Courts Starting to Catch on to Anti-American GOP Redistricting

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/national/02REDI.html

December 2, 2003
Colorado Court Rejects Redistricting Plan
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday rejected a
Republican effort to redraw the state's Congressional map to the party's
advantage, handing Democrats a victory in the first of a series of legal
fights that could help determine control of the House.

The court, in a 5-to-2 decision, ruled that Colorado's Constitution allowed
only one round of Congressional redistricting after each 10-year census. The
judges found that the Republican-controlled Legislature exceeded its
authority last May when it tried to replace a map imposed by a federal court
in 2002 after the House and Senate deadlocked.

"Having failed to redistrict when it should have, the General Assembly has
lost its chance to redistrict until after the 2010 federal census," the
court wrote.

The redistricting in Colorado preceded a fight this year in Texas, where the
Republican Legislature forced through a map intended to give Republicans at
least six new House seats in that state and cement its majority. That map is
also being challenged by Democrats. The implications of the Colorado
decision on the Texas case are uncertain, given the ruling's heavy reliance
on state law.

"Ultimately, I am not sure we can draw any inference to any other state,"
said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional
Committee, who said the Colorado finding was not unexpected, given that the
majority of the court was appointed by a Democratic governor.

But Democrats said the decision was a rebuke to Republicans who had used
power shifts in state legislatures as an opportunity to redraw Congressional
maps, when in the past such redistricting typically occurred once a decade.

"The Republican Party's shameless attempts to re-redistrict Texas and
Colorado were unprecedented efforts to subvert the will of voters and
undermine the results of elections that the G.O.P. couldn't win fair and
square," said Representative Robert T. Matsui of California, chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In Texas, a three-judge panel is scheduled to begin a trial next week
consolidating several challenges to the Texas map. The judges on Monday
rejected Democratic arguments that Representative Tom DeLay, the House
majority leader, who supported the remapping, should be forced along with
another Texas congressman to give a deposition about his role. Also this
month, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a
Democratic challenge to Pennsylvania's map.

At their heart, the redistricting battles are about which party commands the
House. Given the relatively narrow Republican majority, a swing of just a
seat or two can be crucial. Even top Democrats concede that if the new Texas
map stands, Democratic hopes of picking up the dozen seats needed to capture
the House in 2004 will be greatly diminished.

The Colorado redistricting was intended to solidify the Republican hold on
two Congressional districts; one held by Representative Bob Beauprez, who
won his 2002 election by fewer than 200 votes, and one held by
Representative Scott McInnis, who is retiring. But Colorado's attorney
general, Ken Salazar, and Representative Mark Udall, both Democrats, went to
court over the map, objecting to the precedent it could set by allowing
redistricting with each change in state political power.

"It would be chaotic," Mr. Udall said on Monday as he praised the court
ruling, even though it overturned a map he said would favor him politically
by creating a stronger Democratic district. "I thought we had to take a shot
at setting in stone the principle that redistricting occurs once every 10
years."

Republicans in Colorado, like those in Texas, argued that the court-drawn
maps used in both states were temporary substitutes and that the
legislatures had not relinquished their right to undertake redistricting on
their own if they chose to reopen the process.

Republicans said they were evaluating the ruling and made no announcement on
whether it would be appealed. A spokeswoman for the secretary of state,
Donetta Davidson, who defended the redistricting before the Supreme Court,
said no decision had been made.

Republicans also said they might now turn to a federal suit over the
Colorado redistricting that had been suspended pending the outcome of the
state Supreme Court case.

Even if the decision stands, Republicans noted that the 2004 elections would
be conducted using a map that has given Republicans a 5-to-2 edge in the
Colorado Congressional delegation.

"It is still to our advantage, even if we have to run under the old map,"
said Mr. Forti, the spokesman for the Republican campaign group.

Democrats said they hoped the ruling in the Colorado case would influence
the Texas trial. "What is clear is that a similar case in another state has
failed the legal smell test," said the Texas Democratic chairman, Charles
Soechting.

In the Pennsylvania case to be argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 10, a
group of state Democratic voters say they were denied their right to equal
protection under a Congressional map that unduly favored Republicans.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,