President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 02, 2011 11:55 PM UTC

"Midnight Gerrymander" Veteran Makes Bad Anti-Gerrymandering Spokesman

  • 48 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We were amused to see a guest op-ed in today’s Denver newspaper from former Colorado Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, getting terribly uptight about the proposed Democratic congressional redistricting map introduced by Sen. Rollie Heath last week. Hillman opens by defining “gerrymandering” for the reader as “irregular manipulating of electoral district boundaries to give an advantage one political party or candidate,” a practice Hillman says is “widely considered distasteful, if not downright corrupt.”

This is a subject that we think Hillman is qualified to talk about, as long as you can get past the eye-popping hypocrisy. It’s very easy to understand why Mark Hillman would leave out of his polemic op-ed the fact that he was Senate Majority Leader* in 2003, when Republicans rammed through a revised redistricting map at the end of the session, unconstitutionally attempting to undo the map already used in one election. Known as the “Midnight Gerrymander,” it’s an incident recalled around the country as a textbook example of redistricting shenanigans.

Bottom line? Hillman doesn’t like Sen. Heath’s map. Hillman is certainly not alone in that opinion, but it’s very difficult to disparage Heath’s tactics, a bill debated in the open and on a regular schedule, compared to Hillman’s 2003 forcing of a map through the legislature by bending every parliamentary rule in the book–just because you don’t like the map that’s already been drawn.

Look, folks, we get that redistricting is a sharp-elbowed political business, and gamesmanship at its most intense. We get that disagreements over proposed maps will break along many lines other than partisan, and what looks like a brilliant plan from one side of the state might look like apostasy to another. It’s very natural to expect both sides to try to pit these competing interests against each other, and to cast the opponent’s proposals in the worst possible light.

What you shouldn’t be able to do is whitewash your own history. Mark Hillman lecturing on how to redistrict without controversy is like Al Capone giving a civics speech.

—–

*UPDATE: After discussion among readers and some news archive sleuthing, it was established that Sens. Mark Hillman and Norma Anderson were tied in the 2002 GOP election for Senate Majority Leader. We’ve updated to account for the unusual arrangement–Sen. Anderson apparently held the title of Majority Leader for one session, then handed it off to Hillman the next. Contemporary news reports suggest they shared duties, and regardless, both would have been intimately involved with the “Midnight Gerrymander” as Senate leadership.

(H/T: Strong Colorado)

Tweet
Share

Comments

48 thoughts on ““Midnight Gerrymander” Veteran Makes Bad Anti-Gerrymandering Spokesman”

    1. determining communities of interest can be a much iffier proposition, not to mention a fluid one. Not all western slope towns or  counties, for instance, share the same interests at all and sleepy farming/ranching/mining communities can turn into overdeveloped hot spot meccas for the elite with amazing speed.

      1. The numbers used by Sen. Heath pain the districts as having a slight Dem edge, but those numbers are using two races from 2010 when the GOP was experiencing record turn out. This leads to a rosier picture than is true for R’s.

        After studying the numbers from the Heath map, I have come to the conclusing that the map Sen. Heath is proposing makes it very difficult for a Republican to win any district except CD5 and has only a real contest in CD4.

        I am not drinking the “competitive kool-aid” and neither will a judge.

        1. If Heath reached back in time for data, then he would be accused of picking and choosing. For example, both 2006 and 2008 were arguably Democratic wave years.

          If you go back further in time, say a decade, then you’re ignoring demographic trends.

          And were the elections of 2010 really a matter of Republican turn-out, or more a matter of Indies voting for R’s?

          I’m not sure what the solution is, but you could do worse than taking the most recent elections as your yardstick.

          And beyond that, I have a hard time believing that you can pack so many Republicans into one district (CD5) that all the rest are in the bag for Democrats – though I’m not nearly as familiar with the numbers as you are.

          2. Is to take a high profile and low profile race from each a GOP-wave year (2010) and a Dem-wave year (2008). Where that runs a snag is that 2008 did not have a low-profile statewide race. 2006 did however (CU Regent).

            Using those 4 races gives a very different view of hte Dem-map and you cvan see how uncompetitive it really is (in favor of Dems of course).

            So I am calling fowl on the Dem’s attempt to be the chamions of competitiveness.

            1. You have attacked the Dem maps more than anyone I have seen this side of Frank McNulty, and I don’t think you’re the only person looking at them. If there was a smoking gun as obvious as you claim, why aren’t the GOPers talking about it?

              You don’t have a monopoly on information. Back it up or STFU.

              1. The difference is they are typically considered as “spewing political rhetoric”.  I though the same thing until I did the math myself.

                You are right, I do not have a monopoly on the data. Do the math yourself. That would be better than simply trusting me, and God knows I am quite capable of making mistakes when adding numbers up. You’ve all be exposed to my typing skills (or lack thereof) for a few years now.

                Also, I was trying to find the reference in statutes or the state constitution to competitive districts. Can anyone help me find that?

                1. You could always show your work since you’re the one making the accusation. Just saying.

                  In the meantime, like I tell Republicans, “competitiveness” has more to do with the essential nature of democracy than it does Colorado Revised Statutes. You know as well as I do that it’s what voters say they want. Sometimes people get a little lost in the process and forget things this simple.

                    2. Cool, I’m looking forward to seeing his work on how historical numbers show Democratic maps “make it very difficult for a Republican to win any district except CD5.” That’s what he says and he says he has studied the numbers to prove it.

                      If you mean that Dan has drawn a map, I know and that’s not what I am talking about, and you know that’s not what I am talking about. So unless you have some specifics to back up Dan with about how “the map Sen. Heath is proposing makes it very difficult for a Republican to win any district except CD5,” go practice being a defensive prick for awhile and get back to me. Needs work.

                    3. His lines are complacent and sterile without looking at the bigger common shared interests that NW/mountain counties have with regards to water rights and the rest of the State. Further, his lines lacks common population growth/trending for the next 10 years without a direct economic comparison to districts interest on a national scale. Sorry, Dan. You know I’ve done my homework.

                  2. and double checked for accuracy.

                    The reality is I just do not have the time in the next week to do that.

                    For the legislature’s purposes, I know the ones who are watching this process closely have done those numbers and are well aware of the reality.

                    The principal point I was making is that the numbers used for the report attached to the Heath map skew the numbers to make it look like the GOP has a better chance than they do, giving a false sense of competitiveness

                    1. that favors votes for Democrats – not the lines. Without splitting CD3 the Republicans agenda is obscurred in the divisions that are present in the District.  

                    2. The Democrats have drawn their lines to make the districts competitive, marginalizing the Republicans “use and abuse” agenda. The Red dopes are being roped with the SB11-268 map; giving more voice to unaffiliated voters. Framing your points as Democrats being the problem for the Republicans failed policies is disappointing. Coloradoans know that unaffiliates/Independents will be the decisive factor in 2012. Clearly, the Republicans would prefer to keep rural conservative leaning Independents in control of their “competitive” districts. Without the lines protecting those battlegrounds, the Republicans won’t be able to support their slanted agenda on equal ground.

                    3. But missing so much in scale. The information you’re using is very limited – finite. You’re boxes don’t relate to the bigger whole.

                2. The Republicans fuzzy math is exposed by census demographics. Go to the census reports, population demographics, median incomes, median house prices, and economic drivers based on a county-by-county comparison within the districts based on SB11-268, and then take those districts as compared to the State’s economics drivers, nationally. Just a reminder that “Congressional Districts” are a the district’s voice on national policy – not just State partisan politics.

                  1. But, the conversation we were having was about the partisan balance or lack thereof.

                    Since I know this issue will stick in people’s craw for awhile, I have rearranged my schedule to free up some time to prepare a report on the voter preformance of the SB268 districts. I will try to have it done and posted by tonight sometime. To make it easy to find, I’ll start a new diary with the information.

            2. or the Dems laid an egg? but then don’t count your chickens…

              But in all seriousness, if you’ve run the numbers, please share. My impression has been that there are more registered Republicans than Dems in this state and that a majority of indies lean R. Furthermore, the Dems seem to be pretty well concentrated in the Denver-Boulder part of the Metro area. I have a hard time believing that a state that almost elected Ken Buck, with R voters so thoroughly dispersed, can be rigged so that there’s only one safe R CD.

            3. snickered when they found out I thought it was an elk bugle horn.

              This is a specious argument for this diary because Dan doesn’t address in clear terms whether he thinks Hillman is correct that it is a vast left wing conspiracy to Gerrymander the state.  Calling it Gerrymandering like the midnight affair that Hillman was a conspirator to and having it be not Republican friendly are pretty key differences.

              So how does Dan, the man with his socially engineered perfect districts, conclude that the Democratic maps constitute Gerrymandering without disclosing his bias for his perfectly drawn maps?  You need to go out more Dan.  The all-knowing expert looks a little thin.

              1. Only that they favor Dems. So I disagree with Hillman in his terminology.

                Either side can draw maps favoring their party without gerrymandering.

                1. We can use census demographics and common shared interests like economic drivers and compactness to make our case. In this case common sense dictating the terms instead of party politics.

                2. Hillman calling it Gerrymandering doesn’t make it so.  Gerrymandering is a repugnant form of election fraud and the competing parties should refrain from trying to rig the elections in their favor and instead try to win elections with pragmatic and cost effective solutions to our most difficult problems.

        3. Now you show me how you “objectively” assess communities of interest and assess them in a fluid state over time.  So far CD7, CD3 and CD4 have demonstrated a degree of competitiveness that has resulted in seats changing hands so it’s not like those of us who like to see a degree of competitiveness are delusional.

          Clearly, the state of things can change radically in a short time whether you use fuzzy, fluid community of interest measures, objective yet still fluid competitiveness measures or any combination of the two and/or other measures.  More like pick your poison and seek your advantage than kool-aid drinking either way.  

        4. The districts become competitive. Neither Democrats or Republicans can win without Indpendent crossover in Colorado. SB11-268 pains the parties – not the districts. Common sense dictates that people who live and work in a district have similiar common shared interests – except CD3. What the hell does a mountain ski resort community have in common with Pueblo and the surrounding farm communities? Time to break it up, and put mountain communities into a shared interest district.  

      2. Based on what you pointed out, our counties that have ski resorts don’t have a majority voice in CD3. Especially on issues like clean alternative energies and water rights/conservation/usage. Water splits the district into 2 very distict factions: Upstream flow controls and downstream usage. The two are not compatible in CD3. Water divides Democrats between the upstream mountain communities and the downstream end users in agriculture. The split keeps Independents from seeing the Democrats as having a strong leadership role on “water”. The split keeps the Republicans “use and abuse” option in play.

        The majority voice contains land developers and the Oil/Gas/Mining idustries using agriculture – with some Democrats – as their “end user” majority voice. This is not good for the Denver area, and Colorado Springs is demanding resources from our mountains, as it grows. The minority mountain “upstream” healthy stream flow, clean water, and conservation management voice is lost.

        The Denver area should be very concerned with the increased development and water usage in the Western Slope/SE counties. Removing the mountain counties from CD3 will provide the upstream healthy flow” voice with a strong majority voice in CD2 to improve flow rates and protections against non-conservation initiatives being used currently. The SW/SE counties concerned with conservation and continued resources for agriculture and supply will be advocated by “clean water/conservation” inititives in the mountain counties. The Republicans “use and abuse” is marginalized in CD3 and CD2, as well as other districts concerned with protecting resources and seeking more sustainable options.

        CD3 is gerrymandered based on a collective that wants “water rights” with no concern for clean water or conserving our resource “down stream” beyond the will of Oil/Gas/Mining rights and short-term profit land developers. The Republicans’ profit over people agenda doesn’t give a shit about conserving water resources. It’s all about short-term profits that take our resources – and money – and will run when both are no longer available. Time to stop the Republicans “use and abuse” agenda. It’s an agenda that they can’t continue to make competitive on it’s own merit. Splitting CD3, reduces their chances to do so significantly. The metro areas needs to  Support SB11-268 to move Colorado forward.

    2. “COMPETITIVENESS” IS BAD. (repeat)

      If that doesn’t work, try:

      RURAL VOTES SHOULD BE WORTH MORE. (repeat)

      And if that doesn’t work, try:

      JARED POLIS IS GAY, GRAND JUNCTION! (repeat)

      But the point of this post is, Mark Hillman is a hypocrite. And that’s right on.

      1. …when you have mountain communities concerned with up ‘stream flow’ and agriculture/development/oil/gas/mining concerned with end user rights, please explain the common shared interest in CD3? How does one explain the average $400,000 price of housing in Glenwood to Peublo’s $95,000 median house pricing, other than economic drivers? Based on population demographics, median house prices, median incomes, economic drivers, water rights concerns – and climate zones for that matter – the mountain counties have nothing in common with SW/SE high mesa rural counties.

    4. Colorado is basically split 3-ways between Republicans,Independents, and Democrats. Competitive Districts push both parties to stand on their platforms competitively. In fact, the Republicans’ continued opposition to the Democrats proposed map in SB11-268 is nothing less than another hypocritical spin cycle. The Republicans count on this going to court, despite their assertions to the contrary. It’s the corporate American way! Let the courts decide for the people.

      It just so happens that ‘competitive districts’, as presented in SB11-268 place an emphasis on compactness with shared communities of interests based on census demographics, economic drivers, and concerns – as instructed – within the redistricting process.

      The Democrats have created a map based on Republican Sen. Ellen “Roberts Rules”, and clearly the Republicans can’t handle their own rules of engagement – or the process at large – without screaming foul. It’s the only card they’ve got to play. Not one of the Republicans could explain how their maps were drawn in committee – especially Speaker McNulty’s map submittal at the 11th hour. Democrats were specific, clear, and precise on lines drawn within the parameters of process.

      The Western Slope needs to be split. Had there been an 8th district seat, there would have been changes to CD3. Why wait until 2020 based on a few thousand short of getting an 8th congressional district? No district should be guaranteed “Blue” or “Red”. Having either, places too much power in the hands of the party, and not the people.

      Call you’re Senators and support SB11-268 based on similiar area demographics and common interests of the people, and not the parties.

        1. Thank you, Lexis/Nexis! RMN, 11/8/02:

          Republicans, who recaptured control of the Colorado Senate, waged their first major battle Thursday – but it turned out to be among themselves.

          They deadlocked 9-to-9 over whether to pick a moderate, Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, or a conservative, Sen. Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, as their new majority leader. State House Republicans also picked their leadership, but they did so in nearly unanimous fashion.

          At midafternoon, after four tie votes and no one willing to budge an inch, Senate Republicans decided to let Anderson and Hillman each hold the job for one year and to share powers in appointing committee members.

          […]

          They were huddled together in the late afternoon, working out details of the arrangement, which had a precedent in 1980 when the late Sen. Ralph Cole, R-Littleton, and Sen. Dan Noble, R-Norwood, split the leadership one year each.

          Anderson had the title the first year, Hillman the second. Maybe Hillman decided he was tired of sharing the credit?

          Good memory though! The Pols should edit but it looks like they have a fascinating excuse.

          1. Other lists show both Hillman AND Anderson as “Majority Leader(s).”

            http://www.economicexpert.com/…

            Senate office-bearers

               * President of the Senate: John Andrews of Englewood (R-27)

               * President pro tem of the Senate : Ken Chlouber of Leadville (R-4)

               * Senate Majority Leader(s): Mark Hillman of Burlington (R-1) AND Norma Anderson of Lakewood (R-22)

               * Senate Minority Leader: Joan Fitz-Gerald of Golden (D-16)

            It’s weird when Republicans can’t make up their minds, isn’t it?

            1. I’m not really sure what the Pols should do. Add “co-” to Majority Leader? I was not doing politics at this time in my life, it was too depressing.

  3. The degree of a gerrymander is generally defined by the number of backflips one has to do in order to come up with the map in the politically biased configuration you desire.

    The proposed Dem map may be a lot of things, but gerrymandered is probably not one of them, since it pretty much runs along clearly non-political boundaries.

    1. hence the -mander…

      People may have legitimate reasons to be on one side of the other, but calling either sets of maps ‘gerrymandered’ simply (intentionally, IMO) misappropriates a reviled term that–in reality–doesn’t apply.  I suspect Mr. Hillman knows this, and simply doesn’t care.

      In this case I think the following is more accurate–

      “Has-been politician misrepresents reality to make partisan argument against competitive congressional districts”

       

      1. This post and the diary make the same point.  By assuming that Democrats have engaged in Gerrymandering and then propagating that assumption in print without reference to his own considerable expertise in the matter and without anything more than saying it’s so makes Hillman the birther of Gerrymandering.

        The other disingenuous public comment about the Democratic maps came from Coffman when he said that Democrats redistricted him out of CD 6 when it was factually not the case.

        Republicans trying to slant the debate to benefit their distorted narrative.  What else is new including the Denver Post printing his distortions.  

      1. The Republicans have nothing except partisan politics on their maps. What else can they do exept scream “foul” without one explanation that qualifies their maps to the terms of redistricting.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

76 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!