

If this happened could the Dems do a new redistricting map on their own as the one for 2012 was court drawn?

[minionofmidas]

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.

[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.