Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brandon Shaffer Redistricting Amicus Brief

Brandon Shaffer Redistricting Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61 |Likes:
4th Congressional District candidate Brandon Shaffer's amicus brief to the Denver district court.
4th Congressional District candidate Brandon Shaffer's amicus brief to the Denver district court.

More info:

Published by: ColoradoPeakPolitics on Oct 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1DISTRICT COURT, CITY & COUNTY OFDENVER, STATE OF COLORADOCity and County Building1437 Bannock Street, Rm. 256Denver, CO 80202720-865-8301Plaintiffs: DOMINICK MORENO,
et al 
.;KATHRYN H. HALL,
et al 
.;Plaintiffs in Intervention: City of Aurora,
et al 
.;v.Defendant: SCOTT GESSLER, in his officialcapacity as COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATECourt use onlyAttorneys for 
 Amicus Curiae
Shaffer for ColoradoRichard N. Lyons, IILyons Gaddis Kahn & Hall, P.C.P.O. Box 978, 515 Kimbark St.Longmont, CO 80502-0978Telephone: (303) 776-9900Attorney Reg. No: 09591Case No. 11 CV 3461Consolidated withCase No. 11 CV 3463Division: Courtroom: 209
SHAFFER FOR COLORADO’S
 AMICUS CURIAE 
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFALTERNATIVE MAP NO. 2 SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTIONBILL THIEBAUT.
Shaffer for Colorado
, a Colorado non-profit corporation, by its attorneys, Lyons Gaddis Kahn &Hall, P.C., enters its appearance as
amicus curiae
and submits the following
Brief In SupportOf Alternative Map No. 2 of Plaintiff in Intervention Bill Thiebaut.I.INTRODUCTION.
Article V, Section 44 of the Colorado Constitution requires the Colorado General Assemblyto divide the state into as many congressional districts as there are representatives in the UnitedStates Congress. The appointed 2011 Colorado Joint Select Committee on Redistricting failed toreach a consensus on redrawn maps based upon the 2010 census data, and the Sixty-eighth
 
2General Assembly adjourned
 sine die
on May 11, 2011 without discharging its constitutionalmandate. This litigation followed.Amicus
Shaffer for Colorado
(herein, “SFC”) was formed to support the candidacy of Brandon C. Shaffer, a resident of the City of Longmont, for a seat in the United States Congressrepresenting the 4
th
Congressional District of Colorado. Mr. Shaffer currently serves asColorado State Senator, District 17, and also serves as the President of the Colorado Senate. OnJuly 4, 2011 he announced his candidacy for the House of Representatives from the 4
th
Congressional District (herein, “C.D.”)Although Senator Shaffer resides in Longmont, there is no federal or state requirement that acongressional representative must reside within the congressional district which that personrepresents. Nonetheless, SFC submits this
amicus
brief because of its belief that it is in the bestinterests of the citizens of Longmont and of the Northern Front Range that Longmont and itsenvirons remain united with communities (and citizens) to its east and north with which both theCity and its residents share common interests.
II.COURTS ROLE.
Section 2-1-102, C.R.S., instructs and guides this Court as it redrafts the existing map of congressional districts. The role of the Court is broader in nature than the standard judicialreview for legal error or abuse of discretion. By necessity, this Court must fashion a remedyusing the guidelines of § 2-1-102 in drafting a congressional district map to prevent anunconstitutional and statutorily invalid 2012 election utilizing existing district boundaries.It is insufficient for this Court to simply review the submitted maps and select one that leastoffends the constitution and state statutes. Instead, this Court must affirmatively act in its
 
3unique capacity
1
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.
2
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.
3
This
amicus
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).
III.SUMMARY OF
 AMICUS 
SUPPORTIVE BRIEF.
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
4
at which numerouscitizens requested that Longmont remain in the 4
th
C.D. Furthermore, of the maps submitted tothis Court, Thiebaut Map No. 2 best recognizes the long historic communities of interest of the
1
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).
2
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).
3
 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.”)
4
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-ReDistrict/CBON/1251581558170

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->