Battle flares anew as Dems file suit over redistricting

Saturday, May 10, 2003

Denver Post

- The legal battle over an unprecedented redistricting effort is underway.

Minutes after Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a measure redrawing Colorado 's congressional boundaries Friday, attorneys representing state Democrats marched into court and filed a legal challenge.

The last-minute Republican redistricting plan solidifies the party's control in five of seven districts statewide and was of enough interest to the White House that senior aide Karl Rove reportedly worked behind the scenes in support of it.

The impact of the redrawn map is that thousands of Colorado voters are now potentially represented by a politician they had no chance to vote for because the law took effect immediately.

Both sides predicted victory in court, although legal experts said last week anything could happen because there is so little precedent.

Minutes after the 3 p.m. signing was made public, lawyers for the Democrats filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court challenging the new law "based on numerous violations of the Colorado Constitution, Colorado statutes and U.S. Supreme Court cases."

"The Republicans ran this through in just three days, with no debate and no chance for amendments," said Chris Gates, chair of the Democratic Party of Colorado. "With this lawsuit, we will force them to defend this not only in court but in public as well."

Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, who won last year's 7th Congressional District race by 121 votes, stands to gain the most from the remapping plan if it holds up in court.

The new map gives Republicans a 27,000-vote advantage in the new district, which had been drawn by Denver District Judge John Coughlin last year to be evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

The lawyer who filed the suit said the legislature did not have the power to do what it did.

Attorney David Fine filed the suit on behalf of two voters in the 7th Congressional District, including Democratic state Sen. Moe Keller.

"Their redistricting plan violated Judge Coughlin's plan, which created the present districts," Fine said.

By jamming the legislation through in three days, the legislature violated the GAVEL Amendment, which requires every bill referred to a committee to have ample time to be reviewed and considered, the lawsuit charges. Nor was the bill posted on the Internet or in the bill room for public viewing, according to the lawsuit.

It also claims the legislature violated the Sunshine Law, which requires "full and timely" notice to the public of any meeting held to consider legislation requiring a majority vote. Committee hearings were held the same day the bill was filed, giving legislators insufficient time to review the legislation or to propose amendments and debate them, the suit says.

Lawmakers typically redraw congressional boundaries every 10 years after the release of the census to ensure that each district is equal in population. It is unusual for remapping to occur at other times.

Colorado 's population grew enough over the past decade to make the state eligible for a seventh seat in Congress, according to the 2000 census.

A split legislature failed to reach agreement on how to redraw the boundaries, so it was put in the court's hands. Coughlin decided on the boundaries, carving out a 7th District north and east of Denver with roughly equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

The Colorado redistricting effort is part of a national strategy to shore up Republican seats in Congress and ensure President Bush a solid majority in a race for a second term. Republicans hold a 229-205 advantage over Democrats in the U.S. House, with one independent.

Owens signed the bill without comment five days after it was introduced in the state legislature and rushed through the Senate and House, where it passed on party- line votes in each chamber.

Last Wednesday, Owens said he would hire the nation's top lawyers at taxpayer expense to defend against a challenge by Democrats. At that time, he predicted victory.

"I think from a national perspective, it is a good thing for Republicans," Carl Forti, spokesman for the Republican National Congressional Committee in Washington , said Friday. "It helps shore up Mr. Beauprez's seat, adds Republicans to Mr. McGinnis' district and solidifies their long-term perspectives.

Republican U.S. Rep. Scott McGinnis of Grand Junction represents the 3rd District.

"Obviously, from a national perspective, we would like to have more seats in Congress," Forti said. "Hopefully, it means we can keep the Republicans from Colorado here in Congress."

But the lawsuit claims that the Coughlin plan as approved by the state Supreme Court is the legally valid and binding redistricting map and that the current legislature had no right to redraw the boundaries.

It also claims that the Republican-controlled Senate illegally suspended Senate Rule 11 requiring the reading of bills and Senate Rule 14 requiring the correction and approval of the journal of each preceding day.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the new 7th District favors Republicans because the newest district has a Hispanic population of only 14 percent. Coughlin's plan had a Hispanic population of 20 percent. Hispanics historically vote for the Democrat Party, the lawsuit claims, and thus the Hispanics' voting strength is diluted, which violates the equal-protection provision of the state constitution.

The suit also claims that the new map strengthens Republican voter margins in several other congressional districts, for example by splitting Pueblo County .

The lawsuit asks that the new plan be declared void and unenforceable, and that the court prohibit its implementation.

Fine said any judicial ruling on the complaint, regardless of who prevails, is likely to be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The entire process, which will be given priority, still will take up to a year to be decided.

"We feel very good about our chances," he said.

Attorney General Ken Salazar opposes the redistricting plan as unconstitutional and said he would join the legal challenge on the side of the plaintiffs, not the state.

"We hoped the governor would heed the voices of outrage across the state and veto the bill, but since he didn't, the courts will once again be involved," Salazar spokesman Ken Lane said Friday.