[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           SUPREME COURT STAYS OUT OF COLORADO REDISTRICTING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 18, 2004

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Record the 
editorial from the New York Times, June 11, to which I referred to in 
my speech to the House this morning.

                [From the New York Times, June 11, 2004]

                          A Troubling Dissent

       The Supreme Court did the right thing this week by staying 
     out of a Colorado redistricting dispute. It properly deferred 
     to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling resolving the matter. 
     What is troubling, however, is a dissent by Chief Justice 
     William Rehnquist and two of his colleagues that argues for 
     diving into the conflict. Given these justices' eagerness to 
     defer to the states in other matters, the dissent smacks of 
     partisan politics and raises new concerns about the court's 
     neutrality.
       After the 2000 census, Colorado redrew its Congressional 
     lines in a way that produced some real contests. One district 
     was divided so evenly that Bob Beauprez, a Republican, won by 
     only 121 votes. But when Republicans won the State Senate 
     last year, they drew new lines that were more favorable to 
     their party. The state's attorney general, a Democrat, 
     challenged them in court.
       The Colorado Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned decision, 
     held that the redistricting violated the Colorado 
     Constitution. It said the constitution required that 
     redistricting be done every 10 years, after the census, but 
     no more. The United States Supreme Court has long held that 
     when a state supreme court resolves a case based on the 
     state's constitution, respect for the state's judiciary 
     requires the federal courts to stay out of the matter. A 
     majority did just that this week, when it let the Colorado 
     Supreme Court's ruling stand.
       But Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent, joined by Antonin 
     Scalia and Clarence Thomas, is bluntly dismissive of the 
     Colorado Supreme Court. In the dissenters' view, the court 
     was merely ``purporting'' to decide the case exclusively 
     according to state law. They would have accepted the case so 
     the United States Supreme Court could have considered 
     reversing the Colorado Supreme Court and reinstating the pro-
     Republican redistricting plan.
       The dissent attracted little notice because it fell one 
     vote short of the four votes needed to review a case. But it 
     is disturbingly reminiscent of the court's ruling in Bush v. 
     Gore, in which five justices who had long been extremely 
     deferential to state power suddenly overruled the Florida 
     Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida election law.
       Cases like these quite naturally invite skepticism. As the 
     court learned in 2000, it does grave harm to its reputation 
     if it appears to be deciding election-law cases for partisan 
     advantage. In cases of this sort, the court must make a 
     special effort to show that it is acting on the basis of 
     legal principle, the only basis for a court to act. By 
     departing from his deeply held belief in state autonomy to 
     side with the Republican Party in a redistricting case, Chief 
     Justice Rehnquist has once again invited the public to 
     question this court's motives.

                          ____________________