Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION

Date:06/06/2011
ATTENDANCE
Time:11:00 AM to 03:14 PM
Atencio
X
Berry
X
Place:LSB A
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
Clare Pramuk
Witwer
X
Webb
X
Carrera
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
Report on Retention of Outside Counsel
Locations for Public Hearings
Hearing Expections
Review of Maps of Region 1
Region 2 Public Testimony
Review of Maps of Region 1 (continued)
Pass
Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
Pass
Pass
Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
Pass

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.

11:01 AM -- Report on Retention of Outside Counsel

The commission was called to order. A quorum was present. Commissioner Atencio presented the final request for proposal (RFP) for retention of outside counsel (Attachment A), and the commision took time to review the RFP. The RFP was revised to include comments from the commission's May 31 meeting. Commissioner Nicolais expanded on the changes which included changes in weighting experience in redistricting and experience before the Supreme Court. Chairman Carrera asked about time line and Commissioner Atencio said if the RFP is approved today, presentations could be made to the commission at the June 27 meeting.

Attachment A.pdf

BILL:Report on retention of outside counsel
TIME: 11:06:01 AM
MOVED:Carroll
MOTION:Moved to adopt the proposed request for proposal as submitted (Attachment A). The motion passed on an 11-0 vote.
SECONDED:Webb
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

11:06 AM

Commissioner Atencio asked for the commission's permission to have Director Barry send the RFP to the Colorado Bar Association, Women's Bar Association, and other minority bar associations in addition to being placed on the commission website. The commission had no objection.

11:07 AM -- Locations for Public Hearings

The commission received a listing of hearing cities and dates for the 1991 and 2001 redistricting efforts (Attachment B). Commissioner Carroll suggested including Aurora, as it is the third largest city in Colorado and the largest majority-minority city. Chairman Carrera asked if there were other cities that should be included. Commissioner Berry commented on cities that were not included in both prior processes. Director Barry discussed the issue. He hoped to have the list finalized so that staff could begin scheduling hearings. Burlington was chosen in 2001 as there was a commissioner from Burlington at that time. The commission agreed that Aurora would be added. Director Barry walked the commission through the list. Commissioner Salazar suggested Dillon or Silverthorne as a substitute for Vail and Breckenridge. Commissioner Jones suggested Frisco. Discussion of this option ensued. Director Barry said that instead of Glenwood Springs or Delta, the hearing could be held in Grand Junction. Commissioner Berry suggested having both hearings but moving to Delta to Montrose. People could go to Durango, Montrose or Grand Junction. The Gunnison hearing was also recommended by Commissioner Berry. Commissioner Nicolais asked Director Barry whether multiple meetings could be held in one day. Director Barry said that there was some doubling up on Western Slope hearings 10 years ago. Some hearings were held during the week. Director Barry said multiple hearings on the Western Slope could mean two hearings each on Friday and Saturday. He plans on bringing forth a proposed schedule next week. Commissioner Nicolais is interested in seven meetings on the Western Slope and scheduling meetings on Saturdays to get people from farther distances to fewer meetings.

Attachment B.pdf

11:17 AM

Commissioner Salazar recommended that Salida and Alamosa hearings be held on the same day. The commission agreed on a Salida hearing. Director Barry brought up Trinidad and noted that the hearing only took 15 minutes last time. Commissioner Salazar asked if meetings are scheduled for two hours, which Director Barry confirmed. Commissioner Webb suggested it would appear to be leaving people out if Trinidad were not scheduled. He suggested that more publicity be done. Commissioner Berry asked about past publicity for the statewide hearings. Press releases and notices are sent out to parties, according to Director Barry. Commissioner Berry endorsed increased publicity. The remaining cities (Pueblo to Denver) and Aurora will not require an overnight stay for most commissioners and should be kept on the list, according to Director Barry. Commissioner Loevy asked about holding Greeley and Ft. Collins at a location in between the two. Commissioner Tool confirmed and suggested the Centerra region. Commissioner Nicolais supported the idea and asked that Director Barry look at combining meetings. Commissioner Jones noted that Greeley has a lot of population and that they would want a hearing. He also noted this is a lot of travel. Commissioner Atencio said she would like to hear from both individually as they both have large Hispanic populations. Having Centerra in addition to Ft. Collins and Greeley was discussed, but not supported. Commissioner Berry asked about Castle Rock not showing a time on Attachment B. Broomfield also does not show a time but Director Barry did not provide a reason.

11:26 AM -- Hearing Expectations

Chairman Carrera asked about commissioner attendance at hearings. Per Director Barry, in the past, at least three commissioners have attended every hearing. Ten years ago, the Western Slope and Eastern Plains meetings were held the same week, which made it impossible for all the commissioners to attend hearings in both areas. His sense is that this commission does not want to do that and he will try to schedule the hearings so that they are not doubled up and commissioners have the opportunity to attend all the hearings. Commissioner Witwer asked about recorded transcripts for those not in attendance and Director Barry confirmed that the meetings will be recorded. Commissioner Jones said that in 1991, two-thirds of the commission attended each meeting and suggested that be done now. Commissioner Carroll suggested not having multiple overnights in one week to improve attendance. She stated it would be better to intersperse travel and non-travel hearings. Commissioner Atencio suggested a majority (six) per hearing at a minimum. Commissioner Jones said he thinks it is better to have more commissioners in attendance because of controversy, but noted that this is a beefed up schedule.

11:32 AM

Director Barry apologized for incorrectly sending out plans to commissioners on Friday. He then discussed how to best deliver maps to commissioners. Commissioner Jones asked about the size of the computer files sent out by e-mail. Director Barry thinks that it should be fairly small but he will check on that. If they're too large to e-mail, the maps could be put on the website. Commissioner Berry likes the idea of putting the maps on the website. Director Barry asked about posting maps to the website prior to the meeting. He asked for direction as to how to proceed. Commissioner Salazar suggested the difference is between transparency and confusion. He asked about a balance. Commissioner Webb said that not all maps will be submitted to the commission so those should not be on the web. He does not want draft plans posted; Director Barry confirmed that these would not be posted. Commissioner Carroll would like commissioners to receive plans first, but also wants the public to see them after the commissioners review them, possibly in just pdf format. Commissioner Webb would like to see staff maps first to see if they address his concerns. This would require staff maps to be sent out prior to commissioners submitting maps. Director Barry said in a typical week with a Monday meeting, this could be easily done. Commissioner Jones would prefer to see all the maps at the same time. Commissioner Witwer would also like to see staff maps first and then have them put on the website 24 hours later. He thinks its important to see staff plans first and would like there to be staff maps for every region. Chairman Carrera suggested a need for a definition of "submit" with respect to map submissions. Commissioner Berry said that any map presented should be posted prior to the meeting. This would give commissioners an opportunity to withdraw a map before a hearing. Chairman Carrera suggested that submit means a map seen by all commission members and presented to the commission publicly. Commissioner Jones thinks the subtleties will be lost on the general public. He likes it the way it is currently set up. If someone submits a plan, they should be comfortable with it. Maps are sent to staff by noon Thursday, and sent out to commissioners on Friday. He thinks we need to keep it simple and wants to see all maps at once. After a couple of weeks, the commission will review whether to continue getting staff plans. Commissioner Webb disagrees with seeing all the maps at once. Commissioner Nicolais brought up the agreement about submitting maps anonymously. If the maps are split up, staff maps won't be anonymous. He reminded the commission that no testimony is taken after the maps are posted unless people come during hearings on other regions.

11:42 AM

Commissioner Carroll clarified that maps will be discussed in statewide public hearings and testimony will be taken. She also clarified that the commission is also able to receive comments on any map by e-mail. Director Barry confirmed that regions will be combined into preliminary plans to take around the state for public hearings. There will be one House and one Senate map that the commission will take testimony on. Staff can schedule when items are posted to the web for public access so they can be sent to the commissioners at noon and posted on the website for public access at 5:00 p.m., for instance. Currently, staff maps are sent Friday with all of the other maps, so seeing staff maps first is not the current process. Commissioner Witwer moved to have staff maps sent out 24 hours earlier, made public, and identified as staff maps. Commissioner Carroll supported part of the motion, but was concerned about anonymity. She would like all maps on the website at the same time and doesn't want the staff map identified.
BILL:Release of Maps
TIME: 11:47:59 AM
MOVED:Witwer
MOTION:Moved to have staff maps sent out 24 hours earlier, while having all maps identified by author. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Atencio
Berry
Carroll
Jones
Loevy
Nicolais
Salazar
Tool
Witwer
Webb
Carrera
Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:

11:49 AM

There was considerable discussion on the anonymity of maps and whether staff maps should be treated differently. Commissioner Witwer questioned why maps are anonymous and offered to amend his motion to have all maps identified upon submission. Commissioner Witwer commented that the staff map should be identified, as it is a good baseline and might streamline the process. Commissioner Atencio does distinguish between staff maps and commissioner maps and maps from members of the public. Staff maps should be disclosed and possibly presented a day before. She is nervous about the use of the term baseline map but considers staff maps more conceptually as providing a starting point for the commissioners. Commissioner Salazar thinks that once the source is known, then the source should be made available. His understanding is that the staff map has no input from the commission. If staff reaches out to the commission for clarification, he questioned whether the staff map becomes jaded and is no longer a staff map. Commissioner Jones clarified that the constitution requires the commission to draw maps. He views staff maps as information that might be helpful and is concerned about it becoming a "super map." He likes the current set up. The staff map is not superior and should not be identified. He thought this was a settled question. Commissioner Witwer compared staff maps to legislation drafted at the request of a legislator. A bill goes through the legislative process and is voted on. Staff presents maps and the commission votes on them. Maps have to begin somewhere and can be amended. The map that is adopted becomes the "supermap." Nothing happens that is not done by the commission. He would like to see a staff map at every hearing. Commissioner Nicolais clarified that the commission has the final say and is not abdicating its role. He thinks the public should see the maps all at the same time and that they should all be anonymous. He is okay with sending the staff map out ahead of time. Commissioner Carroll would like to receive staff maps ahead of time to review for consideration. She likes making all maps available to the public at the same time. Commissioner Witwer supported that change. Commissioner Webb agreed with Commissioner Jones that the commission draws the maps. He would like to see staff maps in advance of submitting his own map and thinks all maps should go public at the same time.

12:01 PM

Commissioner Berry thinks all maps can go public at the same time and does not think they need to be anonymous. She thinks it is helpful to know who drew the map in order to have discussions about it. A commissioner may have questions about how a map was drawn and thus needs to know the drafter. Commissioner Jones expressed concern about a staff map being the map every other map is compared to. He thinks all maps should be equal. Commissioner Salazar agreed that they should all be sent out at the same time and drafter identified. He thinks it is important to know who the drafter is based on what region is being drawn. Commissioner Witwer made a new motion to have all maps submitted to staff by Thursday at noon, unless meeting on Tuesday, which is not a change from current practice. Maps would then be circulated to the commission and public on Friday with identification of the sources and inclusion of a staff map. Commissioner Jones expressed a desire to keep status quo. The plan was to look at staff plans for two meetings and then re-evaluate how that worked. Commissioner Carroll the suggested that the commission receive maps before the public. Commissioner Witwer agreed. Commissioner Jones said that the commission has already made a decision on this and he wants to stay with that decision. Commissioner Webb asked what would change under the new proposal. Commissioner Jones said staff would be drawing maps for all meetings. Commissioner Webb clarified that all non-staff maps are introduced by commission members. Commissioner Jones brought up the naming of maps. Returning to the earlier discussion, Commissioner Tool said he understood that the motion would change from there only being staff maps for the first two regions and that Commissioner Witwer wants staff maps at all meetings. Commissioner Berry suggested naming maps after commissioners. Commissioner Witwer asked about how maps were identified during the 2001 redistricting effort. According to Director Barry, ten years ago, the maps were identified with the commissioner's name or as staff maps. Commissioner Atencio remembers from an earlier meeting that staff would number plans. Commissioner Nicolais agreed and stated that anonymity to avoid partisan issues still has value. Commissioner Jones remembered that commissioners would identify their maps at the meeting. He pointed out that these are settled questions. Commissioner Atencio expressed a desire to assign numbers. Commissioner Carroll suggested breaking up the issues in the motion since the sentiments of commissioners may fall on different sides of the issues. She stated that a map goes from a number to a name upon introduction. She suggested a new narrow motion about when to make maps available and that it may be better to address the issues one at a time. Commissioner Witwer said that naming is settled, timing is settled, and how long staff submits maps is settled. According to Commissioner Carroll the issue is whether to post maps on-line. Commissioner Atencio added that staff maps were to be submitted earlier to the commission. Commissioner Witwer said he would withdraw that. Commissioner Webb asked about seeing staff maps earlier, which is the only question he saw as outstanding. He still wants to see the staff map ahead of time and wants all maps posted for the public at the same time.

Commissioner Salazar stated that he will give all maps equal treatment. Commissioner Witwer moved that the staff map be made available 24 hours in advance of maps submitted by commissioners. It was agreed that the decision of whether staff maps will continue will be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Jones would like all maps to come out at the same time and does not want the public to think the commission is getting special treatment. Commissioner Witwer suggested making the staff map public when it is sent to the commissioners and amended the motion to include that. Commissioner Carroll did not support this. Commissioner Witwer tried to get a compromise for transparency purposes. Commissioner Carroll thinks it is unnecessary to give the public staff maps early. Commissioner Webb does not see this as a transparency issue but sees it as work product. He supported the motion but not the amendment. Commissioner Jones wants to treat all plans the same.
BILL:Release of Maps
TIME: 12:07:27 PM
MOVED:Witwer
MOTION:Moved to have all maps submitted to commission staff at noon on Thursday, and to have the maps circulated to the commission and public on Friday with the source identified, including the staff map. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Atencio
Berry
Carroll
Jones
Loevy
Nicolais
Salazar
Tool
Witwer
Webb
Carrera
Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:


BILL:Release of Maps
TIME: 12:22:34 PM
MOVED:Witwer
MOTION:Moved to have staff maps made available to commission members early and all maps made public at the same time. The motion was withdrawn.
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:

BILL:Release of Maps
TIME: 12:33:26 PM
MOVED:Witwer
MOTION:Moved to have staff maps circulated to commission members by noon on Wednesday, to require commission members to submit maps by noon on Thursday, to have all maps sent to the commissioners by noon on Friday, and to make maps available to the public by Friday at 5:00 p.m. The motion passed on a 9-2 vote.
SECONDED:Tool
VOTE
Atencio
Yes
Berry
No
Carroll
Yes
Jones
No
Loevy
Yes
Nicolais
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Tool
Yes
Witwer
Yes
Webb
Yes
Carrera
Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


12:34 PM

Commission recessed for lunch.

01:02 PM -- Review of Maps of Region 1


The commission returned to order. The commission revisited an earlier discussion regarding the minimum threshold for numbers of commissioners attending statewide hearings. The commission also discussed the statewide meeting sequence. Commissioner Berry made some suggestions about commissioner attendance at the statewide hearings. Commissioner Carrera urged the commissioners to attend as many hearings as possible.

01:07 PM

The commissioners reviewed published maps for Region 1, which includes the following counties: Saguache, Mineral, Rio Grande, Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Pueblo, Huerfano, and Las Animas. Commissioners received a packet of proposed maps for Region 1, along with a series of demographic reports for each (Attachment C). Commissioner Salazar discussed the first two Senate maps in Attachment C. Discussion ensued regarding the map labeled S1002, and incumbent senators that may reside in that district. Mr. Barry provided input in the discussion, and responded to questions regarding which incumbents will represent new districts when the districts are redrawn. Commissioner Salazar provided some historical perspective about changes made to the senate district covering the San Luis Valley, and discussed certain details of communities of interest in this area.

Attachment C.pdf

01:18 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the merits of including certain Western Slope and Eastern Plains counties in a Senate district with the San Luis Valley. Discussion followed regarding the population deviation in S1003, and the merits of map S1004. Discussion returned to the population deficit in S1003, as compared to fully populated senate districts in the other maps in Attachment C. The commissioners then discussed how regional district maps will be drawn in the future in order to provide for fully populated districts, and the reasons for breaking the state into regions for map-drawing purposes.

01:29 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the similarities and differences between maps S1002 and S1004, and comparisons between these maps and the current senate district covering the city of Pueblo. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for delaying a vote on adopting a map for Region 1 to allow for further consideration of the details in the maps. Discussion followed regarding the process by which the commission will adopt regional maps. Commissioner Salazar responded to questions about including certain southwest counties in map S1001. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of map S1001, including the ratio of political affiliation in District 2 on the map. Discussion returned to the merits of Senate map S1002. The discussion included the potential splitting of Indian reservations and portions of the Continental Divide.

BILL:Review of Maps of Region 1
TIME: 01:35:15 PM
MOVED:Atencio
MOTION:Moved to adopt Senate map S1002v1. The motion passed on a 9-2 vote.
SECONDED:Salazar
VOTE
Atencio
Yes
Berry
No
Carroll
Yes
Jones
Yes
Loevy
No
Nicolais
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Tool
Yes
Witwer
Yes
Webb
Yes
Carrera
Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:48 PM

Discussion returned to the process by which regional maps will be adopted by the commission, and the amendment process to be observed once maps are adopted for all seven regions. Discussion then returned to the treatment of certain counties that follow the Continental Divide by Senate map S1002.

01:53 PM

The commission considered the House maps for region 1 in Attachment , starting with map H1002. Commissioner Atencio spoke to the merits of this map, discussing district population, demographics, legal considerations, communities of interest, and public testimony.

02:01 PM

The commission interrupted its deliberations to hear public testimony.


02:01 PM -- Region 2 Public Testimony

The following persons testified regarding Region 2, consisting of the counties of Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Morgan, Washington, Yuma, Elbert, Lincoln, Kit Carson, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Crowley, Otero, Bent, Prowers, and Baca:


02:03 PM --
Ms. Cathy Schull, representing Progressive 15, testified regarding Region 2. Ms. Schull discussed the large geographic size of Region 2 and the eastern plains as a community of interest. Ms. Schull discussed current representation for Region 1, and the nature of living in a rural area. Ms. Schull also discussed the benefits provided by rural areas to urban areas of Colorado. Ms. Schull then discussed issues impact rural communities such as education and health care. Ms. Schull talked about the potential for splitting certain counties with both rural and urban elements, and the need to retain representation for the Eastern Plains in the House. Ms. Schull responded to questions regarding the potential for splitting Elbert County, her opinion about senate representation for the Eastern Plains. Ms. Schull was asked to provide her boundaries for what constitutes the Eastern Plains in Colorado. Ms. Schull responded to questions regarding differences between northeastern and southeastern plains counties.

02:13 PM

Ms. Schull responded to questions regarding her preference for representation for the Eastern Plains among the following choices: more representatives that include representation for both urban and rural constituencies, or fewer representatives representing only rural areas.


02:15 PM --
Mr. Doug Schroeder, representing himself testified regarding Region 2. Mr. Schroeder provided his background, and urged the commission to preserve the three districts consisting of the Eastern Plains counties. Mr. Schroeder made suggestions about how to draw the boundaries for these districts.

02:20 PM

The committee recessed.

02:27 PM -- Review of Maps of Region 1 (continued)

The commission returned to order and to the discussion of the House maps in Attachment C. Commissioner Nicholais suggested adopting map H1001, while drawing Baca County or Custer County into District 3 on the map. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of this approach. Commissioner Tool referenced testimony from the May 31 meeting about Fremont County and surrounding counties. Commissioner Nicolais returned to discussing the merits of his proposal. Commissioner Carroll provided her opinion of the proposal. Discussion followed regarding the effect of including Baca County in District 3 on map H1001, including the effect on district population deviation and the district's ethnic breakdown. Commissioner Atencio discussed how map H1002 compares with map H1001 with the inclusion of Baca County.

02:42 PM

Discussion ensued regarding population deviation requirements, and the merits of maintaining low population deviation during the early stages of district drawing. Discussion followed regarding the Hispanic population of the districts in maps H1001 and H1002. Commissioner Webb spoke to the merits of map H1001.

BILL:Review of Maps of Region 1 (continued)
TIME: 02:28:57 PM
MOVED:Witwer
MOTION:Moved to adopt House map H1002v1. The motion passed on a 7-4 vote.
SECONDED:Carroll
VOTE
Atencio
Yes
Berry
No
Carroll
Yes
Jones
Yes
Loevy
No
Nicolais
No
Salazar
Yes
Tool
No
Witwer
Yes
Webb
Yes
Carrera
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

02:49 PM

The commission considered how the districts should be numbered going forward as regional maps are drawn. The commission also considered future regional map drawing and the process of maintaining boundaries based on regional maps already adopted. Commissioner Nicolais discussed his proposal for creating a number of regional "footprints" based on population. These footprints may be found in Attachment C. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the regions created by the commission and the footprints comprising Commissioner Nicolais' proposal, and the benefits of each approach.

03:01 PM

Discussion continued regarding the merits of the regional approach to map drawing in comparison to the footprint approach proposed by Commissioner Nicolais. Commissioner Atencio discussed the importance of staff operating without influence. Discussion ensued regarding how the footprint approach would address the cascading effect of population disparities among the redistricting regions, which results in population being shared among regions. Commissioner Berry discussed information sharing with commission staff, and provided input on the reasons for breaking the state into regions. Commissioner Nicolais provided further input on how he created his footprint model, and discussed the need to consider the population aspects of redistricting by region. Commissioner Tool provided his impression of the footprint approach.

03:13 PM

The commission considered how staff should forward public input.

03:14 PM

The commission adjourned.