ASHINGTON,
June 7 - The battle over a new Congressional map for Colorado, one of the
country's most closely watched redistricting cases, ended Monday in a
Democratic victory at the Supreme Court. Falling one vote short, the
justices refused to hear the Colorado Republicans' appeal of a state high
court ruling that invalidated an unusual second redistricting plan the
Republicans had pushed through the legislature in the closing days of its
2003 session.
Mid-decade redistricting is part of a national Republican strategy to
leverage newly achieved control in a state legislature by redrawing the
Congressional map in a way that favors Republicans. A case from Texas is on
appeal to the Supreme Court but will probably not be acted on before the
current term ends this month.
In invalidating Colorado's new redistricting plan last December, the
Colorado Supreme Court said it was relying completely on the state
Constitution to conclude that Congressional redistricting could be conducted
only once a decade. That decision meant that the district lines reverted to
those drawn by a state court in early 2002, after the legislature failed to
agree on how to draw new lines following the 2000 census, which gave
Colorado a new Seventh District. Under that plan, Colorado Democrats say
they have a good chance to pick up two seats.
In November 2002, Republicans gained control of the Colorado legislature.
Over Democratic objections, they pushed through a new plan in the final days
of the 2003 legislative session.
In drafting an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the
Republicans' challenge - as it had been in Florida after the 2000
presidential election - was to find an issue of federal law to provide
jurisdiction. In their appeal, Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar, No.
03-1082, they argued that the federal Constitution's "elections clause,"
giving state legislatures the power to make rules for Congressional
elections, did not allow that power to be transferred to state courts.
Consequently, they maintained, the court-ordered plan did not count, and the
2003 legislative plan should prevail.
The appeal evidently provoked a behind-the-scenes struggle among the
justices, who considered it at five consecutive weekly conferences before
turning it down on what was apparently a vote of 6 to 3, one short of the
four necessary to hear a case. The majority offered no comment, and only the
dissenters - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist along with Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas - identified themselves.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion, which the other two signed, was
reminiscent of his opinion in Bush v. Gore, the Florida case that decided
the 2000 election. He said the state court decision, "while purporting" to
be based on state law, actually made a "debatable interpretation" of federal
law in validating the initial court-ordered redistricting. The decision
should be reviewed, he said.