This one’s a little different, but the concept is the same.
A new Democratic-backed group unexpectedly announced on Wednesday that it would seek to place a measure on the November ballot asking voters to temporarily adopt a new congressional map in response to Republican gerrymandering in other states.
The organization, which is called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field, filed four different proposals with state officials but says it plans to qualify just one. All would accomplish the same goal in different ways, with the ultimate effect of enacting a new map starting in 2028 that would favor Democrats in seven of the state’s eight districts.
Under the current lines, which were drawn by an independent redistricting commission that voters enshrined in the state Constitution by a landslide in 2018, Democrats and Republicans hold four seats apiece.
By contrast, the proposed map, which can be found at the top of this post or in interactive format on Dave’s Redistricting App, would seek to turn two normally red districts blue while making a swingy GOP-held seat more Democratic.
[…]
To put one of its proposals before voters, Coloradans for a Level Playing Field will need to gather at least 124,238 signatures by Aug. 3 to make the November ballot, as well as an amount equal to 2% of the number of registered voters in each of the state’s 35 Senate districts.
This costly and time-consuming approach is necessary because Democrats are just short of the two-thirds majorities in the legislature they’d need to refer a measure by a simple vote. (They’d need just one more seat in each chamber, which they could very well gain this fall, but waiting for such an eventuality would delay a new map past 2028.)
Though organizers have put forward four initiatives, they essentially amount to two different plans. Under the first approach, the rules establishing Colorado’s redistricting commission would be stripped from the Constitution and reenacted as ordinary statutes. Meanwhile, the proposed map would take effect for 2028 and 2030, with the commission once again drawing new districts following the next census.
(A variant on this plan would split this proposal into two separate measures—one altering the Constitution, the other enacting the new map—likely to avoid running afoul of Colorado’s ban on ballot measures that cover more than one subject.)
The second approach would accomplish the same goals by directly amending the Constitution to temporarily suspend the commission for the next two election cycles and instead adopt the group’s preferred map.
Both face different obstacles. Initiatives that simply repeal language from the Constitution require only a simple majority to pass, but those that add text need to win a 55% supermajority. That makes the first option a lower lift at the ballot box.
However, that approach could run afoul of a 2003 ruling by the state Supreme Court, which held that the state Constitution forbade mid-decade redistricting—by either lawmakers or by ballot initiative—after Republicans tried to redraw the congressional map following their takeover of state government in the 2002 midterms.
The court’s membership has since turned over completely, though, so it’s possible organizers are hoping that a different slate of justices might be willing to revisit the matter.
According to the New York Times, Coloradans for a Level Playing Field has the support of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and is “expected to receive funding” from the House Majority PAC, which is the top Democratic super PAC involved in House races.
The proposal shown above is pretty aggressive, and would count as a true dummymander if the political climate in 2028, or possibly 2030, is unfavorable enough to put some of those seats at risk. I suppose that’s Future Colorado’s problem. This is all voter-dependent, and would not apply to 2026, so it’s different in key ways than the California and Virginia (*) efforts. But they’re born from the same inciting incident of the Texas re-redistricting, and would further the self-own aspect of it if in the end Republicans at best break even or lose ground. (**) I’ll keep an eye on it.
(*) That effort has hit a snag, but the same judge in the current litigation ruled against the effort before and had that ruling blocked by the state’s Supreme Court. This ruling is sure to be appealed, and we’ll see what happens from there.
(**) Yes, I know about the pending SCOTUS ruling that could finish their job of turning the Voting Rights Act into wastepaper. That would change the math again, but it’s outside the scope of this part of the story.