In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly

7 Citing cases

  1. Anderson v. Griswold

    543 P.3d 283 (Colo. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    Consistent with past practice in election-related cases with accelerated timelines, we issue this opinion per curiam. E.g., Kuhn v. Williams, 2018 CO 30M, 418 P.3d 478; In re Colo. Gen. Assemb., 332 P.3d 108 (Colo. 2011); In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assemb., 647 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1982).U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5 provides the presidential qualifications:

  2. Johnson v. Curry (In re Title, Ballot Title)

    374 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2016)

    These provisions list “a hierarchy of criteria” for measuring the adequacy of a state legislative redistricting plan, namely, equalizing population among the senate districts and among the house districts; restricting unnecessary division of counties; making each district as compact as possible; limiting the aggregate linear distance of the boundaries; and preserving communities of interest. In re Colo. Gen. Assembly , 332 P.3d 108, 110–11 (Colo.2011). ¶33 “In stark contrast to its elaborate provision for state senate and representative districts, the state constitution provides almost no guidance for or limitation on the general assembly's division of the state into congressional districts, other than requiring it do so.”

  3. Johnson v. Curry (In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause)

    374 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2016)

    These provisions list “a hierarchy of criteria” for measuring the adequacy of a state legislative redistricting plan, namely, equalizing population among the senate districts and among the house districts; restricting unnecessary division of counties; making each district as compact as possible; limiting the aggregate linear distance of the boundaries; and preserving communities of interest. In re Colo. Gen. Assembly , 332 P.3d 108, 110–11 (Colo.2011). ¶33 “In stark contrast to its elaborate provision for state senate and representative districts, the state constitution provides almost no guidance for or limitation on the general assembly's division of the state into congressional districts, other than requiring it do so.”

  4. Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n

    No. 133 MM 2012 (Pa. May. 8, 2013)

    Holt I, 38 A.3d at 745. See also Wilson v. Kasich, 981 N.E.2d 814, 820 (Ohio 2012) (citing Holt I, 38 A.3d at 745) (Ohio Constitution does not prevent apportionment board from considering partisan factors in its apportionment decision, although partisan factors cannot override politically neutral constitutional requirements); In re Reapportionment of the Colorado Gen. Assembly, __ P.3d _, 2011 WL 5830123, *3 (Colo. 2011) ("Other nonconstitutional considerations, such as the competitiveness of a district, are not per se illegal or improper; however, such factors may be considered only after all constitutional criteria have been met"); In re Legislative Districting of the State, 805 A.2d 292, 326 (Md. 2002) ("The constitution 'trumps' political considerations. Politics or non-constitutional considerations never 'trump' constitutional requirements.").

  5. Legislative Research Comm'n v. Fischer

    2012-SC-000091-TG (Ky. May. 17, 2012)

    E.g., In re Colorado Gen. Assembly, No. 11SA282, 2011 WL 5830123, at *1 (Colo. Nov. 15, 2011) ("We hold that the Adopted Plan is not sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirements of the Colorado Constitution.); Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, 2012 WL 375298 at *41 (Pa. Feb. 3, 2012) ("[W]e . . . reaffirm the importance of the multiple commands in [the Pennsylvania Constitution], which embrace contiguity, compactness, and the integrity of political subdivisions, no less than the command to create legislative districts as nearly equal in population as 'practicable.'"). "It is a cardinal rule of construction that the different sections of the Constitution shall be construed as a whole so as to harmonize the various provisions and not to produce a conflict between them."

  6. In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176

    83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012)   Cited 25 times
    Finding a core retention rate of 82.6% to be overwhelming

    262; N.J. Const. art. II, § 2, ¶ 7; Ohio Const. art. XI, § 13; Or. Const. art. IV § 6(3)(b); Pa. Const. art. II § 17(d); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1909(a), (f); Wash. Rev.Code § 44.05.130. 17. Compare In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 11SA282, 2011 WL 5830123, ––– P.3d –––– (Colo. Nov. 15, 2011) (invalid); Twin Falls Cnty. v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39373, 2012 WL 130416, 152 Idaho 346, 271 P.3d 1202 (Idaho Jan. 18, 2012) (invalid); Schrage v. State Bd. of Elections, 88 Ill.2d 87, 58 Ill.Dec. 451, 430 N.E.2d 483 (1981) (invalid); In re Legislative Districting of Gen. Assembly, 193 N.W.2d 784 (Iowa 1972) (invalid); In re Legislative Districting of the State, 370 Md. 312, 805 A.2d 292 (2002) (invalid); Hartung v. Bradbury, 332 Or. 570, 33 P.3d 972 (2001) (invalid); Holt v.2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm'n, No. 7 MM 2012, 2012 WL 360584, ––– Pa. ––––, 38 A.3d 711 (Pa.2012) (invalid); In re Reapportionment of Towns of Hartland, Windsor and W. Windsor, 160 Vt. 9, 624 A.2d 323 (1993) (invalid), with Harvey v. Clinton, 308 Ark. 546, 826 S.W.2d 236 (1992) (valid); Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545 (1992) (valid); In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 46 P.3d 1083 (Colo.2002) (valid); Fonfara

  7. Hall v. Moreno

    270 P.3d 961 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing abuse of discretion standard

    The open-endedness of the present version of section 2–1–102 also stands in stark contrast with the explicit hierarchy that guides the reapportionment commission in reapportioning state legislative districts. Cf.In re Reapportionment Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 11SA282, 2011 WL 5830123, at *2 (Colo. Nov. 15, 2011). In reapportioning Colorado's state legislative districts, the reapportionment commission must adhere to six criteria in the following order of priority: (1) equal protection and non-discrimination; (2) lawfulness under section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973; (3) equal population within a 5 percent deviation; (4) minimization of county splits and the requirement that “the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible”; (5) compactness and contiguity; and (6) preservation of communities of interest.