GOP, Dems moving closer on redistricting issues
Republicans and Democrats appear to be moving closer to agreement on a proposed constitutional amendment about how the state’s congressional districts are drawn.
The issue is whether it’s better to continue to allow the legislature to draw the maps — which often wind up in court — or create a bipartisan, independent commission.
Since it was announced last month, the discussions have been slowed by longheld distrust between the parties and questions about ulterior motives and overemphasizing or diminishing minority voting strength.
Some Democrats think Republicans are trying to inconspicuously bust up minority voting power, which has traditionally favored Democratic candidates by making “communities of interest” less important than geographical boundaries and partisan balance.
Republicans, for more than a decade, have argued that the current system of map-making is too political and favors the party that controls the legislature each 10 years, when boundaries must be redrawn based on the Census.
James Mejia, who is leading the amendment effort, said the ballot question ultimately will be something Democrats and Republicans agree on before collecting petition signatures — 98,492 from registered voters — to get on the November 2016 ballot.
The public’s learning curve about the issue could be steep. During questions at a luncheon speech Thursday, Gov. John Hickenlooper said he didn’t yet understand the issue.
“I don’t really have an opinion yet,” he said. “I know some of our former governors, Republicans and Democrats, are looking into a way we can have more competitive districts across the state.”
Last Friday, the two sides settled a major sticking point: the priority list of factors used to determine district boundary lines. Republicans had sought to make following municipal or county boundaries a higher priority, which Democrats saw as an attempt to undermine the voting strength of minority communities. Some said they were ready to pull out of the discussions over it.
Instead, both sides agreed to include language passed by the legislature in 2010 that gave broad discretion for the courts to decide what’s fair when efforts to compromise fail.
Another round of discussions will happen next week before leaders of the amendment effort meet with the Secretary of State’s office Wednesday.
“We’re working off language that I assume will please Democrats with regard to whether this would dilute minority votes — which absolutely was never the intent of this initiative,” Mejia said. “... We want to make no mistake as to what we’re trying to do here. Our intent, first and foremost is to be more transparent and inclusive.”
Republicans, who more strongly favor switching from a partisan legislative process to an independent commission, point to Colorado’s seven congressional districts. Only one district, District 6, a seat held by Republican Mike Coffman, is competitive between the two parties. That gives incumbents an easier path to re-election in most cases.
In the U.S. House, Colorado has four Republicans and three Democrats.
The proposed 12-member redistricting commission would include an equal number of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters. Passing any map would require a super majority of at least eight votes.
Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb doesn’t see a good reason to change to a commission, which makes him skeptical that Republicans who first proposed the idea are seeking to weaken minority voting strength.
“I’m mature to this process,” said Webb, who served on the reapportionment committee in 2011 and raised questions about Republicans’ intentions in drawing legislative districts. “But Ray Charles could see through this.”
Mejia chaffed at the suggestion that the ultimate goal would hurt minority voters.