Reviewers press sponsors on temporary 2028–2030 congressional maps, court venue and statutory drafting

Julia Jackson of Legislative Council Staff called a review-and-comment hearing to order at 1:00 p.m. March 3 and said staff had submitted memoranda with questions for the designated representatives of proposed initiatives 2‑39, 2‑40, 2‑41 and 2‑42, which were filed as a related package.

Caroline Martin of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized the measures’ aims: "The major purposes of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and to the Colorado Revised Statutes appear to be . . . to call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment to the United States Constitution that requires the use of fair, independent and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide," and to establish temporary congressional maps. Staff pressed sponsors on multiple drafting and legal issues that could affect voters’ understanding and court review.

A designated representative told staff the phrase "temporary" was intended to mean the maps would govern Colorado congressional elections in 2028 and 2030 and that, following the 2030 decennial census, an independent congressional redistricting commission would draw new maps based on updated census data. On required criteria for the temporary districts, the representatives said the maps would be contiguous and would comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and federal one‑person/one‑vote requirements.

Staff asked whether the initiatives meet the single‑subject requirement for ballot measures and whether an explicit effective date should be added; a designated representative said the default constitutional effective date is acceptable but agreed to consider a clearer effective‑date clause. Staff also recommended specifying in the statutory text that the temporary maps apply to "the 2028 and 2030 elections of representatives to Congress;" proponents agreed to make that clarifying change.

A recurring issue was judicial review and timing. Staff noted the drafts name the district court for the City and County of Denver as the exclusive venue for civil actions challenging plans and asked why the draft does not provide for Supreme Court original jurisdiction or a deadline for the Denver court to complete review. A designated representative said proponents could not expand the Colorado Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by statute and that Denver is commonly used for election cases involving the secretary of state. The representative said proponents would "look at putting some dates in there to make clear that it's timely done" and expects appellate review and expedited court scheduling if necessary.

Staff questioned the drafting approach of listing tracts, block groups and census blocks in statute and noted that the measure includes a pictorial map and a shapefile exhibit; a designated representative said the detail was included so voters could see exactly what the measure does and that the shapefile would be helpful to staff.

On the larger structure, staff asked why the measures would repeal Article V, sections 44 through 44.6 of the Colorado Constitution and reenact much of the same language in statute. A designated representative said the repeal and statutory reenactment are part of a package designed to permit a temporary map for two election cycles, after which proponents intend to restore independent redistricting via a commission in statute.

Proponents accepted a number of staff drafting suggestions (striking existing subsection text where appropriate, clarifying cross‑references to statutory sections that do not yet exist, and adding timelines for court review) and said they would make technical fixes. The hearing record closed with staff offering additional technical comments but no further questions; the session was then adjourned.

The records show staff will incorporate their drafting suggestions and proponents said they will revise language to clarify effective dates, statutory cross‑references and the schedule for judicial review.