The Colorado Supreme Court has just issued this opinion, which determined on state law grounds that once a federal court had redistricted after the last census, it was too late for the state legislature to do so again: “In short, the state constitution limits redistricting to once per census, and nothing in state or federal law negates this limitation. Having failed to redistrict when it should have, the General Assembly has lost its chance to redistrict until after the 2010 federal census.”
The court briefly discusses whether the federal constitution would prohibit re-redistricting (and canvasses the law in other states on the question under state constitutions), but does not reach the question.
Though the Colorado case does not bear directly on the Texas re-redistricting case (going to trial later this month), or the Vieth redistricting case (to be heard next week by the Supreme Court), the opinion does include a section on “public policy” that could persuade some courts on similar questions: “The framers knew that to achieve accountability, there must be stability in representation…Our interpretation of Article V, Section 44, of the Colorado Constitution supports these notions of accountability and fairness. Limiting redistricting to once every ten years maximizes stability. …If the districts were to change at the whim of the state legislature, members of Congress could frequently find their current constituents voting in a different district in subsequent elections. In that situation, a congressperson would be torn between effectively representing the current constituents and currying the favor of future constituents.”
The dissent took the position that the court-ordered redistricting did not prevent the general assembly from re-redistricting in the same decade: “When districts are not constitutionally adequate, courts may fashion a remedy to protect aggrieved voters in an upcoming election. However, never has the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court-ordered plan preempts a legislature from attempting to correct a deficiency by passing its own redistricting plan.”