Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado
Headline: The Supreme Court declines to review Colorado’s ruling that a court-drawn congressional map must remain in place through the decade, leaving courts rather than the legislature in control of redistricting for now.
Holding: The Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge and left in place the Colorado court’s ruling that judicially drawn congressional districts may remain until after the next decennial census.
- Keeps the court-drawn congressional map in place through the decade, blocking the legislature’s new plan.
- Limits Colorado redrawings to once per decade under the state court’s interpretation.
- Affects Colorado voters, candidates, and who controls congressional districts.
Summary
Background
After the 2000 census Colorado gained an extra House seat but the state legislature did not adopt a new map in time for the 2002 elections. A Colorado trial court drew a plan for 2002, and the General Assembly later enacted its own plan in 2003. The Colorado Attorney General sued to stop the Secretary of State from using the new legislative plan and asked that the state return to the court-drawn 2002 map. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the state constitution limits redistricting to once per decade and ordered the Secretary to use the judicially created plan through the 2010 elections, saying those court-drawn districts are as binding and permanent as legislative districts.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Colorado’s rule — treating judicially created districts as part of the state’s decennial redistricting process — fits with the Federal Constitution’s clause saying each State’s “Legislature” prescribes election rules. The Colorado court relied on precedents about how states define their lawmaking processes. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting from the denial of review, argued that the state court’s construction effectively makes courts part of the lawmaking process, excluding bodies that represent the people, and that this raises a federal constitutional issue warranting review. Because the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the Colorado court’s interpretation remains in effect.
Real world impact
The practical result is that the court-drawn map stays in place through the decade, preventing the legislature’s 2003 plan from taking effect in the covered elections. That outcome affects who represents Colorado in Congress and who controls the redistricting process. The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial was a decision not to review the federal question, not a final ruling on the constitutional merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should have taken the case to resolve the federal constitutional issue raised by Colorado’s interpretation.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?