<\/p>\n
DENVER \u2013 A proposed ballot question that would change congressional redistricting in Colorado is being rewritten to address concerns raised by black and Latino voters.<\/p>\n
The bipartisan proposal has caused a bit of a rift within the Colorado Democratic Party, with black and Latino Democrats at odds with certain white Democrats over the effort.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere were, I\u2019m sorry, a bunch of white guys sitting around the table deciding our politics on redistricting moving forward,\u201d said state Rep. Angela Williams, D-Denver, chairwoman of the Colorado Black Caucus.<\/p>\n
The initiative would take congressional redistricting out of the Legislature and hand the responsibility to an independent commission. The commission would include an equal number of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated members. Meetings would be held in public, with nonpartisan staff drawing the maps. It would take a supermajority of eight of the 12 commissioners to adopt a map. Map-drawers would be required to create competitive districts.<\/p>\n
The proposal must survive a second state review and comment hearing before proponents can collect the 98,492 signatures needed to qualify for the 2016 ballot. They have until April to work through the formalities and ballot language.<\/p>\n
The initiative comes ahead of the 2020 census, when the next congressional redistricting process would get underway. Historically, Republicans and Democrats have fought over redrawing Colorado\u2019s seven congressional districts, with battles over creating more competitive boundaries.<\/p>\n
The ultimate goal of the proposal is to create \u201ctransparency and fairness\u201d in the process, while eliminating gerrymandering, or manipulating boundaries to favor a party.<\/p>\n
But black and Latino voters quickly raised concerns, pointing out that the language could limit minority voting blocs across the state by prohibiting drawing districts for the purpose of \u201caugmenting \u2026 the voting strength of a language or racial minority group.\u201d<\/p>\n
The proposed language also would prohibit mapping districts for purposes of \u201cdiluting\u201d the voting strength of a minority group.<\/p>\n
Supporters \u2013 including former Secretary of State Bernie Buescher and former House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, both Democrats \u2013 say they are listening to concerns. Another high-profile Democrat supporting the proposal is former Gov. Dick Lamm.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am not going to defend the process \u2013 we had to start this. We should have done a better job of outreach, and I overlooked some of that,\u201d Ferrandino said. \u201cBut now that it\u2019s out there, the willingness is that if you raise some legitimate concerns, we\u2019re willing to try and address those and fix those.\u201d<\/p>\n
Buescher added: \u201cAll we can do is ask and hope that they are willing to participate. If some choose not to, I would regret that. \u2026 If people choose to participate, and ask for changes, we\u2019ll listen to them.\u201d<\/p>\n
In some respects, however, the damage has been done. Williams is not on board with a rewrite, suggesting that the entire process has been tainted by the fact that minority voters weren\u2019t asked to be part of the stakeholder group from the beginning.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile they have heard our concerns and they\u2019re trying to rewrite the language, right now that\u2019s non-negotiable with us because it still dilutes and affects communities of color,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThey\u2019re rewriting the language themselves, and we are still not involved in that rewriting process.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the Republican side, former House Speaker Frank McNulty, a proponent, said there was no trickery in convincing Democrats to participate.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s hard for me to believe Democrats would try to make the argument that a former speaker of the House didn\u2019t know what he was doing; that a former secretary of state didn\u2019t know what he was doing and that a former governor didn\u2019t know what he was doing,\u201d McNulty said. \u201cWe all have our different take on it, but the fundamentals of what we\u2019re trying to do here is shared by each and every one of us.\u201d<\/p>\n