Proponents tell counsel staff they intend to bar midcycle congressional map changes and require added public review

Proponents of a group of proposed Colorado ballot measures told legislative counsel staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services on March 6 that their primary goal is to prevent midcycle changes to congressional district maps and to increase public review when a map is modified.

In a review-and-comment hearing, Nicole Myers of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized the measures (2025 initiatives 2 51, 2 52, 2 54, 2 55 and related 2 53 and 2 56). The measures would, upon adoption and approval of a final congressional redistricting plan, prohibit modification of that plan for the 2028 congressional election and thereafter except with approval of the independent congressional redistricting commission and adoption by the Colorado Supreme Court. Myers also noted proponents intend some measures as constitutional amendments and others as statutory alternatives, depending on drafting and the initiative ballot strategy.

Proponent Suzanne Tehary said the measures are “a method to plug what we think is kind of a hole in the current legislation,” describing concerns about the possibility of a midyear redistricting outside the regular decennial process. “We always want the independent redistricting commission to be doing this process, not some other body,” Tehary said.

Staff pressed several drafting and implementation questions. Myers asked whether the prohibition on modification is intended to apply only to the 2028 map or to future cycles; proponents clarified they intend the language to apply to the most recently approved map and said they would refine drafting to avoid unintended interference with the regular post‑2030 redistricting cycle. On administrative detail, proponents said they generally preferred to leave specific deadlines and some procedural timing to statute or rulemaking, though they discussed matching existing November/December filing and Supreme Court timelines to ensure maps are finalized in time for elections.

The measures would also require the commission to hold at least three public meetings when reviewing a modified map. Staff asked whether those meetings must be geographically distributed or accept written comment; proponents said the requirement applies only to modified maps and that some procedural details (locations, written-comment provisions) could be addressed in statute or commission rulemaking.

A recurring concern raised by staff related to partisan standards and communities of interest. Several measures would bar a modified map if it “has the effect of dividing communities of interest” or was “drawn to purposefully favor one political party.” Myers questioned how the commission or the Supreme Court would determine whether a plan was drawn “purposefully” to favor a party or whether a small mathematical advantage would invalidate a plan. Tehary said they expect courts and the commission to apply existing legal standards and that language could be clarified so that intent is treated as an additional factor after other constitutional criteria.

Proponents also explained why some versions amend the Colorado Revised Statutes while others amend the Constitution: adopting both constitutional and statutory variants gives the campaign alternate paths depending on what other measures appear on the ballot and on voter‑approval thresholds. Tehary said the group’s objective is to ensure redistricting protections remain in the Constitution and that the campaign will pick the final drafting approach after considering competing measures.

Myers and other staff noted several drafting items proponents agreed to revisit, including the precise placement of new provisions within Article V (Section 44), explicit effective dates (proponents accepted the default effective date provided by Article V §1.4(a) unless they decide otherwise), and whether reconvening the prior commission or appointing new commissioners should be specified for a modified-map review. Tehary said vacancy‑filling would follow the existing constitutional vacancy process and that proponents would add clarifying deadlines and cross‑references where helpful.

The hearing closed with staff confirming there were no additional substantive technical comments beyond those discussed and proponents indicating they would make drafting adjustments to address staff concerns. The review will inform subsequent revisions to the proposed initiative language before final submission.