U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
March 10, 2011 12:04 AM UTC

Would McNulty Spike His Own "Kumbaya Committee?"

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve held off from discussing a late bill introduced last week affecting the congressional redistricting process currently underway–to be perfectly honest, the potential import of House Bill 1276 is such that we wanted to be sure it is what it seems to be.

And if what we’re hearing about HB-1276 is right, this late bill could spell the end of any semblance of “bipartisanship” in the redistricting process: depending on who is really behind it, and why. As the Durango Herald reported over the weekend:

Ignacio Rep. J. Paul Brown introduced Colorado House Bill 1276, which would restore a Republican bill passed after 2003’s “midnight gerrymandering.”

The bill tells judges to draw the districts by keeping together similar counties without considering whether local voters prefer Democrats or Republicans.

Democrats repealed that bill at the end of the session last year, when they still held power in the House and Senate. They argued that judges should be able to draw districts that are competitive for both parties…

Veteran lawmakers still remember the 2003 redistricting fight as the scene of the decade’s most feverish partisan acrimony. Majority Republicans pushed through a bill in the last three days of the 2003 session that could have given them a 6-1 majority in the state’s congressional delegation. Democrats won a lawsuit to overturn the map.

Later, Republicans passed a bill to tell judges how to draw future maps. Democrats repealed that bill last year, and Roberts and Brown want it restored.

Here are the facts as we understand them: House Bill 1276 would restore a GOP-instituted law from the aftermath of the infamous 2003 “Midnight Gerrymander” attempt to ram through a GOP-friendly congressional district map.  Repealed last year by Democrats, the law directs the courts to sort out redistricting by keeping counties intact–even if that means creating districts that aren’t competitive. Although represented as a rural protection measure, the biggest problem are its potential effects in the Denver metro area. The concern that contiguous blocs of voters in the metro area might be diluted (or shoehorned, as the case may be) into new districts built around county lines was a principal reason this 2004 law was repealed.

Republicans, on the other hand, are just as aware of the advantage this rule would give them as Democrats are. It’s one of a number of issues leaders publicly hoped they would be able to work out in the bipartisan redistricting committee presently holding meetings around the state.

Except now there’s a problem: if Republicans were truly taking part in the redistricting “Kumbaya committee” in good faith, why was this bill introduced? As a late bill, House Speaker Frank McNulty’s signoff was required. But McNulty is also the one taking credit for the bipartisan committee–whose work would be undermined directly by HB-1276. Why would McNulty allow a late bill with such danger of throwing his own redistricting effort into chaos?

Unless McNulty comes clean, the possibility that Republicans were never bargaining in good faith–and the bipartisan “Kumbaya committee” is a giant snow job–must now be considered.

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Would McNulty Spike His Own “Kumbaya Committee?””

    1. That’s NOT what the Denver Post reported!

      http://www.denverpost.com/brea…

      “There are folks in rural Colorado who are interested in making sure that rural Colorado is represented,” McNulty said. “The have every right to have that discussion.”

      He said he gave Rep. J. Paul Brown of Ignacio permission to introduce a late bill on redistricting because Brown and his Senate co-sponsor, Ellen Roberts of Durango, are concerned that rural Colorado and Western Slope interests be protected.

      You said McNulty told you this?

        1. I kind of doubt that.

          Awen’s comment makes we wonder if McNulty is tapdancing. I hope she stays on it and gets the truth, because her “according to McNulty” is directly contradicted by a prior news report.

      2. http://bit.ly/eqILGV

        The bill was introduced on Friday, March 4, but Speaker of the House Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, told The Colorado Statesman it was not a bill that required “late bill” status, despite its introduction almost halfway into the session. He explained that HB 1276 was among the five original bill titles submitted by Brown at the beginning of the session and required only “delayed bill” status for its introduction.

        1. Sorry to have doubted you.

          But now we have two credible news reports that directly contradict one another.

          Which is correct? The difference is significant in terms of McNulty’s true role and motivations. I get the feeling that McNulty might not be interested in clearing up the confusion.

          2. It’s the same form and still requires the same signature (McNulty’s + Stephens) so either way he still had to sign off on it being read across the desk. He could have easily let it die in drafting. There is nothing in the rules that states legislative members have to carry five bills, or that their first five get to be read across the desk…it’s just the max and then they can seek late/delayed/additional bill waivers.. but it is still the same form and goes through the same process. If you miss deadlines tough shit. There are no rules in place that say just because you request a waiver, that you get it. In fact I remember Speaker Carroll cracked down on that last year.  

  2. Actually, I’m sure plenty of people did. Anyone who was around for the GOP’s shenanigans last time knew better, there’s no “bipartisanship” possible in an inherently partisan exercise.

    I too am very concerned about bad faith, and this bill greatly worsens those fears. Dave Balmer does not know what good faith is.

  3. The bill only tells judges what not to take into consideration. It does not limit anything for the legislature to consider.

    If the legislature does its job and passes a reasonable redistricitng plan, a judge will not even be ruling on it.

      1. I got to know the Speaker pretty well during the years we worked on oil and gas rules. He was trained in mendacity by the natural gas lobby. He was an apt pupil.

        It is endemic in the Corporatist Party to believe that the truth is whatever helps you to achieve your goals. The speaker has almost no credibility with me and I daresay most of those who know him.  

    2. …if going to a judge will result in redistricting that favors your party (because the rules that the judge must follow are tilted that way), that kinda kills the motivation to compromise and legislate.

      If this passes, it’s going to a judge, guaranteed.

        1. like McNulty is trying to look like he’s  doing Kumbaya for general consumption while having Brown do some red meat grandstanding for the base, and no one is supposed to notice?

        2. cited above. (Especially John Morse’s statement at the very end)

          The Senate Dems pretty much have said it’s not going very far. My sources tell me that there’s even a chance it won’t get out of the House.

  4. Look- I’m a Cubs fan, I know about waiting. H-Manchild and GOPWannabe owe me $50.  I believe someday we’ll all know Oswald acted alone and Reagan/Bush cut a deal with Iran in Aug 1980.

    But I will not be anticipating McNulty nor Brown nor Roberts to be “coming clean: on this anytime soon. As in “ever”.

  6. At the definite risk of everyone piling on for asking this, I can’t figure how this bill would favor Republicans.  The parties have almost even registration numbers.  Most, not all, counties tend to vote consistently for one party or another anyway.  It’s often a question of turnout instead.

    And though I don’t understand why registration numbers shouldn’t be a single factor among many to consider, isn’t the preservation of communities of interest more favorable than the creation of arbitrary lines just for the sake of party competitiveness?

    1. I read the bill. I have a different take on this than perhaps others. The previous statute that was repealed and HB 1276 are aimed at how the Denver District Court judge drew the lines, especially of the 7th CD, in early 2002.  Judge Coughlin specifically tried to draw the 7th CD as a competitive district and, at least in the first election when Rep. Beauprez won by 121 votes, he succeeded. To draw competitive districts, a court necessarily needs to review registration data and voting patterns. Needless to say neither party wants competitive districts. Each party, if it had its way, will draw as many safe districts as possible.

      HB 1276 basically codifies the factors in the Colorado Consitution that the state senate and state house redistricitng commission must apply when redrawing the state house and state senate districts. In the 1982 congressional redistricting case, U.S. District Judge Finesilver applied those factors when he redrew the congressional district lines even though he was not required to utilize them. Judge Coughlin also utilized those factors in 2002 but in addition he looked at competitive factors. The pending legislation would take competitive factors out of the equation and force judges to utilize the factors contained in the Colorado Consitution.

      Whether HB 1276 favors the Republicans this time is not something I’ve studied.  It probably does or they wouldn’t have introduced the bill but there are at least some Democrats involved in redistricting that probably support this bill, especially those who want the City and County of Denver to remain completely in one district..

    2. Why would a Republican introduce this bill, unless they thought it was to their benefit?

      Here’s how it benefits R’s: Dems are more concentrated in their counties than R’s are in theirs. Therefore, if you keep counties intact, then Dems are too diluted in areas outside their strongholds to win elections.

      As to what the appropriate factors are for drawing district boundaries, there are guidelines, but the process is supposed to be negotiated. If the default position favors your side, then there’s really no reason to negotiate in good faith or compromise, is there?  

    3. As reported by the Durango Herald in the article cited by ColoradoPols in its lead, “A judge drew the map that’s in use now. It has two competitive districts – the Western Slope and a suburban Denver district – that switched between the parties in the last decade.

      Republicans tried to overturn the map when they regained the majority in 2003 by passing a new map in the “midnight gerrymandering.”

      At the time, Republicans wanted to link Denver and Boulder into one ultra-Democratic district, allowing Republicans a shot at controlling six of the state’s seven seats.”

      And in another Durango Herald article, http://www.durangoherald.com/a…

      ,

      “The Western Slope’s 3rd Congressional District will be one of the biggest battlegrounds for the committee.

      The district has fewer people than other Colorado districts, so it will need to add more towns, said Jeremiah Barry, a legislative lawyer who advises the redistricting committee.”

      AND

      “Legislators will have to follow strict requirements set down by the U.S. Supreme Court to make the districts numerically equal without breaking up communities of interest and minority neighborhoods. In addition, Gov. John Hickenlooper said he would prefer to see competitive districts that either party could win.”

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

97 readers online now

Newsletter

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