Redistricting foes possess lots of ammo

Thursday, May 15, 2003

Denver Post

It's quite a spectacle. As Texas Democrats continue their exile in Ardmore , Okla. , and Republicans in Austin fume at their inability to ram a congressional redistricting plan through in the final days of the legislative session, supporters are selling T-shirts to commemorate the occasion.

Meanwhile, 1,000 miles north in Colorado , Attorney General Ken Salazar is seizing the moment. He wants to end the madness.

Redistricting can be done only once every 10 years, not on the whim of every newly achieved majority in the state legislature, he says. And he's willing to take on the state Senate, the House, the secretary of state and the governor to prove it.

Salazar is making a rare direct petition to the Colorado Supreme Court. He wants a ruling on the constitutionality of the redrawing of the state's seven congressional districts by the GOP majority in the last three days of the legislative session.

If Salazar prevails, Republican state Senate President John Andrews vows to appeal it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Such an appeal might be just what the state's most prominent Democrat needs to propel his career toward national office.

Whether the federal courts have jurisdiction is another question.

Still, a decision in Colorado surely will have far-ranging effects on future midnight gerrymanders across the country.

Here at home, though, the rhetoric is becoming incendiary.

Salazar says his responsibility is to the voters of Colorado , "Democrats, Republicans and independents." He says that redistricting more than once every decade is "unconstitutional" and would "create havoc" with the electoral process.

Andrews says Salazar does not have the "legal authority" to challenge the General Assembly. His role is "to be the lawyer for the governor and the secretary of state."

Salazar says his "power derives from an election by the people of the state of Colorado . I'm not appointed by the governor or the General Assembly, or confirmed by the General Assembly. My responsibility is to the people. My responsibility is to do what's right."

Andrews says, "He flunks law school on this one."

We'll see.

The petition Salazar filed Wednesday cites 58 court cases, the Colorado Constitution, the California Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, state statutes and the even the state's own blue book, which explains Amendment 9, a redistricting initiative passed by voters in 1974.

The blue book on Amendment 9 states: "Adoption of the proposal would mean that reapportionment of the legislative districts would occur only once every 10 years unless the federal census is taken more often than every 10 years.

"This limitation is necessary to prevent major redistricting efforts during the period between censuses (efforts which are likely to occur with changes in party balance) since such efforts divert legislators' attention from other critical matters.

"The proposal would reduce the impact that partisan politics can have on the drawing of legislative district boundaries."

Andrews' response is dismissive. "The blue book ... is an information guide written by the staff. The words don't have the force of law."

In effect, he's saying we shouldn't put much stock in voters' guides. He certainly doesn't.

But a legitimate question remains as to whether the blue book language is relevant, since Amendment 9 was aimed at redistricting for state legislative elections - not congressional races.

It's all for the Supreme Court to decide.

Whatever the justices do surely will influence the debate in Texas and in Washington , D.C. , where Republican Party operatives have orchestrated much of this midnight gerrymandering - apparently out of concern that Republican incumbents might not get re-elected in the districts as they're presently configured.

But while partisans duke it out in Texas and Colorado , probably the best case against such opportunistic redistricting was made in California .

There, state legislators said that gerrymandering should be strenuously avoided because it "undermines the electoral system, breeds distrust among the voting public and poisons relations between the political parties."

They defined gerrymandering as redistricting in such a way that "political outcomes will be assured far ahead of time without any input from the voters." Sound familiar?

They said that precisely because redistricting is "the most political act undertaken by the legislature," it should be done methodically and not in the context of the "outright chaos" of the final weeks of the session.

If such gerrymandering occurs at the hands of the majority party, they said, it may constitute "a violation of the Voting Rights Act" and should be vigorously challenged with a lawsuit.

Incidentally, that argument was made by the 2001 California State Assembly Republican Caucus.

Diane Carman's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday.