|
||||
|
October 23, 2001 Guest Column It is highly unusual for the governor to call the legislature back into special session twice in one year. In fact, this has happened only four times since World War II. This year's second special session, which concluded on Oct. 9, was all the more unusual in that it was held in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Just as Congress has responded by setting aside partisan differences, the legislature did likewise on several key issues. Perhaps most important, we were able to reach bipartisan agreement to trim the state budget by $390 million in order to deal with Colorado's recent economic downturn. This was accomplished by delaying several highway and capital construction projects. By taking these steps, we will be able to keep the state budget in balance, as required by the constitution. If the economy continues to worsen, we will have to revisit the budget during the regular session which begins in January. Also of significance, we passed four growth bills and sent them to the governor for his signature. Each will give local governments additional tools to help plan and better manage growth. This was accomplished while at the same time protecting private property rights and not doing harm to the economy. In several previous regular and special sessions, the legislature failed to agree on growth legislation, so this was a positive step forward. One of these bills will make it mandatory for 30 Colorado counties and 76 municipalities to prepare growth plans. The others will restrict flagpole annexations used by some cities to bring in additional sales tax revenue, provide a framework for resolving land-use disputes between various governmental units and give statutory cities the ability to levy impact fees so that growth will pay its own way. Another accomplishment of the special session was finding a stable, long-term way to fund treatment of breast and cervical cancer for low-income women without health insurance. For several years, Medicaid money has been available to screen women for these forms of cancer but not to treat those who were diagnosed. This, of course, made little sense and I'm happy to see that women who need treatment can be sure they'll get it. Also on the positive side, we agreed to help state employees pay for soaring health insurance premiums and fixed a glitch in the penalties for the state's drunk driving statutes. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in completing action on the most important issue on our plate during the special session — congressional redistricting. Following the release of census results every 10 years, the legislature is mandated by the state constitution to draw new congressional boundaries to equalize population. Because of the state's population growth over the last decade, Colorado is also entitled to an additional, or seventh, seat in the U.S. House of Representatives beginning with the 2002 election. Congressional redistricting is always a highly-charged, partisan exercise in which both political parties strive to gain as much advantage as possible by the way the new lines are drawn. Because the state House is controlled by the Republicans and the Democrats have an 18-17 advantage in the state Senate, the debate was particularly contentious during this year's special session. I am happy to report that the Western Slope has succeeded in conveying its message that counties west of the Continental Divide should be kept in one congressional district, as is now the case. At a public meeting in August in Grand Junction, speaker after speaker emphasized that the Western Slope has a unique community of interest that includes issues such as water, agriculture, mining, timber and public land management. This message has come through loud and clear at the state capitol and nearly all of the redistricting maps presented by both parties would keep the Western Slope counties united in one district. However, population from just Western Slope counties is insufficient to make up an entire congressional district. Currently, the 3rd Congressional District includes the San Luis Valley as well as parts of Jefferson, Pueblo, Douglas and Fremont Counties. The House passed nearly a dozen different plans. Most of them would keep the San Luis Valley in the 3rd Congressional District, plus other mostly-rural areas to round out the needed population. Unfortunately, the special session ended without any agreement between the House and the Senate, leaving many of the opinion that the courts should draw the congressional boundaries. However, the Colorado Constitution clearly mandates that the legislature, not the courts, should do redistricting. Although the deadline for the 2002 election is fast approaching, I believe the legislature still has time to get the job done when we reconvene in January. Our motto should be, "Legislate, not litigate," when it comes to congressional redistricting. State Rep. Kay Alexander, R-Montrose, represents House District 58, which includes the northern part of Montezuma County. |
||||
|
Copyright © 2001 the Cortez
Journal. All rights reserved. |
