U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
April 07, 2009 09:33 PM UTC

How will 2010's Redistricting affect Colorado?

  • 71 Comments
  • by: wade norris

(Hehehehehehe. – promoted by Laughing Boy)

update: despite this diary’s title, maybe we should have a Colorado Pols’ Olympics…

Redistricting is something that I have been eagerly awaiting. It won’t affect the 2010 Congressional elections, but will change how Colorado is represented from 2011 onward.

The Denver Post’s Burt Hubbard explains redistricting in 2010.


Every 10 years, new census counts revamp the nation’s political structure with the population figures used to determine which states lose or gain congressional seats.

In addition, state elected officials rely on the counts to redraw congressional boundaries to give each one an equal number of residents.

Read on for how it might all shake down….

here is the speculation:

Ken Bickers , chairman of the political science department at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said that if Democrats have their way, they will try to move Democratic neighborhoods out of Coffman’s district into Perlmutter’s district.

“What they want to do is pack Republicans into a small number of districts,” Bickers said. “What happens is Coffman’s district becomes the safest in the state.”

Other Coffman constituents could be moved south into fellow Republican Doug Lamborn’s El Paso County district, he said.

If the Republicans are in control, they will want to move Republicans from Coffman’s district to Perlmutter’s District 7 seat, said political analyst Eric Sondermann.

Democrats have an edge in registration in the district.

“Five or 10,000 additional Republicans in that 7th seat would be huge,” Sondermann said. He said that would give Republicans a chance to retake the seat if Perlmutter left office.

That’s the official opinions,

what’s your opinion – will Republicans get back in control or will the state go ‘bluer’ in representation?

Which districts will change party affiliation? Who’s in and who’s out?

And do Republicans really have a chance to regain control in either state house?  

Which Congressional district is likely to switch parties?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

71 thoughts on “How will 2010’s Redistricting affect Colorado?”

    2. Assuming that Republicans do not win the trifecta of House, Senate and Governor it will go as follows.

      If Dems are in charge.  They will add Republican areas to Denver, Democratic areas to 3, 4 and 7 and pack as many Republicans as possible in 5 and 6.  

      I suspect that the eastern plains will get stuck in 5 or 6 to help Markey out.   The mountain areas will be lost to 5 and six because they are trending Democratic.  

      If split of who in charge, then it’s a crap shoot.  I expect the districts to remain much the same.

      Democrats need to remember the old proverb that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.  Absolutely, the Dems hold the most seats that they ever can.  Remember the re-districting will also have to deal with the problem of areas with Democratic populations remaining stable and Republican areas growing.  

      So, unless we are surprised with an 8th seat, I don’t really expect any change.  Also remember, there will be tremendous pressure for Democratic incumbents, to retain their districts in tack or add some democrats in the 4th.  From experience, I know that this pressure is huge and almost always the deciding factor in what happens.

  2. Because you’d hate to have the census go toward creating anything other than an elective advantage for one political party!

    Good thing Obama took it out of Commerce’s hands and put it in the White House, politicizing it.

    Hope, change….what?

    Wade, don’t ever complain about Rove/Atwater types.  You’re birds of a feather – you’re just much whinier.

    Middle of the Road and I want to take you up on your challenge, btw.  Wanna box?

    1. when the Republicans were in charge they pulled all kinds of Shenanigans in Texas (thanks to Tom Delay) and redistricted before the Census in 2002 and tried to pull the same BS here in Colorado, so spare me.

      As for the fact that Republicans are only ‘safe’ in 2 seats in the state has nothing to do with my partisanship,that just reflects the changing sentiments of the voters.

      Also, in your attack of me, you failed to answer what your vision of how the state’s redistricting will play out.

      So do you think Republicans are going to make a comeback?

      As for boxing, yes, if you want to do a charity boxing match, I am game. I will try not to bloody you up too much, and it will go to a good cause.

      1. I have $1000 for you to donate to Code Pink or whatever you want.

        Just know your $1000 is going straight to the NRA in the name of one Steve Harvey.

        I’m not a very big guy or a good boxer, so you’re going to have to take it easy on me.

        I expect the redistricting to get held up in the courts for 10 years, and President Petraeus or whomever can deal with it by creating a truly nonpartisan way of taking the Census.

        1. just like i think Senators should never be appointed, but selected by special election.

          As for the donations/boxing – in all seriousness, we could probably put together a really cool fundraiser – something like a Colorado Pols Olympics?

          You know, Drinking contest, 3 legged race, egg toss, leg wrestling… maybe boxing…

          my personal idea for donations would be for a Children’s group of some kind –

          What do you think Barron X?

          1. You and I are the unbercard, and Steve “Heckler & Koch” Harvey vs. “Red” Barron X would be a great main event.

            No children’s charities.  I want the defeat to really hurt.  So, NRA.  In Harvey’s name.  

            He’ll get a Life Membership out of the deal…

            1. ‘compassionate conservative’ argument

              Republicans want charity for the NRA

              Democrats want to help Children.

              That’s pretty much why the Democrats are in the majority.

              I will stick with funding a children’s cause.

              if you notice my logo for Ultimate Politics was originally a boxer.

                1. that would make a really

                  ‘compassionate conservative’ argument

                  Republicans want charity for the NRA

                  Democrats want to help Children.

                  is funding children ironic, because you are under the age of 15?

                  is that why it’s Laughing Boy?

            2. .

              Not until I saw sxp’s entreaty to some interlocutor, lovingly beseeching that he FOAD.

              That’s an Army acronym; you can figure it out.  

              Wow.  To think – I almost missed the highbrow exchange below.  

              I think MCpc’s post that gives out personal info in LB should have been taken down.  

              Of course, I still don’t know who he is.

              .

              As for the idea of me getting in the ring for a bout with Steve Harvey, you insult Steve.  

              I’ve got just one amateur fight on my record, a TKO loss at an Army boxing smoker 30 years ago.  I didn’t last a minute.  

              I couldn’t qualify to get into a service academy during the Vietnam war, when they were desperate for applicants, due to my eyesight.  So you know I wear coke bottle bottoms for glasses.

              Without glasses, I never saw it coming.  And my eyesight hasn’t gotten any better.  

              Steve would be too embarrassed to hit me.  

              My girth almost exceeds my height, and I’m told I look at least 65 years old.  

              It would be just Steve’s luck, he would feign a jab to my gut; I’d try to jump out of the way, trip and fall over, hitting my head on the stool, and Steve would be charged with manslaughter.  Or elder abuse.  Or both.  

              .

              1. ….have I actually lived to see the day when the entire POLS community is offended by something that someone said??? WHA????

                I’ll clutch my ACLU card on this one and say that free speech is free speech – if you don’t like it, then change the TV channel folks….

                1. Free speech comes with self-regulation.  You know, fire in a theater and all that.

                  It’s not just a word used, but that poster violated the sacred oath of anonymous blogging, you don’t out people if they prefer to not be.  

                  Besides, it’s just not classy.

                  1. “Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” was a line from hte Court opinion authored by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes in Schenk v. United States, as the authoritative statement of the highest court in the land that free speech isn’t an absolute right, and that there are criminal and civil legal constraints upon it. Two of the most prominent limitations are incitement to commit a crime and defamation of character.

                    Freedom of speech, of course, refers to freedom from (fist Federal, and then, via the 14th amendment, state and local) governmental prohibition of speech, not freedom from the regulations of some private entity. You don’t have the right to run into a church during a service screeming whatever is on your mind, or to disrupt any private or public gathering in a public place that has not been in some way designated as a public forum.

                    Even restraint’s on governmental agency’s right to obstruct speech is highly limited. The legal analysis generally revolves around whether the governmental agency has created a public forum or not, except in student speech, in which, since the high water mark of Tinker, a variety of other ever-less-free-speech-friendly standards are used. School children don’t have the right to disrupt classes, to say anything that can arguably be interpreted as promoting drug use, or to say anything in a school-sponsored context that the school would not want to be associated with.

                    In other words, this isn’t a free speech issue at all. If Pols finds this poster to have violated the rules of the forum, and to have been disruptive or to have infringed on the rights of others by trying to deny them their anonymity, then Pols has every right to ban them from the site.

            1. You know, that was such a hard-fought debate that it’s easy to forget that we (except MCpc above – christ, what an asshole) are all friends here.

                1. It has to do with good will, basic decency, and a commitment, after all is said and done, to some modicum of civility. Exchanges can be heated, sensibilities can be irritated, forms of argument can be mutually incompatible and thus mutually enraging, positions on issues that matter to us can be diametrically opposed, personalities can clash, and some can hold others in very low esteem. But even the people I respect least on this site, and who do the most to incite the ire of others (which certainly doesn’t include LB, whose basic good will is far more important than any differences of opinion), have never come closs to sinking to your level. You seem to be one of those people who, being unable to contribute anything constructive to our collective existence, tries to make himself feel important by being purely destructive instead.

                  Anonymity is an opportunity to be an unfettered pain in the ass, if that’s your highest ambition in life, but it is also an opportunity to rewrite yourself for the better. If you want to participate in a more productive way, log off, ditch your current screen name, sign on with another, and engage in some kind of meaningful dialogue with others. You might end up being a basically likeable person who took a brief wrong turn. We can always hope.

          2. but I do appreciate the thought (and only the thought!). 🙂

            But how about donating it to “Steve Harvey for State Representative in House District 28” instead? You know, since there aren’t enough Colorado State Reps (more often than not from opposing parties) with the same last name….

          1. The redistricting was done by the District Court based on a lawsuit filed by 6 plaintifs.  A number of intervenors filed maps with the court, but in the end most were rescinded and the judge considered 2 (IIRC) and selected one as being most in compliance with constitutional requirements and past court precedent.  It is the map we have today.  The Republicans did attempt to have that map thrown out but the Supreme Court ruled against them.

            the issue at the time was that the Dems held the Senate and the Repubs held the House and the Governor’s office.  Since no ‘compromise’ plan could get through both chambers the legislature was at an impasse with regard to producing a map/plan.  that is when the Dems went to court.

            The Repubs maintained that after the 2002 election that any plan/map was invalid because it had not been produced by the legislature, as required by the Colorado Constitution, but that now, the legislature was capable of producing a plan (by then, the Rs held both houses and the Governor’s office and could ram whatever they wanted through) that the court drawn plan was invalid and should be replaced by a legislative plan.  The Court ruled against them

  3. This will be fun to watch.  Dems are at their high-water mark right now.  There isn’t going to be a shortage of powerful incumbents who want to make their district safer…and screw whatever district those constituencies come from.

    You want to make Markey’s seat safer?  Then you make CD2, 3 or 7 more competitive.  Perlmutter want to prevent a challenge when the generic ballot tightens up?  Do you pull those voters out of CD1 or CD2?  Want to protect JS?  Good luck with that.  Think DeGette or Polis are going to be team players and make their lives more difficult?  Think again.

    It’s a zero sum game.  You weaken safe districts to protect more marginal ones and you end up setting up the situation the Reps find themselves in.  All you need is a bad cycle where 5% of the unaffiliateds decide to vote for the other guy.  Toss in a bad candidate or two and you’re on the outside looking in.

    The dems are in the position to play for all the marbles.  Look how that worked out for the Republicans.  

    1. his name brand is pretty good.

      Markey might have a challenge, but CD-2 could easily donate more of Longmont’s dems to her and make that seat much safer for Dems.

      as for this

      The dems are in the position to play for all the marbles.  Look how that worked out for the Republicans.  

      the reason why the republicans fell so hard, is because of their Bush loyalty – hardly a smart choice. (i’m with stupid)

      Obama is much more liked and the dems are not really in the kind of tide turning changes by associating with the President.

    2. How about trying to draw up districts as competitive as possible (given other restrictions such as population, contiguity, communities of interest) and battling it out in the marketplace of ideas?  I think it was former state GOP Chairman Bo Calloway who actually proposed that several redistricting cycles back.  Don’t we  Dems run the risk of becoming “them” if we start acting like we’re entitled to “all the marbles” just because we’re temporarily (if history is any guide) back in charge?  Might be a way to keep that proverbial pendulum from swinging back and forth and might also actually result in restored confidence in government since there’d be one less “gotcha” moment to fight over.

      3. Yes, I would also enjoy flying puppies and think the legislature should start baking rainbows in cakes.

        If Dems can make 5/7 of the Congressional seats safe dem then they should absolutely do so. We won, now we get to work on solidifying our support. That is why keeping Ritter & Co. in office is going to be extra extra crucial in 2010.

        It sounds like this poster Laughing Boy might not enjoy that Obama is politicizing the census but to that I say, too bad sucka! The Dems won and now we get to reap the benefits of our victory.

        1. Looks like you just logged out and in under a new handle.

          And yes, I think politicizing the census is a bad idea.  Eventually you will really regret doing that.

          1. regret politicizing the census I mean?

            I don’t think it’s a big enough or sexy enough issue to cost the Dems the ’10 or ’12 elections. And as a result of putting under White House control it might help us solidify a majority for a longer time. Give us more “base” seats so we can focus more resources on fewer districts.

            1. It makes sense.

              You wouldn’t think it was just if it were being done to you, and at some point, something as obviously un-righteous as this will have bad consequences for the Dems in some way.

              If you are indeed the same poster as MCpc, which I suspect, then you’re even more of a sniveling loser than you were before.  Grow some backbone.

              If not, welcome to the party.

              1. Yeah, no, not the MCpc idiot. Just a new poster.

                And I didn’t mean to be an ass with my comment, just snooty! 🙂

                True, I wouldn’t like it if Republicans were politicizing the census, but it’s not like I would be morally outraged by it. To me this isn’t an issue of justice, and I don’t believe in karma, so I say, go for it Obama!

                And thanks for the welcome.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

119 readers online now

Newsletter

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