Amendment 86: Requirements for Off‑Cycle Congressional Redistricting A “yes” vote on Amendment 85 requires that ballot titles be written in plain language, defined as an eighth-grade reading level, and prohibits any law from interfering with this requirement. A “no” vote on Amendment 85 maintains current law, which requires plain language for ballot titles, but does not specify a particular grade-level reading standard.
NCSL lists initiative number; official ballot designation differs (mapped by title)
CO has no rebuttals; Blue Book arguments are written by Legislative Council Staff.
Page numbers/running headers removed from extracted text.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning congressional redistricting, and, in connection therewith, reenacting the current process for congressional redistricting in the Colorado Constitution and prohibiting modifications to a final map unless at least three public meetings are held, the modifications do not have the effect of dividing communities of interest or purposefully favoring one political party, and are approved by the congressional redistricting commission and the Colorado Supreme Court?
A “yes” vote on Amendment 86 requires the Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission to approve any new congressional districts proposed outside of a scheduled redistricting year.
A “no” vote on Amendment 86 continues the current requirements for changing congressional districts every ten years.
Not published by the state
State Spending The measure increases costs in the Legislative Department by about $370,000 in any year that the commission must convene and review changes to congressional maps outside of its usual redistricting schedule. The costs are to staff the commission, provide reimbursement for commissioners, and hire legal counsel. The Judicial Department will also have a small workload increase to review any new maps.
1) Amendment 86 protects public participation in any off-cycle changes to congressional districts and ensures that changes are reviewed through a fair and transparent process. Requiring the commission to review districts, and not allowing districts to favor a single political party, keeps partisan politics out of the process. This affirms the voters’ intent in creating an independent commission, which was overwhelmingly approved in a 2018 statewide election. Across the nation, politicians have attempted to change districts in their favor with limited public input. Amendment 86 safeguards the redistricting process in Colorado.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book; arguments are prepared by nonpartisan staff with public comment, not signed by proponents)
1) If Colorado voters ever want to enact new congressional districts in an off-cycle redistricting year, this measure stands in their way. Whether new districts are in response to partisan redistricting in other states, changes in political priorities, or other concerns with Colorado's congressional districts, this measure creates an unnecessary constitutional barrier. Further, if voters feel that the districts created by the commission during the regularly scheduled redistricting no longer meet the needs of the state, that same commission should not play a role in the process. Voters should always have the final word on whether Colorado’s congressional districts still reflect the state’s needs.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book)
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.