GOP: We did the right thing

Friday, May 16, 2003

Denver Post

There's plenty of spin about Republicans drawing a new map of congressional districts in the legislature's closing days. A lot of the talk is wrong or so incomplete it's impossible to get a fair picture. I'm happy to try to respond to some of the issues and partisan charges.

ISSUE: The legislature had no right to draw congressional districts because the courts already did it.

Actually, the state Constitution very clearly assigns lawmakers the job of drawing congressional districts: "When a new apportionment shall be made by congress the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly." Colorado Constitution, Article V Section 44.

ISSUE: But the legislature failed, so the courts had to step in.

More like the legislature was sabotaged - from inside. Democrat leaders of the Colorado Senate purposefully prevented the legislature from drawing congressional districts. They bet (correctly, as events proved) that a Democratic judge in Denver, appointed by a Democratic governor, would give them a more favorable map than they could get from compromise between the Democrat Senate and the Republican House. So, in violation of their oaths, they blocked any chance for lawmakers to produce a map in order to force the issue to court.

ISSUE: That's a harsh charge. Can you back it up?

Yes. Even before the 2002 session began, the Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to get a judge to draw the districts. The judge delayed proceedings so legislators could at least try to do their job. Then the Democrats went into a stonewall.

As expected, the House passed a Republican-friendly map, while the Senate favored Democrats. The hard work was supposed to happen in a "conference committee," formed specifically for the redistricting bill, with three representatives and three senators. They would find middle ground and compromise. It was a tough job, with regional interests, careers and egos at stake. Any serious effort would unavoidably step on toes on both sides. But it didn't happen. The Democrats simply skipped the scheduled committee meeting.

At a rescheduled conference, they arrived very late, held perfunctory debate and then adjourned to answer a parliamentary "call of the Senate" to convene for business. In other words, the Senate's Democratic leaders, who controlled the Senate's schedule, conveniently interrupted the committee to go to the Senate. Except they didn't go. For more than half an hour, a few senators milled about without convening and without the "leaders" who'd dashed from committee.

That was one stone in a continuing wall. Senate leaders did not want a messy, hard-fought, ultimately democratic compromise map. They wanted a better deal from an unelected judge, and blocked the legislature from functioning.

ISSUE: Sour grapes. They won. The judge ruled, and the constitutional reapportionment occurred. Why do you think it's OK to undo it?

The constitutional redistricting did not occur. The Constitution tells the legislature to do it. Now that the obstructionists who subverted the process are gone, we can fulfill our constitutional duty. The judge responded to a vacuum that no longer exists. There is no legal, moral or logical reason the legislature should simply defer to the results of a hijacking of the process.

ISSUE: Isn't it unfair that the map will probably continue the current 5-2 advantage in the congressional delegation? Colorado has more Republicans than Democrats, but not 2 1/2 times more.

Our system is based on geographic representation, not at-large proportional representation. In fact, the new map better preserves the integrity of county and city boundaries, an important constitutional standard. Most areas of Colorado have somewhat more Republicans than Democrats. The two places with a Democratic edge and enough population to fill a district are Denver and the Boulder region. They already have Democratic representatives. Any map that naturally groups geographic and community interests breaks in favor of Republicans elsewhere.

ISSUE: But if it's on the up and up, why wait until the last three days of the session and pass a map without public input?

Our map had two hearings with public comment. That's more input than attended the map drawn by the Democratic Party and selected by a judge in his chambers. We were confident of the rightness of our course, but not naive about the political reaction by the other side. We knew when we blew the whistle on the power grab of two years ago that all cooperation might die. Important things had to get done this session. We had to deal with historic drought, desperate budget shortfalls, the expiration of auto insurance laws, health insurance problems and more. Most people would prefer bipartisan cooperation on such issues. That's what they got. If we had started with the most inherently political issue, the combat of the final three days would have filled all 120.

Shawn Mitchell is a Republican state representative from Broomfield .