Court Opinion

ID: 9782362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:26:07.839249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:53.395558
License: Public Domain

Justice KOURLIS
dissenting:
Although I join in part IV of the majority opinion in its conclusion that the Attorney General may initiate an original proceeding to contest the constitutionality of legislative action, I respectfully dissent from all other portions of the opinion.
The majority concludes that the delegation of redistricting power in Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution to the "General Assembly" includes the courts and specifically imbues the courts with independent authority to undertake such redistricting. Further, the majority reads the word "when" in Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution to limit the exercise of all redistricting authority, by the General Assembly or the courts, to a window of time between a new apportionment by Congress and th next general election. '
I fundamentally disagree. Courts cannot be lawmakers under Article V of the Colorado Constitution. Courts do not enact1 or create laws; courts declare what the law is *1244and what it requires. To hold otherwise violates the clear language of Article V and also the mandates of Article III of the Colorado Constitution, which delineates the separation of powers among the three coordinate branches of Colorado government.
The only authority that courts have to intervene in this purely political, legislative process is to review the constitutionality of existing districts, as we would review the constitutionality of any law, in order to protect the voting rights of aggrieved claimants. Within that limited framework, courts may enter emergency or remedial orders for the purpose of allowing elections to go forward. Such court orders are interstitial, and cannot then serve to preempt the legislature from reclaiming its authority to redistrict.
The majority also determines that redistricting must occur within the narrow window of time between Congressional approval of a reapportionment and preparation of pre-cinet information for the next general election. According to the majority, if the General Assembly fails to act within that time, it abdicates the responsibility to the courts for a decade. I find nothing in our Constitution that so provides. To the contrary, I would read the Colorado Constitution, as a whole, as abhorring such a transfer of legislative power to the judicial branch.
Therefore, since, in my view, the authority remains vested in the Colorado General Assembly, to be exercised after a reapportionment by Congress, but within no specific time limits, I would discharge the Rule to Show Cause issued in this case. In that regard, I also note that I do not believe that this court should ever have chosen to accept original jurisdiction in this case. At the time this court did so, there was a case pending in the Denver District Court that raised all of the issues before us now, plus a variety of other legal and factual issues. If that case had been allowed to proceed, the trial court would not only have addressed all disputed issues of fact but would also have ruled on all legal theories presented by the plaintiffs. In that situation, we would be in a position to resolve the issues with a full factual record. By taking this case when we did, we unnecessarily circumvented the normal process of case resolution, and limited ourselves to addressing the constitutional issues first rather than as a last resort.
I. Article V Does Not Grant the Courts Authority to Redistrict the State
Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution provides that "[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 choosing senators". (emphasis added).
Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution implements that responsibility as follows:
The general assembly shall divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in congress apportioned to this state by the congress of the United States for the election of one representative to congress from each district. When a new apportionment shall be made by congress, the general assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.
(emphasis added).
The majority determines that the reference to "General Assembly" in Article V includes the courts. For that unusual proposition, the majority argues that the United States Supreme Court has assigned to the states the right to define "legislature" under Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution by operation of state law, citing Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 52 S.Ct. 397, 76 L.Ed. 795 (1932), and that Colorado law supports such an inclusion.
In Smiley, the U.S. Supreme Court did hold that the term legislature in the U.S. Constitution refers to a state's lawmaking process, which is then defined by state law. Id. at 372, 52 S.Ct. 397 (discussing Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 36 S.Ct. 708, 60 L.Ed. 1172 (1916)). In Smiley, the Minnesota legislature attempted to implement a redistricting bill without gubernatorial approval or overturn of gubernatorial veto. The Supreme Court of Minnesota interpreted Arti*1245cle 1, Section 4, as vesting the power to redistrict solely in the legislative body of Minnesota, without the need for gubernatorial approval. See State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 184 Minn. 228, 238 N.W. 494, 497-98 (1931). The United States Supreme Court disagreed, concluding instead that the term referred to the lawmaking process applicable in Minnesota.
The Supreme Court stated:
As the authority is conferred for the purpose of making laws for the state, it follows, in the absence of an indication of a contrary intent, that the exercise of the authority must be in accordance with the method which the state has prescribed for legislative enactments. We find no suggestion in the federal constitutional provision of an attempt to endow the Legislature of the state with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the Constitution of the state has provided that laws shall be enacted. Whether the Governor of the state, through the veto power, shall have a part in the making of state laws, is a matter of state polity. Article 1, s 4, of the Federal Constitution, neither requires nor excludes such participation.
Smiley, 285 U.S. at 367-68, 52 S.Ct. 397 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court then analyzed Minnesota's Constitution and concluded that the lawmaking process, as defined by that state, included the participation of the governor. Id. at 372-73, 52 S.Ct. 397.
Thus, Smiley does stand for the proposition that the term "legislature" in the U.S. Constitution encompasses more than just the General Assembly acting alone, and refers instead to the general process of lawmaking in a given state. Furthermore, Smiley clarifies that it is a matter of Colorado law to determine what constitutes that process of lawmaking.2
That cireuitous process avails the majority little. Colorado law could not be clearer with respect to the meaning of the term "General Assembly." Article V itself defines the General Assembly as "the senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people." The term neither needs nor permits any further semantic gymnastics.
Under the mandate of Smiley, however, "General Assembly" cannot just mean that the two houses may independently exercise the redistricting authority. In Colorado, we reached that same conclusion shortly after the Smiley decision was announced. See Armstrong v. Mitten, 95 Colo. 425, 37 P.2d 757, 758 (1934) (a case in which this court approved redistricting by initiative) Together, then, Armstrong and Smiley dictate that the narrow reference in Article V, Section 44, to the "General Assembly" must be read more broadly to include the process of initiative on the one hand, and gubernatorial approval on the other.
Article V embodies just such breadth. Section 1 of Article V reserves to the people the power of initiative and referendum. Section 39 sets out the condition that before a law may take effect, it shall be approved by the Governor, or re-passed by two-thirds of both houses. Article V is, therefore, a self-contained and complete description of the lawmaking processes and legislative powers in Colorado.
Redistricting is a lawmaking function, and is to be, in my view, accomplished within the rubric of Article V-which, of course, contains no reference to the courts.3 Similarly, Article VI, which describes judicial powers in Colorado, makes no reference either to lawmaking in general or to redistricting in particular.
*1246Not only, then, does Colorado law not support an independent assignment of the right to redistrict to the courts, but rather, it precludes it. Article III of the Colorado Constitution, which spells out separation of powers among and between the three branches of government, prohibits the judi-clary from undertaking a function assigned by the constitution to another branch of government. People v. Zapotocky, 869 P.2d 1234, 1248-44 (Colo.1994). Article III directs that "no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted." This precept imposes on the judiciary both a proscription against interfering with the executive or legislative branches, and a duty to perform its constitutional and statutory obligations with complete independence. Zapotocky, 869 P.2d at 1243-44; see also People v. Herrera, 188 Colo. 155, 516 P.2d 626, 627 (1973) (The statute that gave courts the power of sentence commutation was an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers because such power rests with the executive.).
The separation of powers concept is fundamental to our free system of government, and accordingly, this court is "unalterably opposed to any attempt by one branch of the government to assume the power of another." In re Interrogatories, 536 P.2d at 318.
Because the constitution assigns redistricting to the legislative branch of government under Article V, Section 44, Article III mandates that the judiciary may only exercise that power if expressly so directed or permitted by the constitution. Implied exceptions are not sanctioned; this is the plain meaning of Article III, Denver Bar Ass'n v. Public Util Comm'n, 154 Colo. 278, 891 P.2d 467, 470 (1964). Simply stated, under Colorado law, courts may not usurp the legislative function of redistricting.
II. The Limited Role of the Courts in Redistricting
The courts do have the ultimate responsibility of reviewing redistricting plans, just as we may review all other laws, to determine whether they comport with the constitution. In re Interrogatories, 536 P.2d at 316 (citing to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1808)).
Prior to 1964, courts played only an anee-dotal role in the process, in part because redistricting was perceived to be a non-justi-ciable, political issue,4 and in part because constitutional issues seldom arose.5 Further, many legislatures, like our own, chose not to redistrict for long periods of time.
In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). In that case, the Court confirmed that voters in Tennessee, who claimed that the congressional districts in effect in that state deprived them of equal protection of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by debasing their vote in comparison to other voters, had presented a justiciable claim over which the court had jurisdiction. Id. at 209, 82 S.Ct. 691.
The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). There, the Court held that the mandate of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which said that Representatives to Congress be chosen by the people, meant that "one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." Id. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. 526. Stated differently, for the first time, the Court declared that congressional districts were to be divided as nearly equally as possible by population.
The third case in this trilogy was announced in 1964. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 583, 568-69, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Supreme Court held an Alabama legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because the apportionment was not made on *1247population and lacked a rational basis. Reynolds emphasized that "legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and that judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so." Id. at 586, 84 S.Ct. 1362.
Lastly, in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1978 (2003), which recognized the need in redistricting to protect minority voters. Under that Act, courts have been called upon to undertake additional supervisory authority. Hence, since the mid-1960's, there have been numerous cases around the nation where courts have become involved in redistricting issues.
Most recently, in Branch, 538 U.S. 254, 123 S.Ct. 1429, 155 L.Ed.2d 407, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the interrelationship between federal and state courts, specifically in connection with a redistricting plan covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that the Federal District Court in that ease properly enjoined enforcement of the state court plan because the state court plan had not been pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 1487. The Court further held that the Federal District Court plan was required to comply with the statutory requirement to draw single-member districts whenever possible. Id. at 1441. By so holding, the Court determined that the reference in 2 U.S.C. § 2c of the Apportionment Act to districts "established by law" affirmatively applied to judicial redistricting as well as to legislative redistricting. Id. The Court did not address the question before us today of whether such court order would preempt the state legislature from reclaiming the right to redistrict.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has previously stated that courts should make every effort to avoid preempting the exercise of legislative authority. And, in Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978), it specifically held that even when a federal district court had declared an existing redistricting scheme unconstitutional, the court must then give the legislative body a reasonable opportunity to adopt a substitute plan rather than for the court to devise its own plan. The Supreme Court stated:
The new legislative plan, if forthcoming, will then be the governing law unless it, too, is challenged and found to violate the Constitution. '[A] state's freedom of choice to devise substitutes for an apportionment plan found unconstitutional, either as a whole or in part, should not be restricted beyond the clear commands of the Equal Protection Clause.!
Id. (quoting Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 85, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966)); see also Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 613, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (ordering a federal district court in Mississippi to file a court-ordered redistricting plan, but expressing the clear expectation that if the legislature acted in time, the legislative plan would supercede the court plan).
In Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993), the Supreme Court reviewed a congressional redistricting debacle in Minnesota. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the "[Federal] District Court erred in not deferring to the state court's timely consideration of congressional reapportionment." Id. at 37, 113 S.Ct. 1075. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, called the state court's intervention "precisely the sort of state judicial supervision of redistricting we have encouraged." Id. at 34, 113 S.Ct. 1075 (emphasis added). Again, the Court did not imply that either the federal or state court could preempt the legislative prerogative.
Other courts around the nation have similarly recognized the supervisory, temporary and interstitial character of court-ordered redistricting plans. In Johnson v. Mortham, 915 F.Supp. 1529 (N.D.Fla.1995), the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida faced a controversy similar to the one before our court today. As a result of the 1990 census, Florida was entitled to four additional members in the House of Representatives. On the first day of the 1992 Florida legislative session, members of the State House of Representatives and other voters filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Florida's congressgion*1248al and state legislative districts. This suit resulted in an order from a three-judge panel that adopted a plan and ordered the state of Florida to conduct the 1992 congressional elections "and congressional elections thereafter" in conformity with the plan. Id. at 1533-34 (quoting DeGrandy v. Wetherell, 794 F.Supp. 1076, 1090 (N.D.Fla.1992)).
The plaintiffs argued that the "DeGran-dy" order was a temporary solution interposed at a time when the state legislature had insufficient time to enact a new plan before the elections, which did not deprive the legislature of the authority to act after the elections. The District Court recognized that the language "and congressional elections thereafter" had one of two results: either that the court had intended its plan to be permanent, or that the legislature had interpreted it in that fashion and had thereby been dissuaded from enacting its own plan. Id. at 1543-44. The District Court then held that "[tlo the extent that the first result occurred, the DeGrandy plan is unconstitutional. To the extent the second result occurred, the law is clear that a state legislature always has the authority to redistrict or reapportion, subject to constitutional restraints." Id. at 1544. While recognizing that some authority would permit federal court plans to serve as permanent redistricting plans, the court found that the "clear weight of authority" was to the contrary. Id. Specifically, the District Court emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court in Wise went to great lengths to point out that federal courts must "devise and impose a reapportionment plan pending later legislative action." Id. (quoting Wise, 437 U.S. at 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493). The District Court also relied on Burns, 384 U.S. at 85, 86 S.Ct. 1286, where the Supreme Court stated: "[the State remains free to adopt other plans for apportionment, and the present interim plan will remain in effect no longer than is necessary to adopt a permanent plan." Mortham, 915 F.Supp. at 1544. The court felt constrained by the twin principles of federalism and separation of powers from usurping the state legislature's authority to adopt a constitutional redistricting plan, and concluded that it would violate both principles to enshrine the DeGrandy plan as permanent. Id. at 1545.6
Thus, in my view, the U.S. Supreme Court ushered in the era of court involvement in redistricting by clarifying that the Fourteenth Amendment protects voters' rights and the courts are charged with enforcing that protection. When districts are not constitutionally adequate, courts may fashion a remedy to protect aggrieved voters in an upcoming election. However, never has the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court-ordered plan preempts a legislature from attempting to correct a deficiency by passing its own redistricting plan.
Courts act in the first instance only because an existing apportionment of districts is constitutionally deficient. In order to have the capacity to remedy that deficiency, we must be able to issue remedial orders. Yet, neither the federal nor the state constitution supports a conclusion that such emergency relief can supplant the later exercise of legislative authority. Quite simply, the judiciary cannot legislate. See Springer v. Gov't of Phil. Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845 (1928); Speer v. People, 52 Colo. 325, 122 P. 768, 771-72 (1912); Colo. Const. art. III.
In no other circumstance could it be debated that a court order should be published in the Colorado Revised Statutes as an enforceable statute. The court order is interstitial-a temporary remedy in place to satisfy the needs of the electoral system until the Gen*1249eral Assembly can exercise its rightful legislative function. In other situations, if a court declares a statute unconstitutional, the court would never presume to replace the statute with a constitutional version. That is not our function. In the electoral setting, we act on an emergency basis, to enable the pending election to go forward. However, the fundamental nature of what we do is not altered. We act only in the breach; onee the legislature takes up its rightful mantle, our involvement is no longer necessary.
III Redistricting Is Not Time-Limited
The majority also concludes that Article V, Section 44's use of the term "when" is an independent basis under Colorado law upon which to delimit the authority to redistrict-whether exercised by the General Assembly or by the court. Thereby, the majority concludes that the brief window of time within which redistricting could occur came and went, with only the court-ordered plan in place, which operated to divest the General Assembly of its authority. Maj. op. at 1226.
In response to this argument, I first take issue with the majority's assignment of this issue to state law. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has afforded broad discretion to the states to define the process whereby districts are created. However, in my view, the involvement of the courts-absent some express provision in a state constitution delegating a role to the courts (which Colorado does not have)-continues to be predicated, in large part, upon the duty to enforce federal constitutional rights. Hence, the duration of a court order protecting those rights, or the jurisdiction of a court to review existing districts when constitutional infirmities exist, must be governed by an intermixed application of state and federal law.
Colorado's Constitution neither assigns a specific function in redistricting to the courts, nor a specific time within which to complete that role. I find no support in Article V for the majority's definition of "when," which restricts not only legislative authority but also court supervisory authority. The Article does contain time frames for action in great detail in some sections, such as those imposed upon the Reapportionment Commission in Section 48. The absence of such time limits in Section 44 is telling. If the framers of Section 44 had intended to start the ticking of a time clock that would govern the redistricting process, they had language at their command with which to accomplish such an end.
Various other state constitutions do mandate the time within which reapportionment must occur. For example, the California Constitution provided that the reapportionment must take place at the "first session after each census," which the California Supreme Court construed to mean immediately after the new census figures are available, and not again thereafter until the next census. See Leg. of the State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal.3d 658, 194 Cal.Rptr. 781, 669 P.2d 17, 22 (1983) (interpreting Cal. Const. art. IV, § 6, and applying that interpretation to art. XXI, § 1). Similarly, the Oklahoma Constitution requires redistricting to occur within 90 days after the convening of the first regular session after the census. (Okla. Const. art. V, § 11A); see also Utah Const. art. IX, § 1; Va. Const. art II, § 6; Wis. Const. art. IV, § 3.
In State v. Weatherill, 125 Minn. 336, 147 N.W. 105 (1914), the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted a reference to the "first session after each (census)" in the predecessor to its current constitutional provision as a duty to reapportion in the first session, but not a prohibition to reapportionment at a later time. The court noted that "[i]t seems clear that, had there been any intention to restrict or limit the time when a reapportionment might be made, those framing the Constitution had language at their command which, if employed, would not have left that intention shrouded in doubt or uncertainty." Id. at 106. Thus, that court held "the Constitution should be construed as imposing a duty of reapportionment, and that the duty so imposed continues until performed." Id. at 107.
Other courts agree that the legislature's duty to reapportion continues until performed. See Harris v. Shanahan, 192 Kan. 183, 387 P.2d 771, 795 (1963) (holding that "the duty to properly apportion legislative districts is a continuing one"); see also Selzer *1250v. Synhorst, 253 Towa 936, 113 N.W.2d 724, 733 (Iowa 1962) (same); Lamson v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth, 341 Mass. 264, 168 N.E.2d 480, 483 (1960) (same).
This court has a duty to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions as written. Constitutional provisions should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Bolt v. Arapahoe County Sch. Dist., 898 P.2d 525, 532 (Colo.1995). The plain and ordinary meaning of "when" is that it must follow the condition precedent, which in this instance is the new apportionment by Congress. Although "when" might well be read as imposing a duty upon the legislature to act as soon as possible after the predicate event, it does not in any way imply the imposition of a back-end limitation upon that duty. In my view, burdening the word "when" in the Colorado Constitution with the implied intention that the right to redistrict is abrogated if not exercised within a narrow time frame seems heavy freight indeed.7
IV. 2002 Redistricting
In Beauprez v. Avalos, 42 P.3d 642 (Colo.2002), we affirmed the decision of the Denver District Court declaring the then current congressional districts as set out in section 2-1-100.5, et seq., 1 C.R.S. (2002), unconstitutional for failure to satisfy the one-person, one-vote principle. The congressional districts that appear in section 2-1-100.5 do not comport with current population realities in the state of Colorado as reflected in the 2000 census. See also section 2-2-901, 1, C.R.S. (2002), regarding the import of that census.
The Denver District Court acted only after the General Assembly failed to act in sufficient time to allow the November, 2002 election to proceed. There is no question but that the court-ordered redistricting governed that election by virtue of the legislative abdication.
In my view, that court order was a temporary, emergency order-to be honored until such time as the legislature acted to create districts that are constitutionally sufficient.
V. Original Jurisdiction Is Improper
Lastly, I suggest that this court should not have accepted original jurisdiction over this case, but should have allowed the Denver District Court action to proceed to completion.
On May 9, 2008, the same day on which Governor Owens signed Senate Bill 08-352 into law, two plaintiffs brought an action in Denver District Court challenging its constitutionality. Keller v. Davidson, No. 03 CV 3452 (Denver District Court, May 9, 2008). The plaintiffs in that case contend that the General Assembly's 2003 redistricting plan violates: Colorado's GAVEL amendment (Colo. Const. art. V, § 20); Colorado's Sunshine Law (§ 24-6-101, et seq., 7B CRS. (2002)); the Colorado State Senate Rules; plaintiffs' equal protection rights; and the Colorado Constitution art. V, § 22, and art. II, § 10. In short, that case includes, but is not limited to, the constitutional issues raised in this case.
Because of the additional claims, there were numerous issues of disputed fact, and an evidentiary hearing would have been nee-essary to resolve those disputes. The disputed facts relate to certain claims, such as the *1251claim that SB 03-352 does not comport with the GAVEL amendment, with the Sunshine Law or with the Colorado rules.
In taking this case as an original proceeding, our court has violated two bedrock rules. First, this court does not interfere in the normal process of a case when the issues can be properly resolved below and the rights of all parties preserved. Second, this court does not resolve cases on constitutional grounds when non-constitutional grounds are raised and may be dispositive.8
In order to satisfy the electoral time frame of this case, precinets must be established by March 15, 2004, which is 29 days prior to the precinet caucus day in 2004. (Affidavit of Secretary of State Davidson). Thus, at the time the case was filed in district court, there was ample time to conduct an evidentiary hearing, await a trial court ruling, and appeal the Keller case.9 These proceedings could have been completed on an expedited basis well in advance of the March 14, 2004 deadline, and would have resulted in a full resolution of the issues.
A. Other Relief Was Clearly Available
Under C.A.R. 21, the exercise of original jurisdiction is "extraordinary in nature and is a matter wholly within the discretion of the Supreme Court. Such relief shall be granted only when no other adequate remedy, including relief available by appeal or under C.R.C.P. 106, is available." This relief is not a substitute for appeal from a lower court proceeding and is not to be granted when it will supersede the functions of such appeal. See Fitzgerald v. Dist. Court, 177 Colo. 29, 493 P.2d 27, 29 (1972); Weaver Constr. Co. v. Dist. Court, 190 Colo. 227, 545 P.2d 1042, 1044 (1976) (There exists a general policy which disfavors the use of an original writ where an appeal would be an appropriate remedy.); People v. Montez, 48 Colo. 436, 110 P. 639, 640 (1910) (This court exercises original jurisdiction only in case of emergency, or where the questions involved are clearly of public interest, and then only when satisfied that the rights of the parties will not be protected and enforced in lower courts.); Clark v. Denver & I.R. Co., 78 Colo. 48, 239 P. 20, 21 (1925) (This court declines original jurisdiction in cases where the issues can be fully determined and the rights of all parties preserved and enforced in the district court.).
In People v. McClees, 20 Colo. 403, 38 P. 468 (1894), various plaintiffs sought an injunction against the secretary of state and others preventing certain claimants from taking judicial office. The plaintiffs asked this court to assume original jurisdiction for purposes of resolving the controversy, and this court declined, stating:
We are urged to entertain the present proceeding for the purpose of reaching an early decision of the controversy between the rival claimants to judicial positions, and thus prevent confusion in the administration of justice. This proceeding is commended as a 'short cut" to a determination of the controversy. But short cuts in legal controversies are seldom satisfactory....
Id. at 472. I suggest that the original proceeding here is a short cut, which reaches out to address the seminal issue without allowing the case to proceed in due course.
B. Resolution of Cases on Non-Constitutional Grounds Preferred
Furthermore, when a constitutional question is not essential to the resolution of the issue before us, we will not address it. Town of Orchard City v. Bd. of Delta County Commrs., 751 P.2d 1003, 1006 (Colo.1988); Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111, 1121 (Colo.1981) (It is well settled that a court will not rule on a constitutional question which is not essential to the resolution of the controversy *1252before it.). Here, there were a number of non-constitutional issues which might have been dispositive. We will never know, because this court made a decision to accept the constitutional issue alone—uncoupled from the factual and non-constitutional underpinnings.
Our system of government relies upon courts as the final arbiters of disputes— sometimes even disputes that have a distinctly political character. I suspect that many courts charged with the duty of resolving a divisive political issue would prefer not to he in that position, but our tri-partite system of government contemplates the exercise of that duty as part of the necessary judicial power.
However, being pressed into service is quite a different matter from volunteering. In this case, I view our court as having volunteered for the task of resolving the question at issue—on the grounds that we would ultimately have to resolve it in any event and time is of the essence. The same could be true in many litigated matters, in which we decline to exercise original jurisdiction for all of the reasons appearing in the legions of cases. Furthermore, the time constraints could have been satisfied in the normal course of events, if each of the involved courts had proceeded expeditiously.
Thus, I suggest that this case is a particularly inappropriate one in which to accept jurisdiction on an original basis, and that by proceeding in this fashion, we have inserted ourselves further than necessary into the political process.
VI. Conclusion
By exercising original jurisdiction in this case, the court has foreclosed any inquiry into the propriety of the General Assembly’s redistricting process or the constitutional validity of the congressional district boundaries themselves.
Instead, the court has seized upon the underlying constitutional issue, and has reached a conclusion predicated upon two alternate, but, in my view, equally flawed, theories. First, the majority quite remarkably equates the judiciary with the legislature, thereby concluding somehow that the General Assembly has already redistricted once since the last census and may not do so again. Second, the majority imputes to the word “when” an absolute time limitation, thereby transforming a constitutional requirement for the General Assembly to account for changes in the state’s federal representation by redistricting into a prohibition against its doing so during nine out of every ten years. For both of those propositions, the majority states that it relies upon state law in an effort to insulate this case from federal review, when, in fact, the whole analysis is and must be permeated by a reliance upon federal, as well as state, law.
Whether or not the parties to this controversy were motivated in part or in whole by partisan advantage, the court’s resolution of this issue has implications that transcend partisanship and are far-reaching. With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government. For the first time in the state’s history, the court restricts the redistricting authority of the General Assembly to a narrow window, and mandates that if the General Assembly fails to act within that time frame, the court will exercise that power for it.
While eliminating political considerations from redistricting may or may not be a laudable goal, redistricting is an inherently political activity, and rests with the democratically elected branch of government for good reason. Absent express constitutional authority granting a role to the judiciary—which I suggest is wholly absent from our constitution—the courts should serve only to protect constitutional interests in redistricting: not to commandeer the process.
Accordingly, I construe the Denver District Court’s and this court’s prior involvement in the redistricting matter as judicial supervision, holding then-existing congressional districts illegal and imposing a temporary plan in order to allow the 2002 election to go forward. That violation has potentially been remedied by Senate Bill 03-352—as-suming that no other infirmities as alleged by the Keller plaintiffs exist in the legislation. Thus, I would discharge the rule issued in this case and allow the Keller case to go *1253forward in order to resolve the other issues raised.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE COATS joins in this dissent.

. See Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 123 S.Ct. 1429, 1437, 155 L.Ed.2d 407 (2003).

. Although the majority indicates that it relies only upon state law to define the power to redistrict, it nonetheless acknowledges the importance of federal law in shaping the court's role in that process. Maj. op. at 1226, 1231, 1232, and 1235. That acknowledgement, from my perspective, is a telltale indication of the premise that court authority does truly stem from federal law and is not here independently created by operation of the state constitution.

. We have held that the constitutional assignment in Article V, Section 48, to the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court of the duty of appointing four members to the state legislative reapportionment commission is not a violation of separation of powers because it is specifically required by the constitution. In re Interrogatories Propounded by the Senate Concerning House Bill 1078, 189 Colo. 1, 536 P.2d 308, 315 (1975).

. See Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946).

. See Armstrong, 95 Colo. 425, 37 P.2d 757 (example of one of the early cases raising constitutional issues in redistricting).

. See also Ramos v. Koebig, 638 F.2d 838, 843-44 (5th Cir.1981) in which the court held that it was error for the Federal District Court to pass upon the constitutionality of a proposed redistricting plan before the city council had the opportunity to enact a valid plan. The court stated that "'[sluch a court-ordered plan will be a temporary measure, however, and will not preclude the legislative body from devising a plan that reflects its legislative judgment. Once validly enacted, and approved by the district court on constitutional grounds, the legislative plan will become effective, and will supersede the temporary court-ordered plan."; and Colleton County v. McConnell, 201 F.Supp.2d 618, 670-71 (D.S.C.2002) holding that a court order would govern elections "unless and until the South Carolina General Assembly, with the approval of the Governor and in accordance with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, ends its current impasse and enacts an alternative redistricting plan for the legislative body at issue".

. The majority goes even further in concluding that redistricting can only occur once each decade. In my view, we need not reach that question because it is not before us. From my perspective, redistricting by the General Assembly has only taken place once-in Senate Bill 03-352-and I would not opine further. To the extent, however, that the majority relies upon federal law for the conclusion that redistricting is limited to once per decade, I read the cases differently. Georgia v. Ashcroft, - U.S. -, - n. 2, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 2516 n. 2, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003), holds merely that districts must meet federal constitutional mandates and "if [a] State has not redistricted in response to the new census figures, a federal court will ensure that the districts comply with the one-person, one-vote mandate before the next election." See also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 583-84, 84 S.Ct. 1362 ("While we do not intend to indicate that decennial reapportionment is a constitutional requisite, compliance with such an approach would clearly meet the minimal requirements for maintaining a reasonably current scheme of legislative representation. And we do not mean to intimate that more frequent reapportionment would not be constitutionally permissible or practicably desirable.") (emphasis added). In fact, in Armstrong, 37 P.2d at 758, this court previously "assumed, without deciding, that under section 47, a general redistricting of the state may occur more frequently than once after each census."

. I also note that if we were addressing the appeal of the district court case, we would not need to resolve the issue concerning the Attorney General's authority, because he is not a party to the lower court case. Hence, in addition to joining issues of constitutional magnitude in the first instance, rather than only as a last resort, we are inviting still another constitutional issue which we would never have needed to reach.

. The case was later removed to federal court, where it has been stayed awaiting this opinion. See Keller v. Davidson, No. 03-Z-1482 (CBS) (D.Colo. Sept. 25, 2003). It is speculation at this point to try to unravel the process and guess what might have occurred had we not taken the original proceeding.