The Colorado Supreme Court will issue five opinions on Monday, including two relating to redistricting. One case is the original petition filed by Attorney General Ken Salazar to block the redistricting plan on the ground that redistricting can occur only once in a decade. Another is a suit filed by Secretary of State Donetta Davidson to block Salazar from challenging the redistricting bill. Because the Supreme Court has allowed US Representative Mark Udall to join Salazar's suit as a co-petitioner, they are expected to reach the merits of Salazar's petition even if they determine that Salazar himself does not have standing. You can read the decisions
at this link Monday morning.
Neither side is bold enough to venture a prediction as to the outcome, although the Republicans have announced they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose. The result is expected to affect two House races in 2004:
Colorado Democrats believe they can win the 3rd District seat on the Western Slope because incumbent GOP Rep. Scott McInnis is not seeking a seventh term.
The new map would add 5,000 Republicans and move 10,000 Democrats out of the district. Under the old map Democrats want back in place, the GOP had an advantage of just 5,000 registered voters.
Democrats also believe they have a chance to win the 7th District, which Republican Bob Beauprez won last year by only 121 votes under the old map. The new map would add 21,000 Republicans and take away 7,000 Democrats, giving Republicans an advantage of 28,000 registered voters.
The decision is expected to have nationwide implications. If the court rules that mid-decade redistricting is permissible, the decision could set off a wave of copycat redistricting in states like Illinois and New Mexico where Democrats are in control of state legislatures. If the court keeps the lid on redistricting in Colorado, it could affect the Texas redistricting litigation and keep Democrats in other states from attempting mid-decade redistricting.