Colorado Reapportionment Commission (07/18/2011)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION

Date:	07/18/2011	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:03 AM to 05:47 PM	Atencio	X
		Berry	X
Place:		Carroll	X
		Jones	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Loevy	X
	Mario Carrera	Nicolais	X
		Salazar	X
This Report was prepared by		Tool	X
	Bo Pogue	Witwer	X
		Webb	X
		Carrera	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Resolution of Outstanding Commission Items Report on Retention of Outside Counsel Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven Other Business		Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only Firm of McKenna, Long, and Aldridge Retained H6001v2/H7001v2 and S6002v2/S7002v2 Passed Delta/Ft. Collins Technical Fix Passed

Note: This meeting summary is not an official record of the commission or of the meeting. It is not intended to serve as a transcript or minutes of the commission meeting. The audio recording of the meeting is the official record of the meeting. This summary may be used as a guide to the audio recording. To access the audio recording of a commission meeting, visit the Colorado Joint Legislative Library located in the State Capitol, Room 048 (basement/ground floor level). You will need to note the date, time, and location of the meeting to access the audio recording. Copies of the audio recordings may be obtained at the library if you bring with you blank, recordable compact discs or a flash drive. Librarians are on site and available to assist you with accessing an audio recording.

09:04 AM -- Resolution of Outstanding Commission Items

The commission was called to order. A quorum was present. Mr. Jeremiah Barry, Reapportionment Commission Staff Director, briefed the commission on an issue involving some errors with election data from Arapahoe County, upon which the commission has been relying. The commission elected to use the current data in its proceedings. The commission next revisited the issue of racial bloc voting analysis. Mr. Barry suggested delaying the issue until outside counsel has been retained. Commissioner Tool took a moment of personal privilege regarding press reports on recent action taken by the commission. The commission discussed the potential for cleaning up certain maps adopted by the commission.

09:12 AM -- Report on Retention of Outside Counsel

Commissioner Atencio briefed the commission on efforts to retain outside legal counsel to represent the commission, and made a recommendation to the commission. Commissioner Nicolais provided input on the recommendation, citing the criteria considered in making the recommendation. The commission discussed the recommendation.


BILL:	Report on Retention of Outside Counsel
TIME:	09:17:57 AM
MOVED:	Webb
MOTION:	Recommended that the law firm of McKenna, Long, and Aldridge be retained as outside counsel to represent and counsel the commission. The motion passed on an 11-0 vote.
SECONDED:	Tool
		VOTE
	Atencio	Yes
	Berry	Yes
	Carroll	Yes
	Jones	Yes
	Loevy	Yes
	Nicolais	Yes
	Salazar	Yes
	Tool	Yes
	Witwer	Yes
	Webb	Yes
	Carrera	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

09:18 AM

Commissioner Atencio thanked staff in its efforts to retain counsel and introduced the counsel retained by the commission. Mr. David Fine, Mr. Dick Kaufman, and Mr. David Scaggs, all of the law firm McKenna, Long, and Aldridge, introduced themselves to the commission.

09:21 AM -- Review of Proposed Plans for Regions 6 and 7

The commission began a review of proposed redistricting plans for regions 6 and 7. Regions 7 and 7 consist of the following counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, and Jefferson, along with the city and counties of Broomfield and Denver. Commission Carrera discussed the preliminary nature of the plans adopted by the commission, and noted the diversity and growth of certain populations in Colorado. The commission began their deliberations with consideration of House plans. Commission members received copies of the four House plans (Attachments A through D), which consist of maps of the plans and zooms of specific localities, along with a number of demographic and statistical reports for each plan. Mr. Troy Bratton, Reapportionment Commission Staff, updated the commission on efforts to print plans that were received over the weekend. The commission discussed how it would consider plans while it waited for copies of the revised plans to be printed. Mr. Bratton provided an overview of House plan H6003v1/H7003v1 (Attachment D). Mr. Bratton responded to questions regarding the placement of incumbents in the House districts in the City and County of Denver in House plan H6003v1/H7003v1. Commissioner Webb requested that a view of Denver's neighborhoods be shown on the projection.

09:33 AM

Discussion ensued regarding how incumbents were preserved in their districts in Denver under plan H6003v1/H7003v1. Commissioner Carroll requested a review of the neighborhoods split by the plan. Discussion followed regarding the number of full districts supported by Denver's population, and county splits involving Denver's districts under plan H6003v1/H7003v1. Mr. Barry provided input on these issues. Discussion followed regarding the boundary between House districts 11 and 12 in the plan. Commissioner Nicolais returned the discussion to the issues of incumbency and inclusion of portions from other counties in the Denver districts under plan H6003v1/H7003v1. Commissioner Webb discussed the treatment of Denver by forthcoming plan H6002v2/H7002v2, and certain demographic features of the Denver districts under this plan.

09:44 AM

Commissioner Webb continued to discuss Denver's demographics the treatment of Denver by the various proposed House plans. Commissioner Carroll discussed the Aurora portion of plan H7002v1 (Attachment C). Commissioners received a close-in view of the original Aurora vicinity (Attachment E), and a handout containing tables about Aurora demographics and growth patterns (Attachment F). Commissioner Carroll discussed the demographics and municipal splits pertaining to Arapahoe County's House districts in plan H7002v1.

09:55 AM

Commissioner Carroll continued to brief the commission on the Arapahoe County portions of plan H7002v1. Commissioner Carroll addressed certain issues with Arapahoe County in the competing House plans before the commission. Commissioner Nicolais discussed his methodology in drafting H6001v1/H7001v1 (Attachment A), and then briefed the commission on the plan's features. Commissioner Nicolais also discussed the merits of drawing districts with large minority populations, and addressed the issue of keeping incumbents in their current districts.

10:05 AM

Discussion ensued regarding keeping incumbent legislators within their districts. Discussion followed regarding the relationship between certain of the maps considered, and the potential for amending certain maps to combine the features of these maps. Commissioner Carroll clarified the authorship of plans H6002v1 and H7002v1. Discussion turned to the inclusion of two incumbent House members in a single district in Lakewood.

10:15 AM

The commission discussed the treatment of the African-American and Hispanic populations by plan H6001v1/H7001v1, as well as the placement of incumbent House members by these plans. The commission discussed the process by which it would consider the alternate versions of House plans, and other process-oriented

issues. Commissioner Carroll responded to questions regarding the redistricting of the original Aurora vicinity shown in Attachment E. Commissioner Nicolais responded to questions regarding the mapping of House District 41 in H6001v1/H7001v1.

10:28 AM

Discussion returned to the treatment of the African-American population by plan H6001v1/H7001v1. The commission also discussed certain demographic issues associated with regions 6 and 7.

10:33 AM

The commission recessed.

12:48 PM

The commission returned to order. Commissioners received two updated House plans: H6001v2/H7001v2 (Attachment G) and H6002v2/H7002v2 (Attachment H). The commission addressed remarks made before the recess. Commissioner Nicolais provided an overview of plan H6001v2/H7001v2, and discussed the methodology for creating the plan. Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the incumbent for House District 42 in the plan, and the demographics of the district. The commission compared the demographics of House District 42 in plans H6001v2/H7001v2 and H7002v1. Commissioner Nicolais compared the two plans overall.

01:01 PM

The plan comparisons continued, with H6001v2/H7001v2 being compared to H6002v2/H7002v2 and specific attention being paid to Arapahoe County. Commissioner Nicolais returned to briefing the commission on the merits of plan H6001v2/H7001v2, and addressed the issue of counties that are entitled to fractional districts based on population.

01:11 PM

Commissioner Nicolais continued to brief the commission on the merits of plan H6001v2/H7001v2.

01:22 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the number of House districts in plan H6001v2/H7001v2. Commissioner Nicolais returned to briefing the commission on the plan. Commissioner Webb briefed the commission on the merits of plan H6002v2/H7002v2, discussing the features and demographics of the House districts in the plan and county and city splits.

01:35 PM

Commissioner Webb continued to brief the commission on plan H6002v2/H7002v2. Commissioner Carroll provided input on the Aurora portion of the plan. Commissioner Jones briefed the commission on the Adams County portions of plan H6002v2/H7002v2. Commissioner Jones then briefed the commission on the Boulder County portion of the plan. Commissioner Jones compared the portions of plans H6001v2/H7001v2 and H6002v2/H7002v2 in and around Longmont.

01:47 PM

Commissioner Carroll briefed the commission on the Jefferson County portion of plan H6002v2/H7002v2. Commissioner Loevy discussed the politically competitive districts in the two House plans under consideration. Discussion ensued regarding the number of House districts in Arapahoe County in plan H6002v2/H7002v2.

01:58 PM

Commissioner Witwer cited a portion of the decision in In re Redistricting of the Colorado General Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237 (Colo. 2002) (also referred to by the commission as the Hobbs decision), in detailing the criteria required to be considered during the redistricting process, focusing on the court's requirement to apportion the number of districts per county to which a county is entitled based upon population. Discussion ensued regarding the potential violation of this principle by plan H6002v2/H7002v2 in Arapahoe County.

02:09 PM

The commission continued to discuss the number of whole districts contained in Arapahoe County under plan H6002v2/H7002v2, in potential violation of the 2002 Supreme Court decision. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of noncontiguous counties and municipalities, and how the creation of these results in county splits during redistricting. Commissioner Webb discussed the potential for drafting a plan to address the Arapahoe County whole district issue. Commissioner Nicolais cited the Hispanic-majority and majority-minority House districts in plan H6001v2/H7001v2, and then discussed the politically competitive districts in this plan.

02:23 PM

Commissioner Nicolais continued to discuss the politically competitive districts in plan H6001v2/H7001v2. The commission discussed the competitiveness of House District 29, and the factors that define political competitiveness. Commissioner Nicolais related a conversation he had with a member of the public pertaining to maintaining districts for current Hispanic incumbents. Discussion ensued regarding maximizing the number of politically competitive districts.

02:34 PM

Discussion continued regarding the political competitiveness of House District 29, and the factors that define political competitiveness. Discussion ensued regarding the grouping of two incumbents in House District 26 under both of the maps being considered, and the political competitiveness of the district. Commissioner Nicolais responded to questions regarding the data considered in determining the competitiveness of House District 26. Commissioner Webb responded to questions regarding the criteria considered in drafting the Jefferson County portion of plan H6002v2/H7002v2, and the competitiveness of House District 26. Commissioner Webb responded to further questions regarding the number of majority-minority House districts in plan H6002v2/H7002v2.

02:45 PM

Commissioner Nicolais discussed the treatment of Jefferson County municipalities by plan H6002v2/H7002v2. Commissioner Carroll addressed the earlier question about the number of majority-minority districts in plan H6002v2/H7002v2. Discussion returned to the political competitiveness of the districts in the two plans under consideration. Commissioner Jones discussed the splitting of Arvada by the maps.


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	02:50:05 PM
MOVED:	Carroll
MOTION:	Moved for the adoption of House plan H6001v2/H7001v2. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Jones
		VOTE
	Atencio
	Berry
	Carroll
	Jones
	Loevy
	Nicolais
	Salazar
	Tool
	Witwer
	Webb
	Carrera

Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	02:50:39 PM
MOVED:	Webb
MOTION:	Moved to adopt House plan H6002v2/H7002v2. The motion failed on a 5-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Atencio
		VOTE
	Atencio	Yes
	Berry	No
	Carroll	Yes
	Jones	Yes
	Loevy	No
	Nicolais	No
	Salazar	Yes
	Tool	No
	Witwer	No
	Webb	Yes
	Carrera	No
Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	02:52:48 PM
MOVED:	Carroll
MOTION:	Moved for the adoption of House plan H6002v1/H7002v1. The motion failed on a 5-6 vote.
SECONDED:	Jones
		VOTE
	Atencio	Yes
	Berry	No
	Carroll	Yes
	Jones	Yes
	Loevy	No
	Nicolais	No
	Salazar	Yes
	Tool	No
	Witwer	No
	Webb	Yes
	Carrera	No

Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

02:52 PM

Commissioner Carroll responded to questions regarding her reasons for moving the first version of plan H6002/H7002. Commissioner Webb discussed the merits of the plan as compared to plan H6001v2/H7001v2. Commissioner Carroll spoke against the Aurora portion of plan H6001v2/H7001v2. Commissioner Nicolais spoke against plan H6002v1/H7002v1, and responded to Commissioner Carroll's comments by comparing the Aurora portions of the two plans. Commissioner Carroll responded.

03:04 PM

Discussion continued regarding a comparison of the Aurora portions of the maps under consideration. Commissioner Nicolais responded to questions regarding the increase in the African-American population in House District in H6001v2/H7001v2.

03:06 PM

Commissioner Carroll spoke in opposition to the motion to approve plan H6001v2/H7001v2.


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	03:10:09 PM
MOVED:	Tool
MOTION:	Moved for the adoption of House plan H6001v2/H7001v2. The motion passed on a 6-5 vote.
SECONDED:	Loevy
		VOTE
	Atencio	No
	Berry	Yes
	Carroll	No
	Jones	No
	Loevy	Yes
	Nicolais	Yes
	Salazar	No
	Tool	Yes
	Witwer	Yes
	Webb	No
	Carrera	Yes

Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:11 PM

The commission recessed.

03:22 PM

The commission returned to order. The commission considered three Senate plans for regions 6 and 7. Commissioners received copies of six plans (Attachments I through O), which consist of maps of the plans and zooms of specific localities, along with a number of demographic and statistical reports for each plan. Commissioner Nicolais briefed the commission on plan S6001v2/S7001v2 (Attachment N), discussing its merits, county and municipal splits, and district demographics. Commissioner Nicolais also discussed the disposition of Elbert County.

03:33 PM

Commissioner Nicolais continued to brief the commission on plan S6001v2/S7001v2, moving to the City and County of Denver and Jefferson County portions of the plan. Commissioner Nicolais explained Senate District 16 in his plan, and discussed the problem of combining portions of counties above the number of whole districts entitled to such counties based on population. Commissioner Nicolais then discussed the Arapahoe County portion and the Adams County portion of his plan.

03:43 PM

Commissioner Webb briefed the commission on plan S6002v2/S7002v2 (Attachment O), starting with Denver and Arapahoe County. Commissioner Carroll provided input on the Arapahoe County portion of the plan.

03:53 PM

Commissioner Jones briefed the commission on the Adams County portion of plan S6002v2/S7002v2, and compared one of the districts in the plan to that of plan S6001v2/S7001v2. Commissioner Jones then briefed the commission on the portions of plan S6002v2/H7002v2 in Broomfield and Boulder counties. Commissioner Jones discussed the communities of interest in common between Gilpin County and portions of Boulder County. Commissioner Carroll briefed the commission on the Jefferson County portion of plan S6002v2/S7002v2.

04:04 PM

Commissioner Carroll continued to brief the commission on the Jefferson County portion of S6002v2/S7002v2, and discussed District 16 in the plan, consisting of Gilpin and Clear Creek counties and portions of Jefferson and Boulder counties. Ms. Clare Pramuk, Reapportionment Commission Staff, briefed the commission on plan S6003v2/H7003v2 (Attachment M). Commissioner Nicolais addressed comments made earlier by Commissioner Jones about certain districts in plan S6001v2/S7001v2, and discussed his reasons for reworking this map from an earlier version, citing portions of the Hobbs decision.

04:16 PM

The commission compared the differences between certain districts in plans S6001v2/S7001v2 and S6002v2/S7002v2. Commissioner Berry made reference to district travel and water issues on the Western Slope as compared to suburban counties. Commissioner Salazar registered objections to both plans under consideration in terms of the Hobbs decision. Commissioner Witwer responded to comments made by Commissioner Jones pertaining to Jefferson County districts. The commission continued its discussion on the compactness of Senate District 26 in plan S6001v2/S7001v2, as compared to districts approved in other regions of the state. Commissioner Carroll compared Senate District 26 among plans S6001v2/S7001v2 and S6002v2/S7002v2.

04:27 PM

The commission continued to compare District 26 among the two plans under consideration. Discussion ensued regarding the splitting of Westminster by plan S6002v2/S7002v2. Commissioner Jones addressed the issue of the compactness of Senate District 26. Discussion returned to the splitting of Westminster. Discussion again returned to the compactness of Senate District 26, and the compactness of Jefferson County districts in the two plans. The commission discussed the differences between plans S6001v2/S7001v2 and S6002v2/S7002v2 pertaining to the proposed Senate District 31, and also in comparison to the current District 31.

04:37 PM

Commissioner Carroll discussed the status of Arapahoe County incumbents under plan S6001v2/S7001v2. Discussion ensued regarding the number of whole Senate seats in Jefferson and Arapahoe counties under plan S6002v2/S7002v2. The commission discussed the importance of apportioning the allotted number of whole districts to a county based on population in the order of criteria required to be considered in redistricting.

04:48 PM

Commissioner Nicolais explained his reasoning behind combining portions of districts in separate counties in plan S6001v2/S7001v2. Discussion returned to the number of districts to which Arapahoe County is entitled based on population in reference to plan S6002v2/S7002v2. Discussion ensued regarding the composition of District 16 in plan S6001v2/S7001v2, and its potential satisfaction of redistricting criteria. The commission also discussed the need to abide by portions of the Hobbs decision as it drafts plans.

04:59 PM

Discussion continued regarding the importance of continuing to abide by certain portions of the Hobbs decision. Commissioner Berry compared the political performance of the current Senate District 31 with the proposed District 31 in plans S6002v2/S7002v2 and S6001v2/S7001v2. Commissioner Webb discussed the factors considered in creating plan S6002v2/S7002v2. Commissioner Carroll responded to Commissioner Berry's comments, and discussed the reasoning behind certain portions of the Hobbs decision.


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	05:03:54 PM
MOVED:	Atencio
MOTION:	Moved for the adoption of Senate plan S6001v2/S7001v2. A substitute motion to adopt Senate plan S6002v2/S7002v2 passed.
SECONDED:	Jones
		VOTE
	Atencio
	Berry
	Carroll
	Jones
	Loevy
	Nicolais
	Salazar
	Tool
	Witwer
	Webb
	Carrera

Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:

05:10 PM

After Commissioner Carroll made a substitute motion, discussion returned to the level to which the commission is obligated to abide by the certain portions of the Hobbs decision in its current plan drafting. The commission compared the number of politically competitive districts in plans S6001v2/S7001v2 and S6002v2/S7002v2.


BILL:	Review of Proposed Plans for Regions Six and Seven
TIME:	05:10:59 PM
MOVED:	Carroll
MOTION:	Made a substitute motion to adopt Senate plan S6002v2/S7002v2. The motion passed on a 6-5 vote.
SECONDED:	Webb
		VOTE
	Atencio	Yes
	Berry	No
	Carroll	Yes
	Jones	Yes
	Loevy	No
	Nicolais	No
	Salazar	Yes
	Tool	No
	Witwer	No
	Webb	Yes
	Carrera	Yes

Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:21 PM -- Other Business

Commissioner Loevy discussed the potential for staff to draft a plan maximizing competitive districts. Discussion ensued about the appropriate measure of what constitutes a competitive district and whether staff should be directed to determine such a measure. Commissioner Atencio asked that part of the next agenda be devoted to an executive session with legal counsel. She asked that counsel brief the commission on the legal issues pertaining to compactness and competitiveness. Commissioner Jones requested an agreement from the commission that "the rhetoric be toned down." Commissioner Salazar returned to the discussion of standardizing the measures of competitiveness.

05:27 PM

The commission discussed the agenda for the July 25, 2011, meeting of the commission. Commissioner Berry returned to the discussion of standardizing the measures of competitiveness. She made specific suggestions for measuring competitiveness based on voter registration and political performance. Commissioner Nicolais asked legal counsel to provide a constitutional analysis of the adopted maps. He discussed his use of certain terms and phrases. Commissioner Atencio disagreed with Commissioner Nicolais's request for an analysis of the preliminary maps. She made additional remarks. Commissioner Carroll asked for historical research on political registration gaps in legislative districts. She discussed the issues raised by using the 2010 U.S. Senate race in statistical analysis due to the presence of a third-party candidate. She made further remarks about tasks that are appropriate for commission staff as opposed to outside legal counsel. Commissioner Carrera asked Commissioners Carroll and Berry to form a subcommittee to draft a position for the commission with regard to a standard definition of a competitive district. Commissioner Jones opposed using the 2008 U.S. Senate race for this analysis. Commissioner Witwer provided additional remarks regarding the competitiveness analysis. He commented that outside legal counsel should not be put in the position of refereeing disputes among commissioner members. Commissioner Webb shared his opinion that commissioners should be responsible for their own words and positions. Commissioner Nicolais agreed not to have outside counsel do an initial analysis of the preliminary maps.

05:40 PM

Commissioner Tool turned to a discussion of the fix proposed for the earlier splits in Delta and Ft. Collins (Attachment P). Commissioner Carrera asked staff to finish the preliminary map and present it to the commission. Discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of Windsor in the proposed fix.


BILL:	Other Business
TIME:	05:43:01 PM
MOVED:	Atencio
MOTION:	Adopt the fixes to minimize district splits in Delta and Ft. Collins (Attachment P). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Tool
		VOTE
	Atencio
	Berry
	Carroll
	Jones
	Loevy
	Nicolais
	Salazar
	Tool
	Witwer
	Webb
	Carrera

Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

05:44 PM

Mr. Barry discussed the process for dealing with technical changes to adopted plans when they arise. Commissioner Carrera reviewed the agenda items for the next meeting. The commission decided to begin the next meeting at 11:00 a.m.

05:46 PM

The commissioners received copies of public comments received by Commission Staff (Attachments Q and R). The commission adjourned.