Other Articles in this Category
Most Viewed Stories
Most Commented Stories
Most Recommended Stories
Save & Share this Article
2 bills seek to change how Colorado's electoral districts are drawn
Comments 0 | Recommend 0DENVER - Politics makes strange bedfellows - strange enough that Colorado Springs and Pueblo could be in bed together for a decade.
At least that's the joke going around the Capitol about a bill that would require the Legislature to create districts with a balanced number of Democrats and Republicans when it redraws the electoral map after the 2010 census.
Though voters may find redistricting to be arcane and remote, it is anything but a laughing matter for party strategists who are trying to map out Colorado's political destiny.
Every 10 years, politicians redraw all the districts for the congressional delegation and the Statehouse. The process often turns into a brawl culminating in lawsuits and results in districts so slanted to one party's advantage that the outcomes of most elections are essentially assured.
The authors of two proposals being considered by the General Assembly say they want to change that.
The first is Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver. The goal of his bill, SB198, is the creation of as many even congressional districts as possible. That would force parties to nominate candidates who appeal to the state's large number of unaffiliated voters. Those candidates would be more moderate and be more interested in the common good than in forcing through their party's platform, Gordon said.
"Congress has a large number of uncompetitive seats, and people who are elected from uncompetitive seats frequently are from the ends of the political spectrum," Gordon said. "Frequently (those politicians) don't think the other side is wrong, they think the other side is evil."
The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee passed Gordon's proposal on a 3-2 party line vote Monday. The full Senate will debate the measure in the next few weeks.
Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, worked with Gordon to craft the plan. Elena Nunez said the proposal would empower unaffiliated voters, although her group would like to see redistricting put into the hands of a neutral commission.
"Voters have spoken time and again. It's clear voters want a process that's responsive and not set up for partisan gain," Nunez said. "Even if the Legislature is drawing the line, that's a good first step."
Not everyone believes that. Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, introduced a competing measure Friday. His proposed constitutional amendment would create a seven-person bipartisan panel to draw the map. Party leaders in the General Assembly would appoint four people, while the other three spots would be reserved for voters who are unaffiliated with either major party. Two of those spots would be filled by the secretary of state picking randomly from a list of anyone who wanted to apply and managed to collect 1,000 signatures or pay $2,000.
"The Democrats want everything they can get, and so do the Republicans. That's why we need a neutral commission that's not dominated by any party," Bruce said.
The commission would be charged with drawing geographically compact districts of equal population that split cities and counties as little as possible, just as legislators would under Gordon's plan. Gordon's plan would require politicians to draw boundaries that did not favor either party, but Bruce's plan would not allow commission members to consult with the parties at all. They would also be prohibited from considering any data about the political leanings of residents in an area.
Bruce said his plan eliminates the "obvious conflict of interest" that Gordon's perpetuates by keeping the General Assembly involved. Gordon disagrees, and thinks a system that doesn't protect incumbents or reward extremists is what the public wants.
Common Cause has not studied Bruce's proposal enough to form an opinion, but Nunez said the idea of taking the decision out of politicians' hands has worked in other states. Arizona lets an independent commission decide, while in Iowa nonpartisan civil servants make the map. Both states are viewed as having very fair processes, she said.





