Denver November 2004 Election
Update 6:43pm: You can get the court decision doc from the Colorado State Judicial Branch website. It's in a .doc format. The state reveals a non-inclusive attitude on their websites at times.
Lots of coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court decision on congressional redistricting today. Here's a story from the Rocky Mountain News [December 2, 2003, "Dems are big winners on map"]. The article quotes Floyd Ciruli (local Denver political pollster and pundit) as saying, "It (drawing the new boundary lines) was part of a national Republican strategy. What happened today in Colorado was clearly a major setback. They (Republicans) argued with their best arguments and they were rejected. That will be hard to overcome (on appeal). There are potentially two seats that Democrats can retake in their bid to take control of the U.S. House, and that will make this a battleground state." Colorado in the national spotlight? Cool.
Here's the coverage from the Denver Post [December 2, 2003, "5-2 ruling could ripple beyond Colorado"]. The Post has another story examining the national implications of yesterdays decision [December 2, 2003, "Redistricting ruling puts state in spotlight"]. Here's another story from the Post [December 2, 2003, "Court tosses GOP remapping"].
Here's a wrapup of the costs of the court fight from the Rocky Mountain News [December 2, 2003, "Tab may top $600,000"]. Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, who found herself in the middle of the battle when Attorney General Ken Salazar sued to stop her from enforcing a Republican-drawn map, has had to ask for an additional $253,000 to pay her legal fees through the current fiscal year. She's paying for an outside lawyer to represent her because the attorney who normally sits beside her in court, Salazar, is suing her in this case. Ironically, he chipped in with another $53,000 out of his own budget to get her through the last fiscal year. His lawsuit was filed in May. Davidson is involved in two lawsuits over redistricting - the one in the Colorado Supreme Court and a second suit filed by state Democrats in Denver District Court. It has been shifted at Republican request, at least temporarily, into federal court. The Colorado General Assembly hired an outside attorney as well, Richard Westfall. Democratic legislators didn't like that, but didn't have the votes to stop it. So they have their own lawyers, who either are contributing their time or are being paid through donations."
The Rocky is looking at whether or not Mark Udall will now challenge Ben Nighthorse Campbell for his Senate seat [December 2, 2003, "Udall studies plans for '04"]. From the article, "U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a plaintiff in the redistricting case, said Monday he expects to announce before the end of the year if he will run against Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 2004. Udall said he recently had lunch with Campbell and they agreed that if they do go head to head 'we're going to do it right.'" I hope that means that they will start weblogs and engage in a weblog conversation for the benefit of the voters. 
The Denver Post editorial staff agrees with the court ruling [December 2, 2003, "Death of a gerrymander"]. From the editorial, "Some Republican fire-eaters reacted to their loss with a spate of judge-bashing and vowed to continue their quest for unfair partisan advantage to the U.S. Supreme Court. If they do, they will be challenging more than two centuries of legal precedent that holds that state courts are the final arbiters of state constitutions, as long as those documents don't violate any rights enshrined in the federal charter. That reflects the Tenth Amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' An equally clear ruling came from the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 Growe v. Emison decision, when it ruled that states have the primary duty and responsibility to redraw the legislative and congressional districts after the decennial census - and that federal courts must defer their action when a state, through its legislative or judicial branch, has begun in timely fashion to address the issue. The opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, the high court's most conservative member."
The Rocky editorial staff is disappointed with the Colorado Supreme Court [December 2, 2003, "High court flunks redistricting test"]. From the editorial, "We say that, by the way, even though we noisily opposed the Republican redistricting plan. Indeed, the day after the legislature finished redistricting, we suggested Gov. Bill Owens consider vetoing the bill. We didn't like the way it was bulldozed through the legislature and we saw no reason for it either - other than the pursuit of sheer partisan advantage - since the new 7th District, at least, was competitive. But we never challenged the right of the legislature to carry out its constitutional responsibility."
Ed Quillen: " While I'd like to write a strong essay either attacking or defending yesterday's ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court about congressional redistricting, my feelings are mixed." [Denver Post, December 2, 2003, "Mixed opinion on split opinion"]
5:30:50 AM 
|
|
