DENVER—The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected proposed legislative districts aimed at making one-third of state races competitive next year, saying the maps unnecessarily split county boundaries.
The ruling called plans for the House and Senate districts not “sufficiently attentive to county boundaries” and directed the 11-member bipartisan commission that approved the maps to modify and submit new ones by Dec. 6.
“This appears to be something of a victory for the Republicans. They argued that the maps valued competitiveness too much over county lines,” said Bob Loevy, a Colorado College political science professor who was a Republican appointee on the commission.
The majority of the justices voted against the maps, which the commission approved in September.
Last week, the court heard arguments against the maps from some of the state’s largest counties, including Arapahoe, Jefferson, Weld, Douglas and El Paso. Representatives from the counties told the court they felt their counties were unnecessarily split.
The maps the commission submitted sought to put one-third of the Legislature in play next year. That could have set up a potential shake-up at the Capitol, where Democrats have a five-seat advantage in the state Senate and Republicans hold a one-seat edge in the House.
While both parties acknowledged that they had a chance to take control of a chamber with the proposed maps, Republicans were the loudest in voicing their opposition to the suggested districts. The commission approved the Senate plan on a 9-2 vote and OK’d the House plan 8-3. Republicans were the no votes in each case.
The once-a-decade process to redraw legislative districts to account for population changes impacts the Legislature’s balance of power for years, and it’s not unusual for the Supreme Court, which is charged with approving proposed districts, to return maps to the redistricting commission to be redrawn. It happened in 2001 and again in 1991. But Rob Witwer, one of Republican commission members, said that unlike previous rulings, this will “require one of the more significant rewrites,” referring to the House map.
In rejecting the maps, the judges said the commission failed to show “that a less drastic alternative could not have satisfied the hierarchy of constitutional criteria.”
The criteria used for state redistricting include keeping communities of interest together, keeping cities and towns whole, and avoiding diluting minority voting power. The competitiveness factor is not included in the constitutional criteria for drawing new districts, and Republicans hammered that point repeatedly during the redistricting debate.
But in the ruling’s dissent, Chief Justice Michael L. Bender and Nancy E. Rice said that the “creation of competitive legislative districts is an appropriate discretionary consideration for the Commission.” Bender and Rice said the proposed maps would prevent gerrymandering and promote political fairness.
The maps were drawn by drawn by Mario Carrera, Bender’s appointee. Carrera was the only unaffiliated member of the commission and served as its chairman. Carrera said Tuesday he would not be “commenting on the ruling at this time.”
Carrera previously said that both parties should embrace competitiveness and noted that about one-third of Colorado voters are unaffiliated. Carrera also said at the time that he was trying to reflect the Hispanic population’s explosive growth in Colorado since 2000. Of the 100 seats in the Legislature, 24 would represent districts where at least 30 percent of voters are Hispanic.
David Fine, the attorney representing the commission in arguments before the court, said the panel’s maps achieved competitiveness while meeting constitutional criteria.
A competitive district was defined by the commission as one where candidates were within 10 percentage points of each other in the 2010 statewide treasurer’s race.
Finalized maps must be submitted to the Colorado secretary of state’s office by Dec. 14.
“My priority is to be in substantial compliance with the state constitution, and that’s the standard that the commission has used throughout,” said state Democratic Rep. Matt Jones, who served on the commission. “Competiveness was only brought up after all of the constitutional issues were addressed.”
———
Associated Press writer Kristen Wyatt contributed to this report.
———
Follow Ivan Moreno on Twitter:
