Opinion ID: 727396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Focus

Text: 35 Before addressing the district court's order, we must reiterate our focus in this case. Plaintiffs contend the current district violates their federal rights guaranteed by the VRA to have a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. While that question predominates our review, it is not exclusively answered by federal law because the Colorado Constitution and state law furnish those traditional districting principles of which the Court so frequently speaks. Bush, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1952. Even in its most recent opinions, the Court reminded, we adhere to our longstanding recognition of the importance in our federal system of each State's sovereign interest in implementing its redistricting plan. Id. at ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1960-61 (citation omitted). [T]he Constitution leaves with the States primary responsibility for apportionment of their federal congressional and state legislative districts. Growe, 507 U.S. at 34, 113 S.Ct. at 1081, citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. Given these principles, however, we must gingerly look to federal law to assure the equality of each vote because achieving fair and effective representation for all citizens is concededly the basic aim of legislative apportionment. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565-66, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1383, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). Just as the Court has affirmed its unfailing championship of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in Shaw II and Bush, it has also declared the constitutionality of § 2 of the VRA, observing, it would be irresponsible for a State to disregard the § 2 results test. Bush, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1969. (O'Connor, J. concurring, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, JJ.).