In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 332 P.3d 108

Original proceeding reviewing the Colorado Reapportionment Commission’s Adopted Plan for House/Senate districts based on 2010 census data.
Court applies a hierarchy of federal and Colorado constitutional criteria to evaluate compliance.
Majority holds the Adopted Plan is not sufficiently attentive to county boundaries under article V, section 47(2).
Court requires modification and remand for the Commission to show a less drastic alternative could satisfy equal-population requirements.
Deadline set for 5:00 p.m. on December 6, 2011, for resubmission and supporting materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Adopted Plan satisfy county-boundary requirements of article V, 47(2)?	Challengers contend plan splits counties contrary to 47(2).	Commission asserts flexibility under 46 with deviations; competing communities of interest.	No; plan not sufficiently attentive to counties.
Was there a sufficient showing that less drastic alternatives could satisfy article V, 46?	Record shows alternative plans could reduce boundary splits.	Trusts plan to meet equality while balancing interests; alternatives insufficiently demonstrated.	No adequate showing; remand for modification.
Did Voting Rights Act concerns justify county splits over 47(2)?	Section 2 considerations in Aurora warranted splits.	Record lacked expert confirmation but valued section 2 analyses; higher priority of federal law.	Not adequate to trump 47(2); remand.
What is the appropriate standard of review and level of deference to the Commission?	Court should defer to Commission’s expertise.	Court should apply constitutional hierarchy but avoid substituting its own map.	Deferential but constrained by constitutional requirements.
Should the Adopted Plan be returned for remand and resubmission?	Remedy is to accept as-is or adjust to comply with 46/47.	Remand to allow modification per remand guidance.	Yes; return for modification and resubmission by deadline.

In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237 (Colo. 2002), 45 P.3d 1237 (Colo. 2002) (establishes constitutional hierarchy and county-splitting rule under 47(2))
In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assembly, 828 P.2d 185 (Colo. 1992), 828 P.2d 185 (Colo. 1992) (repeat application of federal-state criteria in reapportionment)
In re Reapportionment of Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1982), 647 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1982) (per curiam on criteria and county-boundary rules)
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), 541 U.S. 267 (U.S. 2004) (dissent noting unavoidable political consequence of districting decisions)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009), 556 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2009) (discusses Voting Rights Act considerations in reapportionment)