Colorado Re-Redistricting Violates State Constitution--Limited Ramifications for other Redistricting Cases

The Colorado Supreme Court has just issued this opinion, which determined on state law grounds that once a federal court had redistricted after the last census, it was too late for the state legislature to do so again: "In short, the state constitution limits redistricting to once per census, and nothing in state or federal law negates this limitation. 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 briefly discusses whether the federal constitution would prohibit re-redistricting (and canvasses the law in other states on the question under state constitutions), but does not reach the question.

Though the Colorado case does not bear directly on the Texas re-redistricting case (going to trial later this month), or the Vieth redistricting case (to be heard next week by the Supreme Court), the opinion does include a section on "public policy" that could persuade some courts on similar questions: "The framers knew that to achieve accountability, there must be stability in representation...Our interpretation of Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution supports these notions of accountability and fairness. Limiting redistricting to once every ten years maximizes stability. ...If the districts were to change at the whim of the state legislature, members of Congress could frequently find their current constituents voting in a different district in subsequent elections. In that situation, a congressperson would be torn between effectively representing the current constituents and currying the favor of future constituents."

The dissent took the position that the court-ordered redistricting did not prevent the general assembly from re-redistricting in the same decade: "When districts are not constitutionally adequate, courts may fashion a remedy to protect aggrieved voters in an upcoming election. However, never has the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court-ordered plan preempts a legislature from attempting to correct a deficiency by passing its own redistricting plan."

More on Soros's Spending Against Bush

See this FOXNews story and this Los Angeles Times story. What a spectacle it is to see Republicans, many of whom support a system of unlimited campaign spending (often coupled by a call for strict disclosure rules), condemn Soros's spending plans to defeat Bush, and to see Democrats, many of whom promoted McCain-Feingold as a way to get "big money" out of politics, rejoice in Soros's spending.

Did Dean do a "Bait and Switch" on Campaign Funding?

A supporter of a Democratic candidate for President other than Howard Dean directs me to this request for an advisory opinion by the Gephardt campaign, which basically asks whether a presidential candidate who has agreed to accept public financing and then later changes his or her mind must tell donors of the switch and give them the option of a refund. The writer suggests that Dean "bait and switched many donors who gave under the now-invalidated belief (encouraged by the Dean campaign) that their dollars would be matched by the feds." It will be interesting to see how the FEC responds to the request for the advisory opinion. My guess is that if Dean is required to offer donors refunds, few would ask for their money back.

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org