Colorado Reapportionment Commission (11/28/2011)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION

Date:	11/28/2011	ATTENDANCE

Time:	11:02 AM to 03:50 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
	Bo Pogue	Witwer	X
		Webb	X
		Carrera	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans		Procedural Motions 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.

11:03 AM -- Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans

The commission was called to order. A quorum was present. Commissioner Carrera provided some opening remarks about the commission's agenda for the day and the process to be observed over the commission's two meetings. Mr. Jeremiah Barry, Reapportionment Commission Staff Director, discussed the materials provided to the commissioners. Commission members received copies of the following plans, comprised of maps and close-up views of particular plan areas along with demographic and statistical reports, and a political competitiveness analysis for each: Senate Resubmitted Plan Av1 (Attachments A and B); Senate Resubmitted Plan Bv1 (Attachments C and D); Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv1 (Attachments E and F); Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2 (Attachments G and H); Senate Resubmitted Plan Dv1 (Attachments I and J); Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1 (Attachments K and L); House Resubmitted Plan Av1 (Attachments M and N); House Resubmitted Plan Av3 (Attachments O and P); House Resubmitted Plan Bv1 (Attachments Q and R); House Resubmitted Plan Cv1 (Attachments S and T); House Resubmitted Plan Dv1 (Attachments U and V); House Resubmitted Plan Ev1 (Attachments W and X); House Resubmitted Plan Fv1 (Attachments Y and Z); and House Resubmitted Plan Southwest Amendment v1 (Attachment AA). Commissioners also received a series of reports about districts apportioned to counties under the various plans, county splits under the various plans, and district apportionment to the City of Colorado Springs under the various plans, prepared by Reapportionment Commission Staff (Attachment BB). Discussion ensued regarding how to proceed in considering the various maps.

11:13 AM

Commissioner Tool entered Senate Resubmitted Plan Bv1 into consideration. He explained that it is the same as a plan considered during the commission's work leading up to its initial plan submissions to the Supreme Court, and discussed why he thought it would satisfy the constitutional criteria. Commissioner Nicolais discussed House Resubmitted Plan Bv1. He said the plan is substantially similar to a plan considered by the commission prior to submission of final plans to the Colorado Supreme Court. Commissioner Nicolais discussed changes made to the previous House map, resulting in House Resubmitted Plan Bv1. Commissioner Tool read from the recent Supreme Court decision on reapportionment. Commissioner Salazar briefed the commission on House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, comparing it to the plan initially submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court on the basis of county splits.

11:23 AM

Commissioner Salazar continued to brief the commission on House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, discussing the San Luis Valley, Eastern Plains, and Larimer-Weld portions of the plan. He returned to comparing the plan to the initial submission on the basis of county splits, and discussed keeping counties whole in rural areas. He then discussed the Western Slope portion of House Resubmitted Plan Fv1. Commissioner Atencio briefed the commission on the Pueblo area portion of this plan. Commissioner Webb raised an issue with the lack of reliance by the Colorado Supreme Court on public testimony in its recent decision, and discussed the court's treatment of the issue of district competitiveness. Commissioner Webb then briefed the commission on the El Paso County portion of House Resubmitted Plan Fv1.

11:33 AM

Commissioner Carroll briefed the commission on the Jefferson County portion of House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, and discussed the Arapahoe County portion of the plan. Commissioner Carroll then discussed the Adams County portion of the plan. She indicated that the plan represents fewer county and city splits. Commissioner Webb discussed a portion of Littleton that was moved to keep the city whole. Commissioner Jones spoke about Larimer and Weld Counties. He focused on the problems with combining Weld and Morgan counties. He discussed the reduction of city splits in the Larimer-Weld area, and the combination of certain county populations elsewhere that resulted in the proposed House District 13, which Commissioner Jones said resulted in fewer county and city splits.

11:44 AM

Commissioner Jones continued to brief the commission on the Boulder County area in House Resubmitted Plan Fv1. Commissioner Webb explained that no changes were made to the districts in the City and County of Denver in this plan from the plan submitted to the Supreme Court. Commissioner Atencio made concluding remarks about House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, focusing on the reduction of county and city splits in the plan in comparison to the plan remanded by the Supreme Court. Commissioner Jones returned to discussing the combination of certain counties for population purposes, which results in fewer county splits. Commissioner Atencio discussed the redistricting of Centennial in the plan.

11:49 AM

Commissioner Witwer briefed the commission on House Resubmitted Plan Av3, discussing the flexibility allowed to the commission in its reapportionment duties, so long as federal and constitutional criteria are met. He explained that the plan results in the maximum number of whole county districts, and pointed out the rural county splits in the plan. He then discussed the apportionment of House seats along the Front Range in House Resubmitted Plan Av3, and explained how the plan reduces county and city splits in comparison to the plan submitted to the Supreme Court. He relied on the court opinion in his discussion, and provided examples of cities that are kept whole by the plan. Commissioner Witwer discussed the House districts in House Resubmitted Plan Av3 that are unchanged from the plan submitted to the court, and the districts that are changed to keep counties whole. Commissioner Witwer then discussed certain communities of interest. Commissioner Witwer provided highlights of House Resubmitted Plan Av3 by region.

12:00 PM

Commissioner Witwer continued to brief the commission on House Resubmitted Plan Av3, providing plan highlights by region. Commissioner Witwer discussed the process observed by the commission in performing its duties, registering objection with the submission of certain resubmitted plans after established deadlines and discussing the potential impact of these late submissions on the public process. Commissioner Nicolais followed up on Commissioner Witwer's comments on public process. He then began briefing the commission on House Resubmitted plans Bv1, Cv1, and Dv1, focusing first on plan Dv1. Commissioner Nicolais discussed the Western Slope portions of the plan, and referenced a forthcoming amendment to the plan for the southwestern portion of the state.

12:10 PM

Commissioner Nicolais continued briefing the commission on House Resubmitted Plan Dv1, discussing competitiveness in the plan's Larimer County districts and changes made in Weld County. He discussed the elimination of a split of Morgan County by the plan, and the plan's treatment of Boulder and Douglas counties. Commissioner Nicolais moved to El Paso County, focusing on the plan's districts in Colorado Springs and how this configuration satisfies the Supreme Court's recent decision. Commissioner Nicolais then moved north in House Resubmitted Plan Dv1 to the Denver Metropolitan Area, explaining how the plan satisfies certain criteria. Commissioner Nicolais discussed the competitiveness of the Jefferson County districts in the resubmitted plan, and the Hispanic influence in the plan's House District 23.

12:21 PM

Commissioner Tool followed up on additional merits of House Resubmitted Plan Av3, including the number of districts with Hispanic influence, and district political competitiveness. Commissioner Atencio addressed previous discussion about submission of plans after established deadlines. Commissioner Atencio made a motion to close plan submissions, while allowing consideration of those plans already submitted. Discussion ensued regarding the process observed by the commission in discharging its duty to resubmit plans to the Colorado Supreme Court, the amendment process, and the deadline schedule moving forward. Discussion followed regarding making these materials available to the public, and the time required to submit plans to the court. Commissioner Berry raised an objection to late submissions.

12:39 PM

Commissioner Webb discussed the goals of the commission in the context of the deadline discussion. Discussion returned to the commission's deadline schedule.


BILL:	Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans
TIME:	12:25:11 PM
MOVED:	Atencio
MOTION:	Moved to have the commission accept late submissions already submitted, including House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, House Resubmitted Plan Av3, House Resubmitted Plan Cv2, Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1, and House Resubmitted Plan Southwest Amendment v1, and to close the process to further submissions. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Atencio
	Berry
	Carroll
	Jones
	Loevy
	Nicolais
	Salazar
	Tool
	Witwer
	Webb
	Carrera

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:

12:42 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the process to be observed by the commission going forward, and the deadlines for plan and amendment submissions. Discussion followed regarding the observance of House rules in the context of the commission's duties. Discussion returned to the deadline schedule for plans, and the time line for the commission to submit a resubmitted plan to the Colorado Supreme Court. Discussion turned to the ability of the commission to compromise on plans under current rules.


BILL:	Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans
TIME:	12:42:33 PM
MOVED:	Atencio
MOTION:	Moved to accept the following plans for consideration, and close the process to considering further plans beyond these: Senate Resubmitted plans Av1, Bv1, Cv1, Cv2, Dv1, and Ev1; and House Resubmitted plans Av1, Av3, Bv1, Cv1, Dv1, Ev1, and Fv1, and House Resubmitted Plan Southwest Amendment v1. The motion passed on a 9-2 vote.
SECONDED:	Salazar
		VOTE
	Atencio	Yes
	Berry	No
	Carroll	Yes
	Jones	Yes
	Loevy	Yes
	Nicolais	Yes
	Salazar	Yes
	Tool	Yes
	Witwer	No
	Webb	Yes
	Carrera	Yes

Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

12:56 PM

The commission recessed.

01:32 PM

The commission returned to order. Commissioner Carrera discussed the remaining day's work. Commissioner Nicolais passed on making a full presentation of House resubmitted plans Bv1 and Cv1. Commissioner Jones waived a full presentation of House Resubmitted Plan Ev1, and Commissioner Witwer said that House Resubmitted Plan Av3 supersedes House Resubmitted Plan Av1. Commissioner Jones discussed the criterion of county splits and referenced a report entitled Total Number of Parts of One County Added to Another County contained in Attachment BB. He suggested that House Resubmitted Plan Fv1 is superior on the issue of county splits, and pointed out the reductions in county splits under the plan. Discussion ensued regarding a comparison of the number of county splits among the various resubmitted plans. Commissioner Nicolais raised an issue with the number of incumbents paired together in districts in House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, and compared political competitiveness among the resubmitted House plans, as illustrated in the competitiveness analyses prepared by Reapportionment Commission Staff.

01:45 PM

Commissioner Nicolais compared the number of Hispanic influence districts in the various House resubmitted plans. Commissioner Atencio addressed the issue of grouping incumbents in the same House district. Discussion ensued regarding the ability to compromise on certain areas of the House plan during the amendment process, and the Supreme Court's and constitution's direction as it pertains to county splits. The commission compared the number of county splits among the resubmitted plans.

01:55 PM

The commission revisited the potential for amending a House plan in the Adams and Arapahoe counties area. The commission then turned to resubmitted Senate plans, with Commissioner Tool presenting Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2. He said he would not present Senate resubmitted plans Cv1 and Dv1. Commissioner Tool discussed similarities between Cv2 and plans considered by the commission prior to submission to the Colorado Supreme Court, and discussed how the plan satisfies the reapportionment criteria. He explained how the plan keeps cities and counties whole to the best practicable extent, and provided reasons for splitting certain cities. He noted a split of the Douglas County portion of Aurora, and discussed the Adams County portion of the plan. Commissioner Tool discussed the apportionment of two Senate seats in Boulder County under the plan.In presenting Boulder County, he discussed the allowable percentage of population deviation for districts, as established by the Colorado Constitution. Commissioner Tool then presented the Denver Metropolitan area suburban and El Paso County portions of Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2. He discussed the potential for a compromise in crafting a Senate plan.

02:07 PM

Commissioner Carroll presented Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1. She waived a presentation of Senate Resubmitted Plan Av1. She discussed the reduction of county and city splits from the plan submitted to the Supreme Court, noting certain splits that were eliminated in the new plan. Commissioner Carroll discussed the treatment of El Paso County by Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1, and compared the Hispanic influence districts in the plan to those in the commission's initial Senate submission. She discussed the plan's district apportionment for certain populous counties. She also discussed the plan's population deviation, and similarities between Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1 and the commission's initial submission. Commissioner Carroll noted differences between the initial submission and the plan in certain areas, including Arapahoe and Adams counties, and the discussed the reasons for the changes. Commissioner Salazar briefed the commission on rural portions of Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1, and discussed the merits of the proposed Senate District 2. Commissioner Webb briefed the commission on the Colorado Springs and Denver portions of Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1.

02:20 PM

Commissioner Jones briefed the commission on the Boulder County and Jefferson County portions of in Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1, with a focus on the proposed Senate District 16 and the surrounding area. Commissioner Nicolais compared the number of parts of one county added to another county among the competing Senate plans. Discussion ensued regarding this point, and the maximum allowable population deviation among districts. Commissioner Tool recapped his view of the population deviation issue, and raised certain objections to Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1 in comparison to Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2. Commissioner Atencio addressed the population deviation issue, reading from the 1982 decision in re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 647 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1982). Commissioner Nicolais also cited this case in discussing the population deviation issue.

02:32 PM

Discussion continued regarding the maximum allowable population deviation, and Commissioner Tool reiterated in his opinion why Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2 satisfies the population deviation guidelines. Commissioner Atencio suggested that the population deviations in this plan serve a political purpose, and raised equal protection issues with regard to the apportioning of Boulder County under the plan. She also discussed the various reapportionment decisions over the past 30 years. Discussion continued regarding population deviation. Commissioner Nicolais responded to Commissioner Atencio's statements. Commissioner Tool discussed the equal protection issue raised by Douglas County in the recent Colorado Supreme Court proceedings, and discussed past instances where the court has allowed high population deviations.

02:43 PM

Discussion continued regarding the maximum allowable population deviation, particularly as it pertains to Senate Resubmitted Plan Cv2. Discussion ensued regarding the likelihood that the Supreme Court would remand a reapportionment plan with instructions to exceed 2.5 percent of the standard population deviation based on district apportionment to certain counties. Commissioner Tool brought up a potential compromise on the Senate plans. Commissioner Loevy spoke about his concerns with House Resubmitted Plan Fv1, and pointed out areas where the plan contravened the public testimony gathered during the commission's public hearing process. He also discussed the plan's grouping of incumbents in certain districts. Commissioner Loevy objected to the drawing of Manitou Springs into Senate and House districts with areas in Colorado Springs in Senate Resubmitted Plan Ev1 and House Resubmitted Plan Fv1. He then pointed out districts in House Resubmitted Plan Fv1 that he considers gerrymandered.

02:56 PM

Commissioner Loevy discussed the issue of district political competitiveness, and compared the competitiveness of House Resubmitted Plan Av3 and House Resubmitted Plan Fv1. Commissioner Witwer discussed the potential for combining elements of these two plans with a minimum of county and city splits while satisfying other expressed objectives. Commissioner Witwer distributed House Resubmitted Plan Adams/Arapahoe Amendment v1 (Attachment CC). He moved for a recess to broker a compromise on the House plans. The commission discussed the motion, including the proper length of time for a recess. The commission also discussed House Resubmitted Plan Adams/Arapahoe Amendment v1. Discussion ensued regarding the best way to proceed in recessing to seek a compromise on a House plan. Various commissioners expressed their positions on recessing to seek a compromise.


BILL:	Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans
TIME:	03:00:30 PM
MOVED:	Witwer
MOTION:	Moved to recess until 3:45 p.m. to discuss certain amendments and compromises among the competing House plans. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Nicolais
		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

03:09 PM

The commission recessed.

03:46 PM

The commission came back to order. Commissioner Atencio offered a motion. Commissioner Witwer objected to the motion and discussed a pair of forthcoming amendments. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of the motion.


BILL:	Consideration of Final Senate and House Plans
TIME:	03:46:51 PM
MOVED:	Atencio
MOTION:	Moved to accept no further reapportionment plan amendments. The motion passed on a 6-5 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	Yes

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

03:50 PM

The commission adjourned.