to devise a state-wide map that comports as closely as possible to both federalconstitutional limitations and state statutory directives. Simply put, merely selecting the leastlegally offensive map of those submitted by the parties may not satisfy the legal requirementsand policy factors at issue.
The oft-quoted charge to this Court consists of crafting and adopting a map that: (a) ensures population equality and non-dilution of minority voting strength; and (b) ideally reflects the non-constitutional criteria set forth in § 2-1-102 (1) (b), C.R.S.
brief focuses on thelatter and urges this Court to adopt a map that achieves a compromise between the two highly partisan maps submitted by the two major groups of plaintiffs and that preserves communities of interest (including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic and demographic factors).
Alternative Map No. 2 submitted by Plaintiff in Intervention Bill Thiebaut (herein, “ThiebautMap No. 2”) best reflects the testimony received by the Colorado Joint Select Committee onRedistricting at its public hearing of February 26, 2011, in Loveland
at which numerouscitizens requested that Longmont remain in the 4
C.D. Furthermore, of the maps submitted tothis Court, Thiebaut Map No. 2 best recognizes the long historic communities of interest of the
See Carstens v. Lamm,
548 F.Supp. 68, 79 (D. Colo. 1982) (congressional redistricting is law-making functionand submitted maps of legislature or governor are not binding on court but are only expressions of state policy.);and
Beauprez v. Avalos,
42 P.3d 642, at 653 (Colo. 2002) (trial court free to accord whatever evidentiary weight itsaw fit to submitted evidence).
See Beauprez v. Avalos,
42 P.3d 642, 646 (Colo. 2002) (trial court “considered over a dozen maps submitted bymany of the parties” and “worked from” one preferred map to judicially fashion a final map that met constitutionaland statutory requirements).
Beauprez v. Avalos,
42 P.3d 642, 651 (Colo. 2002) (once the trial court is assured that the constitutionalrequirements are satisfied, it may consider non-constitutional criteria “articulated by the state as important state policy.”)