If the currently projected winners in the Colorado House races hold, the Republicans’ one-person lead in that chamber will make it interesting when it comes time to discuss issues like balancing the state budget and redistricting next year.
The last redistricting effort ended in what Democrats called “the midnight gerrymander” of 2003. They claimed the Republicans took advantage of their majority numbers to create a plan for redrawing districts in their favor. (That plan was eventually thrown out by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
In the following year’s election, in part due to financial support from a handful of wealthy Democratic donors upset by the Republicans’ redistricting effort, the Dems won enough races to take control of both houses of the Legislature as well as the governor’s office.
The prospect of having another house divided when that issue comes to a head again in 2011 has some political leaders crossing their fingers.
“If the Republicans have the majority, they will have the responsibility, and hopefully they will step up to the plate,” says State Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Longmont, who was in line for a seat on the Joint Budget Committee if the Democrats had retained cotrol of the House.
But she says she’s not troubled by the possible loss of that personal opportunity.
“That is the least disappointing to me,” Hullinghorst says. “I will be really disappointed if we don’t retain the majority in the House.”
She says the degree of partisan feuding between the two parties at the Capitol depends to some extent on whether extreme right-wingers can set their agendas aside.
“How partisan it is depends on how well we can get past our ideologies,” Hullinghorst says.
Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak acknowledges that redistricting is probably the most serious concern associated with a Republican-controlled House, and the matter could end up in court again.
That is an outcome Hullinghorst hopes can be avoided.
“I hope we can reach some agreement,” she says. “It won’t be easy.”
State Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, says the Republicans’ takeover of the House reflected “the power of money and negative advertising. I don’t take the results necessarily as a rejection of the Democratic agenda. I would take it as a reflection that those seats are going to swing back and forth.
“It’s very hard to say the race is a rejection of what we’ve been trying to do in terms of policy,” she continues, explaining that the Republicans run on a platform of limited government, which is already a reality, thanks to massive state budget cuts. “We’ve already got limited government. It’s a good slogan, but it’s not going to translate into much.”
Levy worries that the Republicans might be heavy-handed in wielding their one-person majority, trying to push extreme conservative social agendas related to issues like sexual orientation.
“I think they will take their 32-33 margin and behave as if they have a mandate,” she says. “If they have an extreme agenda, they’re not going to get it passed.”
Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff lauds Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper for his conciliatory tone on election night.
“The problems of the state are too big for one party to solve on its own,” Romanoff says. “If the Republicans take the House, they need to decide whether they’re interested in solving problems and working with the governor or trying to distract him from his agenda.”
Ken Bickers, a political science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says a Republican majority in the House might actually result in a more measured approach to redistricting, since both sides know they won’t be capable of pulling off a major power grab. Bickers suggests the two sides might just agree to shore up their established territories by slightly increasing their numbers in districts in which they already have an advantage.
“Gridlock leads to the status quo,” he says. “Then again, hubris and adrenaline are dangerous things in politics.”
