Redistricting: a Municipal Perspective

• Publication year: 2002
• Pages: 49

31 Colo.Law. 49 Colorado Lawyer 2002.

2002, February, Pg. 49. Redistricting: A Municipal Perspective

Vol. 31, No. 1, Pg. 49

The Colorado Lawyer
February 2002
Vol. 31, No. 2 [Page 49]

Specialty Law Columns
Government and Administrative Law News
Redistricting: A Municipal Perspective
by Kendra L. Carberry

This article addresses municipal redistricting issues, such as constitutional and statutory requirements; provides guidelines for municipal redistricting; and discusses the effect of redistricting on current elected officials

As a result of the 2000 federal census, many municipalities across the state will be forced to redraw municipal ward and district boundaries. Several considerations impact municipal redistricting, including constitutional doctrines, judicially imposed requirements, election regulations, and local legislation. This article outlines the applicable law and practical considerations for municipalities that are attempting to redistrict before the 2002 election cycle begins

General Legal
Considerations

The legal considerations impacting municipal redistricting can be divided into three general categories: (1) constitutional doctrines; (2) judicially imposed mandates or non-constitutional requirements; and (3) restrictions regarding political gerrymandering. It is the legislative branch, rather than the judicial branch, that has the primary duty and responsibility for redistricting at all levels of government, including federal, state, and local

Although the legal requirements for redistricting are quite strict, the role of the courts in reviewing redistricting decisions is narrow.1 This is true because redistricting is legislative in nature. A reviewing court is limited to measuring the redistricting plan against constitutional standards.2 The test for a redistricting plan is whether the plan as adopted passes constitutional muster, not whether a better redistricting plan could have been designed.3

Constitutional Doctrines

The first constitutional doctrine governing redistricting often is referred to as "one person-one vote."4 The concept of one person-one vote arises out of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.5 The doctrine requires that districts be drawn so that "as nearly as practicable one [person's] vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."6 Voting districts should be as equal in population as possible, although mathematical precision is not required.7

The second constitutional mandate is racial equality, which also stems from the Fourteenth Amendment. Minority voting strength cannot purposely be diluted by a redistricting plan. As a general rule, "minority voting strength is impermissibly diluted when large concentrations of minority population are unnecessarily fragmented and disbursed."8

Non-Constitutional
Considerations

In addition to constitutional constraints, state and federal courts have adopted a number of non-constitutional redistricting requirements, including the following: compactness, contiguity, and preservation of communities of interest.9 During the redistricting process, municipalities must consider these judicially imposed mandates.

Compactness: The goal is to determine the smallest circle into which the voting district can be circumscribed and to compare the ratio of the area of the district inside the circle to the area of the circle itself.10 The closer these figures come to a one-to-one ratio, the more compact the district. However, in any dispute between compactness and equality of population, equality of population is the primary goal.11 In other words, if districts need to be substantially different in geographical size to achieve equal population, true compactness is not required.

Contiguity: This requirement is quite straightforward. It simply dictates that no part of one district may be completely separate from any other part of the same district.12

Preservation of Communities of Interest: Communities of interest are "distinctive units which share common concerns with respect to one or more identifiable features such as geography, demography, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, or trade."13 In Colorado, community of interest considerations also may include agricultural or industrial identity, water issues, transportation concerns, and growth rate comparisons.14

Political Gerrymandering

The third facet of redistricting law is political gerrymandering. Unconstitutional political gerrymandering occurs when a redistricting plan improperly divides a group of voters who share a common ethnic, racial, or religious background, and "their common interests are strong enough to be manifested in political action."15 For example, in the Arizona case of Klahr v. Williams, it was held that a redistricting plan that split the Navajo nation was unconstitutional political gerrymandering.16 For a violation to exist, a court must find, at a minimum, a "recognized protectable group" of voters with "homogenous interests."17

Municipal Ward and Precinct Boundaries

Municipal redistricting involves three different boundary classifications: general election precincts, municipal election precincts, and wards. Each of these is discussed below.

General Election Precincts

A general election precinct is defined by the Uniform Election Code as "an area with established boundaries within a political subdivision used to establish election districts."18 General election precincts must be established by each county clerk, subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners, "as is convenient for the eligible electors of the county."19 The number of general election precincts in a particular county depends on whether the county uses paper ballots, voting machines, or electronic voting.20

In early 2002, the boundaries of general election precincts must be redrawn to comply with state representative and senatorial district...