Letter from Emily Tracy
Politics – January 2004 – Colorado Central Magazine
Editors:
The Dec. 1 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court is important to Colorado voters.
The ruling assures voters that the Colorado General Assembly cannot create chaos by redrawing the boundary lines for U.S. Congressional Districts multiple times in each decade. So, no matter which political party happens to be in power each year of the decade, voters can be sure that the Congressional District in which they live early in the decade will be the same District they live in each year of the decade. The Court found that the General Assembly can only re-draw the Congressional districts after each census and before the general election that follows the census.
A little history is in order: Following the census in 2000, the Colorado legislature could not come to agreement (in regular or special session in 2001) regarding new boundary lines for Colorado’s seven Congressional Districts. As a result of the Legislature’s failure to act, the redistricting case went to District Court and the Congressional District boundaries were determined by the Judge so that the 2002 Congressional District elections could proceed.
Colorado’s Republicans were unhappy with the Court-drawn boundaries and at the 11th hour of the 2003 General Assembly, Republicans pulled a power play that not only broke General Assembly rules but created such chaos and hard feelings that several General Assembly staffers resigned.
Apparently Republicans did not feel it was sufficient that they would have four of seven Congressional seats as “safe” Republican seats. They wanted five of seven even though the ratio of Republican to Democratic voter registration in Colorado was 36 percent to 30 percent, with 34 percent of voters in the state registered as unaffiliated. The Colorado Supreme Court has — appropriately — ruled on only one issue: Was it Constitutional for the Congressional District lines to be re-drawn more than once in a decade? The Court said no.
Representative Lola Spradley (R – Beulah) was quoted by the Associated Press today as saying, “This is a clear instance of judicial activism … it’s another case where judges have taken power away from the legislature and reserved it for themselves. These judges do not stand for election and therefore are not accountable to the people.”
In the first place, judges do stand for retention election — each six years for District Court judges. This is in no way a case of “judicial activism.” It is simply an illustration of how the checks and balances are supposed to work in our government. Judges did not take power away from the legislature — the legislature failed to perform its redistricting duties in 2001, and the District Court had to create the Congressional District boundaries in order for campaigns and elections for those seven Congressional seats to occur in 2002.
Republicans should be much more concerned about the abusive power play they orchestrated in May 2003 in the last few days of the legislative session, than they are about accusing the Courts of acting inappropriately. Political power ultimately is with the people of this state, not any one political party.
Emily Tracy
Cañon City
Candidate for House District 60
