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
December 12, 2011 11:56 PM UTC

Legislative Reapportionment Maps Affirmed By Colorado Supreme Court

  • 71 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #4: FOX 31’s Eli Stokols has reaction from Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call:

“I am incredibly disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to ignore countless hours of public testimony and rubber-stamp the Democrats’ highly partisan maps,” said Colorado GOP Chairman Ryan Call.

“The reapportionment process is clearly broken; it allowed the Democrats to game the system using heavy handed tactics to run out the clock at the expense of the citizens of Colorado.”

Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, also issued a press release Monday afternoon and said he’s considering running legislation in 2012 to change the reapportionment process…

As bad as it sounds, Call adds hopefully in his full statement:

“Despite the flawed district maps, I am confident that with our winning message of economic growth and job creation, Republicans will expand our majority in the House and take back the Senate.”

—–

UPDATE #3: Statement from Colorado Democratic Party chairman Rick Palacio:

“Today’s ruling guarantees Colorado voters competitive districts that pressure legislators to look beyond their political bases. These new districts will favor representatives who are accountable and responsive, and Democrats will field candidates who fit this profile. With a legislature committed to working to benefit all Coloradans, I am confident we will make great progress as a state in the decade to come.”

And this from Rep. Matt Jones, a Democrat on the reapportionment commission:

“We fully complied with the court’s mandate for maps that respect county and city boundaries,” Rep.  Jones (D-Louisville) said. “We worked for seven months, first to comply with the state constitutional requirements and then to maximize the number of competitive seats. Now we have 35 of them, which will give more Coloradans the opportunity to make real choices.

“I’m happy this process is complete, and we know where our district boundaries are and will be for the next decade. Now we can turn our attention to our top priority — serving the people of Colorado in the upcoming legislative session.”

—–

UPDATE #2: As affirmed, your legislative battlegrounds for the next ten years:



House Resubmitted Plan F–details here



Senate Resubmitted Plan E–details here

—–

UPDATE: AP’s Ivan Moreno:

The Colorado Supreme Court approved Democratic-drawn legislative districts Monday that force key Republican incumbents to face off next year if they want to be re-elected…

Pairing Republican incumbents in contests could increase Democrats’ five-vote advantage in the Senate and jeopardize the GOP’s one-vote edge in the House.

State districts are redrawn every decade to reflect population changes. The criteria used for drawing maps includes keeping cities, towns and communities of interest together and avoiding diluting minority voting power.

Democrats insisted they were following the state Supreme Court’s order to minimize county and city splits. They said the incumbent pairings were not politically inspired, but the result of having to follow the court guidelines.

—–

Democrats triumph, 2-0 in 2011’s redistricting/reapportionment battles. Details coming shortly.

Tweet
Share

Comments

71 thoughts on “Legislative Reapportionment Maps Affirmed By Colorado Supreme Court”

  1. I guess we know why the judges didn’t have a problem with the most partisan and vindictive legislative maps ever drawn in Colorado.

    It’s because they are partisan and vindictive. How else could they possibly approve maps that decapitate the Republican leadership out of spite?

    It’s a very sad day for Colorado. How many Democrats, right here on this blog, have criticized these maps? How many of you will be silent now?

    For if they prosper, none dare call it a gerrymander. But I will call it what it is.

      2. Political Scientists and Republican Commissioner Bob Loevy:

        The Constitutional rules for reapportionment maps include maintaining the boundaries of counties and cities as much as possible, which Loevy said the Democrats did. But there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the map has to protect incumbents.

        “That was the most skillful part of the strategy that was used against Republicans,” Loevy said. “That can’t be appealed.”

        http://coloradopolitics.freedo…

    3. You kept saying this was not over.  I kept telling you it was.

      You are so silly.  If the republicans controlled the commission they would have done the same for themselves. It is a political process and always has been.  to expect anything different is comically naive. If you guys would have not run such clowns for Governor last time around you could have won the Governorship and had your way.  You did run clowns, you lost badly. You only have yourselves to blame.

      And before you go jumping all over Carrera again please remember that Hick appointed 2 Dems and 1 Repub when he had every right to appoint 3 Dems.

      Go find a new hobby.

    4. Your team got too selfish and lost. You could have had a better map but you decided to go all in. Speaking of which, I thought Mormons frown on gambling. In any case may GOTP over-reach be the theme of 2012 culminating in lots more stuff for you to be sad about. And of course I mean political things. Not wishing any personal ill to befall you and yours. In fact, Happy Holidays. No war on Christmas intended. Oh what the heck…Merry Christmas, little Borgster.

      2. Before decision: competitive districts are good for everybody.

        After decision: your side lost, deal with it.

        You should just admit that Democrats never intended a fair outcome for either redistricting or reapportionment, and Republicans biggest mistake was trying to negotiate with you at all. That would at least be truthful.

        2. Do you AG.  The map accepted  by the Supreme Court has more competitive districts than any map drawn by “Republicans” in the entire process.  It’s just that your guys aren’t competitive in these districts because they always turn out to be some right-wing kook who can’t appeal to the middle.  Sorry buddy, you and your minions made your own bed.  Now you get to lie in your own shit for ten years.

        3. To borrow from Mr. Kurtz.

          Poor Mikey will have to go out and explain himself to diverse voters…how unfair!

          No worse calamity has ever befallen the Centennial State than this terrible underhanded (public, transparent) attempt to make districts more competitive and remove partisan advantage.  Why removing partisan advantage is …sputter…partisan!  The Democrat party prevailed!  The Republican party lost!  Do you still need more proof the entire system is rigged!  

        5. competitive districts being good and telling the loser to deal with it, ArapG?  That doesn’t even make sense. Clearly this map isn’t what GOP pols wanted so that makes GOP pols losers whether or not competitive districts are better for all citizens in general or not.  My biggest mistake was wishing you Happy Holidays or a Merry Christmas.  My bad. Consider it unwished.

    5. Quick quiz for Arap: do you know how many of the Justices are Republicans?

      Seriously: before you speak, do you even bother to think whether the facts support what you’re saying

    6. In that Republicans didn’t like the jointly crafted compromise, sued over it, won exactly on the principles they expounded to the court, and when faced with a choice between partisan maps on the court-ordered redo, lost the one independent vote because the Democratic map better met the court ordered standard.

      Horror of horrors.  Even Iowa would be happy with our process here for reapportionment.

    7. We had a Democratic governor who appointed a Republican. And a chief justice who appointed an Unaffiliated. Both guys had a public policy goal of creating partisan balance on the commission.

      All this crybaby crap is just a too-little-too-late Cover Your Ass effort by the amateur hour state GOP leadership who dropped the ball and are now facing the fury of Republican incumbents.

      But believe me, the internal blood-letting is going to 20x more vicious than Ryan Call’s public CYA nonsense.

      Just ask Lameduck Speaker McNulty.  

    8. Why is it that, when the GOP tries to freeze out the Democrats altogether, as happened last time, that is just the play politics goes, but when the Democrats write a plan that complies with state and federal law it’s a conspiracy to wreck the GOP?

      ArapaGOP, you’re whining. Stop already. There was a process. The GOP chose to appeal the first district map plan, which was better for them, knowing that the result could be something worse. You’ve got to live with the choices that get made.

      Besides, politics is a battle and someone has to win and someone has to lose. This time, it’s your side.  

  3. Nicholson is going to have to work hard to get re-elected in 2014.  Tim Leonard was a fool and he nearly won.  On the other hand, he couldn’t beat a grandma in a Republican wave year.  The addition of south Jeffco is going to make it interesting.

    1. Lost because he is in the center of the Republican Party and the old district is made up of mostly moderate and disaffected “Republicans” or former Republicans.  I worked for Jeannie.  This will be a more difficult district.  What an abortion this district is.  But next time I can talk to my former Republican friends in South Jeffco as their former Republican Chairman and tell them to vote for Jeannie.  Worked with my friends in the mountains.  Will work with South Jeffco too.

      1. Her dad was a state senator so she has politics in her genes.

        She also has a good sense for what government programs work.  They built a new Road & Bridge building in Gilpin when she was commissioner that installed state of the art biomass heating.  It is now a model for sustainable fuels heating and people come from all over to study how it is working.

        I wouldn’t underestimate her chances but she is going to have to do some heavy duty campaigning to woo the those touchy Jeffco voters.

    3. SD 20 is also much more competitive with large portions of western Arvada and south Jeffco.  Jeffco could easily turn into the battleground once again in 2014.

  4. I’m guessing Representative Hamner will continue running in HD26 – she has my continued support if she does

    HD61 is a brand new and unrepresented area – if no good Democrat steps up, it would be hard for me not to run for it, out of a feeling of principle, but I’m sure we’ll have good candidates step up

    Ken Brenner of Steamboat Springs and Debbie Marquez of Edwards would both be great and there’s many more to name

    I’m going to issue this warning to the Colorado Democratic Party right now, as someone with Western Slope roots —

    DO NOT DISCOURAGE A PRIMARY IN HD61

    Let the candidates run and let the local Democrats decide

    Nothing will divide our Party more than pushing a candidate out of the race – let the candidates run – HD61 is a very winnable seat – so winnable that the only way we lose it is if the State Party Illuminati ‘annoints’ a candidate early

    1. Rep Hamner resides in the new HD61 (she lives in Summit County).

      When you mention Ken Brenner and Debbie Marquez I assume you mean in reference to the new HD26, not 61.

      Things will be interesting in north central and northwest Colorado.  The race for the new SD8 will take place in 2012 because Jean White was appointed, and will need to stand for election.  Will she be primaried, and if so will it be by Rep Randy Baumgardner (R – Grand County)?  Grand County (despite their bi-partisan protestations) ultimately got written into a House District with western Boulder County pitting two incumbents – Baumgardner, and Rep Levy of Boulder.  So will Baumgardner want to run in that district, or keep his connections to the northwestern counties by running for the Senate District?  

      I have no doubt there will be a Democratic candidate in the new SD8.  It is a very conservative district by voter registration but there are several potential Democratic candidates who could run well in that region.

      1. Realist – yes – I switched the HD’s accidentally – my mistake!

        I have no idea what Rep Baumgardner will do – Randy is my friend (although I’m better friends with his wife – she supported for me for State Treasurer and Randy is very lucky to have such an awesome woman behind him) — anyways — Rep Baumgardner doesn’t strike me as one who wants to ruffle feathers, so I would usually expect him to endorse Jean White

        On the other hand, I think Baumgardner could defeat White in a primary and I know everyone in Grand County really adores him – I have no idea what will happen, but for now, I will personally predict that a primary will not happen

        Agreed on great candidates in SD8! I’m a big fan of Ken Brenner, but Garfield, Routt, and Summit are all home to some awesome blue activists!

        I look forward to contributing to our nominee in SD8 (quick props to Senator Jean White though for voting for civil unions)

  7. Switched from Jahn to Hudak in the Senate, though.

    If I’ve got another 10 years with this map, I shall continue to make it my personal mission to remove Madame Bull Semen Defender in Chief from her undeserved position. I’m gonna need more Ariats…

  8. He is making Wadhams look savvy with these blunders but it is a Republican trait to keep digging.

    Call can’t own up to his incompetence to he is going to have to blame the activist independent committee member and the activist judges and anyone else who he thinks can be lumped in with the other conspirators.  Naturally dumb shits like Arapajoke will totally buy into this blame gaming.

  9. is attacking the process. That’s original.

    I think the Republicans deserve most of the credit for reapportionment and redistricting. They overreached, got greedy and got screwed both times. Cheers.

  12. “Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, also issued a press release Monday afternoon and said he’s considering running legislation in 2012 to change the reapportionment process…”

    Ah, yes, won’t this be fun in an election year.  We have one of the better reapportionment processes that a state can have.  Let me guess — the Republicans think it’s too partisan, so they want to make it more partisan, as long as it strongly favors the Republicans.  Did I get that about right?

    1. …you change the rules.

      I’m betting they’ll try to create some kind of Iowa system, creating a process where you can’t split counties unless absolutely necessary (like they have to with Denver), tilting things in favor of more rural and/or suburban districts.

    2. They want locked in Republican advantages that don’t get voted on.

      And they want miscarriages to be investigated as possible murders.

      And they want the 1% to live lives of luxury while everyone else sacrifices to deal with the deficit that they brought on us.

      In short, they live fantasy lives and Cadman’s threat is as hollow as a Republicans heart.  Let his bring forward a better way of doing reapportionment that is fair and isn’t a give-away to Republican interests.  I’d like to see it in all it’s glory.

      1. is optional as it is. The commission could easily have been 9 Dems and 2 GOP this year.

        But as usual, the Democrats went out of their way to be reasonable and compromise instead of going for the easily win. And as usual Republicans are doing everything they can to punish them for it.

    3. from one independent to three or five.

      You still get the independent vote to break a tie and they can’t be blaming one person if the vote goes against them.

    4. the congressional redistricting should also be done by the reapportionment commission. But I am sure the changes I would make would not be the same changes Cadman would like to make!

  13. He’s left calling the Waaambulance after a total disaster that Mario Nicolais has wreaked on his party. Any first year PoliSci student learns about the exponential level of power a pivotal vote has in a voting body. Alienating that pivotal vote by trashing the compromise maps the guy ended up passing was stupid. Calling him a liar in the press didn’t help much either.

    As for pivot votes–look no further than the Republican caucus in the state house. Bulling those incumbents is going to be a lot harder for lame duck Speaker Frank McNulty.  

    1. It was his call to challenge the original maps.

      This is as much a opposition assistance by the Repubs. as devious politics by the Dems.

      And now he has made it more difficult for the United States of Republicans to expand their empire.  Much more difficult.

      Is Dick Wadhams in the house?

  14. Allow all incumbents to run for any district with no residency requirement. I think we should ignore where incumbents live when drawing the lines, but then let the parties rearrange where each will run. Maybe then give them 2 years to move to the district if they win.

    1. Some rich guy will run a total carpetbagger campaign in a rural district with a good chance of winning.

      If you want to keep the sentiment, allow incumbents to run in any district where they used to be an incumbent, but weren’t after reapportionment.

  15. Can someone please either describe the northern neck of HD2 or provide a link to where I can see it more detailed. From the maps provided, I can’t tell which streets are the boundaries.

    Thank you

    1. If so, you can download the .SHP files and also dowload the Census TIGER files and overlay the districts on the TIGER street maps.

      I’ll send you links if you want.

      If you don’t, well, you’re shit out of luck.  You’re stuck with barely resolvable PDF files.

      2. I cannot download software to see the shapefiles at work and my little netbook at home doesn’t seem to have the ability to download even google earth. My real computer died sometime ago and I have not gotten the money together to replace it.

  16. That the independent member of the commission, as well as the overall political balance of the commission, was not mandated by policy.

    In fact, while Republicans are complaining about the “so-called independent, turn-coat, Benedict Arnold, no-good, dirty, so-and-so” commission chairman, it might be useful to remind them that if the people making appointments had all appointed people from their own party (which they are perfectly entitled to do) the division of the commission would have been:

    9 Democrats

    2 Republicans

    But instead, the CSC Chief Justice and the Governor decided to make the process more fair than it was required to be by appointing a politically balanced commission. A gesture that one could never hope to expect from the Republican “leadership”.

    So for them to be crying foul now is really poor form, and kind of sad to watch.

    1. There is law that prevents more than 5 members of one party on the Commission. So there would have to be at least 1 person who is neither a D or an R.

      This is why the appointing authorites make their appointments one after the other so that by the time it come to the Cheif Justice, he/she knows what combination of affiliations he/she has to appoint to meet this requirement.

      1. the law was that no more then 6 could be of the same party??  This is what traditionally has allowed for a partisan split of 6 to 5 on the Commission, I thought?

        1. I could have sworn there was a provision keeping one party from having control, but I was wrong.

          There SHOULD be an amendment requiring no one party can control that commission.

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

167 readers online now

Newsletter

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