Redistricting in Colorado
 in Colorado |
Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Colorado's seven United States Representatives and 100 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[1][2][3][4]
Colorado was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, one more than it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Colorado after the 2020 census.
On November 1, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the congressional redistricting plan that the state's Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission approved on September 28, 2021. Colorado was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for Colorado’s 2022 congressional elections. On November 15, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the state legislative redistricting plans approved by the state's Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission on October 11 and 12, 2021.[5] These maps took effect for Colorado’s 2022 state legislative elections.
Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.
See the sections below for further information on the following topics:
- Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
- State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Colorado
- District maps: Information about the current district maps in Colorado
- Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Colorado's redistricting after recent censuses
- State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
- Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting
Background
This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.
Federal requirements for congressional redistricting
According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.[6][7]
| “ | The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[8] | ” |
| —United States Constitution | ||
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."[9][10][11]
The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."[11]
Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting
The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."[11]
State-based requirements
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.[11][12]
- Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[11][12]
- A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.[11][12]
- A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.[11][12]
Methods
In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[13]
- Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
- Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
- Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.
Gerrymandering
- See also: Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.[1][14]
For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.
The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.[15]
The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.[16][17]Recent court decisions
The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.
For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.
Gill v. Whitford (2018)
- See also: Gill v. Whitford
In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.[18]
Cooper v. Harris (2017)
- See also: Cooper v. Harris
In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.[19][20][21]
Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)
- See also: Evenwel v. Abbott
Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[22][23][24][25]
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.[26][27][28]
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.[29][30][31][32]Race and ethnicity
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
| “ | No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.[8] | ” |
| —Voting Rights Act of 1965[33] | ||
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Colorado was home to zero congressional majority-minority districts.[2][3][4]
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.[2][3][4]
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.[2][3][4]
State process
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
On November 6, 2018, Colorado voters approved two constitutional amendments, Amendment Y and Amendment Z, establishing separate non-politician commissions for congressional and state legislative redistricting. Each commission consists of four members belonging to the state's largest political party, four members belonging to the state's second-largest party, and four members belonging to no party. Commission members are appointed by a panel of three judges selected by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. The amendment requires at least eight of the commission's 12 members, including at least two members not belonging to any political party, to approve a map.[34]
The Colorado Constitution requires that state legislative district boundaries "be contiguous, and that they be as compact as possible based on their total perimeter." In addition, "to the extent possible, districts must also preserve the integrity of counties, cities, towns and–where doing so does not conflict with other goals–communities of interest." There are no similar requirements for congressional districts.[35][36]
How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Colorado, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are counted at their correctional facility. Colorado's policy does not address federal inmates.
District maps
Congressional districts
Colorado comprises eight congressional districts. The table below lists Colorado's current U.S. Representatives.
| Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office | Date term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. House Colorado District 1 | Diana DeGette | Democratic | January 3, 1997 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 2 | Joe Neguse | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 3 | Lauren Boebert | Republican | January 3, 2021 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 4 | Ken Buck | Republican | January 3, 2015 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 5 | Doug Lamborn | Republican | January 3, 2007 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 6 | Jason Crow | Democratic | January 3, 2019 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 7 | Brittany Pettersen | Democratic | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2025 |
| U.S. House Colorado District 8 | Yadira Caraveo | Democratic | January 3, 2023 | January 3, 2025 |
State legislative maps
- See also: Colorado State Senate and Colorado House of Representatives
Colorado comprises 35 state Senate districts and 65 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.
Redistricting by cycle
Redistricting after the 2020 census
Colorado was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.[37]
Enacted congressional district maps
On November 1, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the congressional redistricting plan that the state's Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission approved on September 28, 2021. Colorado was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, a net gain of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census. This map took effect for Colorado’s 2022 congressional elections.
The Denver Post's Alex Burness said that the approved map "gives comfortable advantages to each of Colorado’s seven incumbent members of Congress" and that the newly created 8th District would be competitive based on recent results.[38][39]
Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Colorado Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Colorado Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
When the state's redistricting commission approved the new congressional maps, Colorado Republican Party Chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown said “We want to thank all twelve members of the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission for their hard work and many sacrifices over the past few months. We are pleased that the process approved by Colorado voters was successful and that the commission was able to overwhelmingly agree on a competitive map. Colorado Republicans look forward to fighting for every vote in all 64 counties in 2022.”[40]
Jennifer Parenti, Northern Colorado organizer for Colorado Common Cause, said, "Communities of color make up about 30% of the state’s population overall. But unfortunately, this proposed congressional map does not reflect that diversity. It, rather, splits our communities of color across multiple districts, while seemingly prioritizing municipal boundaries and protecting incumbents."[40]
2020 presidential results
The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.[41] This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.[42]
| 2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Colorado | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2022 district | Political predecessor district | ||
Joe Biden 
|
Donald Trump 
|
Joe Biden
|
Donald Trump
| |
| Colorado's 1st | 79.5% | 18.2% | 75.6% | 22.1% |
| Colorado's 2nd | 68.7% | 28.8% | 63.7% | 33.6% |
| Colorado's 3rd | 44.7% | 52.9% | 46.1% | 51.6% |
| Colorado's 4th | 39.5% | 58.0% | 40.8% | 56.6% |
| Colorado's 5th | 43.1% | 53.2% | 41.8% | 54.7% |
| Colorado's 6th | 60.6% | 36.8% | 58.2% | 39.2% |
| Colorado's 7th | 55.7% | 41.5% | 60.0% | 37.1% |
| Colorado's 8th | 50.8% | 46.3% | --- | --- |
Enacted state legislative district maps
On November 15, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the state legislative redistricting plans approved by the state's Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission on October 11 and 12, 2021.[5] These maps took effect for Colorado’s 2022 state legislative elections.
The Colorado Sun's Thy Vo wrote that the House and Senate maps "appear to favor Democrats' maintaining their majority in the General Assembly."[5] Colorado Politics' Evan Wyloge wrote that the new maps created nine House districts where previous election results fell within a five percentage point margin and eight such Senate districts. At the time of approval, Democrats held a 42-23 majority in the House and a 20-15 majority in the Senate.[43]
State Senate map
Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Colorado State Senate Districts
until January 8, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Colorado State Senate Districts
starting January 9, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
State House map
Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.
Colorado State House Districts
until January 8, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Colorado State House Districts
starting January 9, 2023
Click a district to compare boundaries.
Reactions
Following the commission's submission of its final maps to the state supreme court, Colorado Newsline's Sara Wilson wrote that "objections to those maps revolve around the argument that they split up cities like Lakewood and Greeley without justification and don't create enough competitive districts."[44]
The Colorado Republican Committee and the Republican state House and Senate caucuses submitted a joint brief, saying, "While the Final Plans are not perfect, and are not the maps Colorado Republicans would have drawn, they are a result of a faithful application of the agreed-upon constitutional criteria for redistricting by the Commission and should therefore be approved."[44]
Redistricting after the 2010 census
Congressional redistricting
Following the 2010 United States, Colorado neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time, partisan control of the legislature was divided; Democrats held the state Senate while Republicans held the state House. Upon adjournment of the 2011 legislative session, the state legislature had failed to approve a congressional redistricting plan. Consequently, the state's courts were asked to intervene and adopt a new congressional map. Two separate suits were filed in Denver District Court. These were ultimately consolidated into one suit: Moreno et al. v. Gessler. According to All About Redistricting, Moreno and the other plaintiffs were "aligned with the interest of Colorado Democrats."[35][45]
On November 10, 2011, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered that the "Moreno" congressional map be implemented. On December 5, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.[35][45]
State legislative redistricting
On September 19, 2011, the commission charged with state legislative redistricting approved final district maps. On November 15, 2011, these were rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court, which "found them insufficiently attuned to county boundaries." On December 5, 2011, the commission submitted new state legislative district maps. These were approved by the state supreme court on December 12, 2011.[35]
Redistricting after the 2000 census
Following the 2000 United States Census, Colorado gained one congressional seat. In the subsequent redistricting cycle, a divided state legislature was unable to approve a congressional redistricting plan. Consequently, it fell to the state's courts to draw a map. On January 25, 2002, "a state court enacted a map based largely on the Republican [legislative] leadership's plan, which was then approved by the state supreme court." The state legislature later attempted to implement its own congressional district map. The state supreme court rejected this map "on the grounds that the state constitution allows only one opportunity per decade, successful or unsuccessful, to redraw district lines."[35]
The politician commission charged with state legislative redistricting submitted a plan that was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court "largely on equal population and county integrity grounds." On February 7, 2002, the commission submitted a revised plan, which was upheld by the state supreme court.[35]
State legislation and ballot measures
Redistricting legislation
The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Colorado state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.
Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.
Redistricting ballot measures
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Colorado.
- Colorado Amendment No. 4, Districting of Senatorial and Representative Districts Initiative (1956)
- Colorado Amendment No. 5, State Legislative Redistricting Measure (1954)
- Colorado Reapportionment of General Assembly, Measure 3 (1932)
- Colorado Proposal No. 7, Apportionment of Legislative Districts Initiative (1962)
- Colorado Proposal No. 8, Commission for the Reapportionment of the General Assembly Initiative (1962)
- Colorado Amendment No. 9, Creation of the Colorado Reapportionment Commission Amendment (1974)
- Colorado Apportionment of General Assembly, Measure 3 (1922)
- Colorado Amendment No. 4, State Legislature Membership and Districts Initiative (1966)
- Colorado Referendum B, Timetable for Redistricting Amendment (2000)
- Colorado Provisions for Reapportionment and Redistricting Amendment (2014)
- Colorado State Representative Districts Amendment (2014)
Political impacts of redistricting
Competitiveness
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."[46]
In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."[47]
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."[48]
In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."[49]
State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.
There were three competitive elections for the Colorado House of Representatives in 2012, compared to eight in 2010. There were seven mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to six in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of four competitive elections.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Colorado. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- United States census, 2020
- Redistricting in Colorado after the 2010 census
- Redistricting
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
External links
- All About Redistricting
- Dave's Redistricting
- FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 The Colorado Sun, "Colorado legislative maps get final approval from state Supreme Court," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- ↑ Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
- ↑ Encyclopædia Britannica, "Gerrymandering," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview," April 13, 2015
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps," June 19, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering," June 19, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Gill v. Whitford: Decision," June 18, 2018
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: SCOTUS to Hear NC Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 27, 2016
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Another Racial Gerrymandering Case," accessed June 28, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Cooper v. Harris: Decision," May 22, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan," May 26, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote,'" May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed May 27, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court to hear Texas Senate districts case," May 26, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The new look at 'one person, one vote,' made simple," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Brief for Appellants," accessed December 14, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting," March 2, 2015
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Will the Supreme Court Let Arizona Fight Gerrymandering?" September 15, 2014
- ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Opinion of the Court," June 29, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Upholds Creation of Arizona Redistricting Commission," June 29, 2015
- ↑ Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "SCR18-004: Congressional Redistricting," accessed May 14, 2018
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 All About Redistricting, "Colorado," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ Redistricting in Colorado, "Constitutional Provisions," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2020 Census Apportionment Results Delivered to the President," April 26, 2021
- ↑ Colorado Judicial Branch, "Supreme Court Case Announcements," accessed November 1, 2021
- ↑ The Denver Post, "Colorado’s new congressional districts are set — and in need of Supreme Court approval," Sept. 29, 2021
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Fox31, "Is Colorado’s latest redistricting map fair? Politicians are split on the answer," October 7, 2021
- ↑ Political predecessor districts are determined primarily based on incumbents and where each chose to seek re-election.
- ↑ Daily Kos Elections, "Daily Kos Elections 2020 presidential results by congressional district (old CDs vs. new CDs)," accessed May 12, 2022
- ↑ Colorado Politics, "Supreme Court approves Colorado legislative redistricting maps," Nov. 15, 2021
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 Colorado Newsline, "Colorado Supreme Court hears oral arguments for new state legislative maps," Oct. 26, 2021
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 Redistricting in Colorado, "Redistricting Committee," accessed April 22, 2015
- ↑ The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- ↑ The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- ↑ Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- ↑ Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Why Do Republicans Overperform in the Wisconsin State Assembly? Partisan Gerrymandering Vs. Political Geography," February 11, 2021
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Colorado Denver (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
