Legislative staff probe legal, technical gaps in proposed congressional redistricting initiatives

Jessica Shipley, of Legislative Council Staff, opened a remote review-and-comment hearing on April 3 for proposed initiatives 2025–2026 Nos. 3-27 and 3-28, which would set temporary congressional district boundaries for Colorado’s eight seats for the 2028 and 2030 elections and establish a schedule for future redistricting.

Caroline Martin, with the Office of Legislative Legal Services, summarized each measure’s stated purposes: findings and declarations by the people of Colorado; creation of temporary congressional districts for use in the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections; judicial review and approval of those temporary districts; and a requirement that a congressional redistricting commission engage in redistricting after the 2030 census and every 10 years thereafter.

The hearing focused on several legal and drafting questions staff said must be resolved before circulating the measures. Staff asked whether each proposal satisfied Colorado’s single-subject requirement; the measures’ stated single subject was “congressional redistricting.” Staff also noted that, because initiative 3-27 does not specify an effective date, the constitutional default effective date would apply unless the text is amended. "Does this default effective date satisfy your intent?" Staff asked; Scott Gasser, representing the proponents, replied it "generally satisfies our intent."

Staff pressed proponents on whether the temporary maps must meet the criteria set forth elsewhere in Article V — including contiguity, compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and one-person/one-vote requirements — and on which of those criteria the initiative text legally requires. A proponent stated the criteria "may" apply in practice but that, "as a legal requirement they do not," underscoring a potential gap between the initiative language and existing redistricting standards.

Technical mapping questions also arose. Staff asked why the initiatives use both voter tabulation districts (VTDs) and census blocks to construct districts and suggested adopting a block assignment table that lists each census block with its corresponding congressional district number so the maps can be independently verified. Proponents said they were not prepared to provide exact definitions of VTDs versus blocks at the hearing and agreed to consider a block assignment table.

Staff further asked what deadline courts would have to review and approve temporary districts, pointing to Article V language that currently calls for a November 1 deadline in a redistricting year. A proponent replied, "We don't have a date in there, and we'll leave that to the courts," leaving timing and remedies unclear if a court were to find a map noncompliant.

Another drafting concern involved cross-references to statutory sections that do not presently exist in the Colorado Revised Statutes (for example, portions of the initiatives reference sections identified as 2-1-101.7 and 2-1-105.2–105.7). Proponents said they believe the provisions link to a separate initiative intended to be considered as part of a package and that they would "double check" the cross references.

Staff also queried a contingent effective-date provision in initiative 3-28 that conditions enactment on approval of a separate ballot measure that would repeal portions of Article V of the Colorado Constitution. Proponents confirmed the measures are intended as a package and noted that, where conflicting initiatives appear on the same ballot, the measure receiving the highest number of votes typically governs.

The session moved through numerous technical drafting comments — formatting of head notes, capitalization and small-cap style, punctuation, alphabetical ordering of definitions, abbreviation presentation, and a misspelling identified by participants. Proponents requested that the office publish drafting guidelines for initiative sponsors to improve consistency; Scott Gasser said such guidance would "be helpful for the public and that probably save you all some time as well."

The hearing concluded with staff noting ongoing work by an initiatives working group and pointing sponsors to past bills posted on the General Assembly website as formatting examples. No formal action was taken at the hearing; staff recorded substantive and technical comments for proponents to consider and for potential revision of the initiative drafts.

Next steps: proponents indicated they would review and consider staff suggestions (including whether to provide a block assignment table and to clarify effective-date and judicial-review language). The hearing was closed at about 8:20 a.m.