Opinion ID: 2638703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Proposed Plan Substantially Complies with the Appropriate Constitutional Standards

Text: As explained in Section I, above, our role in reviewing the Proposed Plan is supposed to be narrow. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194. We are not to choose among alternative plans and we are to afford the Proposed Plan a presumption of validity. Id. Our task is to examine the Proposed Plan only to determine whether it substantially complies with constitutional criteria. Id. No party alleges that federal law has been violated with respect to the Proposed Plan, nor does my independent examination reveal any federal constitutional problems. Therefore, I turn to the mandates of the Colorado Constitution. The paramount requirement of the Colorado Constitution is that each district be of equal population. Colo. Const. art. V, § 46. No serious objection is raised that the districts in this case do not comply with the equal population requirement. The next three requirements, avoidance of city and county splits, compactness and contiguity of districts, and preservations of communities of interest, are the subject of much debate among the parties to this case. We have previously held that the Commission has the discretion to draw districts in the order that it chooses, even if this means that there are more splits to the resulting plan than might otherwise exist. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 197; see also In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 196 (recognizing that there are situations where districts can be drawn in a number of ways without offending section 47(2)). Further, we have stated that the constitutional criteria are to be viewed as a whole, as a set of firm but general guidelines which allow the Commission some discretion in application. Id. at 194; see also In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 195-96 (considering all the criteria in determining the constitutionality of a county split). In applying these standards, we have acknowledged that multiple plans can simultaneously comply with constitutional criteria. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194. These principles form the backdrop for my analysis of the Commission's Proposed Plan. As mentioned above, the Commission's Proposed Plan preserves intact fifty-one out of our sixty-three counties. [12] The focus of the majority's opinion, this dissent, and the arguments of the parties has thus been upon the few counties in which splits do occur. Unfortunately, it is not possible to accommodate everyone. Such is the dilemma faced by the Commission. If the Commission satisfies the desires of one county, city or community of interest to remain whole and undivided, it often must necessarily split another county, city, or community of interest. Put simply, one of the county lines must yield. The Commission has explained that some of the divisions of Boulder, Douglas, Pueblo, and Jefferson Counties resulted from its decision to begin drawing districts in a particular region of the state before proceeding to draw districts in other regions. [13] The Commission engaged in numerous discussions and votes regarding the order in which they should work. These decisions are entitled to deference from this court. The splits resulting from the order in which the Commission proceeded could have been avoided, in small part, if the Commission had drawn the districts differently. Nevertheless, as our precedent discloses, this reality does not mean that the Commission has failed to substantially comply with constitutional standards. In re Reapportionment 1992, 647 P.2d at 197. In my opinion, constitutional standards have been satisfied. The alternate plans presented by the objectors in this case may well be acceptable under the Colorado Constitution. However, the presentation of an alternate, constitutionally acceptable plan does not render the Commission's Proposed Plan unconstitutional, even if many people believe that the alternate plan is better. See, e.g., In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 ([T]he Commission must have the discretion to choose where the necessary and constitutionally permissible compromises are made.). Ultimately, the reality is that, because of the political nature of the redistricting process, [14] there will also be some people who are dissatisfied with decisions about which counties should be split. This alone does not render a particular plan unconstitutional. [15] When the Commission's Proposed Plan is accorded the deference that it is due and when the proper constitutional standards are applied, it becomes apparent that this court should approve the Commission's Proposed Plan.