Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Redistricting loss in Colorado

    Redistricting loss in Colorado

    There are three branches of government, and one of the branches gets to decide who gets to be in one of the other branches.  Via The Denver Post:

    In a blow to Colorado Republicans that could affect election outcomes for the next decade, a judge has ruled in favor of a Democratic map that redraws congressional district lines.

    In a ruling issued late Thursday, Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt said the “Moreno/South” Democratic map submitted at trial “most accurately reflected and preserved current communities of interest in 2011.”

    What does “communities of interest” mean?  Skin color? Accent? Last name derivation?

    It’s just institutionalized ethnocentric assumptions based on preconceived notions that people who look or sound alike must think alike.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    When it favors Democrats, it’s “institutionalized ethnocentric assumptions” but when it favors Republicans it’s “using their power wisely to solidify the current hold on power”.

      VetHusbandFather in reply to Awing1. | November 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm

      Awing1, you are making a huge stretch there. In the link you posted the legislature passed the redistricted map into law. In this latest article the state Judiciary is making the decision instead of of legislators. If you see no difference between elected officials passing something into law and a appointed officials making the decision for elected officials based on “communitites of interest”, then I think you aren’t paying attention.

        Awing1 in reply to VetHusbandFather. | November 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm

        The state of Colorado’s constitution requires the consideration of communities of interest. Guess who enacted that portion of Colorado’s constitution? I’ll give you a clue, it wasn’t the courts.

          VetHusbandFather in reply to Awing1. | November 11, 2011 at 5:35 pm


          In a ruling issued late Thursday, Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt said the “Moreno/South” Democratic map submitted at trial “most accurately reflected and preserved current communities of interest in 2011.”

          Did he say the Republican map did not accurately reflect and preserve current communities of interest? I’m pretty sure the Colorado constitution says:

          Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible.

          As long as the Republican plan meets the requirement of ‘preserving communities of interest wherever possible’ (and with such a broad definition, it would be difficult to say it didn’t), the Judge has no grounds to overturn their plan. Especially not because he though that another plan preserved communities of interest better. If this decision was anything more than a mockery of the public interest, then the ruling would have gone something like this: The Republican plan does not fit the requirements of Article 5, Section 47, thus the General Assembly must create a new map.

    The same thing happened ten years ago at the last re-districting. R’s had control of the both houses of the legislature and set out to do what had always been done by the party in power. The Colorado Constitution says that redistricting is to be done by the “General Assembly.” That would be the two houses of the legislature.

    But the Democrats took it to court (as usual when they can’t get their way through the democratic process) and a friendly Denver judge adopted the Democrats plan. It went to the Supreme Court and then Chief Justice Mary Malarky declared that as Chief Justice she was a member of the “General Assembly.” Then she and her liberal buddies on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Denver trial court, and the Dems did the redistricting even though they were the minority in the “General Assembly.” Now I guess the only way Republicans will ever have any say in Colorado redistricting is if they can gain a majority on the Supreme Court. It’s 4-3 for the Democrats right now.

    I guess there is one other way for the Republicans to have a voice in redistricting: that would be for a intellectually honest Democrat to get on the Colorado Supreme Court. Anybody know where Diogenes is these days? Probably not. Oh well, no doubt history would repeat itself and all Diogenes would find in the Democrat ranks would be rascals and scoundrels.

    princepsCO | November 11, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    One of the few but proud, a native of CO,I can easily identify when things started going bad: When the Californians had decided that CA was a terrible place to live and Colorado looked much more inviting. Since the mid-70s, those immigrants have put Colorado on the long march to socialism and the destruction of wealth (no more drilling for that west slope oil, something might get dirty….and that water? why would a farmer need that, it’s for the city folks!).

    Be vary wary of anyone from a blue state that has moved to your state….they didn’t learn anything from the destruction they encouraged in their old stomping grounds and will now begin to do the same in yours: stomp, stomp, and stomp some more. The intelligence of the little stompers can be seen in the dog elected as the representative for Occupy Denver…..I feel so sorry for the dog and it’s fleas.

      Right you are, when they left California the brought their liberalism with them and they are now in the process of reestablishing in Colorado all the horrors they ran away from when they left California.

    Milwaukee | November 11, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    I was living in Colorado in the 70’s. The bumper sticker that came out read “Don’t Californicate Colorado”. I guess they did. Fouled their nest and then found another nest to foul.

    California had hyper-inflated property prices before the rest of the country. Their refugees could leave and buy a much nicer house elsewhere for much less than they were paying in CA.

    eaglewingz08 | November 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Since the Constitution doesn’t define General Assembly, why can’t the Legislature define that term as only including the Legislative Branch. And what about the Executive Branch, wasn’t that part of the General Assembly? And if the Court is part of the General Assembly, can the judges be recalled like members of the Legislature?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend