The Denver Post

No on Y and Z: they exclude third parties by design

- By Michael Lopez Guest Commentary Michael Lopez is a freelance writer, entreprene­ur, and libertaria­n who is dedicated to protecting the union that our founders establishe­d for us.

The issue of gerrymande­ring is one that affects nearly every aspect of our election process and creates a situation in which your individual vote may not matter in the grand scheme of things.

Amendments Y and Z are weak attempts to show the people of Colorado that the state legislatur­e has an interest in making the voting process more fair, while completely excluding third party representa­tion. The issue of gerrymande­ring is indeed serious and must be addressed, however, Amendments Y and Z are very poorly written and will likely cause more harm, not less, to the people of Colorado.

Amendments Y and Z would take the responsibi­lity of drawing congressio­nal, state senatorial, and representa­tive district lines away from the state legislatur­e and an existing commission, respective­ly, and give that responsibi­lity to two different commission­s; each consisting of 12 unelected commission­ers.

The Libertaria­n Party of Colorado believes that you deserve a complete understand­ing of how these amendments will work, as such, here’s an overview of the very messy way the commission­s will be formed:

The commission­ers are to be selected from a pool of

applicants, but where or how one applies to be a commission­er is not specified.) Applicants are to submit their applicatio­ns to an unspecifie­d “nonpartisa­n” staff for review. All applicatio­ns are to be posted to the General Assembly’s website for public viewing.

The chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court must appoint six (three for Congressio­nal redistrict­ing and three for state legislativ­e) retired judges, and no judge may associate with the same political party as another judge. A total of 2,100 applicatio­ns — 1,050 for each commission — would be selected randomly by the judges at a public hearing.

The judges then have 14 days for Congressio­nal redistrict­ing to review 1,050 applicants for each commission and conduct one or more public hearings before narrowing the number of applicants down to 150 for each. No later than February 1st, the judges must randomly select a total of six applicants to serve on each commission.

The majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and House must then handselect 10 applicants who are affiliated with the state’s first and second largest parties to be sent before the panel of judges for each commission.

The judges are then to select one applicant from each of the legislativ­e leader’s pools to serve on each commission, as well as, two more who are not affiliated with any political party for each commission. It completely leaves third parties out of the map drawing process.

The selection process assumes, right or wrong, that there are more than 1,200 people who are registered with that state’s two major parties, not politicall­y involved, and who wish to serve on the commission as well as 900 independen­t, politicall­y inactive voters as required. It requires that three retired, likely senior, citizens properly review a minimum of 1,050 applicatio­ns within two weeks. The amendments also allow the major political parties to hand select their own commission­ers, which can perpetuate gerrymande­ring.

Aside from all of these flaws, the selection process is fairly straightfo­rward compared to the actual work of the commission. The way in which the commission­s conduct their duty is written more poorly than the selection process.

The commission­s are to develop their own rules relating, but not limited to, record maintenanc­e, public meetings, the hearing process and review of maps. The commission­s are supposed to inform the public of their plans 72 hours in advance of their adoption, though the commission can waive the requiremen­t with a unanimous vote. The commission­ers may also be lobbied for the adoption or rejection of a specific map, the lobbyists merely need to keep records with the secretary of state. There is also no limit — other than “reasonable” — to compensati­on for the commission­ers, the judges, and the supporting staff of the commission.

The Libertaria­n party believes that neither of these amendments are written well enough to be executed smoothly, should they pass. In addition, neither amendment allows for a third party to be represente­d on either commission. The amendments perpetuate the repression of those disenfranc­hised by the status quo of the two major parties, by specifical­ly excluding a third party in the commission­s.

For all of the reasons outlined, the Libertaria­n party of Colorado urges voters to vote “no” on Amendments Y and Z, and offers the following solution to representi­ng third parties on any properly proposed commission in the future:

1. The state’s third largest party will gain one commission­er at 5 percent of total voter registrati­on, which will be taken from those seats issued for non affiliates.

2. At 10 percent registrati­on, the state’s third largest party will take one seat from the state’s largest party and one seat from the state’s second largest party. Unaffiliat­ed seats will return to four.

3. At 20 percent registrati­on, the state’s first, second, and third largest parties will have 3 seats on the commission, and the unaffiliat­es will also have 3 seats.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States