Denver November 2004 Election
Update 9:23PM: Here's what the Democrats have to say about the Colorado redistricting decision from last week.
Here's an opinion piece written by John Andrews on the redistricting issue from Saturday's Rocky Mountain News [December 6, 2003, "Appointees still political, but much less accountable"]. Here's another written by Ken Gordon from the Rocky [December 6, 2003, "POINT/COUNTERPOINT"].
Vincent Carroll looks at Judicial objectivity in his editorial from Saturdays Rocky Mountain News [December 6, 2003, "Carroll: Don't lose heart; most judges try to be impartial"]. According to Carroll, "That's good news, and there's no obvious reason to think the behavior of Colorado judges would be any more partisan. So don't let the state Supreme Court's disgraceful decision on redistricting turn you into a total cynic regarding the judiciary."
Mike Littwin agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court on redistricting. Here's his opinion piece from Saturday's Rocky [December 6, 2003, "Littwin: Consider fairness in redistricting battle"]. Says Littwin, "First statistic: Of all the House incumbents running in 2002, only eight - as in, eight - lost. And it's worse than that. Four of the losers were matched against other incumbents. So, only four - as in, four - incumbents lost in races that weren't against other incumbents. This is not democracy. And insisting that schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance won't make it democracy."
Fred Brown looks at the redistricting battle in his column in yesterday's Denver Post [December 7, 2003, "Redistricting is 100% politics"]. From the column, "It doesn't make sense to say the legislature can redistrict whenever it chooses. It isn't fair to let the majority party redraw boundaries any time it finds itself in control of both houses and the governor's office - and to do it in secret, then ramming through a map in the closing hours of the legislative session. The last three days of the 2003 session were a low point in Colorado legislative history. So it's a good thing the court threw out the greedy, secretive, hasty gerrymander of a plan already used in the 2002 elections. But it's too bad the decision was split along political lines, with the court's two Republicans dissenting. And it's too bad the dissenters had such a strong argument. It reveals weak points in the 63-page majority opinion, by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, leaving it vulnerable to legal nitpickers and partisan spin doctors."
Bob Ewegen weighs in on the redistricting case in his column in Saturday's Denver Post [December 6, 2003, "GOP can win if it stops whining"]. Says Ewegen, "Frankly, if the Republican panjandrums had the sense that God gave peanut brittle, they'd stop their whining and do what Bob Beauprez did in 2002 - roll up their sleeves and fight on the level playing fields that the state court provided in the crucial 3rd and 7th districts."
6:33:11 AM 
|
|
