Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Colorado Amendment Y
Flag of Colorado.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Redistricting measures
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
State legislature

Colorado Amendment Y, the Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment, was on the ballot in Colorado as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts.
A "no" vote opposed this amendment to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts, thereby leaving the Colorado General Assembly responsible for congressional redistricting through a majority vote and subject to the governor's veto.

A similar amendment was on the ballot in Colorado that created an independent commission for state legislative redistricting.


Supermajority requirement: A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Amendment Y.

Election results

Colorado Amendment Y

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

1,711,008 71.37%
No 686,260 28.63%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

What is redistricting?

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Colorado's seven United States Representatives and 100 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census.

Going into the election, how was redistricting done in Colorado?

See also: Redistricting in Colorado and Redistricting in Colorado after the 2010 census

Going into the election, the Colorado General Assembly was responsible for Congressional redistricting as provided under Article V, Section 44 of the Colorado Constitution. Going into the election, congressional maps were handled by a committee comprised of members of both chambers, who introduced bills to the entire body, which were then passed like regular assembly bills with majority approval and subject to the governor's veto and to veto referendum petitions.

What the amendment changed

Amendment Y was designed to create a 12-member independent congressional redistricting commission to be responsible for redistricting Colorado's seven U.S. House districts. The commission was designed to include four members from the state’s largest political party, four from the state’s second largest political party, and four that are not affiliated with any political party.

A preliminary plan for the redistricting of congressional districts was designed to be created solely by nonpartisan staff. The nonpartisan staff will consider comments from the commission and from the public when creating the preliminary redistricting plan. After a hearing on the preliminary plan, nonpartisan staff will then create at least three more plans to be presented to the commission. The commission could adopt a final staff plan or request in a public hearing that the nonpartisan staff create additional plans or amend plans, which does not require approval from the commission as a whole. The commission, through an affirmative vote of at least eight members and at least one commissioner unaffiliated with any political party, could adopt standards and guidelines for nonpartisan staff to adhere to when creating plans.

The final map requires the approval of eight of the 12 members, including at least 2 members that are not affiliated with any political party. It also requires approval by the Colorado Supreme Court. Under the amendment, districts need to be competitive. Competitive is defined in the measure as having a reasonable potential to change parties at least once every ten years. Measuring competitiveness entails evidenced-based analyses, voter registration data, and past election results. Upon the approval of a final map (redistricting plan), the commission is required to create a report demonstrating the extent to which districts are competitive.

The map approved by the commission and by the Colorado Supreme Court would not be subject to legislative approval or the governor's veto or to veto referendum petitions.[3]

What other states have redistricting measures on the ballot in 2018?

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

In 2018, voters decided six ballot measures in five states designed to change how congressional districts, state legislative districts, or both types are drawn following the decennial U.S. Census. As of 2018, six was the highest number of redistricting-related ballot measures in a single year since 1982, when nine measures were on the ballot. Joshua Silver, CEO of the organization Represent.Us, described the measures as "the best reform map we’ve seen in decades."[4] The ballot measures followed the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous dismissal of the case Gill v. Whitford, which addressed the claim of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing. Therefore, the justices did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought to trial under the U.S. Constitution.[5] The following measures were on the ballot in 2018:

Measure Description Status
Colorado Amendment Y Create an independent commission for congressional districts Approved Approveda
Colorado Amendment Z Create an independent commission for state legislative districts Approved Approveda
Michigan Proposal 2 Create an independent commission for congressional and state legislative districts Approved Approveda
Missouri Amendment 1 Create the position of state demographer to draw state legislative districts Approved Approveda
Ohio Issue 1 Change state legislative requirements to approve maps of congressional districts Approved Approveda
Utah Proposition 4 Create an independent commission for to recommend congressional and state legislative districts Approved Approveda

How did this measure get on the ballot?

This amendment came to be through a compromise between Fair Districts Colorado, chaired by Kent Thiry, the CEO of kidney dialysis company DaVita Inc., and progressive, left-leaning group People Not Politicians, who were each proposing their own redistricting measures. Fair Districts Colorado backed initiative proposals #48 and #50 which were filed by Kathleen Curry, former nonpartisan member of the Colorado House of Representatives and Toni Larson of the League of Women Voters of Colorado. Measures #95 and #96 were backed by People Not Politicians.[6] Since Colorado Amendment 71 of 2016 imposed distribution requirements for initiated constitutional amendment petitions that made it difficult to collect enough signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, supporters preferred that the state legislature refer a constitutional amendment to the voters.[7]

The amendment was introduced in the Colorado Senate on April 18, 2018, as Senate Concurrent Resolution 18-004 (SCR18-004) where it passed unanimously on April 30, 2018. It was introduced in the state House on April 30, 2018, and passed unanimously on May 7, 2018. Stephen Fenberg (D-18) and Kevin Grantham (R-2), co-sponsors of the amendment, explained in a Denver Post column that drawing congressional and legislative districts has historically been divisive in Colorado, "with fierce partisan battles and political gamesmanship demonstrated decade after decade." Grantham said, “It will dramatically improve the system in ways that will make our legislative processes work better.”[8]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the amendment?

Two committees were registered in support of Amendments Y and Z: Fair Maps Colorado and Yes on Y and Z. Together, the committees reported raising $5.8 million and spending $4.83 million.[9]

One committee was registered to oppose Amendments Y and Z: The State Ballot Issue Committee. It had not reported any campaign finance activity.

Measure design

Before Amendments Y and Z, under Article V, Section 44 of the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado General Assembly was responsible for Congressional redistricting.[10]

Amendment Y was designed to create an independent commission for redistricting congressional districts in Colorado. The commission was to be composed of 12 members: four from the state’s largest political party, four from the state’s second largest political party, and four that are not affiliated with any political party.

The amendment was also designed to:

  • Establish qualifications for members to serve on the commission and the methods used to appoint members;
  • Provide opportunities for the public to be involved in the process;
  • Mandate that any paid lobbying of the commission must be reported to the secretary of state within 72 hours of when the lobbying took place; and
  • Establish methods by which maps should be drawn and require at least eight of the 12 members to approve a map.

In the event of deadlock in the commission, a nonpartisan staff member shall submit a final map to the Supreme Court for review. The commission would allow for judicial review of a map and limit Supreme Court review to the question of whether or not the commission or its staff members “committed an abuse of discretion.”[3] [11]

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the amendment.

Qualifications to Serve on the Commission: qualifications required to serve on the commission

The 12 members of the independent congressional redistricting commission will be appointed after each decennial U.S. census. Members must meet the following qualifications:[3]

  • Be registered electors who voted in both of the past two general elections in Colorado; and
  • Be affiliated with the same political party or unaffiliated with any political party for at least five years prior to the point of application.

No person would be qualified to serve on the commission if he or she is or has been one of the following:

  • A candidate for federal elective office within the last five years;
  • Compensated by a member of the United States Congress or a campaign committee of a candidate for the United States Congress within the last three years;
  • A municipal, county, state, or federal elected official in Colorado in the last three years;
  • An employee of a political party or elected political party official above the precinct level in Colorado in the last three years;
  • A member of the independent state legislative redistricting commission of Colorado; or
  • A lobbyist registered to lobby in Colorado at the municipal, state, or federal level within the last three years.

Application and Appointment Process to Serve on the Commission: process for applying and being chosen to serve on the commission

Those hoping to serve on the independent congressional redistricting commission are required to submit an application by November 10 of the year preceding the redistricting year stating their political background and history and qualifications to serve, including an explanation of why the applicant desires to serve on the commission.[3]

A panel of three former judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court will randomly select up to 300 applicants that meet the qualifications of commission members from each of three groups: those affiliated with the state's largest party, those affiliated with the state's second largest part, and those unaffiliated with any party. The panel then narrows it down to fifty of the most qualified applicants in each group and selects six members by lot from these applicants: two from each group.[3]

No applicant who is chosen to serve could be appointed if he or she is registered to vote in a district that is already represented on the panel. After all of the then-existing districts are represented on the panel, a district may be represented by a second commissioner. No district could be represented by more than two commissioners.[3]

The majority and minority leaders of the state House and Senate will each select a pool of ten applicants who are affiliated with one of the state's two largest political parties and notify the panel of their selections. The panel would then select one member from each leader's pool of applicants and randomly select two more applicants who are not affiliated with any political party.[3]

Organization of the Commission: how the commission was designed to be organized

The commission was designed to be convened by the governor by March 15 of the redistricting year. The governor will appoint a temporary chairperson from the commission's members and the commission will elect a chair and vice-chair who are from different political parties. Nonpartisan staff will be from the offices of the legislative research council, legislative legal services, and the general assembly as needed to assist the commission and panel of judges.[3]

The commission may adopt rules for governing its operations and administration.

Criteria for Congressional Redistricting Maps: requirements for maps and process for creating maps

The commission must do the following when adopting a redistricting plan:[3]

  • Strive to achieve mathematical equality in the population of districts, which are to be composed of contiguous geographical areas;
  • Preserve communities of interest and political subdivisions including counties, towns, and cities;
  • Minimize the number of divisions of a county, city, or town;
  • Keep districts as compact as reasonably possible; and
  • Maximize the number of politically competitive districts.

No map could be approved by the commission or the Supreme Court if the map was:[3]

  • Drawn to protect incumbent members or declared candidates for the State Legislature, or any political party;
  • Drawn for the purpose of or resulting in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote of any citizen based on the person's race or language; or
  • Drawn for the purpose of or resulting in diluting a minority group's electoral influence.

A preliminary plan for the redistricting of congressional districts was designed to be created solely by nonpartisan staff. The nonpartisan staff will consider comments from the commission and from the public when creating the preliminary redistricting plan. After a hearing on the preliminary plan, nonpartisan staff will then create at least three more plans to be presented to the commission. The commission could adopt a final staff plan or request in a public hearing that the nonpartisan staff create additional plans or amend plans, which does not require approval from the commission as a whole. The commission, through an affirmative vote of at least eight members and at least one commissioner unaffiliated with any political party, could adopt standards and guidelines for nonpartisan staff to adhere to when creating plans.[3]

Under Amendment Y, districts must to be competitive. Competitive is defined in the amendment as having a reasonable potential to change parties at least once every ten years. Measuring competitiveness entails evidenced-based analyses, voter registration data, and past election results. Upon the approval of a final map (redistricting plan), the commission is required to create a report demonstrating the extent to which districts would be competitive.[3]

Process for Adopting a Map: requirements for adopting a final map

The final map (redistricting plan) must be adopted by the commission no later than September 1 of the redistricting year and submitted to the Supreme Court for its review. The final maps proposed for submission to the Supreme Court require the affirmative vote of at least eight commission members, including two members who are not affiliated with any political party. The commission could not vote on a final map until at least 72 hours after a public hearing has been held regarding the proposed map unless the commission votes to unanimously waive the requirement. If the commission fails to adopt a plan for both chambers of the legislature by September 1 of the redistricting year, the nonpartisan staff will submit the third unamended staff plan to the Supreme Court for its review. The Supreme Court would review the plan and determine if it complies with the criteria set forth by this amendment. The Supreme Court could disapprove of a map if they find that the commission or nonpartisan staff committed an "abuse of discretion" in complying with the criteria for creating the redistricting plans.[3]

Public Hearings and Involvement: opportunities for public input

Residents of Colorado, including members of the commission, could present their own proposed redistricting maps and written comments for the commission's consideration. The commission is required to provide opportunities for public involvement at hearings throughout the state. The commission is also required to maintain a website or comparable means to communicate with the public and where Colorado residents can submit proposed maps and written comments for the commission's consideration without attending a hearing. Proposed maps and comments from citizens must be made publicly available on the commission's website. The commission would also be required to broadcast public hearings and maintain an archive that is accessible for public review online.[3]

The commission could not approve a map until at least three hearings have been held in each congressional district, including:

  • At least one hearing held in a location west of the continental divide
  • At least one hearing held in a location east of the continental divide and either south of the southern boundary of El Paso County or east of the eastern boundary of Arapahoe County.

A gathering for this purpose would only count if it was attended by at least ten commissioners in person or electronically.

Commission Transparency and Ethics: restrictions on communication within the commission and lobbying

Restrictions on communication:

  • Commissioners could not communicate with nonpartisan staff regarding the redistricting maps except at a public hearing or meeting;
  • Nonpartisan staff could not communicate about the content or development of any plans outside of public hearings with anyone except other staff members;
    • Nonpartisan staff must report to the commission any attempt to influence the staff's role in the redistricting plans;
  • One or more nonpartisan staff could be designated to communicate with commissioners on administrative matters;
  • A commissioner who violates the restrictions on communication was to be removed from the commission.

Lobbying:

Lobbyists are described in the amendment as people who "receive compensation for advocating to the commission, to one or more commissioners, or to nonpartisan staff for the adoption or rejection of any map, amendment to a map, mapping approach, or manner of compliance with any of the mapping criteria." Lobbyists are required to disclose any compensation and the person or entity paying for their lobbying activities to the Secretary of State within 72 hours. The Secretary of State would publish the information on its website or through another means of public communication within 24 hours of receiving such information.[3]


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment Y was as follows:[12]

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party's control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?[13]

”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for Amendment Y in the Colorado 2018 State Ballot Information Booklet (also known as the Blue Book) was as follows:[14]

Amendment Y establishes a new process for congressional redistricting. Amendment Z, which is also on the 2018 ballot, proposes a similar but separate process for state legislative redistricting.

Reapportionment and redistricting. The U.S. Census Bureau counts the U.S. population every ten years. After this, the congressional reapportionment process occurs, by which each state is granted seats in the U.S. House of Representatives based on its share of the total U.S. population. The states must then redraw their districts so that the number of people in each district is equal.

Congressional redistricting process in Colorado. Colorado currently has seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Under the state constitution, the state legislature is responsible for dividing the state into these congressional districts. If the state legislature fails to complete a new map of congressional districts during the legislative session after the census, legal challenges may result in state courts drawing the map. The process has resulted in court action the last four times congressional redistricting has occurred. Current law lists factors that the courts consider when evaluating maps, but does not direct how the courts should prioritize these factors. Amendment Y transfers the authority to draw congressional district maps from the state legislature to a newly created Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission (commission). The commission must have 12 members, 4 from the state's largest political party, which is currently the Democratic Party, 4 from the state's second largest political party, which is currently the Republican Party, and 4 who are not affiliated with any political party. These members are appointed from a pool of applicants as described below.

Application and appointment process. Amendment Y sets minimum qualifications for commissioners. An applicant must be registered to vote and have voted in the previous two general elections in Colorado, and have been either affiliated with the same party or unaffiliated with any party for the last five consecutive years. An applicant may not be appointed to the commission if he or she has been a candidate for federal office within the last five years, or within the last three years been: a professional registered lobbyist; an elected public official; an elected political party official above the precinct level; or paid by a member of or candidate for Congress. Commissioners may not also serve on the Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission proposed in Amendment Z.

The measure requires nonpartisan legislative staff to prepare an application form for commissioners after receiving public input on the application at one or more public hearings. All applications submitted must be posted on a public website. Nonpartisan legislative staff must review commission applications to ensure applicants meet the minimum qualifications. The Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court designates a panel of three of the most recently retired judges from the Colorado Supreme Court or Colorado Court of Appeals to facilitate the selection of commissioners. No more than one of the three judges may be registered with any one political party, and the panel's decisions must be unanimous. Selected judges may not also serve on the panel that facilitates the selection of the proposed Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission. From all of the qualified applicants, the panel of retired judges randomly selects a pool of 1,050 applicants. The panel then narrows the applicant pool to 150 applicants using criteria related to applicants’ experience, analytical skills, and ability to be impartial and promote consensus. From the 150-person applicant pool, the panel randomly chooses 2 commissioners affiliated with the state’s largest political party, 2 commissioners affiliated with the state’s second largest political party, and 2 commissioners who are not affiliated with a political party. For the remaining 6 commissioners, the panel selects 2 additional unaffiliated commissioners from the pool of 1,050 applicants, and 4 commissioners from applicant pools determined by legislative leaders. The final 12-member commission will have 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 4 unaffiliated members, unless another political party becomes the largest or second largest political party in the state. The final composition of the commission should reflect Colorado’s racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity, and must include members from each congressional district, including at least one member from the Western Slope.

Commission operations. Under the measure, the commission is responsible for adopting rules to govern its administration and operation, and the commissioners are subject to open meeting laws. Staff for the commission must be assigned from nonpartisan legislative staff agencies. Commissioners are prohibited from communicating with nonpartisan legislative staff about any maps outside of a public meeting or hearing, and staff are prohibited from communicating with outside parties concerning the development of a redistricting map. Any commissioner who participates in prohibited communication must be removed from the commission. Any person who receives compensation for advocating to the commission, one or more commissioners, or staff is considered a lobbyist and must disclose his or her compensation and its source to the Secretary of State for publication.

Criteria for drawing a congressional district map. The U.S. Constitution requires that all congressional districts within a state have equal populations. Under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, the state cannot change voting standards, practices, or procedures in a way that denies or limits the right to vote based on race or color or membership in a language minority group. In particular, the act requires that a minority group’s voting strength not be diluted under a redistricting map. Amendment Y incorporates principles of the Voting Rights Act into state law and prohibits the approval of a map that violates these principles. Amendment Y also adds criteria for the commission to follow when adopting a map. After achieving population equality and complying with the Voting Rights Act, the commission must preserve whole political subdivisions and communities of interest as much as possible, and districts must be as compact as possible. After the consideration of these criteria, Amendment Y requires the commission to maximize the number of politically competitive districts, which are defined as having the reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district's representative to change at least once over the decade, to the extent possible. Maps cannot be drawn for the purpose of protecting incumbents, candidates, or political parties.

Map consideration and public involvement. The measure directs nonpartisan commission staff to create a preliminary redistricting map, and requires them to consider public comments while developing the map. Members of the public may also present proposed redistricting maps and written comments for the commission's consideration. The commission must hold at least three public hearings in each congressional district to receive public input before approving a redistricting map. At least ten commissioners must attend each hearing, either in person or electronically. These hearings must be broadcast online, and the commission must maintain a website through which Colorado residents may submit maps or written comments. All written comments pertaining to redistricting must be published on the website. After the commission holds its hearings on the preliminary map, staff must prepare additional maps. The commission can adopt standards and guidelines for staff to follow when developing staff maps. Any commissioner can request at a public hearing that staff prepare additional maps or amendments to maps. The commission can adopt a final map at any time after the presentation of the first staff map.

Final map. Under the measure, the commission must adopt a final map and submit it to the Colorado Supreme Court for review. At least 8 of the 12 commissioners, including at least 2 unaffiliated commissioners, must approve the final map, and the map must be made public before the commission votes on it. If the commission fails to submit a final map, a staff map must be submitted, without amendments, to the Colorado Supreme Court for judicial review. The Colorado Supreme Court must approve the final map unless the court finds that the commission abused its discretion in applying or failing to apply required criteria, in which case the court must return it to the commission. If returned, the commission has 12 days to hold a hearing and submit a revised map to the Colorado Supreme Court. If the commission fails to submit a revised map, nonpartisan staff have an additional three days to submit a revised map. The Colorado Supreme Court must approve a congressional redistricting map by December 15 of the redistricting year.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article V, Colorado Constitution

The measure amended section 44 of Article V of the state constitution. The measure also added new sections, 44.1, 44.2, 44.3, 44.4, 44.5, and 44.6 to Article V. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted:[12]

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 44. Representatives in congress - congressional districts - commission created. (1) declaration of the people. the people of the state of Colorado find and declare that:

(a) The practice of political gerrymandering, whereby congressional districts are purposefully drawn to favor one political party or incumbent politician over another, must end;

(b) the public's interest in prohibiting political gerrymandering is best achieved by creating a new and independent commission that is politically balanced, provides representation to voters not affiliated with either of the state's two largest parties, and utilizes nonpartisan legislative staff to draw maps;

(c) the redistricting commission should set district lines by ensuring constitutionally guaranteed voting rights, including the protection of minority group voting, as well as fair and effective representation of constituents using politically neutral criteria;

(d) competitive elections for members of the United States House of Representatives provide voters with a meaningful choice among candidates, promote a healthy democracy, help ensure that constituents receive fair and effective representation, and contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions;

(e) for years certain political interests opposed competitive districts in Colorado because they are primarily concerned about maintaining their own political power at the expense of fair and effective representation; and

(f) citizens want and deserve an inclusive and meaningful congressional redistricting process that provides the public with the ability to be heard as redistricting maps are drawn, to be able to watch the witnesses who deliver testimony and the redistricting commission's deliberations, and to have their written comments considered before any proposed map is voted upon by the commission as the final map.

(2) Congressional districts - commission created. There is hereby created the independent congressional redistricting commission. the general assembly commission 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 ,is made by congress, the general assembly commission shall divide the state into congressional districts accordingly.

(3) Definitions. As used in this section and in sections through 44.6 of this Article V, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Commission" means the independent congressional redistricting commission created in subsection (2) of this section.

(b) (i) "Community of interest" means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, is composed of a reasonably proximate population, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation.

(ii) Such interests include but are not limited to matters reflecting:
(a) shared public policy concerns of urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, or trade areas; and
(b) shared public policy concerns such as education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, water needs and supplies, and issues of demonstrable regional significance.
(iii) Groups that may comprise a community of interest include racial, ethnic, and language minority groups, subject to compliance with subsections (this article v, which subsections protect against the denial or abridgement of the right to vote due to a person's race or language minority group.
(iv) "Community of interest" does not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

(c) "Race" or "racial" means a category of race or ethnic origin documented in the federal decennial census.

(d) "Redistricting year" means the year following the year in which the federal decennial census is taken.

(e) "Staff" or "nonpartisan staff" means the staff of the general assembly's legislative council and office of legislative legal services, or their successor offices, who are assigned to assist the commission by the directors of those offices in accordance with section

(4) Adjustment of dates. If any date prescribed in sections 44.1 through 44.5 of this article v falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the date is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Section 44.1. Commission composition and appointment - vacancies.

(1) After each federal decennial census of the United States, the members of the commission shall be appointed and convened as prescribed in this section.

(2) The commission consists of twelve members who have the following qualifications:

(a) commissioners must be registered electors who voted in both of the previous two general elections in Colorado;
(b) commissioners must either have been unaffiliated with any political party or have been affiliated with the same political party for a consecutive period of no less than five years at the time of the application; and
(c) No person may be appointed to or serve on the commission if he or she:
(i) is or has been a candidate for federal elective office within the last five years preceding the date on which applications for appointment to the commission are due under subsection (4) of this section;
(ii) is or has been, within the last three years preceding the date on which applications for appointment to the commission are due under subsection (4) of this section, compensated by a member of, or a campaign committee advocating the election of a candidate to, the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate;
(iii) is or has been, within the last three years preceding the date on which applications for appointment to the commission are due under subsection (4) of this section, an elected public official at the federal, state, county, or municipal level in Colorado;
(iv) is or has been, within the last three years preceding the date on which applications for appointment to the commission are due under subsection (4) of this section, an elected political party official above the precinct level in Colorado or an employee of a political party;
(v) is a member of the commission responsible for dividing the state into senatorial and representative districts of the general assembly; or
(vi) is or has been a professional lobbyist registered to lobby with the state of Colorado, with any municipality in Colorado, or at the federal level within the last three years preceding the date on which applications for appointment to the commission are due under subsection (4) of this section.

(3) (a) By August 10 of the year prior to the redistricting year, nonpartisan staff shall, after holding one or more public hearings, prepare an application form that will allow appointing authorities to evaluate a person's experience and qualifications and make such application available on the general assembly's website or comparable means of communicating with the public.

(b) The application form must clearly state the legal obligations and expectations of potential appointees. Information required of applicants must include, but is not necessarily limited to, professional background, party affiliation, a description of past political activity, a list of all political and civic organizations to which the applicant has belonged within the previous five years, and whether the applicant meets the qualifications stated in subsection (2) of this section. In addition, the application form must require the applicant to explain why they want to serve on the commission and afford the applicant an opportunity to make a statement about how they will promote consensus among commissioners if appointed to the commission. Applicants may also choose to include up to four letters of recommendation with their application.

(4) By November 10 of the year prior to the redistricting year, any person who seeks to serve on the commission must submit a completed application to nonpartisan staff. All applications are public records and must be posted promptly after receipt on the general assembly's website or comparable means of communicating with the public.

(5) (a) No later than January 5 of the redistricting year, the chief justice of the Colorado supreme court shall designate a panel to review the applications. The panel must consist of the three justices or judges who most recently retired from the Colorado supreme court or the Colorado court of appeals, appointed sequentially starting with the most recent justice or judge to retire who has been affiliated with the same political party or unaffiliated with any political party for the two years prior to appointment; except that no appointee, within two years prior to appointment, shall have been affiliated with the same political party as a justice or judge already appointed to the panel. If any of the three justices or judges who most recently retired from the Colorado Supreme Court or the Colorado court of appeals is unable or unwilling to serve on the panel or has been affiliated within two years prior to appointment with a political party already represented on the panel, then the chief justice shall appoint the next justice or judge who most recently retired from the Colorado Supreme Court or the Colorado court of appeals and who has not been affiliated within two years prior to appointment with the same political party as any justice or judge already appointed to the panel. If, after considering all justices and judges who have retired from the Colorado supreme court and the Colorado court of appeals, fewer than three eligible participants for the panel have been identified who are able and willing to serve, the chief justice shall appoint the most recently retired district court judge who has not been affiliated within two years prior to appointment with the same political party as any previous appointee to the panel and who accepts such appointment. No justice or judge shall serve both on this panel and the panel assisting in the process of choosing members of the commission responsible for dividing the state into state senate and state house of representatives districts.

(b) All decisions of the panel regarding the selection of applicants pursuant to this section require the affirmative approval of all three members of the panel.

(c) The general assembly shall prescribe by law the compensation of members of the panel. Nonpartisan staff shall assist the panel in carrying out its duties.

(6) After applications are submitted, nonpartisan staff, with the cooperation and assistance of the secretary of state, shall make an objective and factual finding based on, to the extent possible, publicly available information, including information contained in the application and information contained within the records maintained by the secretary of state, whether each applicant meets the qualifications specified in subsection (redistricting year, nonpartisan staff shall make its findings publicly available and notify the applicants of the staff's finding. If the staff finds that an applicant is not eligible, then the staff shall include the reasons in its finding.

(7) By January 18 of the redistricting year, the panel, in a public meeting, shall randomly select by lot from all of the applicants who were found to meet the qualifications specified in subsection (2) of this section the names of three hundred applicants who are affiliated with the state's largest political party, three hundred applicants who are affiliated with the state's second largest political party, and four hundred fifty applicants who are not affiliated with any political party, or such lesser number as there are total applicants who meet the qualifications specified in subsection (2) of this section for each of those groups.

(8) (a) In one or more public hearings conducted on or before February applications of the applicants selected in accordance with subsection (7) of this section, the panel shall identify fifty applicants who are affiliated with the state's largest political party, fifty applicants who are affiliated with the state's second largest political party, and fifty applicants who are unaffiliated with any political party and who best demonstrate:

(i) experience in organizing, representing, advocating for, adjudicating the interests of, or actively participating in groups, organizations, or associations in Colorado; and
(ii) relevant analytical skills, the ability to be impartial, and the ability to promote consensus on the commission.

(b) No later than February 1 of the redistricting year, from the applicants identified in subsection (8)(a) of this section, the panel shall choose by lot six applicants to serve on the commission as follows:

(i) two commissioners who are not affiliated with any political party;
(ii) two commissioners who are affiliated with the state's largest political party; and
(iii) two commissioners who are affiliated with the state's second largest political party.

(c) In the process of choosing applicants by lot for appointment to the commission, no applicant whose name is chosen may be appointed if he or she is registered to vote in a congressional district that is already represented on the commission; except that, when all then-existing congressional districts in Colorado are represented on the commission, a congressional district may be represented by a second commissioner. No congressional district may be represented by more than two commissioners. Any persons whose names are chosen but duplicate a congressional district's representation on the commission and are not appointed to the commission shall be eligible for appointment pursuant to subsections (9) and (10 of this section.

(9) (a) By February 16 of the redistricting year, the majority leader of the state senate, the minority leader of the state senate, the majority leader of the state house of representatives, and the minority leader of the state house of representatives shall each select a pool of ten applicants who are affiliated with one of the state's two largest political parties from all applications submitted to nonpartisan staff and notify the panel of their selections.

(b) As determined by the legislative leaders in selecting their respective pools, the applicants selected for each pool must meet the qualifications set forth in subsection (2) of this section and demonstrate the qualities listed in subsection (8)(a) of this section.

(c) For each congressional district not represented by a commissioner appointed pursuant to subsections (8)(b) and (8)(c) of this section, each pool must consist of at least one applicant who is registered to vote in that congressional district.

(d) If there is an insufficient number of available applicants that meet the requirements of subsection (9)(b) of this section to select any complete pool, then the pool must consist of only those applicants who meet those requirements.

(10) By March 1 of the redistricting year, the panel of judges shall select, in such order as the panel determines, one commissioner from each legislative leader's pool of applicants and two commissioners from those applicants who are not affiliated with any political party and whose names were randomly selected by lot pursuant to subsection (7) of this section. The panel of judges must ensure that the commission includes four commissioners who are not affiliated with any political party, four commissioners who are affiliated with the state's largest political party, and four commissioners who are affiliated with the state's second largest political party. The panel of judges may interview applicants before making the appointments. In selecting applicants, the panel shall, in addition to considering applicants' other qualifications:

(a) to the extent possible, ensure that the commission reflects Colorado's racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity;

(b) ensure that at least one commissioner is registered to vote in each congressional district but no more than two commissioners are registered to vote in any single congressional district;

(c) ensure that at least one commissioner resides west of the continental divide; and

(d) ensure that all commissioners meet the qualifications set forth in subsection (2) of this section and demonstrate the qualities listed in subsection (8)(a) of this section.

(11) (a) A commissioner's position on the commission will be deemed vacant if he or she, having been appointed as a registered elector who is not affiliated with a political party, affiliates with a political party before the supreme court has approved a plan pursuant to section 44.5 of this Article V. A commissioner's position on the commission will also be deemed vacant if he or she, having been affiliated with one of the state's two largest political parties at the time of appointment, affiliates with a different political party or becomes unaffiliated with any political party before the supreme court has approved a plan pursuant to section 44.5 of this Article V.

(b) Any vacancy on the commission, including one that occurs due to death, resignation, removal, failure to meet the qualifications of appointment, refusal or inability to accept an appointment, or otherwise, must be filled as soon as possible by the designated appointing authority from the designated pool of eligible applicants for that commissioner's position and in the same manner as the originally chosen commissioner; except that no commissioner chosen to fill a vacancy will be bypassed for appointment if all congressional districts are already represented on the commission.

(12) For purposes of this section, the state's two largest political parties shall be determined by the number of registered electors affiliated with each political party in the state according to voter registration data published by the secretary of state for the earliest day in January of the redistricting year for which such data is published.

Section 44.2 Commission organization - procedures - transparency - voting requirements. (1) Initial organization, officers, procedures, rules, and transparency.

(a) The governor shall convene the commission no later than March redistricting year and appoint a temporary chairperson from the commission's members. upon convening, the commission shall elect a chair and a vice-chair, who are not members of the same political party, and other such officers as it determines.

(b) The director of research of the legislative council and the director of the office of legislative legal services, or the directors of successor nonpartisan offices of the general assembly, shall appoint nonpartisan staff from their respective offices as needed to assist the commission and the panel of judges as described in section 44.1 of this Article V. Nonpartisan staff shall acquire and prepare all necessary resources, including computer hardware, software, and demographic, geographic, and political databases, as far in advance as necessary to enable the commission to begin its work immediately upon convening.

(c) The commission may retain legal counsel in all actions and proceedings in connection with the performance of its powers, duties, and functions, including representation of the commission before any court.

(d) The general assembly shall appropriate sufficient funds for the payment of the expenses of the commission, the compensation and expenses of nonpartisan staff, and the compensation and expenses of the panel of judges as described in section 44.1 of this Article V. Members of the commission shall be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary expenses and may also receive such per diem allowance as may be established by the general assembly. subject to available appropriations, hardware and software necessary for the development of plans may, at the request of any commissioner, be provided to the commissioner. The commission and its staff must have access to statistical information compiled by the state and its political subdivisions as necessary for its duties. state agencies and political subdivisions shall comply with requests from the commission and its staff for such statistical information.

(e) The commission shall adopt rules to govern its administration and operation. the commission must provide at least seventy-two hours of advance public notice of all proposed rules prior to consideration for adoption; except that proposed rules may be amended during commission deliberations without such advance notice of specific, related amendments. neither the commission's procedural rules nor its mapping decisions are subject to the "state administrative procedure act", Article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., or any successor statute. Rules must include but need not be limited to the following:

(i) the hearing process and review of maps submitted for its consideration;
(ii) maintenance of a record of the commission's activities and proceedings, including a record of written and oral testimony received, and of the commission's directions to nonpartisan staff on proposed changes to any plan and the commission's rationale for such changes;
(iii) the process for removing commissioners for participating in communications prohibited under this section;
(iv) the process for recommending changes to plans submitted to the commission by nonpartisan staff; and
(v) the adoption of a statewide meeting and hearing schedule, including the necessary elements of electronic attendance at a commission hearing.

(2) Voting requirements. A simple majority of the appointed commissioners may approve rules and procedural decisions.the election of the commission's chair and vice-chair requires the affirmative vote of at least eight commissioners, including the affirmative vote of at least one commissioner who is unaffiliated with any political party. Removal of any commissioner as provided in this section requires the affirmative vote of at least eight commissioners, including the affirmative vote of at least two commissioners who are unaffiliated with any political party. Adoption of the final plan for submission to the supreme court and the adoption of a revised plan after a plan is returned to the commission from the supreme court requires the affirmative vote of at least eight commissioners, including the affirmative vote of at least two commissioners who are unaffiliated with any political party. The commission shall not vote upon a final plan until at least seventy-two hours after it has been proposed to the commission in a public meeting or at least seventy-two hours after it has been amended by the commission in a public meeting, whichever occurs later; except that commissioners may unanimously waive the seventy-two hour requirement.

(3) Public involvement - hearing process. (a) All Colorado residents, including individual commissioners, may present proposed redistricting maps or written comments, or both, for the commission's consideration.

(b) The commission must, to the maximum extent practicable, provide opportunities for Colorado residents to present testimony at hearings held throughout the state. The commission shall not approve a redistricting map until at least three hearings have been held in each congressional district, including at least one hearing that is held in a location west of the continental divide and at least one hearing that is held in a location east of the continental divide and either south of El Paso County's southern boundary or east of Arapahoe County's eastern boundary. No gathering of commissioners can be considered a hearing for this purpose unless it is attended, in person or electronically, by at least ten commissioners. The commission shall establish by rule the necessary elements of electronic attendance at a commission hearing.

(c) The commission shall maintain a website or comparable means of communicating with the public through which any Colorado resident may submit proposed maps or written comments, or both, without attending a hearing of the commission.

(d) The commission shall publish all written comments pertaining to redistricting on its website or comparable means of communicating with the public as well as the name of the Colorado resident submitting such comments. If the commission or nonpartisan staff have a substantial basis to believe that the person submitting such comments has not truthfully or accurately identified himself or herself, the commission need not consider and need not publish such comments but must notify the commenter in writing of this fact. The commission may withhold comments, in whole or in part, from the website or comparable means of communicating with the public that do not relate to redistricting maps, policies, or communities of interest.

(e) The commission shall provide simultaneous access to the regional hearings by broadcasting them via its website or comparable means of communicating with the public and maintain an archive of such hearings for online public review.

(4) Ethical obligations - transparency - lobbyist reporting. (a) Commissioners are guardians of the public trust and are subject to antibribery and abuse of public office requirements as provided in parts 3 and 4 of Article 8 of title 18, c.r.s., as amended, or any successor statute.

(b) To ensure transparency in the redistricting process:

(i) (a) The commission and the commissioners are subject to open meetings requirements as provided in part 4 of Article 6 of title 24, c.r.s., as amended, or any successor statute.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (4)(b)(i)(d) of this section, a commissioner shall not communicate with nonpartisan staff on the mapping of congressional districts unless the communication is during a public meeting or hearing of the commission.
(c) Except for public input and comment, nonpartisan staff shall not have any communications about the content or development of any plan outside of public hearings with anyone except other staff members. Nonpartisan staff shall report to the commission any attempt by anyone to exert influence over the staff's role in the drafting of plans.
(d) One or more nonpartisan staff may be designated to communicate with commissioners regarding administrative matters, the definition and scope of which shall be determined by the commission.
(e) Any commissioner who participates in a communication prohibited in this section must be removed from the commission, and such vacancy must be filled within seven days.
(ii) The commission, each commissioner, and nonpartisan staff are subject to open records requirements as provided in part 1 of Article 72 of title 24, C.R.S., as amended, or any successor statute; except that maps in draft form and not submitted to the commission are not public records subject to disclosure. Work product and communications among nonpartisan staff are subject to disclosure once a plan is submitted to the supreme court.
(iii) Persons who contract for or receive compensation for advocating to the commission, to one or more commissioners, or to the nonpartisan staff for the adoption or rejection of any map, amendment to a map, mapping approach, or manner of compliance with any of the mapping criteria specified in section 44.3 of this Article V are lobbyists who must disclose to the secretary of state any compensation contracted for, compensation received, and the person or entity contracting or paying for their lobbying services. Such disclosure must be made no later than seventy-two hours after the earlier of each instance of such lobbying or any payment of such compensation. The secretary of state shall publish on the secretary of state's website or comparable means of communicating with the public the names of such lobbyists as well as the compensation received and the persons or entities for whom they work within twenty-four hours of receiving such information. The secretary of state shall adopt rules to facilitate the complete and prompt reporting required by this subsection (complaint process to address any lobbyist's failure to report a full and accurate disclosure, which complaint must be heard by an administrative law judge, whose decision may be appealed to the court of appeals.

Section 44.3. criteria for determinations of congressional districts - definition. (1) In adopting a congressional redistricting plan, the commission shall:

(a) make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts, justifying each variance, no matter how small, as required by the constitution of the United States. districts must be composed of contiguous geographic areas;

(b) comply with the federal "voting rights act of 52 u.s.c. sec. 50301, as amended.

(2) (a) as much as is reasonably possible, the commission's plan must preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns.
(b) districts must be as compact as is reasonably possible.
(3) (a) thereafter, the commission shall, to the extent possible, maximize the number of politically competitive districts.
(b) In its hearings in various locations in the state, the commission shall solicit evidence relevant to competitiveness of elections in Colorado and shall assess such evidence in evaluating proposed maps.

(c) When the commission approves a plan, or when nonpartisan staff submits a plan in the absence of the commission's approval of a plan as provided in section 44.4 of this Article V, the nonpartisan staff shall, within seventy-two hours of such action, make publicly available, and include in the commission's record, a report to demonstrate how the plan reflects the evidence presented to, and the findings concerning, the extent to which competitiveness in district elections is fostered consistent with the other criteria set forth in this section.

(d) For purposes of this subsection (3), "competitive" means having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district's representative to change at least once between federal decennial censuses. Competitiveness may be measured by factors such as a proposed district's past election results, a proposed district's political party registration data, and evidence-based analyses of proposed districts.

(4) No map may be approved by the commission or given effect by the supreme court if:

(a) it has been drawn for the purpose of protecting one or more incumbent members, or one or more declared candidates, of the United States House of Representatives or any political party; or

(b) it has been drawn for the purpose of or results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of that person's race or membership in a language minority group, including diluting the impact of that racial or language minority group's electoral influence.

Section 44.4. preparation, amendment, and approval of plans- public hearings and participation. (1) The commission shall begin by considering a plan, created by nonpartisan staff alone, to be known as the "preliminary plan". The preliminary plan must be presented and published no earlier than thirty days and no later than forty-five days after the commission has convened or the necessary census data are available, whichever is later. Within the first twenty days after the commission has convened, any member of the public and any member of the commission may submit written comments to nonpartisan staff on the creation of the preliminary plan and on communities of interest that require representation in one or more specific areas of the state. Nonpartisan staff shall consider such comments in creating the preliminary plan and such comments must be part of the record of the commission's activities and proceedings.at the first public hearing at which the preliminary plan is presented, nonpartisan staff shall explain how the plan was created, how the plan addresses the categories of public comments received, and how the plan complies with the criteria prescribed in section 44.3 of this Article V.

(2) By July 7 of the redistricting year, the commission shall complete public hearings on the preliminary plan in several places throughout the state in accordance with section 44.2 of this Article V.

(3) Subsequent to hearings on the preliminary plan, nonpartisan staff shall prepare, publish online, and present to the commission no fewer than three plans, except as provided in subsection (5) of this section. These plans will be known as the "staff plans" and must be named and numbered sequentially for purposes of subsection (6) of this section. Staff plans must be prepared, published online, and presented in accordance with a timetable established by the commission; except that each staff plan must be presented to the commission no fewer than ten days after the presentation of any previous staff plan and no fewer than twenty-four hours after it has been published online. If the commission fails to establish a timetable for the presentation of staff plans within ten days after the completion of hearings on the preliminary plan, nonpartisan staff shall establish such timetable. Nonpartisan staff shall keep each plan confidential until it is published online or by a comparable means of communicating with the public using generally available technologies. The commission may provide direction, if approved by at least eight commissioners including at least one commissioner unaffiliated with any political party, for the development of staff plans through the adoption of standards, guidelines, or methodologies to which nonpartisan staff shall adhere, including standards, guidelines, or methodologies to be used to evaluate a plan's competitiveness, consistent with section 44.3 (3)(d) of this Article V. In preparing all staff plans, nonpartisan staff shall also consider public testimony and public comments received by the commission that are consistent with the criteria specified in section 44.3 of this Article V.

(4) Any commissioner or group of commissioners may request nonpartisan staff to prepare additional plans or amendments to plans. Any such request must be made in a public hearing of the commission but does not require commission approval. Plans or amendments developed in response to such requests are separate from staff plans for purposes of subsection (6) of this section.

(5) (a) The commission may adopt a final plan at any time after presentation of the first staff plan, in which case nonpartisan staff does not need to prepare or present additional staff plans.

(b) No later than September 1 of the redistricting year, the commission shall adopt a final plan, which must then be submitted to the supreme court for its review and determination in accordance with section
(c) The commission may adjust the deadlines specified in this section if conditions outside of the commission's control require such an adjustment to ensure adopting a final plan as required by this subsection (5).
(d) The commission may grant nonpartisan staff the authority to make technical de minimis adjustments to the adopted plan prior to its submission to the supreme court.

(6) If for any reason the commission does not adopt a final plan by the date specified in subsection (5) of this section, then nonpartisan staff shall submit the unamended third staff plan to the supreme court.

Section 44.5. Supreme court review. (1) The supreme court shall review the submitted plan and determine whether the plan complies with the criteria listed in section 44. The court's review and determination shall take precedence over other matters before the court. The supreme court shall adopt rules for such proceedings and for the production and presentation of supportive evidence for such plan. Any legal arguments concerning such plan must be submitted to the supreme court pursuant to the schedule established by the court.

(2) The supreme court shall approve the plan submitted unless it finds that the commission or nonpartisan staff, in the case of a staff plan submitted in the absence of a commission-approved plan, abused its discretion in applying or failing to apply the criteria listed in section 44.3 of this Article V, in light of the record before the commission. The supreme court may consider any maps submitted to the commission in assessing whether the commission or nonpartisan staff, in the case of a staff plan submitted in the absence of a commission-approved plan, abused its discretion.

(3) If the supreme court determines that the submitted plan constitutes an abuse of discretion in applying or failing to apply the criteria listed in section 44.3 of this Article V, in light of the record before the commission, the supreme court shall return the plan to the commission with the court's reasons for disapproval.

(4) (a) By November 1 of the redistricting year, the supreme court shall approve the plan submitted or return the plan to the commission.

(b) If the court returns the plan to the commission, the commission shall have twelve days to hold a commission hearing that includes public testimony and to return an adopted plan that resolves the court's reasons for disapproval.

(c) If the commission fails to adopt and return a plan to the court within twelve days, nonpartisan staff shall have an additional three days to prepare a plan that resolves the court's reasons for disapproval and return it to the court for approval.

(d) The supreme court shall review the revised plan in accordance with subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section.

(5) The supreme court shall approve a plan for the redrawing of congressional districts no later than December 15 of the redistricting year. The court shall order that such plan be filed with the secretary of state no later than such date.

Section 44.6. severability. If any provision of sections 44.1 through 44.5 of this Article V is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, or if any application of these sections is found by such a court to be unconstitutional, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the remaining provisions of these sections that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. the provisions of sections 44.1 through 44.5 of this Article V are deemed and declared severable.[13]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12, and the FRE is 28. The word count for the ballot title is 217, and the estimated reading time is 57 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Fair maps CO logo 2018.png

Fair Maps Colorado led the campaign in support of the amendment.

Supporters

Sponsors in the legislature

Officials and individuals

Organizations

Arguments

  • Stephen Fenberg (D-18) and Kevin Grantham (R-2), co-sponsors of the amendment, explained in a Denver Post column that drawing congressional and legislative districts has historically been divisive in Colorado, "with fierce partisan battles and political gamesmanship demonstrated decade after decade." They wrote:[23]
“

Colorado’s existing systems for drawing those maps (known as redistricting and reapportionment) are controlled by elected officials and political appointees. The status quo has resulted in oftentimes divided affairs that have lacked transparency, protected incumbents and led to charges of back-room dealing. And the hard-fought process has created a small number of competitive seats in a state that is near-evenly divided between Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters. But all Coloradans deserve a fairer and more transparent process for drawing district boundaries. And all Coloradans deserve effective representation where politicians have to work to earn the support of every voter in his or her district. With a new Census around the corner and dramatic growth set to give Colorado an eighth Congressional seat by 2022, now is the time to address the problems in our existing system.[13]

”
  • Grantham said, “It will dramatically improve the system in ways that will make our legislative processes work better.”[8] Fenberg said, “It’s not like all of the sudden kumbaya. It’s more like people are realizing we are just going to keep having this fight over and over and over again.”[24]
  • Fair Maps Colorado campaign co-chair Joe Zimlick said, "Regardless of what you believe — that Colorado is gerrymandered or not — almost everyone agrees it's good public policy to explicitly prohibit gerrymandering. Almost everyone in our state, far higher than anywhere else, acknowledges that gerrymandering is a national crisis or a national issue. So preventing that in Colorado is important."[25]
  • The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce argued, "[We] support a fair, transparent redistricting process that brings more voices to the table. We believe it’s critical that our congressional and legislative districts reflect our communities, with ample representation of unaffiliated voters. This is a transparent, fair and distinctly Colorado approach to redistricting that should result in competitive seats throughout our state."[19]

Campaign advertisements

The following video was released by Represent.Us in support of Amendments Y and Z:[26]

Title: "Vote Yes on Amendments Y and Z"

Official arguments

The supporting arguments provided for Amendment Y in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:[14]

1) Amendment Y limits the role of partisan politics in the congressional redistricting process by transferring the legislature’s role to an independent commission. The measure creates a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one political party controls the commission. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters must be appointed to the commission in equal numbers. Lobbyists and politicians are prohibited from serving on the new commission. Additionally, nonpartisan legislative staff draw the district maps, and a map's approval requires a supermajority vote of the commission, including at least two unaffiliated commissioners. These provisions encourage political compromise by keeping political parties and politicians with a vested interest in the outcome from controlling the redistricting process.

2) The measure makes the redistricting process more transparent and provides greater opportunity for public participation. Congressional redistricting is conducted by an independent commission in public meetings, with safeguards against undue influence in the preparation and adoption of maps. All Coloradans will have the opportunity to engage in the process because the commission will conduct meetings throughout the state rather than only at the State Capitol. The commission is subject to state open records and open meetings laws, and anyone paid to lobby the commission has 72 hours to disclose their lobbying activities. By requiring that map-related communications occur in public, Coloradans will be able to see exactly how the districts are drawn.

3) The measure brings structure to the redistricting process by using clear, ordered, and fair criteria in the drawing of districts. By prioritizing factors such as communities of interest, city and county lines, and political competitiveness, it provides specific direction to the commission about how it should evaluate proposed maps. It also prevents the adoption of a map that protects incumbents, candidates, or political parties, or a map that dilutes the electoral influence of racial or ethnic minorities. Along with these prioritized criteria, the measure prescribes a structured court review process and provides more guidance regarding the court’s role than has existed in prior redistricting cycles.

Opposition

Opponents

  • 13 Issues, also known as the State Ballot Issue Committee[27]

Arguments

  • Douglas Bruce, head of the 13 Issues committee, wrote, "Y and Z offer a stacked commission of 12 members — four Dem, four GOP, and four unaffiliated. It flatly bans civic involvement by minor party members. Y and Z schemers leave selection of “neutral” commissioners to retired state judges. Instead of random drawings of applicants, judges will pick whom they like. Democrat governors have named judges 36 of the last 44 years. The pool of judges for this task is highly liberal and totally unaccountable. To solidify political power, Y and Z inject another term — “communities of interest.” That slogan lets improper considerations of race, ethnicity, and other factors override neutral principles. What party uses identity politics? Ask Hillary. Commission members are stooges because legislative staff draws the maps. Staff, called non-partisan because not elected, is chosen by partisan legislators. Politicians still decide who decides."[28]

Official arguments

The opposing arguments provided for Amendment Y in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:[14]

1) Amendment Y takes accountability out of the redistricting process. Unlike state legislators who are subject to election and campaign finance requirements, unelected commissioners are not accountable to the voters of Colorado. The selection process relies on unelected retired judges to screen applicants and select half of the commissioners. Further, the commission is staffed by government employees who are not accountable to the voters, and they may end up drawing the final map if the commission cannot reach an agreement.

2) The commissioner selection process outlined in the measure is complex, and half of the members are determined by random chance. This complicated and random selection process may prevent individuals with important experience and knowledge from becoming commissioners. While the goal of the random selection may be to remove politics from redistricting, unaffiliated commissioners with partisan views could still be selected, and the selection process may not result in a commission that can be impartial and promote consensus.

3) The measure outlines criteria that may be difficult to apply in an objective manner. For example, the broad definition of communities of interest is vague and open to interpretation. The measure also leaves the commission to determine what a competitive district is without specifying what factors to consider. Additionally, the four unaffiliated commissioners will have political leanings that may be difficult to discern, but that could sway how they apply the criteria and influence the final map, since many critical votes require their support. The resulting map may serve to protect certain segments of the population at the expense of others and could result in districts that make no sense to voters.


Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

  • The Gazette wrote: "[Amendments Y and Z] ensure more fair competition among candidates for public office. They eliminate political gerrymandering....Amendments Y and Z would establish one commission to draw congressional boundaries and another for legislative redistricting. Four Republicans, four Democrats and four unaffiliated voters would comprise each commission... These measures will improve our process. Vote yes on Y and Z."[29]
  • The Aspen Times wrote: "It is time for an overhaul of how the state's districts are drawn every 10 years based off the census. Amendment Y would look at congressional redistricting and Amendment Z at legislative. It would mean a 12-person commission that is composed of Republicans, Democrats and now independents making the decision. We believe it would be a more balanced and public decision. There are more checks and balances, and considering Colorado lawmakers all agreed to send the question to voters it shows that even the electeds see there is a time for a change. It's time to take the politics out of redistricting."[30]
  • The Aurora Sentinel endorsed a yes vote on the measure.[31]

Opposition

  • Boulder Weekly said: "Additionally, there is a question about the software and data sets that will be used to draw potential maps that will then be presented to the committee. As we’ve seen with the economic modeling software the oil and gas industry uses under the auspices of unbiased data research, it’s hard to know how much influence these moneyed interests will have in the redistricting process. Although leaving redistricting up to the courts, as has happened the last several cycles, is less than ideal, these financial ties cause us too much skepticism to endorse either Amendment Y or Z. Vote no."[32]

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
  • An online poll from the University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab and conducted by YouGov from October 12 to October 17 asked registered voters how they would vote on Amendment Y if they had to choose "yes" or "no." Overall, it showed 78 percent in support, and 22 percent opposed. Among Democrats, there was 89 percent and 11 percent opposition. Among Republicans, there was 64 percent support and 36 percent opposition. Among independents, there was 79 percent support and 21 percent opposition.
Colorado Amendment Y (2018)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab
10/12/2018 - 10/17/2018		 78%22%0%+/-3.5800
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $5,807,761.61
Opposition: $0.00


Two committees were registered in support of Amendments Y and Z: Fair Maps Colorado and Yes on Y and Z. Together, the committees reported raising $6.04 million and spending $5.91 million.[9]

One committee was registered to oppose Amendments Y and Z: The State Ballot Issue Committee. It had not reported any campaign finance activity.

Many committees were simultaneously registered to support and oppose multiple measures, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on a particular measure. A full list of the committees and their various positions on the 13 statewide measures in Colorado can be found here.


Support

Committees in support of Colorado Amendments Y and Z
Supporting committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Fair Maps Colorado$5,891,949.11$137,748.04$5,761,261.71
Yes on Y and Z$14,500.00$0.00$14,457.08
Total$5,909,081.11$137,748.04$5,778,257.61
Totals in support
Total raised:$6,044,197.15
Total spent:$5,913,466.83

Donors

According to the most current reports available, the top donors in support of this measure that contributed over $375,000 were as follows:[33]

Donor Cash In-kind Total
Pat Stryker $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Kent Thiry $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Action Now Initiative $605,000.00 $18,000.00 $623,000.00
Michael Bloomberg $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
State Engagement Fund $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Colorado Economic Leadership Fund $375,000.00 $0.00 $375,000.00

Opposition

The State Ballot Issue Committee was registered to oppose Amendments Y and Z. It did not report any campaign finance activity.

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

See also: Redistricting in Colorado

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Colorado's seven United States Representatives and 100 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[34][35][36][37]

Under Article V, Section 44 of the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado General Assembly is responsible for Congressional redistricting.[38]

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[39]

  1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
  2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Procedures for congressional redistricting in U.S.

Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 37 of these states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for redistricting as of February 2018. In four states, independent commissions drew congressional district lines. In two states, politician commissions drew the lines. The remaining states comprised one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map below for further details.[40][41]

Colorado congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Colorado
Colorado districts.JPG

Colorado is composed of seven congressional districts which were drawn following the 2010 United States Census.

Below is the current partisan breakdown of the congressional members from Colorado.

Congressional Partisan Breakdown from Colorado
Party U.S. Senate U.S. House Total
Democratic 2 4 6
Republican 0 4 4
Independent 0 0 0
Vacancies 0 0 0
Total 2 8 10

Election policy on the ballot in 2018


Election Policy Logo.png
Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot
  • Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) Approveda - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

  • Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) Approveda - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.
  • North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) Approveda - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

  • Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) Defeatedd - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.


Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the state legislature referred 29 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 15 and rejected 14 of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot for elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on even-year ballots was between 2 and 3. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 51.72 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 48.28 percent.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Annual average Annual median Annual minimum Annual maximum
29 15 51.72% 14 48.28% 2.64 3 0 4

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Colorado Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required in both the Colorado State Senate and the Colorado House of Representatives.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 18-004 (SCR18-004) was introduced in the Senate on April 18, 2018 and passed unanimously on April 30, 2018. It was introduced in the House on April 30, 2018, and passed unanimously on May 7, 2018.[11]

Vote in the Colorado State Senate
April 30, 2018
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 24  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3500
Total percent100%0%0%
Democrat1600
Republican1800
Independent100
Vote in the Colorado House of Representatives
May 7, 2018
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 44  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total6500
Total percent100%0.00%0.00%
Democrat3600
Republican2900

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Poll times

In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[42][43]

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

In Colorado, an individual can pre-register to vote if they are at least 15 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old to vote in any election. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have established residence in Colorado to vote.[44]

Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a absentee/mail-in ballot, a voter must register online, through the mail, at a voter registration agency, or driver's license examination facility at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter that registers through a voter registration drive must submit their application no later than 22 days before the election to automatically receive an absentee/mail-in ballot. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail.[44][45]

Automatic registration

Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and certain other state agencies.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person.

Residency requirements

Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[46] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with his or her mail-in ballot. Click here for more information.

The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of July 2024. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State.

“ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification:
  • A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.)
  • A valid U.S. passport.
  • A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado.
  • A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S.
  • A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector.
  • A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector.
  • A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood.
  • A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  • A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector.
  • Certified documentation of naturalization.
  • A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S..
  • A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector.
  • A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership.

Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification.

The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting:

  • Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S.
  • Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S.
  • Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility.[47][13]
 ”

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

If you know of any links to opponents' websites or social media accounts, let us know by sending an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Same-day registration was available for those voting in person at Voter Service and Polling Centers,
  2. ↑ Same-day registration was available for those voting in person at Voter Service and Polling Centers,
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 Colorado General Assembly, "SCR18-004 Full Text," accessed April 30, 2018
  4. ↑ New York Times, "Drive Against Gerrymandering Finds New Life in Ballot Initiatives," July 23, 2018
  5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Gill v. Whitford," accessed August 20, 2018
  6. ↑ Colorado Politics, "Lines drawn over ballot measures to determine how Colorado draws its legislative, congressional lines," accessed August 18, 2018
  7. ↑ Denver Post, "Anti-gerrymandering reforms resurface in Colorado after competing groups strike redistricting deal," accessed August 18, 2018
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Colorado Independent, "Voters in November will decide whether Colorado should drastically change the way it draws political lines," accessed May 17, 2018
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Tracer Committee Search," accessed October 30, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "finance" defined multiple times with different content
  10. ↑ "Redistricting in Colorado, "Colorado Congressional Redistricting," accessed May 8, 2018
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Colorado General Assembly, "SCR18-004 Congressional Redistricting," accessed April 30, 2018
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Colorado Legislature, "SCR18-004 Full Text," accessed May 1, 2018
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Colorado General Assembly, "2018 Blue Book," accessed October 10, 2018
  15. ↑ The Atlantic, "Schwarzenegger Is Back in a Wonky Campaign Fight Against Gerrymandering," accessed October 15, 2018
  16. ↑ The Gazette, "Actress Jennifer Lawrence backs Colorado ballot measures on gerrymandering| Endorsement Watch," accessed October 29, 2018
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Coloradoan, "Opinion: Amendments Y and Z would combat gerrymandering," accessed October 30, 2018
  18. ↑ Our Revolution, "Ballot initiative endorsements," accessed October 10, 2018
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Denver Chamber, "Ballot issues," accessed September 13, 2018
  20. ↑ Pro 15, "Policy positions," accessed September 14, 2018
  21. ↑ Journal Advocate, "League of Women Voters advocating for Amendments Y and Z," accessed September 25, 2018
  22. ↑ TRACER, "Unite America," accessed November 25, 2019
  23. ↑ The Denver Post, "A Colorado solution to improve representation and increase competitiveness in our elections," accessed May 15, 2018
  24. ↑ Colorado Public Radio, "Anti-Gerrymandering Effort Sails Through The Colorado Capitol On Its Way To The Ballot," accessed May 9, 2018
  25. ↑ Coloradoan, "Colorado ballot issue seeks to balance political parties' influence on voting maps," accessed August 29, 2018
  26. ↑ YouTube, "Vote Yes on Amendments Y and Z," accessed October 29, 2018
  27. ↑ 13 Issues, "Home," accessed October 1, 2018
  28. ↑ Coloradoan, "Opinion: Amendments Y and Z are rigged to help Democrats," accessed October 1, 2018
  29. ↑ The Gazette, "Gazette's Endorsements Election 2018: Ballot Issues," accessed October 15, 2018
  30. ↑ Aspen Times, "Aspen Times Editorial: Breaking down the state ballot questions," accessed October 31, 2018
  31. ↑ Sentinel Colorado, "Sentinel endorsement roundup for 2018: Crow, Polis, roads, schools and more," accessed October 24, 2018
  32. ↑ Bould Weekly, "Vote Guide 2018," October 11, 2018
  33. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named supportfin
  34. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
  35. ↑ Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
  36. ↑ The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
  37. ↑ Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
  38. ↑ "Redistricting in Colorado, "Colorado Congressional Redistricting," accessed May 8, 2018
  39. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed June 19, 2017
  40. ↑ All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
  41. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "National Overview of Redistricting: Who draws the lines?" June 1, 2010
  42. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Mail-in Ballots FAQs," accessed July 16, 2024
  43. ↑ Colorado Revised Statutes, "1-7-101," accessed July 16, 2024
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Colorado Secretary of State, "Voter Registration FAQs," accessed July 16, 2024
  45. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Go Vote Colorado," accessed July 15, 2024
  46. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  47. ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "Acceptable Forms of Identification," accessed July 17, 2024
v • e
2018 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
 • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎
Other
Flag of Colorado
v • e
State of Colorado
Denver (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Colorado_Amendment_Y,_Independent_Commission_for_Congressional_Redistricting_Amendment_(2018)&oldid=10223499"