Blink? Redistricting Plot Thickens

14 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

The Durango Herald’s Joe Hanel has a potentially important development today on the controversy over House Bill 1276–a bill that would effectively short-circuit the work of the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on congressional redistricting, by reinstating GOP-friendly guidance to judges in the event of the legislature’s historically likely failure to reach agreement. The joint committee, as announced last December, was created by Democrat Senate President Brandon Shaffer and Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty to attempt a solution to the politically-charged redistricting process without calling in the courts.

In half-joking recognition of the unlikely success of this bipartisan committee on such a fundamentally partisan issue, we christened it the “Kumbaya Committee.” And we’ve watched closely for signs of bad faith, such as legislation that would undermine the committee’s role in recommending new maps. House Bill 1276, variously reported in the press as a “late bill” or a “delayed bill”–but in either case requiring the signoff of House Speaker Frank McNulty to be introduced–meets this description. Certainly, the significant number of citizens attending redistricting meetings around the state would be displeased to learn the rug was being pulled out from under that process. With all of this in mind, Joe Hanel of the Herald reports today:

A congressional redistricting bill by Four Corners Republicans is on “the backest of back burners” and will not be heard until April, if at all, a Republican leader said Saturday…

It’s a highly charged partisan issue because Republicans adopted the bill in 2004, when they were hoping to minimize Democratic districts and win up to six of the state’s seven congressional seats.

Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, said Brown’s and Roberts’ House Bill 1276 troubles him because it threatens the bipartisan effort he is helping lead in the hopes that the Legislature can draw new districts and avoid going to the courts.

Balmer asked Speaker of the House Frank McNulty to put the bill on hold until April, when Balmer’s committee is supposed to send a bipartisan map to the Legislature.

At a redistricting hearing last week, we’re told that Rep. Dave Balmer disclaimed any knowledge of House Bill 1276. Given the obvious effect the bill could have on the process Balmer is the co-chair of, this as-reported request to delay the bill is reassuring.

To a point: it remains a fact that, “delayed” bill or “late” bill, McNulty’s approval was required in either case for the bill to be introduced so late in the session. What’s more, McNulty gave several affirmative reasons to the Denver newspaper for allowing the bill to be introduced, despite the negative consequences it could have for the committee he set up to do the job. And make no mistake, Sen. Ellen Roberts, one of the sponsors, is reported as saying in today’s story that HB-1276 remains a “fallback position” if the divided legislature can’t agree.

Bottom line: we are suspicious of the implied defense that Republicans are not acting in a coordinated manner here. Congressional redistricting is the biggest and most partisan game of the decade, with results highly visible on the national stage, and we really do think everyone involved is smarter than that. A genuine blink as advertised, or another round of rope-a-dope?

We’ll know soon enough.

14 thoughts on “Blink? Redistricting Plot Thickens”

MADCO says:

March 13, 2011 at 11:57 pm

And though I understand (maybe) what 1276 would do – Why was it delayed?

Is it on hold? Would it make it through the Senate anyway? And if so- would the governor sign it?

If the answer to any of these three is “no” then it seems like just another political club to putt with later. Oh, you know, the D’s wanted to break up counties, and well, doggone it, we just weren’t gonna let that happen without a fight. We’re on your side.

Log in to Reply
CastleMan says:

March 14, 2011 at 12:20 am

It seems to me that this bill is not very important.

McNulty probably approved its filing to give Roberts and the other sponsor cover in their districts. It allows them to go home and tell their voters, “hey, I tried to get better boundaries for us.” That’s important in a primary.

The bill isn’t likely to get through the House, especially if Balmer’s co-chaired committee comes up with a reasonable proposal, because Balmer himself would likely vote against it. If he didn’t, what would be the point of all the work he did on the bipartisan committee before that vote?

And, in any event, the bill isn’t going anywhere in the Senate and, if it did, wouldn’t survive Hickenlooper’s pen.

This is just intra-GOP politics. It’s not going to affect the redistricting process now underway.

Log in to Reply
1. DavidThi808 says:
  
  March 14, 2011 at 1:43 am
  
  Log in to Reply
2. droll says:
  
  March 14, 2011 at 1:46 am
  
  Roberts is by no means in a safe district, despite her decisive win. Depending on how re-districting goes, she could either be looking at a tough primary (the big RINO), or a tough race in a newly heavily left leaning district. Whichever, “I tried to make sure you were represented” works for either side here. It also doesn’t hurt for her to do leadership a favor now and then. ‘Cause, you know, RINO.
  
  Brown won by about 10%; with a shift to the wrong side he’ll lose re-election.
  
  Many of the House co-sponsors are in the same situation. The rest are wingnuts. That’s all that’s there, crazies and tossup seats. In one case both.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. abraham says:
  
  March 14, 2011 at 2:47 am
  
  I think this is really a down home, hold the Western Slope together bill. Is it not true that Club 20 was instrumental in putting the bill together and getting it introduced?
  
  There is no conceivable map that takes Roberts and Brown out of the 3rd – it is more likely that they would end up in a Utah Congressional district than get dumped out of the 3rd.
  
  The press accounts I have heard indicate that the 3rd is under population by a little over 12,000 people. They have to gain population and I suspect that they don’t want to lose some of the counties in a trade off with CD 2 or CD 5 to net out what they need.
  
  This is probably a stake out position at this point.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ClubTwitty says:
    
    March 14, 2011 at 2:58 am
    
    Grand County, now part of the 2nd, had just over 12000 people in 2000 census, and is contiguous with the (current) 3rd CD and (primarily) on the West side of the Divide.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Rajheet says:
      
      March 14, 2011 at 3:14 am
      
      The 3rd goes all the way to Pueblo, and includes all of the San Luis Valley.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. ClubTwitty says:
        
        March 14, 2011 at 3:24 am
        
        certainly a large part of the 3rd CD, population and geography, is already east of it.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Awen says:
    
    March 14, 2011 at 4:13 am
    
    That’s accurate. Roberts is a member of Club 20 and told me this bill came out of discussions she had with fellow members.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Ralphie says:
      
      March 14, 2011 at 4:18 am
      
      doesn’t represent people who actually live here, just people who siphon money out of here.
      
      Admitting that Club 20 supports your legislation is not a good way to endear yourself to Real People.
      
      But Ellen Roberts doesn’t strike me as Real People anyway, so she probably doesn’t get it.
      
      Log in to Reply
4. JeffcoBlue says:
  
  March 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm
  
  Having spoken with actual Democrats involved with the actual redistricting process, as opposed to speculating, I can assure you that they were very upset about this bill. It should not be swept under the rug.
  
  And I hate to break it to you guys, but the “process under way” has an apx. .000004% chance of success even without a bill to undermine it. Let’s please not get unrealistic about the “kumbaya committee.” Republicans will stay with the committee for exactly as long as they think they will benefit, not a moment longer.
  
  Off to the Dome…happy Monday…
  
  Log in to Reply
Rajheet says:

March 14, 2011 at 3:13 am

I went to the joint commission on redistricting meeting yesterday in Alamosa. Between the commission members, it was like a love fest. Rep Balmer repeatedly said that the intention was to come out with a map that will have the support of all 10 members (and yes, he was very polite to Sen. Schwartz)

I got the sense that as far as the 3rd is concerned, the commission looks to tweak the map, not do a wholesale redraw. The 3rd needs to pick up 12,271, the 5th needs to lose 7,445. The 4th needs to lose 6,584. These can be done with tweaks to the map.

The big players are the 1st(+56,418) and the 7th (+40,047) and the 2nd (-15,384) and 6th (-79,356). (Go here to find a link to the redistricting maps: http://tinyurl.com/5rb6e94)

Log in to Reply
1. Awen says:
  
  March 14, 2011 at 4:15 am
  
  This is a committee that at least publicly is very polite and getting along quite well. The hearings I’ve seen (four, so far, and one more tomorrow) have also been pretty tame but with a lot of interesting suggestions on how to draw the maps. Only a few people have suggested wholesale redrawing of the maps; most seem content to tweak things to get to the magic numbers.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Dan Willis says:
    
    March 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm
    
    I would advocate for some pretty significant changes in 2/6/7 and leave it at minor tweaks for 1/3/4/5
    
    Log in to Reply