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 19, 2007 06:20 PM UTC

No New Seats for You!

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

After picking up a seventh congressional seat following the 2000 census, Colorado isn’t likely to gain an eighth seat anytime soon. As The Denver Post reports:

Colorado likely won’t gain any seats in Congress through 2030, but it won’t lose any either. That’s according to the University of Virginia Center for Politics, which calculated the number of seats each state will gain or lose based on U.S. Census population projections.
While California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah are on track to gain seats, Colorado is projected to hold steady at seven.

Seats in Congress are doled out based on population shifts. Colorado gained its seventh seat in Congress after the 2000 census showed it added 1 million residents in the 1990s. The university’s Crystal Ball website indicates Pennsylvania, Iowa and Rhode Island could lose seats.

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “No New Seats for You!”

  1. We just got a seat; Utah is the next state due for a seat (and might still get one before the next census if the Democrats figure out how to pass that weird DC-Utah compromise…).  Nevada is the fastest-growing area of the country, and Arizona probably isn’t far behind.  California was the only surprise here.

    This reapportionment is getting a bit silly, though; it’s time we start thinking about installing more seats in the lower chamber of Congress.

    1. To what end? Some states are always going to grow and others will always decrease (or grow more slowly). Adding seats would have the same exact effect as reapportionment, except there would even be more chaos in the House and each district would have less of a say. I think reapportionment is the way to go.

      1. The idea of the House was to create representation for small areas with similar interests.  Right now, it’s hard to claim that Representatives each represent a roughly equal number of people, nevermind a small enough region that they can claim to represent a single set of interests.

        Furthermore, increasing the size of the House significantly reduces the rationales that parties use to gerrymander. There’s a lot less legal cover for gerrymandering when you can actually apportion representation to match county boundaries, similar interests, etc..  Additionally, it increases local influence over elections by providing so many targets that the national parties and 527s have a harder time covering every race.

        The only downside: we’d have to do some significant alterations to the current House chamber; I don’t think it can hold more than ~600.

        1. So the benefit would be better representation for smaller communities? That makes sense… although I wonder if it would have any effect in reality. Those small areas would still be hopelessly outnumber by representatives from larger communities (because their numbers would increase proportionally). There is certainly nothing sacred about the current number in the House. The problem would be how one could get this passed. Legislators are unlikely to support an increase because any such increase would make each legislator that much weaker.

          1. Wyoming’s lone representative has a lot more per-capita clout than those in the bigger states where proportion is easier to maintain.

            Within states, the representation is very close.  Between states, not so much.  Utah is currently under-represented (they’re *almost* due for another seat right now…); we’re probably a bit on the over-represented side because we just got our newest seat.

        3. …to be compliance with State and Federal law.  Redistricting occurs with the aid of computer programs that make the creation of districts nearly even in population, practicable.  Computers make the creation of districts with identical populations practicable for the first time in histroy.  For example, in Colorado all districts contain a population of 614,466 give or take ONE person.

          With that in mind it is quite easy “to claim that Representatives each represent a rougly equal number of people.”

          And, trust me (although I’m sure you don’t…I’m a long time lurker, 1st time poster), making the districts smaller does not make it harder for one to gerrymander.

          1. Doesn’t hold as true for inter-state comparisons, as noted above.

            As close as is practicable isn’t so close when you’re doleing out 435 seats between the 50 States.

            I don’t trust you on the gerrymander statement because you don’t provide any reasoning to back yourself up.  You can certainly gerrymander with smaller districts, but when you come up against provisions that say you have to try to hold to county lines, like populations, etc., it’s harder to gerrymander if you actually have populations that fit those provisions that also fit the (smaller) size of the district.

            Right now we argue over who gets the Arkansas River valley (CO-05, lumped in with CO Springs) or Pueblo (CO-03, lumped in with Grand Junction, Montrose, etc.), and how to divvy up the Denver Metro.  If we roughly doubled the number of representatives, areas like the southern Front Range would get their own representative by the simple fact that they constitute a somewhat homogeneous community.  Farming districts could have their own representation without throwing in Ft. Collins, which really doesn’t fit well with the rest of CO-03.  Sure there’d be some maneuvering, but the current guidelines would minimize the gerrymander.

        4. I have a couple problems with your rationale here. 

          The senate was insituted to benefit the smaller states, not the house.  The house was the first legistlative body to come from the consitution convention, and the smaller states were furious.  The senate was the compromise. 

          While the thought of more seats probably would excite aspiring congressmen/women, I don’t think that it would change the political landscape too much.  527’s haven’t shown any sign of not being able to raise the money they need, and they would still be able to contribute the same amounts.  There would still be tons of seats that would be hardcore Rep or Dem so there would still be a small number (comparatively) that would be competitive, which would probably mean that “safe” seats are challenged less.  The 527s would still be able to target those seats.

          Some states have experimented with large legistatures with mixed results.  The only states that it seems to work are the smaller states like New Hampshire.  But they also only pay their state reps 100 dollars per year and they have no real power.

          1. Money flows towards power, and more power usually generates more money.

            But, assuming a free market economy here, more seats equals less benefit in “buying” a single seat.

            I’m not getting your point about the House vs. Senate.  Adding more seats still benefits the larger states; it also benefits smaller constituencies, though. 

            E.g. in Colorado, if we add 5 more seats, we split out Trinidad, Pueblo, and Canon City into their own district, move the portions of the Eastern Plains that are in CO-03 and CO-05 into CO-04; remove Ft. Collins into its own district (combining it with, perhaps Loveland and maybe Longmont), redistrict the Denver metro and surroundings from three districts into five, shrink CO-02 to the Boulder area and surrounding Front Range/foothills communities, and split the remainder of CO-03 into a mountain community and a West Slope farm/ranch community.  This removes Pueblo – a manufacturing/industrial area – from an otherwise ranching/farming district; likewise, it does the same to Ft. Collins; it gives mountain communities a better self-identity; it gives farmers a clear voice unhindered by city politics; and it better defines the various Front Range communities.  But it’s not possible with 7 seats.

  2.   So the Dems and moderate Repubs will just have to focus on C.D. 4. 
      Best case scenario:  newly-minted Dem, Eric Eidness, sends Musty back to Ft. Morgan in ’08. 
      Worst case scenario:  come 2011, the Dems and Ritter have to tinker with the boundaries of C.D. 4 to make it 3% or 4% less Republican, so Musty (or her wing nut successor) is sent into retirement in ’12.

    1. You think the Dems will control the state legislature after the 2010 election? I have little doubt that Ritter will get reelected, but I think holding both houses will be tough. My guess is that this whole thing will end up in the courts again.

  3. if we were going to get an 8th, where would it be?  More specifically, can you imagine the fight over where it would be?  I would predict attempts to carve up 6 and 5 in such a way as to make them not so safe for Rs.

    1. …we will get to draw the map again – starting from scratch.  There is no case law or statute that states that old districts must be used as the basis for new districts.  One thing to note in particular – last go-round there was a very real possiblity of the City of Denver being split into 2 districts.  Judge Coughlin stated that should not happen UNTIL the population of Denver is too big for one stand alone district.  That being said, maybe Denver will be split this time depending on the shifting population (think of Stapleton and Lowry).

      Also, remember that Tom Tancredo only lives 1 block inside the 6th…that’s not too tough to change.

      1.   She didn’t want to share any of her 78% Dem performance numbers with the then-struggling Dems in C.D. 7.  If Coughlin had divided Denver, DeGette might have had to actively campaign in east Denver and (GASP) Aurora, and her margin would have dropped from 78% to a more humble 55-60%.
          I seriously doubt that she will part with any Denver voters in order to help make C.D. 6 competitive. 

          1.   If it’s necessary to cement a Democratic hold on four of the state’s seven C.D.s, it’s worth splitting Denver.
              If Judge Coughlin had divided Denver, DeGette would have run and won the east Denver/Arapahoe County C.D. by about 55% to 60% (instead of the 70% she customarily gets).
              However, Mike Feeley would have carried the west Denver/Jeffco C.D. over Both Ways in ’02.
              Sometimes it’s good to share…….

    2. Under the successful Democrat plan, the 5th and the 6th were purposefully drawn to be dumping grounds of Republicans, just as the GOP plan dumped as many Democrat precincts into the 1st and 2nd as they could.

      If the GOP had it’s way the 6th would still be a GOP stronghold, but Adams would be split so that Arapahoe and Elbert Counties would have anchored the 7th for the GOP, and Pueblo would have been cut almost perfectly in half between the 3rd and 5th… So, sure Lamborn would have won the General by a lesser margin, but say hello to Congressman Welcher and O’Donnell.

      And would anything have changed in the 4th? No.

      And Udall would be going into next year’s senate race known as the “Ski Resort Congressman” instead of all that dumb coffee crap the wing nuts are trying to hang on him.

    3. For once, I would like to see a panel of judges re-draw all the districts so that both parties require indies to win. If that were to happen, then Colorado would be better for it. As it is, far too many of these districts encourage one group or another.

      1. Sorry, but I don’t think anyone should “require” a candidate to win.  I just don’t like the sound of that…something about the constitution or something.

        That being said, it would be nice if competitiveness were part of the criteria considered along with communities of interest and county, municipal and geographic boundaries.  Split both Denver and the Springs and there is a possiblity of 5 competitive districts.  The unfortunate trade-off is losing strong communities of interest.  The Springs is a strong community…but split part of it to paired with Pueblo and the west slope and another part to be paired with Aurora??? as proposed by former Sen. Theibaut.  That just doesn’t make sense…but it would be competitive.

        You could do the same thing to Denver and create two competitve seats.

        But, there is something to be said for the fact that liberal Dems and radical right Repubs each deserve a voice in Congress. 

        1. Splitting communities, whether in the interest of competitive races or in interest of non-competitive races (i.e., the current political gerrymandering), does not sound great.  Perhaps political party affiliation should not be considered at all in creating districts.  (The other criteria you listed — communities of interest, county boundaries, etc. — would be sufficient, no?)  Then the political make-up of the state’s congressional delegation would be merely a result of the line-drawing based on non-political factors, rather than political factors being the cause of the line-drawing itself (the tail wagging the dog?).

          Anyway, a guy can dream.

          1. But unless we un-invent the party affiliation database, divesting redistricting of all political consideration isn’t going to happen.

            The best we can do is stick to and/or enhance the guidelines we have: county boundary, communities of interest, compactness, and equal representation…  Or you can get Congress to repeal the law prohibiting proportional representation and we can go that route.

            2. Arizona seems to do so, via its Proposition 106 that created an “independent redistriting commission.”  Among the rules governing the commission are these (see part 15):

              14) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SHALL ESTABLISH CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MAPPING PROCESS FOR BOTH THE CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL BE THE CREATION OF DISTRICTS OF EQUAL POPULATION IN A GRID-LIKE PATTERN ACROSS THE STATE. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GRID SHALL THEN BE MADE AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE GOALS AS SET FORTH BELOW:

              A. DISTRICTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES VOTING RIGHTS ACT;

              B. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

              C. DISTRICTS SHALL BE GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

              D. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES SHALL RESPECT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

              E. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTRICT LINES SHALL USE VISIBLE GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES, CITY, TOWN AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES, AND UNDIVIDED CENSUS TRACTS;

              F. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE FAVORED WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CREATE NO SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO THE OTHER GOALS.

              (15) PARTY REGISTRATION AND VOTING HISTORY DATA SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE MAPPING PROCESS BUT MAY BE USED TO TEST MAPS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE GOALS. THE PLACES OF RESIDENCE OF INCUMBENTS OR CANDIDATES SHALL NOT BE IDENTIFIED OR CONSIDERED.

              http://www.azredistr…

              1. You can legislate it, but I’d be very very surprised if “suggestions” didn’t come to the redistricting board pre-vetted with that kind of information.  Even without the databases, parties used to have a good idea of what neighborhoods voted for which parties.

                Still, I do like the AZ (and IA?) way of redistricting.  We could do worse.

          2. This solution runs in to practical problems, just like other plans did in the past.  In Colorado cities lie in two different counties…significant cities like Littleton, Northglenn, Westminster and Aurora.  Although smaller cities straddle counties too, like Windsor that lies in both Weld and Larimer; or Erie that lies in both Boulder and Weld Counties.

            On the other hand, communities of interest straddle counties and cities.  What about the highly hispanic population in West Denver and East Jefferson.  Or, the African American population that centers in Denver, Adams and Arapahoe Counties in East Denver/Aurora.

            Or communitites of interest that break natural boundaries such as Jefferson County that sits in two different water-sheds.

            If you pick a favorite County, City, or Community of Interest you can argue that certain geographic points should be lumped together or split apart.  That argument coupled with political party/geographic data makes for powerful gerrymandering power.

            I believe that redistricting is a PURELY political process and to think otherwise is naive.  Redistricting is the art of building a fence where some people are in and others are out.  Forgetting the Whitman references, fences divide people.

            —

            To address another point, it is not always in the best interest to create “independent” or “swing” districts.  For example, Colorado Springs has a very homogeneous population – don’t they deserve a representative that talks and acts like they do?  (And, don’t they have that person now?)

            Just because you or I might like an independent person doesn’t mean the majority of voters don’t deserve a person who is a staunch believer.

            —

            1. County boundaries, along with other factors reflective of communities of interest, would be relevant.  Of course, no classification would be beyond dispute or argument, but why does that mean that political registraton must be considered?  The current situation has “practical problems,” why should any different proposals be dismissed because they also have “practical problems?”  To the contrary, the non-political theory may be more defensible, and the practical problems wouldn’t seem to be greater than exist now.

              I agree that redistricting right now is largely a political process, but why MUST it be?

              And, keeping intact a community of interest would seem to keep intact the allegedly homogeneous population of Colorado Springs, regardless of political affiliation…..no?

        2. Hmmmm.I am guessing that you are a lawyer.

          Requiring indies does not mean legally requiring it. What I meant is that CD1 is OWNED by the dems. CD 5 and 6 are OWNED by the republicans. They are none competitive. In these districts, other parties and the indies do not matter. By redrawing all of our districts, we can make them similar to 7. That is neither dems or rep can win 7 without winning more then their party. That means that 7 requires indies to win. After all, only in a year where one party is totally corrupt, AND caught, will you see party members switching to the other party. We need this same set-up in all the districts.

          BTW, it is nice to have strong communities until you realize that you are not represented. And no, liberal dems and radical rights deserve no more rights to a voice than I do. The problem is that these districts were rigged to do just that.

          1. CO-05 would be hard to re-draw into a competitive district; same with CO-01.  You’d have to draw narrow stripes up and down the Front Range (resembling the Texas gerrymander) in order to make it happen.  That doesn’t provide good representation to either Denver or Colorado Springs and creates representation that deliberately dilutes communities of interest and violates compactness ideals.  In fact, it’s possible that such a plan would be rejected as diluting the representation of a minority community (CO-01).

            Like it or not, some Congressional Districts will be uncompetitive no matter what you do with them.  You’re not going to change Wyoming, for example – it only has one seat to start with…  Nor will you carve Utah into three (soon to be four?) competitive districts – but right now there’s a (conservative) Democrat representing one of those three districts: the area around Salt Lake City.  A Representative is supposed to represent his constituents, and it’s hard to do that when you’re deliberately dispersing unique communities between multiple districts.

      2.   If I were drawing the map, I’d take 1/2 of C.D. 1 and 1/2 of C.D. 5, and splice them together.  We’d get rid of both DeGette and Lamborn because neither would electable in a competitive district! 
          Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court frowns on gerrymandered districts which consist of two bases joined together by nothing more than an interstate highway!

  4. It would be nice to see the figures the VA egghead used to come to this conclusion, because I wouldn’t be surprised to see us get another seat in 2010. For most of this decade Larimer and Douglas counties seem to keep fighting Vegas for the fastest growing counties in the US. Let’s not forget the growth Weld and Adams have seen as well. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure we can forget about the Lowry and Stapleton areas of Denver. Or the non-Boulder areas of my own home County that weren’t lost to Broomfield.

    And what about Elbert county for cripes sake? Didn’t the cows out number the people until about three years ago?

    Like I say, we’re seeing plenty of growth still. I’ll be very surprised if we don’t get another seat.

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

164 readers online now

Newsletter

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