Opinion ID: 2638703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Majority Fails To Apply Its Own Narrow Standard of Review

Text: No plan adopted by the Commission can go into effect absent approval by this court. Colo. Const. art. V, § 48(1)(e). Once a plan is submitted to us, however, we have always required the scope of our review to be narrow. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194. We are not to redraw boundaries or choose what we view as a better plan from among alternative plans. If alternate plans all meet constitutional criteria, then the Commission, not this court, is vested with the discretion to adopt the plan of its choice. Id. (The choice among alternative plans, each consistent with constitutional requirements, is for the Commission and not the Court.). Our job is to examine the plan submitted by the Commission only to determine whether it comports with constitutional criteria. Id. (Our role in this proceeding is ... to measure the present reapportionment plan against the constitutional standards.). In reviewing a plan to determine whether it complies with the Colorado Constitution, we do not require absolute compliance. Instead, any plan that substantially complies with constitutional mandates must be approved. See In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 (approving county splits because the Commission substantially complied with the constitutional requirements); In re Interrogatories by the Gen. Assembly, 178 Colo. 311, 313, 497 P.2d 1024, 1025 (1972) ([W]e determine that substantial compliance was achieved with the constitutional benchmarks noted above.). Further, the plan submitted to us by the Commission is presumed to be valid. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 189 (recognizing the presumption of good faith and validity we must accord to the Commission); see also In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 (Although we might make different choices were we in the Commission's place, we should not substitute our judgment for the Commission's unless we are convinced the Commission departed from [the] constitutional criteria.). The majority purports to apply these standards, but fails to engage in a narrow review of the Proposed Plan. Its review instead creates new constitutional standards, which conflict with our precedent. The majority uses these new standards to support its conclusion that the Proposed Plan, in part, fails to comply with the Colorado Constitution. In the majority's view, the Commission's Proposed Plan is not entitled to a presumption of validity; nor is the Proposed Plan reviewed for substantial compliance with our state constitution. Additionally, as demonstrated by the majority's use of a chart comparing the number of splits made under the various plans, the majority bolsters many of its conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the Proposed Plan by comparing it to other alternate plans. [1] Maj. op. at 1250; see also maj. op. at 1251-1253. Comparisons such as these are of questionable value since more than one plan may comport with constitutional criteria. [2] In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194.