February 16, 2022
By Maurice Emmer

References are to the CRC bylaws. Article XVI A. through E. (BYLAWS FOR COUNTIES AND DISTRICTS) provides for districts to adopt their own bylaws, to elect their own officers, specifies officers’ duties, discusses central committee membership, and discusses delegates and bonus members to the district assembly. It does not mention effects of redistricting until section F., which is devoted to the effects of redistricting.

Section F. introduces for the first time in the bylaws the concept of a “new” state senate, state house, and congressional district. The term “new district” is not defined. State senate and house and congressional districts are numbered. Accordingly, “new” logically might be interpreted to mean a district having a new number. (Call this interpretation “simple.”) Another possible interpretation is that every district is new if its geographic boundaries are new. (Call this interpretation “complex,” as it would make every district new after a redistricting.)

Logically it is more compelling that the bylaws’ drafters intended “new” to have the simple meaning. Why? Because if they intended the complex meaning, a clearer way of saying it would be, “after redistricting, the procedures in this section will be implemented by all state house, state senate, and congressional districts whose boundaries had changed.” But they didn’t. So, the simple meaning seems the intent.

Further, it is highly unlikely that there will be a newly numbered district for the state house or senate, as the number of districts is fixed in Colorado statute. CRS 2-2-501. Only the number of congressional districts can change, as it did recently. Thus, the simple interpretation is VASTLY SIMPLER than the complex, as it would affect only one new district and none of the existing 107 (100 state legislature, 7 congressional).

But assuming the two interpretations are equally plausible, why did the state party chair insist on the complex when she could with equal if not more justification insist on the simple? The complex meaning required much more disruption than the simple. Insisting on the complex meaning resulted in the removal of existing officers of every district in the state. Yet the chair had no authority to do that. It violated bylaws of the various districts. It resulted in the elevation of certain county chairs to positions of authority over the allegedly “new” districts when this would not have occurred under the simple meaning. It created vacancy committees in some districts composed of citizens who are residents of the district that will exist after 2022 but not as it exists now; citizens who would replace a legislator who might resign or expire this year. That would not be representative of the legislator’s constituents. It caused animosities, resentments, and divisions within a party struggling for unity.

Conclusion: The chair’s insisting on the complex meaning of “new district” is baffling. Not inquiring into motive, it evidenced poor judgement by creating problems within the party unnecessarily.