---
title: "Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 6 of 14"
description: Explore Colorado Amendment 86’s off-cycle congressional redistricting rules & arguments for & against | Links to other Amendment & Proposition Discussions
image: https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2086.png
---

[Skip to content](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election#main-content)

- [HOME](https://whatsupamericans.com)
- [INTERVIEWS](https://whatsupamericans.com/interviews)
- [TALK TO US](https://whatsupamericans.com/interview-sign-up)
- [PRIVACY](https://whatsupamericans.com/privacy)
- [TERMS OF USE](https://whatsupamericans.com/terms)
- [CONTACT](https://whatsupamericans.com/contact)
- [BLOG](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

 Oct 12, 2026, 4:18:06 PM

# Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 6 of 14

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik)

Share: [facebook-f icon](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election) [linkedin-in icon](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election) [Twitter icon](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election) [pinterest-p icon](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election) [envelope icon](mailto:?body=https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election)

Who should get to redraw Colorado’s congressional districts between censuses—and what rules should they follow?

That is the central question behind Amendment 86, which Colorado voters will consider on November 3, 2026. The proposal would add constitutional requirements for changing congressional maps outside the normal redistricting schedule. Because it adds language to the Colorado Constitution, it needs 55 percent approval to pass. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html))

In plain English, the amendment would require independent commission approval, Colorado Supreme Court review, and public meetings before an off-cycle congressional map could take effect. It would also prohibit changes that purposefully favor a political party or divide communities of interest. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/256Final.pdf))

Supporters see protection against partisan mapmaking. Opponents see another barrier to voters changing districts—or responding when other states redraw theirs for political advantage.

Let’s look at both sides.

## What Your Vote Means

### A YES vote

A **YES vote** would require the Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission to approve congressional district changes proposed outside a scheduled redistricting year. The Colorado Supreme Court would also have to adopt the changes. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

### A NO vote

A **NO vote** would leave the current constitutional redistricting requirements unchanged. It would not redraw districts or authorize a particular replacement map. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

## Official Ballot Language

The Secretary of State lists Amendment 86 as **Initiative 256: Congressional Redistricting**. Its official ballot question describes reenacting the current constitutional process and restricting modifications to an approved map. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html))

The question: “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? ?"  ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html))

## Official Proposed Constitutional Language

The [final measure text](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/256Final.pdf) would add a provision to Article V, Section 44 addressing modifications for the **2028 congressional election and thereafter**. It requires:

- Approval by the congressional redistricting commission.
- Adoption by the Colorado Supreme Court.
- At least three public meetings during commission review.
- No plan that divides communities of interest or purposefully favors one political party. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/256Final.pdf))

### Final Text of the Proposition #256

(I include a detailed [comparison between the current constitutional text and Amendment 86](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election#amendment-86-changes) further down.)

*Be it enacted by the People of the state of Colorado:* 

SECTION 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado article V, repeal and reenact section   
44 as follows:    
SECTION 44. REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS - CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS – COMMISSION  
CREATED.   
(1) DECLARATION OF THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FIND AND DECLARE  
THAT:  
(A) THE PRACTICE OF POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING, WHEREBY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ARE  
PURPOSEFULLY DRAWN TO FAVOR ONE POLITICAL PARTY OR INCUMBENT POLITICIAN OVER  
ANOTHER, MUST END;  
(B) THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN PROHIBITING POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING IS BEST ACHIEVED BY  
CREATING A NEW AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSION THAT IS POLITICALLY BALANCED, PROVIDES  
REPRESENTATION TO VOTERS NOT AFFILIATED WITH EITHER OF THE STATE'S TWO LARGEST PARTIES,  
AND UTILIZES NONPARTISAN LEGISLATIVE STAFF TO DRAW MAPS;  
(C) THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SHOULD SET DISTRICT LINES BY ENSURING  
CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED  
VOTING RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF MINORITY GROUP VOTING, AS WELL AS FAIR AND  
EFFECTIVE  
REPRESENTATION OF CONSTITUENTS USING POLITICALLY NEUTRAL CRITERIA;  
(D) COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  
PROVIDE VOTERS WITH A MEANINGFUL CHOICE AMONG CANDIDATES, PROMOTE A HEALTHY  
DEMOCRACY, HELP ENSURE THAT CONSTITUENTS RECEIVE FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION,  
AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE POLITICAL WELL-BEING OF KEY COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST AND  
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS;  
(E) FOR YEARS CERTAIN POLITICAL INTERESTS OPPOSED COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS IN COLORADO  
BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT MAINTAINING THEIR OWN POLITICAL POWER AT  
THE EXPENSE OF FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION; AND  
(F) CITIZENS WANT AND DESERVE AN INCLUSIVE AND MEANINGFUL CONGRESSIONAL  
REDISTRICTING PROCESS THAT PROVIDES THE PUBLIC WITH THE ABILITY TO BE HEARD AS  
REDISTRICTING MAPS ARE DRAWN, TO BE ABLE TO WATCH THE WITNESSES WHO DELIVER  
TESTIMONY AND THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION'S DELIBERATIONS, AND TO HAVE THEIR WRITTEN  
COMMENTS CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY PROPOSED MAP IS VOTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION AS THE  
FINAL MAP.  
(2) CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - COMMISSION CREATED. THERE IS HEREBY CREATED THE  
INDEPENDENT  
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION SHALL DIVIDE THE STATE INTO AS  
MANY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AS THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS APPORTIONED TO THIS  
STATE BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ELECTION OF ONE REPRESENTATIVE TO CONGRESS  
FROM EACH DISTRICT. WHEN A NEW APPORTIONMENT IS MADE BY CONGRESS, THE COMMISSION  
SHALL DIVIDE THE STATE INTO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ACCORDINGLY.  
(3) DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THIS SECTION AND IN SECTIONS 44.1 THROUGH 44.6 OF THIS ARTICLE   
V, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:   
(A) "COMMISSION" MEANS THE INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION   
CREATED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION.    
(B) (I) "COMMUNITY OF INTEREST" MEANS ANY GROUP IN COLORADO THAT SHARES ONE OR MORE   
SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS THAT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION, IS   
COMPOSED OF A REASONABLY PROXIMATE POPULATION, AND THUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR   
INCLUSION WITHIN A SINGLE DISTRICT FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING ITS FAIR AND EFFECTIVE   
REPRESENTATION.    
(II) SUCH INTERESTS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO MATTERS REFLECTING:    
(A) SHARED PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS OF URBAN, RURAL, AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR TRADE   
AREAS; AND    
(B) SHARED PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS SUCH AS EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, ENVIRONMENT,   
PUBLIC HEALTH,    
TRANSPORTATION, WATER NEEDS AND SUPPLIES, AND ISSUES OF DEMONSTRABLE REGIONAL   
SIGNIFICANCE.    
(III) GROUPS THAT MAY COMPRISE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST INCLUDE RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND   
LANGUAGE    
MINORITY GROUPS, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTIONS (1)(B) AND (4)(B) OF SECTION   
44.3 OF THIS ARTICLE V, WHICH SUBSECTIONS PROTECT AGAINST THE DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF   
THE RIGHT TO VOTE DUE TO A PERSON'S RACE OR LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUP.    
(IV) "COMMUNITY OF INTEREST" DOES NOT INCLUDE RELATIONSHIPS WITH POLITICAL PARTIES,   
INCUMBENTS, OR POLITICAL CANDIDATES.    
(C) "RACE" OR "RACIAL" MEANS A CATEGORY OF RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN DOCUMENTED IN THE   
FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS.    
(D) "REDISTRICTING YEAR" MEANS THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FEDERAL   
DECENNIAL CENSUS IS TAKEN.    
(E) "STAFF" OR "NONPARTISAN STAFF" MEANS THE STAFF OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S   
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR   
OFFICES, WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION BY THE DIRECTORS OF THOSE OFFICES IN   
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 44.2 OF THIS ARTICLE V.    
(4) ADJUSTMENT OF DATES.   
IF ANY DATE PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 44.1 THROUGH 44.5 OF THIS   
ARTICLE V FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY, THEN THE DATE IS EXTENDED TO   
THE NEXT DAY THAT IS NOT A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY.  

SECTION 2. In the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article V, repeal and reenact section   
44.1 as follows:    
SECTION 44.1. COMMISSION COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT - VACANCIES.  
(1) AFTER EACH FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL   
BE APPOINTED AND CONVENED AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION.    
(2) THE COMMISSION CONSISTS OF TWELVE MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS:    
(A) COMMISSIONERS MUST BE REGISTERED ELECTORS WHO VOTED IN BOTH OF THE PREVIOUS TWO   
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN COLORADO;    
(B) COMMISSIONERS MUST EITHER HAVE BEEN UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR HAVE   
BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY FOR A CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN   
FIVE YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION; AND    
(C) NO PERSON MAY BE APPOINTED TO OR SERVE ON THE COMMISSION IF HE OR SHE:   
(I) IS OR HAS BEEN A CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS   
PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE   
UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION;    
(II) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH   
APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS   
SECTION, COMPENSATED BY A MEMBER OF, OR A CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE ADVOCATING THE   
ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE TO, THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE UNITED   
STATES SENATE;    
(III) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH   
APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS   
SECTION, AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL LEVEL IN   
COLORADO;    
(IV) IS OR HAS BEEN, WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH   
APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS   
SECTION, AN ELECTED POLITICAL PARTY OFFICIAL ABOVE THE PRECINCT LEVEL IN COLORADO OR   
AN EMPLOYEE OF A POLITICAL PARTY;(V) IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR   
DIVIDING THE STATE INTO SENATORIAL AND REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS OF THE GENERAL   
ASSEMBLY; OR    
(V) IS OR HAS BEEN A PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST REGISTERED TO LOBBY WITH THE STATE OF   
COLORADO, WITH ANY MUNICIPALITY IN COLORADO, OR AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WITHIN THE LAST   
THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE   
COMMISSION ARE DUE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF THIS SECTION.    
(3) (A) BY AUGUST 10 OF THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, NONPARTISAN STAFF   
SHALL, AFTER HOLDING ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS, PREPARE AN APPLICATION FORM THAT   
WILL ALLOW APPOINTING AUTHORITIES TO EVALUATE A PERSON'S EXPERIENCE AND   
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAKE SUCH APPLICATION AVAILABLE ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S   
WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC.    
(B) THE APPLICATION FORM MUST CLEARLY STATE THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS   
OF POTENTIAL APPOINTEES. INFORMATION REQUIRED OF APPLICANTS MUST INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT   
NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, PARTY AFFILIATION, A DESCRIPTION OF   
PAST POLITICAL ACTIVITY, A LIST OF ALL POLITICAL AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THE   
APPLICANT HAS BELONGED WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS, AND WHETHER THE APPLICANT   
MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS STATED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION. IN ADDITION, THE   
APPLICATION FORM MUST REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WANT TO SERVE ON THE   
COMMISSION AND AFFORD THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW   
THEY WILL PROMOTE CONSENSUS AMONG COMMISSIONERS IF APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION.   
APPLICANTS MAY ALSO CHOOSE TO INCLUDE UP TO FOUR LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION WITH   
THEIR APPLICATION.    
(4) BY NOVEMBER 10 OF THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS   
TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION MUST SUBMIT A COMPLETED APPLICATION TO NONPARTISAN STAFF.   
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND MUST BE POSTED PROMPTLY AFTER RECEIPT ON THE   
GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC.    
(5) (A) NO LATER THAN JANUARY 5 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE   
COLORADO SUPREME COURT SHALL DESIGNATE A PANEL TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS. THE   
PANEL MUST CONSIST OF THE THREE JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO MOST RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE   
COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS, APPOINTED SEQUENTIALLY    
STARTING WITH THE MOST RECENT JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO RETIRE WHO HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITH   
THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY OR UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY FOR THE TWO YEARS   
PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT; EXCEPT THAT NO APPOINTEE, WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT,   
SHALL HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS A JUSTICE OR JUDGE ALREADY   
APPOINTED TO THE PANEL. IF ANY OF THE THREE JUSTICES OR JUDGES WHO MOST RECENTLY   
RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS IS UNABLE   
OR UNWILLING TO SERVE ON THE PANEL OR HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO   
APPOINTMENT WITH A POLITICAL PARTY ALREADY REPRESENTED ON THE PANEL, THEN THE CHIEF   
JUSTICE SHALL APPOINT THE NEXT JUSTICE OR JUDGE WHO MOST RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE   
COLORADO SUPREME COURT OR THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS AND WHO HAS NOT BEEN   
AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS ANY   
JUSTICE OR JUDGE ALREADY APPOINTED TO THE PANEL. IF, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL JUSTICES AND   
JUDGES WHO HAVE RETIRED FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT AND THE COLORADO COURT   
OF APPEALS, FEWER THAN THREE ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS FOR THE PANEL HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED   
WHO ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO SERVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL APPOINT THE MOST RECENTLY   
RETIRED DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WHO HAS NOT BEEN AFFILIATED WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO   
APPOINTMENT WITH THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS ANY PREVIOUS APPOINTEE TO THE PANEL AND   
WHO ACCEPTS SUCH APPOINTMENT. NO JUSTICE OR JUDGE SHALL SERVE BOTH ON THIS PANEL AND   
THE PANEL ASSISTING IN THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE   
FOR DIVIDING THE STATE INTO STATE SENATE AND STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICTS.    
(B) ALL DECISIONS OF THE PANEL REGARDING THE SELECTION OF APPLICANTS PURSUANT TO THIS   
SECTION REQUIRE THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL OF ALL THREE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.(C) THE   
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL PRESCRIBE BY LAW THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.   
NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ASSIST THE PANEL IN CARRYING OUT ITS DUTIES.    
(6) AFTER APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED, NONPARTISAN STAFF, WITH THE COOPERATION AND   
ASSISTANCE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SHALL MAKE AN OBJECTIVE AND FACTUAL FINDING   
BASED ON, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION, INCLUDING   
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION AND INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE   
RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHETHER EACH APPLICANT MEETS THE   
QUALIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION. NO LATER THAN JANUARY 11 OF   
THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL MAKE ITS FINDINGS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE   
AND NOTIFY THE APPLICANTS OF THE STAFF'S FINDING. IF THE STAFF FINDS THAT AN APPLICANT IS   
NOT ELIGIBLE, THEN THE STAFF SHALL INCLUDE THE REASONS IN ITS FINDING.    
(7) BY JANUARY 18 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE PANEL, IN A PUBLIC MEETING, SHALL   
RANDOMLY SELECT BY LOT FROM ALL OF THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE FOUND TO MEET THE   
QUALIFICATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION THE NAMES OF THREE HUNDRED   
APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, THREE HUNDRED   
APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND   
FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY, OR   
SUCH LESSER NUMBER AS THERE ARE TOTAL APPLICANTS WHO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS   
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION FOR EACH OF THOSE GROUPS.    
(8) (A) IN ONE OR MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 1 OF THE   
REDISTRICTING YEAR, AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATIONS OF THE APPLICANTS SELECTED IN   
ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (7) OF THIS SECTION, THE PANEL SHALL IDENTIFY FIFTY   
APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, FIFTY   
APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND   
FIFTY APPLICANTS WHO ARE UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY AND WHO BEST   
DEMONSTRATE:    
(I) EXPERIENCE IN ORGANIZING, REPRESENTING, ADVOCATING FOR, ADJUDICATING THE INTERESTS   
OF, OR ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS IN COLORADO;   
AND    
(II) RELEVANT ANALYTICAL SKILLS, THE ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL, AND THE ABILITY TO PROMOTE   
CONSENSUS ON THE COMMISSION.    
(B) NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, FROM THE APPLICANTS IDENTIFIED   
IN SUBSECTION (8)(A) OF THIS SECTION, THE PANEL SHALL CHOOSE BY LOT SIX APPLICANTS TO   
SERVE ON THE COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:    
(I) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY;    
(II) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY;   
AND    
(III) TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL   
PARTY.    
(C) IN THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING APPLICANTS BY LOT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMISSION, NO   
APPLICANT WHOSE NAME IS CHOSEN MAY BE APPOINTED IF HE OR SHE IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN A   
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT THAT IS ALREADY REPRESENTED ON THE COMMISSION; EXCEPT THAT,   
WHEN ALL THEN-EXISTING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN COLORADO ARE REPRESENTED ON THE   
COMMISSION, A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY A SECOND COMMISSIONER.   
NO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAY BE REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN TWO COMMISSIONERS. ANY   
PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE CHOSEN BUT DUPLICATE A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT'S   
REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION AND ARE NOT APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION SHALL BE   
ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (9) AND (10) OF THIS SECTION.    
(9) (A) BY FEBRUARY 16 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE STATE   
SENATE, THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE STATE SENATE, THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE STATE   
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE STATE HOUSE OF   
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL EACH SELECT A POOL OF TEN APPLICANTS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH   
ONE OF THE STATE'S TWO LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES FROM ALL APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO   
NONPARTISAN STAFF AND NOTIFY THE PANEL OF THEIR SELECTIONS.(B) AS DETERMINED BY THE   
LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN SELECTING THEIR RESPECTIVE POOLS, THE APPLICANTS SELECTED FOR   
EACH POOL MUST MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION AND   
DEMONSTRATE THE QUALITIES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (8)(A) OF THIS SECTION.    
(C) FOR EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NOT REPRESENTED BY A COMMISSIONER APPOINTED   
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (8)(B) AND (8)(C) OF THIS SECTION, EACH POOL MUST CONSIST OF AT   
LEAST ONE APPLICANT WHO IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.    
(D) IF THERE IS AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF AVAILABLE APPLICANTS THAT MEET THE   
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (9)(B) OF THIS SECTION TO SELECT ANY COMPLETE POOL, THEN THE   
POOL MUST CONSIST OF ONLY THOSE APPLICANTS WHO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.    
(10) BY MARCH 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE PANEL OF JUDGES SHALL SELECT, IN SUCH   
ORDER AS THE PANEL DETERMINES, ONE COMMISSIONER FROM EACH LEGISLATIVE LEADER'S POOL   
OF APPLICANTS AND TWO COMMISSIONERS FROM THOSE APPLICANTS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED   
WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY AND WHOSE NAMES WERE RANDOMLY SELECTED BY LOT PURSUANT TO   
SUBSECTION (7) OF THIS SECTION. THE PANEL OF JUDGES MUST ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION   
INCLUDES FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY, FOUR   
COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY, AND FOUR   
COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE STATE'S SECOND LARGEST POLITICAL PARTY. THE   
PANEL OF JUDGES MAY INTERVIEW APPLICANTS BEFORE MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS. IN   
SELECTING APPLICANTS, THE PANEL SHALL, IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING APPLICANTS' OTHER   
QUALIFICATIONS:    
(A) TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION REFLECTS COLORADO’S RACIAL,   
ETHNIC, GENDER, AND GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY;    
(B) ENSURE THAT AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER IS REGISTERED TO VOTE IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL   
DISTRICT BUT NO MORE THAN TWO COMMISSIONERS ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN ANY SINGLE   
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT;    
(C) ENSURE THAT AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER RESIDES WEST OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE; AND    
(D) ENSURE THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (2)   
OF THIS SECTION AND DEMONSTRATE THE QUALITIES LISTED IN SUBSECTION (8)(A) OF THIS   
SECTION.    
(11) (A) A COMMISSIONER'S POSITION ON THE COMMISSION WILL BE DEEMED VACANT IF HE OR SHE,   
HAVING BEEN APPOINTED AS A REGISTERED ELECTOR WHO IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH A POLITICAL   
PARTY, AFFILIATES WITH A POLITICAL PARTY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT HAS APPROVED A PLAN   
PURSUANT TO SECTION 44.5 OF THIS ARTICLE V. A COMMISSIONER'S POSITION ON THE COMMISSION   
WILL ALSO BE DEEMED VACANT IF HE OR SHE, HAVING BEEN AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF THE STATE'S   
TWO LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT, AFFILIATES WITH A DIFFERENT   
POLITICAL PARTY OR BECOMES UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY BEFORE THE SUPREME   
COURT HAS APPROVED A PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 44.5 OF THIS ARTICLE V.    
(B) ANY VACANCY ON THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING ONE THAT OCCURS DUE TO DEATH,   
RESIGNATION, REMOVAL, FAILURE TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF APPOINTMENT, REFUSAL OR   
INABILITY TO ACCEPT AN APPOINTMENT, OR OTHERWISE, MUST BE FILLED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY   
THE DESIGNATED APPOINTING AUTHORITY FROM THE DESIGNATED POOL OF ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS   
FOR THAT COMMISSIONER'S POSITION AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORIGINALLY CHOSEN   
COMMISSIONER; EXCEPT THAT NO COMMISSIONER CHOSEN TO FILL A VACANCY WILL BE BYPASSED   
FOR APPOINTMENT IF ALL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ARE ALREADY REPRESENTED ON THE   
COMMISSION.    
(12) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE STATE'S TWO LARGEST POLITICAL PARTIES SHALL BE   
DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED ELECTORS AFFILIATED WITH EACH POLITICAL PARTY   
IN THE STATE ACCORDING TO VOTER REGISTRATION DATA PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE   
FOR THE EARLIEST DAY IN JANUARY OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH DATA IS   
PUBLISHED.  

SECTION 3. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 44 of article V, add (1.5), as   
follows:    
(1.5) UPON ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN, NO PLAN MAY BE MODIFIED FOR THE   
2028 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION OR THEREAFTER EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE   
CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION AND ADOPTION BY THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT. IN REVIEWING   
THE PLAN, THE COMMISSION MUST HOLD AT LEAST THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND MUST NOT ADOPT   
ANY PLAN THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF DIVIDING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST OR PURPOSEFULLY   
FAVORING ONE POLITICAL PARTY. 

SECTION 4. In the constitution of the state of Colorado article V, repeal and reenact section   
44.2 as follows:    
44.2 COMMISSION ORGANIZATION - PROCEDURES - TRANSPARENCY - VOTING REQUIREMENTS.    
(1) INITIAL ORGANIZATION, OFFICERS, PROCEDURES, RULES, AND TRANSPARENCY. (A) THE   
GOVERNOR SHALL CONVENE THE COMMISSION NO LATER THAN MARCH 15 OF THE REDISTRICTING   
YEAR AND APPOINT A TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON FROM THE COMMISSION'S MEMBERS. UPON   
CONVENING, THE COMMISSION SHALL ELECT A CHAIR AND A VICE-CHAIR, WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS   
OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY, AND OTHER SUCH OFFICERS AS IT DETERMINES.    
(B) THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE   
OF LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, OR THE DIRECTORS OF SUCCESSOR NONPARTISAN OFFICES OF THE   
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SHALL APPOINT NONPARTISAN STAFF FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES AS   
NEEDED TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION AND THE PANEL OF JUDGES AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 44.1 OF   
THIS ARTICLE V. NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ACQUIRE AND PREPARE ALL NECESSARY RESOURCES,   
INCLUDING COMPUTER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC, GEOGRAPHIC, AND POLITICAL   
DATABASES, AS FAR IN ADVANCE AS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO BEGIN ITS WORK   
IMMEDIATELY UPON CONVENING.    
(C) THE COMMISSION MAY RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL IN ALL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN   
CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING   
REPRESENTATION OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE ANY COURT.    
(D) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL APPROPRIATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE   
EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION, THE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF NONPARTISAN STAFF, AND   
THE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE PANEL OF JUDGES AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 44.1 OF   
THIS ARTICLE V. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR REASONABLE   
AND NECESSARY EXPENSES AND MAY ALSO RECEIVE SUCH PER DIEM ALLOWANCE AS MAY BE   
ESTABLISHED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. SUBJECT TO AVAILABLE APPROPRIATIONS, HARDWARE   
AND SOFTWARE NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS MAY, AT THE REQUEST OF ANY   
COMMISSIONER, BE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONER. THE COMMISSION AND ITS STAFF MUST   
HAVE ACCESS TO STATISTICAL INFORMATION COMPILED BY THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL   
SUBDIVISIONS AS NECESSARY FOR ITS DUTIES. STATE AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS   
SHALL COMPLY WITH REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSION AND ITS STAFF FOR SUCH STATISTICAL   
INFORMATION.    
(E) THE COMMISSION SHALL ADOPT RULES TO GOVERN ITS ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION. THE   
COMMISSION MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST SEVENTY-TWO HOURS OF ADVANCE PUBLIC NOTICE OF ALL   
PROPOSED RULES PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION; EXCEPT THAT PROPOSED RULES MAY   
BE AMENDED DURING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS WITHOUT SUCH ADVANCE NOTICE OF SPECIFIC,   
RELATED AMENDMENTS. NEITHER THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURAL RULES NOR ITS MAPPING   
DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE "STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT", ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE   
24, C.R.S., OR ANY SUCCESSOR STATUTE. RULES MUST INCLUDE BUT NEED NOT BE LIMITED TO THE   
FOLLOWING:    
(I) THE HEARING PROCESS AND REVIEW OF MAPS SUBMITTED FOR ITS CONSIDERATION;    
(II) MAINTENANCE OF A RECORD OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES AND PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING   
A RECORD OF WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY RECEIVED, AND OF THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTIONS   
TO NONPARTISAN STAFF ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ANY PLAN AND THE COMMISSION'S RATIONALE   
FOR SUCH CHANGES;    
(III) THE PROCESS FOR REMOVING COMMISSIONERS FOR PARTICIPATING IN COMMUNICATIONS   
PROHIBITED UNDER THIS SECTION;    
(IV) THE PROCESS FOR RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION BY   
NONPARTISAN STAFF; AND    
(V) THE ADOPTION OF A STATEWIDE MEETING AND HEARING SCHEDULE, INCLUDING THE   
NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF ELECTRONIC ATTENDANCE AT A COMMISSION HEARING.    
(2) VOTING REQUIREMENTS. A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS MAY   
APPROVE RULES AND PROCEDURAL DECISIONS. THE ELECTION OF THE COMMISSION'S CHAIR AND   
VICE-CHAIR REQUIRES THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING   
THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER WHO IS UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY   
POLITICAL PARTY. REMOVAL OF ANY COMMISSIONER AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION REQUIRES THE   
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT   
LEAST TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY. ADOPTION OF   
THE FINAL PLAN FOR SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ADOPTION OF A REVISED PLAN   
AFTER A PLAN IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE SUPREME COURT REQUIRES THE   
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST EIGHT COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT   
LEAST TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY. THE   
COMMISSION SHALL NOT VOTE UPON A FINAL PLAN UNTIL AT LEAST SEVENTY-TWO HOURS AFTER IT   
HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO THE COMMISSION IN A PUBLIC MEETING OR AT LEAST SEVENTY-TWO HOURS   
AFTER IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION IN A PUBLIC MEETING, WHICHEVER OCCURS   
LATER; EXCEPT THAT COMMISSIONERS MAY UNANIMOUSLY WAIVE THE SEVENTY-TWO HOUR   
REQUIREMENT.    
(3) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT - HEARING PROCESS. (A) ALL COLORADO RESIDENTS, INCLUDING   
INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS, MAY PRESENT PROPOSED REDISTRICTING MAPS OR WRITTEN   
COMMENTS, OR BOTH, FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.    
(B) THE COMMISSION MUST, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES   
FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS HELD THROUGHOUT THE STATE.   
THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE A REDISTRICTING MAP UNTIL AT LEAST THREE HEARINGS   
HAVE BEEN HELD IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE HEARING THAT IS   
HELD IN A LOCATION WEST OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE AND AT LEAST ONE HEARING THAT IS   
HELD IN A LOCATION EAST OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE AND EITHER SOUTH OF EL PASO COUNTY'S   
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OR EAST OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY'S EASTERN BOUNDARY. NO GATHERING OF   
COMMISSIONERS CAN BE CONSIDERED A HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE UNLESS IT IS ATTENDED, IN   
PERSON OR ELECTRONICALLY, BY AT LEAST TEN COMMISSIONERS. THE COMMISSION SHALL   
ESTABLISH BY RULE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF ELECTRONIC ATTENDANCE AT A COMMISSION   
HEARING.    
(C) THE COMMISSION SHALL MAINTAIN A WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING   
WITH THE PUBLIC THROUGH WHICH ANY COLORADO RESIDENT MAY SUBMIT PROPOSED MAPS OR   
WRITTEN COMMENTS, OR BOTH, WITHOUT ATTENDING A HEARING OF THE COMMISSION.    
(D) THE COMMISSION SHALL PUBLISH ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS PERTAINING TO REDISTRICTING ON   
ITS WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE   
NAME OF THE COLORADO RESIDENT SUBMITTING SUCH COMMENTS. IF THE COMMISSION OR   
NONPARTISAN STAFF HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON SUBMITTING SUCH   
COMMENTS HAS NOT TRUTHFULLY OR ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED HIMSELF OR HERSELF, THE   
COMMISSION NEED NOT CONSIDER AND NEED NOT PUBLISH SUCH COMMENTS BUT MUST NOTIFY THE   
COMMENTER IN WRITING OF THIS FACT. THE COMMISSION MAY WITHHOLD COMMENTS, IN WHOLE   
OR IN PART, FROM THE WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC   
THAT DO NOT RELATE TO REDISTRICTING MAPS, POLICIES, OR COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST.    
(E) THE COMMISSION SHALL PROVIDE SIMULTANEOUS ACCESS TO THE REGIONAL HEARINGS BY   
BROADCASTING THEM VIA ITS WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE   
PUBLIC AND MAINTAIN AN ARCHIVE OF SUCH HEARINGS FOR ONLINE PUBLIC REVIEW.    
(4) ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS - TRANSPARENCY - LOBBYIST REPORTING. (A) COMMISSIONERS ARE   
GUARDIANS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST AND ARE SUBJECT TO ANTIBRIBERY AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC   
OFFICE REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED IN PARTS 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 8 OF TITLE 18, C.R.S., AS   
AMENDED, OR ANY SUCCESSOR STATUTE.    
(B) TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS:    
(I) (A) THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE SUBJECT TO OPEN MEETINGS   
REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED IN PART 4 OF ARTICLE 6 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S., AS AMENDED, OR ANY   
SUCCESSOR STATUTE.    
(B) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (4)(B)(I)(D) OF THIS SECTION, A COMMISSIONER SHALL   
NOT COMMUNICATE WITH NONPARTISAN STAFF ON THE MAPPING OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS   
UNLESS THE COMMUNICATION IS DURING A PUBLIC MEETING OR HEARING OF THE COMMISSION.    
(C) EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENT, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL NOT HAVE ANY   
COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PLAN OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC   
HEARINGS WITH ANYONE EXCEPT OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL REPORT TO   
THE COMMISSION ANY ATTEMPT BY ANYONE TO EXERT INFLUENCE OVER THE STAFF'S ROLE IN THE   
DRAFTING OF PLANS.    
(D) ONE OR MORE NONPARTISAN STAFF MAY BE DESIGNATED TO COMMUNICATE WITH   
COMMISSIONERS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, THE DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF WHICH   
SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.    
(E) ANY COMMISSIONER WHO PARTICIPATES IN A COMMUNICATION PROHIBITED IN THIS SECTION   
MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION, AND SUCH VACANCY MUST BE FILLED WITHIN SEVEN   
DAYS.    
(II) THE COMMISSION, EACH COMMISSIONER, AND NONPARTISAN STAFF ARE SUBJECT TO OPEN   
RECORDS REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED IN PART 2 OF ARTICLE 72 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S., AS   
AMENDED, OR ANY SUCCESSOR STATUTE; EXCEPT THAT MAPS IN DRAFT FORM AND NOT SUBMITTED   
TO THE COMMISSION ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORDS SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. WORK PRODUCT AND   
COMMUNICATIONS AMONG NONPARTISAN STAFF ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE ONCE A PLAN IS   
SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT.    
(III) PERSONS WHO CONTRACT FOR OR RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR ADVOCATING TO THE   
COMMISSION, TO ONE OR MORE COMMISSIONERS, OR TO THE NONPARTISAN STAFF FOR THE   
ADOPTION OR REJECTION OF ANY MAP, AMENDMENT TO A MAP, MAPPING APPROACH, OR MANNER   
OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE MAPPING CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN SECTION 44.3 OF THIS ARTICLE   
V ARE LOBBYISTS WHO MUST DISCLOSE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ANY COMPENSATION   
CONTRACTED FOR, COMPENSATION RECEIVED, AND THE PERSON OR ENTITY CONTRACTING OR   
PAYING FOR THEIR LOBBYING SERVICES. SUCH DISCLOSURE MUST BE MADE NO LATER THAN   
SEVENTY-TWO HOURS AFTER THE EARLIER OF EACH INSTANCE OF SUCH LOBBYING OR ANY   
PAYMENT OF SUCH COMPENSATION. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL PUBLISH ON THE SECRETARY   
OF STATE'S WEBSITE OR COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC THE NAMES   
OF SUCH LOBBYISTS AS WELL AS THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AND THE PERSONS OR ENTITIES FOR   
WHOM THEY WORK WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF RECEIVING SUCH INFORMATION. THE   
SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL ADOPT RULES TO FACILITATE THE COMPLETE AND PROMPT REPORTING   
REQUIRED BY THIS SUBSECTION (4)(B)(III) AS WELL AS A COMPLAINT PROCESS TO ADDRESS ANY   
LOBBYIST'S FAILURE TO REPORT A FULL AND ACCURATE DISCLOSURE, WHICH COMPLAINT MUST BE   
HEARD BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WHOSE DECISION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE COURT     
OF APPEALS.  

SECTION 5. In the constitution of the state of Colorado article V, repeal and reenact section   
44.3 as follows:    
SECTION 44.3. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - DEFINITION. (1) IN   
ADOPTING A CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL:    
(A) MAKE A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO ACHIEVE PRECISE MATHEMATICAL POPULATION EQUALITY   
BETWEEN DISTRICTS, JUSTIFYING EACH VARIANCE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AS REQUIRED BY THE   
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. DISTRICTS MUST BE COMPOSED OF CONTIGUOUS   
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS;    
(B) COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL "VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965", 52 U.S.C. SEC. 10301, AS   
AMENDED.    
(2) (A) AS MUCH AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, THE COMMISSION'S PLAN MUST PRESERVE WHOLE   
COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST AND WHOLE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, SUCH AS COUNTIES, CITIES, AND   
TOWNS.    
(B) DISTRICTS MUST BE AS COMPACT AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.    
(3) (A) THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSION SHALL, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER   
OF POLITICALLY COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS.    
(B) IN ITS HEARINGS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE STATE, THE COMMISSION SHALL SOLICIT   
EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO COMPETITIVENESS OF ELECTIONS IN COLORADO AND SHALL ASSESS SUCH   
EVIDENCE IN EVALUATING PROPOSED MAPS.    
(C) WHEN THE COMMISSION APPROVES A PLAN, OR WHEN NONPARTISAN STAFF SUBMITS A PLAN IN   
THE ABSENCE OF THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 44.4 OF THIS   
ARTICLE V, THE NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL, WITHIN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH ACTION, MAKE   
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, AND INCLUDE IN THE COMMISSION'S RECORD, A REPORT TO DEMONSTRATE   
HOW THE PLAN REFLECTS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO, AND THE FINDINGS CONCERNING, THE   
EXTENT TO WHICH COMPETITIVENESS IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS IS FOSTERED CONSISTENT WITH THE   
OTHER CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION.    
(D) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION (3), "COMPETITIVE" MEANS HAVING A REASONABLE   
POTENTIAL FOR THE PARTY AFFILIATION OF THE DISTRICT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO CHANGE AT LEAST   
ONCE BETWEEN FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUSES. COMPETITIVENESS MAY BE MEASURED BY   
FACTORS SUCH AS A PROPOSED DISTRICT'S PAST ELECTION RESULTS, A PROPOSED DISTRICT'S   
POLITICAL PARTY REGISTRATION DATA, AND EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSES OF PROPOSED DISTRICTS.    
(4) NO MAP MAY BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OR GIVEN EFFECT BY THE SUPREME COURT IF:    
(A) IT HAS BEEN DRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING ONE OR MORE INCUMBENT MEMBERS,   
OR ONE OR MORE DECLARED CANDIDATES, OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR   
ANY POLITICAL PARTY; OR    
(B) IT HAS BEEN DRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF OR RESULTS IN THE DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF THE   
RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT OF THAT PERSON'S RACE OR MEMBERSHIP IN A   
LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUP, INCLUDING DILUTING THE IMPACT OF THAT RACIAL OR LANGUAGE   
MINORITY GROUP'S ELECTORAL INFLUENCE. 

SECTION 6. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, article V, repeal and reenact section   
44.4, as follows:    
SECTION 44.4. PREPARATION, AMENDMENT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS - PUBLIC HEARINGS AND    
PARTICIPATION. (1) THE COMMISSION SHALL BEGIN BY CONSIDERING A PLAN, CREATED BY   
NONPARTISAN STAFF ALONE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE "PRELIMINARY PLAN". THE PRELIMINARY PLAN   
MUST BE PRESENTED AND PUBLISHED NO EARLIER THAN THIRTY DAYS AND NO LATER THAN FORTY  
FIVE DAYS AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS CONVENED OR THE NECESSARY CENSUS DATA ARE   
AVAILABLE, WHICHEVER IS LATER. WITHIN THE FIRST TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS   
CONVENED, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION MAY SUBMIT   
WRITTEN COMMENTS TO NONPARTISAN STAFF ON THE CREATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND   
ON COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRE REPRESENTATION IN ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC AREAS   
OF THE STATE. NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL CONSIDER SUCH COMMENTS IN CREATING THE   
PRELIMINARY PLAN AND SUCH COMMENTS MUST BE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE COMMISSION'S   
ACTIVITIES AND PROCEEDINGS. AT THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AT WHICH THE PRELIMINARY PLAN   
IS PRESENTED, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL EXPLAIN HOW THE PLAN WAS CREATED, HOW THE PLAN   
ADDRESSES THE CATEGORIES OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED, AND HOW THE PLAN COMPLIES   
WITH THE CRITERIA PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 44.3 OF THIS ARTICLE V.    
(2) BY JULY 7 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE COMMISSION SHALL COMPLETE PUBLIC HEARINGS   
ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IN SEVERAL PLACES THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH   
SECTION 44.2 OF THIS ARTICLE V.    
(3) SUBSEQUENT TO HEARINGS ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL PREPARE,   
PUBLISH ONLINE, AND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION NO FEWER THAN THREE PLANS, EXCEPT AS   
PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THIS SECTION. THESE PLANS WILL BE KNOWN AS THE "STAFF   
PLANS" AND MUST BE NAMED AND NUMBERED SEQUENTIALLY FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (6) OF   
THIS SECTION. STAFF PLANS MUST BE PREPARED, PUBLISHED ONLINE, AND PRESENTED IN   
ACCORDANCE WITH A TIMETABLE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION; EXCEPT THAT EACH STAFF   
PLAN MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION NO FEWER THAN TEN DAYS AFTER THE   
PRESENTATION OF ANY PREVIOUS STAFF PLAN AND NO FEWER THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER IT   
HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ONLINE. IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO ESTABLISH A TIMETABLE FOR THE   
PRESENTATION OF STAFF PLANS WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF HEARINGS ON THE   
PRELIMINARY PLAN, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ESTABLISH SUCH TIMETABLE. NONPARTISAN   
STAFF SHALL KEEP EACH PLAN CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL IT IS PUBLISHED ONLINE OR BY A   
COMPARABLE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC USING GENERALLY AVAILABLE   
TECHNOLOGIES. THE COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE DIRECTION, IF APPROVED BY AT LEAST EIGHT   
COMMISSIONERS INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL   
PARTY, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STAFF PLANS THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF STANDARDS,   
GUIDELINES, OR METHODOLOGIES TO WHICH NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ADHERE, INCLUDING   
STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, OR METHODOLOGIES TO BE USED TO EVALUATE A PLAN'S   
COMPETITIVENESS, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 44.3 (3)(D) OF THIS ARTICLE V. IN PREPARING ALL   
STAFF PLANS, NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL ALSO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PUBLIC   
COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA SPECIFIED   
IN SECTION 44.3 OF THIS ARTICLE V.   
(4) ANY COMMISSIONER OR GROUP OF COMMISSIONERS MAY REQUEST NONPARTISAN STAFF TO   
PREPARE ADDITIONAL PLANS OR AMENDMENTS TO PLANS. ANY SUCH REQUEST MUST BE MADE IN A   
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE COMMISSION APPROVAL. PLANS OR   
AMENDMENTS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO SUCH REQUESTS ARE SEPARATE FROM STAFF PLANS FOR   
PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (6) OF THIS SECTION.    
(5) (A) THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT A FINAL PLAN AT ANY TIME AFTER PRESENTATION OF THE   
FIRST STAFF PLAN, IN WHICH CASE NONPARTISAN STAFF DOES NOT NEED TO PREPARE OR PRESENT   
ADDITIONAL STAFF PLANS.    
(B) NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE COMMISSION SHALL ADOPT A   
FINAL PLAN, WHICH MUST THEN BE SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR ITS REVIEW AND   
DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 44.5 OF THIS ARTICLE V.    
(C) THE COMMISSION MAY ADJUST THE DEADLINES SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION IF CONDITIONS   
OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION'S CONTROL REQUIRE SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT TO ENSURE ADOPTING A   
FINAL PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THIS SUBSECTION (5).    
(D) THE COMMISSION MAY GRANT NONPARTISAN STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE TECHNICAL DE   
MINIMIS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ADOPTED PLAN PRIOR TO ITS SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT.    
(6) IF FOR ANY REASON THE COMMISSION DOES NOT ADOPT A FINAL PLAN BY THE DATE SPECIFIED   
IN SUBSECTION (5) OF THIS SECTION, THEN NONPARTISAN STAFF SHALL SUBMIT THE UNAMENDED   
THIRD STAFF PLAN TO THE SUPREME COURT.  

SECTION 7. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, article V, repeal and reenact section   
44.5, as follows:    
SECTION 44.5. SUPREME COURT REVIEW. (1) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL REVIEW THE SUBMITTED   
PLAN AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 44.3   
OF THIS ARTICLE V. THE COURT'S REVIEW AND DETERMINATION SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER   
OTHER MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT. THE SUPREME COURT SHALL ADOPT RULES FOR SUCH   
PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THE PRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR SUCH   
PLAN. ANY LEGAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING SUCH PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME   
COURT PURSUANT TO THE SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT.    
(2) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN SUBMITTED UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE   
COMMISSION OR NONPARTISAN STAFF, IN THE CASE OF A STAFF PLAN SUBMITTED IN THE ABSENCE   
OF A COMMISSION-APPROVED PLAN, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN APPLYING OR FAILING TO APPLY   
THE CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 44.3 OF THIS ARTICLE V, IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE   
COMMISSION. THE SUPREME COURT MAY CONSIDER ANY MAPS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN   
ASSESSING WHETHER THE COMMISSION OR NONPARTISAN STAFF, IN THE CASE OF A STAFF PLAN   
SUBMITTED IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMMISSION-APPROVED PLAN, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.    
(3) IF THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINES THAT THE SUBMITTED PLAN CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF   
DISCRETION IN APPLYING OR FAILING TO APPLY THE CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 44.3 OF THIS   
ARTICLE V, IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL   
RETURN THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE COURT'S REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL.    
(4) (A) BY NOVEMBER 1 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL APPROVE THE   
PLAN SUBMITTED OR RETURN THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION.    
(B) IF THE COURT RETURNS THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE TWELVE   
DAYS TO HOLD A COMMISSION HEARING THAT INCLUDES PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND TO RETURN AN   
ADOPTED PLAN THAT RESOLVES THE COURT'S REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL.(C) IF THE COMMISSION   
FAILS TO ADOPT AND RETURN A PLAN TO THE COURT WITHIN TWELVE DAYS, NONPARTISAN STAFF   
SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE DAYS TO PREPARE A PLAN THAT RESOLVES THE COURT'S   
REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL AND RETURN IT TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL.    
(D) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL REVIEW THE REVISED PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTIONS   
(1), (2), AND (3) OF THIS SECTION.    
(5) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL APPROVE A PLAN FOR THE REDRAWING OF CONGRESSIONAL   
DISTRICTS NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15 OF THE REDISTRICTING YEAR. THE COURT SHALL ORDER   
THAT SUCH PLAN BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE NO LATER THAN SUCH DATE.  

SECTION 8. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, article v, repeal and reenact section   
44.6, as follows:    
SECTION 44.6. SEVERABILITY. IF ANY PROVISION OF SECTIONS 44.1 THROUGH 44.5 OF THIS   
ARTICLE V IS FOUND BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR IF   
ANY APPLICATION OF THESE SECTIONS IS FOUND BY SUCH A COURT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,   
SUCH INVALIDITY SHALL NOT AFFECT OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS OF THE REMAINING   
PROVISIONS OF THESE SECTIONS THAT CAN BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT THE INVALID PROVISION OR   
APPLICATION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 44.1 THROUGH 44.5 OF THIS ARTICLE V ARE DEEMED   
AND DECLARED SEVERABLE. 

([2025-2026 #256 - Final Text](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/256Final.pdf) )

**An important note:** Amendment 86 is not a ban on off-cycle redistricting. It establishes conditions that such changes would have to satisfy. It also does not submit a new congressional map for voters to approve. 

## How Colorado’s System Works Now

Colorado voters created the independent congressional redistricting commission in 2018. A new commission normally draws congressional districts after each census. The most recent commission completed its work in **2021**, and the next regularly scheduled redistricting is in **2031**. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

The Blue Book explains that the current Constitution does not establish a process specifically for off-cycle redistricting. Amendment 86 addresses that situation. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

### Current constitutional sections

The Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions provides an [official PDF containing the current text of all seven sections](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf). The Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission page has links to Sections 44 through 44.6 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution (Congressional Redistricting, Amendment Y) and Sections 46 through 48.4 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution (Legislative Redistricting, Amendment Z): [redistricting.colorado.gov.](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/content/redistricting-laws)

**Amendment 86 largely preserves Colorado’s existing congressional redistricting framework. Its principal policy change is one new subsection—Article V, § 44(1.5)—governing modifications to an approved congressional map. It also corrects two erroneous legal citations in the existing Constitution.** The reenacted sections are not completely identical to current text. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

For this comparison, I reviewed the official current constitutional provisions and the corrected final measure text received April 21, 2026, which the General Assembly links from its Amendment 86 page. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

## What Would Change if Amendment 86 Passes?

### What is formally repealed and replaced?

Amendment 86 would retain Colorado’s existing independent congressional redistricting framework, correct two legal citations, and add express requirements for modifying an approved congressional map for the 2028 election or later—including commission approval, Colorado Supreme Court adoption, public meetings, and restrictions on community division and purposeful partisan favoritism. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

The proposal uses **“repeal and reenact”** for all seven existing congressional redistricting sections. However, for the most part, it reproduces their existing framework rather than replacing the independent commission with a different system. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

| Constitutional section | Amendment 86 provision | Actual textual or policy change |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **§ 44** — Commission creation, declarations, and definitions | Measure Section 1 reenacts it; Section 3 adds subsection (1.5) | Existing provisions preserved; **new map-modification requirements added**. |
| **§ 44.1** — Commission composition, appointment, and vacancies | Measure Section 2 | Existing operative language preserved. |
| **§ 44.2** — Procedures, transparency, voting, and public participation | Measure Section 4 | Existing framework preserved; **open-records statutory citation corrected**. |
| **§ 44.3** — District-drawing criteria | Measure Section 5 | Existing criteria preserved; **Voting Rights Act citation corrected**. |
| **§ 44.4** — Preparation and approval of plans | Measure Section 6 | Existing operative language preserved. |
| **§ 44.5** — Supreme Court review | Measure Section 7 | Existing operative language preserved. |
| **§ 44.6** — Severability | Measure Section 8 | Existing operative language preserved. |

These comparisons come from the current constitutional text and the proposed reenactments—not just the ballot summary. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

### The principal addition: new § 44(1.5)

#### Current Constitution

**There is no subsection 44(1.5).** Section 44 currently proceeds from subsection (1), the declaration of the people, to subsection (2), establishing the commission. The Blue Book explains that the existing framework does not establish a process specifically for off-cycle redistricting. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

#### Added text

Amendment 86 adds the following complete paragraph. I have converted its all-capital lettering to sentence case for readability:

> **(1.5)** Upon adoption and approval of the final plan, no plan may be modified for the 2028 congressional election or thereafter except with the approval of the congressional commission and adoption by the Colorado Supreme Court. In reviewing the plan, the commission must hold at least three public meetings and must not adopt any plan that has the effect of dividing communities of interest or purposefully favoring one political party. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

##### What each part adds

| Added wording | Significance |
| --- | --- |
| **“Upon adoption and approval of the final plan”** | Addresses changes after a final map has been adopted and approved. |
| **“for the 2028 congressional election or thereafter”** | Specifies the elections to which the modification restriction applies. |
| **“except with the approval of the congressional commission”** | Makes commission approval an express condition for modifying the plan. |
| **“and adoption by the Colorado Supreme Court”** | Also requires Supreme Court adoption. |
| **“at least three public meetings”** | Establishes an explicit minimum for commission review of the modification. |
| **“has the effect of dividing communities of interest”** | Adds an express restriction concerning the effects of the modified map. |
| **“purposefully favoring one political party”** | Adds an express prohibition on purposeful partisan favoritism in this review. |

These requirements are in the new subsection, not a replacement for the existing district-drawing provisions. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

**Important distinction:** The actual new paragraph does not use the phrase *“off-cycle.”* It addresses modifications to an adopted and approved final plan. The official Blue Book describes its application as requiring review and approval of off-cycle district changes. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

### How the new language differs from safeguards already in place

#### Communities of interest: qualified preservation versus new prohibitory wording

**Existing § 44.3(2)(a):**

> “As much as is reasonably possible, the commission’s plan must preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns.” ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

**New § 44(1.5):**

> “must not adopt any plan that has the effect of dividing communities of interest” ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

**Difference:** The existing provision expressly qualifies preservation with **“as much as is reasonably possible.”** The new paragraph does **not** repeat that qualification, but both provisions would remain in the Constitution. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

My reading is that this creates an interpretive question about how the new prohibition interacts with the existing qualified standard and other mapping requirements. It would be too strong to claim, solely from this wording, that every possible community division would necessarily invalidate a map. Notably, the Blue Book summarizes the amendment as prohibiting changes that **“unnecessarily divide”** communities, although *“unnecessarily”* does not appear in the added paragraph itself. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

#### Partisan favoritism: not a completely new principle, but it is strengthened

Existing § 44.3(4)(a) already prohibits maps drawn for the purpose of protecting incumbent representatives, declared candidates, or a political party. Amendment 86 preserves that provision and adds the separate phrase **“purposefully favoring one political party”** to the new map-modification subsection. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

So, it is more accurate to say the amendment **expressly applies an anti-partisan requirement to modifications**, rather than saying Colorado currently has no constitutional protection against partisan mapmaking. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

#### Public meetings: the existing statewide hearing requirement is not deleted

Existing § 44.2(3)(b) requires **at least three hearings in each congressional district**, with additional geographic and attendance requirements. The proposal reenacts that language and separately adds **at least three public meetings** when reviewing a modification under § 44(1.5). ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

Consequently, **“three meetings” does not replace “three hearings in each district.”** The text retains the existing requirement while adding the modification-specific provision; the Blue Book describes the latter as requiring at least three public hearings before approving off-cycle changes. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

### Two specific replacements: corrections to legal citations

These are genuine textual changes, although they are different from the amendment’s principal redistricting policy change.

#### Open-records citation — § 44.2(4)(b)(II)

| Current wording | Proposed wording |
| --- | --- |
| **“part 1 of article 72 of title 24, C.R.S.”** | **“PART 2 OF ARTICLE 72 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S.”** |

The commission’s official current-text document explicitly identifies **part 1** as an incorrect reference and states that **part 2** is the correct citation. Amendment 86 makes that correction. The surrounding disclosure rules and draft-map exception remain. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

#### Voting Rights Act citation — § 44.3(1)(b)

| Current wording | Proposed wording |
| --- | --- |
| **“52 U.S.C. sec. 50301”** | **“52 U.S.C. SEC. 10301”** |

The commission’s official document likewise flags **50301** as an incorrect citation and identifies **10301** as the proper location of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Amendment 86 corrects the number while retaining the requirement to comply with the Act. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

### What would remain the same?

The proposal preserves the following existing features:

- **The twelve-member commission and its four–four–four party-affiliation balance**, along with appointment qualifications and vacancy procedures.
- **The existing map-approval voting threshold:** at least eight commissioners, including at least two unaffiliated commissioners.
- **Population equality, contiguity, compactness, voting-rights protections, and political-competitiveness criteria.**
- **Nonpartisan staff preparation of plans and the existing fallback procedures** when the commission does not approve a plan.
- **The Supreme Court’s existing abuse-of-discretion review standard and regular-cycle deadlines.**
- **The existing severability language.** ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

The new paragraph also does **not itself specify a separate off-cycle appointment calendar, detailed review timetable, or new judicial review standard**. Those provisions are not supplied by rewriting §§ 44.1, 44.4, or 44.5; their existing language is reenacted. That is a distinction between adding an approval requirement and spelling out every implementation detail. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/ballots/requirements-for-off-cycle-congressional-redistricting-2/files/text-of-measure))

### Bottom line

**Formally:** Amendment 86 repeals and reenacts §§ 44–44.6.

**In actual textual changes:** it adds **§ 44(1.5)** and replaces **two erroneous legal citations**. It does not delete the independent commission, its composition, existing mapping criteria, or the regular redistricting process. ([redistricting.colorado.gov](https://redistricting.colorado.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6Mjg5LCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--09e0b7b1c75b79d3c2a7fc820d61a333016e5fac/Congressional%20Constitutional%20Language.pdf))

## Sponsors and Designated Representatives

The Secretary of State identifies **Suzanne Taheri and Elizabeth Caven**, both affiliated with **Advance Colorado**, as the measure’s designated representatives. Registered supporting committees include **Fair Redistricting Colorado** and **Brighter Colorado**. **People for a Fair Colorado** is registered in opposition. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html))

### Suzanne Taheri

**Search tip:** Taheri ran for office under the name **Suzanne Staiert**. She identifies that former name in her own published account of her 2020 state Senate campaign. ([coloradosun.com](https://coloradosun.com/2020/11/10/staiert-election-opinion/))

#### Background and affiliation

- **[Professional biography — Maven Law Group (PDF)](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a7cdef8a803bbd463b7eaff/t/5fb82c9987f826241693f6c1/1605905561552/STaheriBio.pdf)**  
  An older professional biography describing her election-law, ballot-measure, and campaign-finance practice, and her seven years as Colorado deputy secretary of state. Treat it as historical rather than a current employment listing. ([static1.squarespace.com](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a7cdef8a803bbd463b7eaff/t/5fb82c9987f826241693f6c1/1605905561552/STaheriBio.pdf?utm_source=openai))
- **[Advance Colorado’s federal appellate brief (PDF)](https://www.advancecolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Advance-Co-vs-Polis-10th-Circuit-Opening-Brief.pdf)**  
  Page 18 of the PDF expressly identifies Taheri as **legal counsel for Advance Colorado** in connection with ballot initiatives. This is a primary-source confirmation of her affiliation, rather than an opponent’s characterization. ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Advance-Co-vs-Polis-10th-Circuit-Opening-Brief.pdf?utm_source=openai))

#### Documented controversy

- **[Colorado Politics: Appeals court upholds campaign-finance fine — March 26, 2024](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/03/26/colorado-appeals-court-upholds-campaign-finance-fine-for-ex-state-senate-candidate-2-21f808b6-eb91-11ee-be35-379b024bd8fb/)**  
  Reports that the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld an **$850 fine** involving her failure to submit the required candidate financial-disclosure form. Taheri had submitted a federal tax return, which she believed satisfied the requirement. **This was a disclosure-form violation—not a finding of theft or misuse of campaign funds.** ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/03/26/colorado-appeals-court-upholds-campaign-finance-fine-for-ex-state-senate-candidate-2-21f808b6-eb91-11ee-be35-379b024bd8fb/))
- **[Court opinion: *Taheri v. Beall*, March 21, 2024 (PDF)](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/coloradopolitics.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/b9/8b9e5418-e809-11ee-9c18-1bb83a5fd106/65fd112aefe81.pdf.pdf)**  
  The actual appellate ruling, hosted by the newspaper, for readers who want the court’s reasoning directly. ([bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/coloradopolitics.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/b9/8b9e5418-e809-11ee-9c18-1bb83a5fd106/65fd112aefe81.pdf.pdf?utm_source=openai))

#### Public statements and her response

- **[Her Colorado Sun opinion column — November 10, 2020](https://coloradosun.com/2020/11/10/staiert-election-opinion/)**  
  Taheri accuses Democratic opponents of personal attacks and politically motivated complaints, criticizes Republican insiders for abandoning her campaign, and disputes advertising that portrayed her as opposing gun background checks. **These are her claims and responses, not independently established findings.** This is useful for presenting her perspective alongside the later court ruling. ([coloradosun.com](https://coloradosun.com/2020/11/10/staiert-election-opinion/))

#### Voting record

Taheri **lost her 2020 state Senate race**, so that candidacy did not produce a legislative roll-call voting record. The sources above document her government work, campaign, and advocacy instead. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2024/03/26/colorado-appeals-court-upholds-campaign-finance-fine-for-ex-state-senate-candidate-2-21f808b6-eb91-11ee-be35-379b024bd8fb/))

### Elizabeth Caven

#### Background and affiliation

- **[Advance Colorado’s official leadership biographies](https://www.advancecolorado.org/about/)**  
  Lists Caven as **Outreach Director & Policy Analyst**. It describes her previous work as a Colorado House legislative aide and her politics and philosophy degrees from Colorado Christian University. This is an organizational biography, not independent reporting. ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/about/))
- **[Elizabeth Caven’s LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-engle)**  
  Provides her self-described professional background and public posts about taxation, regulation, education, and energy policy. ([linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-engle?utm_source=openai))

#### Public policy positions

- **[“The Progressive Income Tax” — Advance Colorado](https://www.advancecolorado.org/institute/progressive-income-tax/)**  
  Identifies Caven as the report’s author. It argues against replacing Colorado’s flat income tax with a progressive tax and favors retaining TABOR protections. **This is policy advocacy; its economic claims should be attributed to Caven/Advance Colorado rather than presented as uncontested facts.** ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/institute/progressive-income-tax/?utm_source=openai))
- **[Advance Colorado podcast archive](https://www.advancecolorado.org/podcasts/)**  
  Includes Caven’s interviews on fentanyl policy, education, parental political engagement, and natural gas. These offer direct access to her public-facing advocacy. A guest’s statement should not automatically be attributed to Caven. ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/podcasts/?utm_source=openai))

#### Voting record and controversies

I did **not locate a legislative roll-call record for Caven or reliable reporting documenting a specific personal scandal or controversial quotation**. Her official biography describes legislative-aide work, not service as an elected legislator. The policy materials above are a better-supported basis for discussing her views. ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/about/))

### Advance Colorado and their initiative sponsorship

- **[Advance Colorado — official website](https://www.advancecolorado.org/)**  
  The organization’s own website and policy agenda. ([advancecolorado.org](https://www.advancecolorado.org/))
- **[Colorado General Assembly — initiative filings](https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/initiatives-filed?current_status=all&election_cycle=all&page=7)**  
  The official listing names **Suzanne Taheri and Elizabeth Caven as proponents of Initiative 256**, the congressional-redistricting proposal discussed here. For your blog, **“designated representatives” or “initiative proponents”** is more precise than implying they sponsored it as legislators. ([leg.colorado.gov](https://leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/initiatives-filed?current_status=all&election_cycle=all&page=7&utm_source=openai))

**Research limitation:** I found substantial documentation for Taheri’s disclosure dispute and both women’s advocacy, but no Wikipedia for either woman.

CPR News reporting, published by Sentinel Colorado, also identifies the **Colorado Democratic Party** as opposing the amendment. The Bell Policy Center’s guide lists the **League of Women Voters of Colorado** among opponents, while Bell itself takes no position. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/voter-guide/ballot-questions/co-vote-2026-a-brief-guide-to-pro-and-con-for-the-bevy-of-statewide-ballot-questions/))

Those affiliations provide context, but they do not settle the policy question. A useful test is whether you would support the same rules if your preferred party stood to lose congressional seats.

## The Case for Voting YES on Amendment 86

### Independent review could discourage partisan mapmaking

Supporters argue that congressional boundaries should not be rewritten simply because a political party sees an opportunity to gain seats.

In [CPR News reporting published by Sentinel Colorado](https://sentinelcolorado.com/voter-guide/ballot-questions/co-vote-2026-a-brief-guide-to-pro-and-con-for-the-bevy-of-statewide-ballot-questions/), Advance Colorado president Michael Fields presents the amendment as reinforcing independent redistricting rather than allowing deliberately partisan replacement maps. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/voter-guide/ballot-questions/co-vote-2026-a-brief-guide-to-pro-and-con-for-the-bevy-of-statewide-ballot-questions/))

The principle is straightforward: voters should choose representatives, rather than parties choosing a more favorable set of voters.

#### **Counterargument:**

Opponents argue that Colorado cannot consider its rules entirely apart from what happens elsewhere. Democratic Party chair Shad Murib told CPR that the amendment would constrain Colorado’s response to Republican-backed redistricting in other states. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/voter-guide/ballot-questions/co-vote-2026-a-brief-guide-to-pro-and-con-for-the-bevy-of-statewide-ballot-questions/))

That presents a real disagreement: should Colorado maintain an anti-gerrymandering principle regardless of other states’ behavior, or preserve more room to respond?

### Public participation should remain part of the process

The Blue Book’s supporting argument emphasizes transparency and public involvement. Supporters see commission review as a way to prevent a replacement map from being advanced without meaningful scrutiny. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

The amendment’s public-meeting requirement gives that argument a concrete procedural foundation. ([coloradosos.gov](https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2025-2026/256Final.pdf))

#### **Counterargument:**

Public participation and public control are not identical. The Blue Book’s opposing argument says voters should retain the final say when they believe existing districts no longer serve the state’s needs. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

The question is whether commission approval appropriately checks a political proposal—or unnecessarily limits a decision voters want to make.

### Colorado should protect its independent-redistricting approach

In a [supporting opinion letter published by Colorado Politics](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/09/18/amendment-86-will-head-off-redistricting-war-feedback-2/), former legislative redistricting commissioner **Hunter Barnett** argues that Amendment 86 would protect citizen-led mapmaking from a national cycle of partisan retaliation. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/09/18/amendment-86-will-head-off-redistricting-war-feedback-2/))

His argument is that independent redistricting should remain a commitment, not something abandoned when a different approach becomes politically useful.

#### **Counterargument:**

Opponents can support independent redistricting while questioning this amendment. The [Bell Policy Center’s guide](https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/) summarizes an objection that Colorado’s existing commission and court-review requirements already provide substantial protection. ([bellpolicy.org](https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/))

The disagreement is not necessarily independence versus partisanship. It is whether another constitutional provision adds worthwhile protection.

## The Case for Voting NO on Amendment 86

### It could constrain Colorado’s response to other states

The Bell Policy Center’s guide summarizes the concern that Amendment 86 would make it harder for Colorado to respond when other states change congressional maps for partisan advantage. ([bellpolicy.org](https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/))

The strongest version of this objection is about unequal rules: one state may preserve neutral boundaries while another changes its map to influence control of Congress.

#### **Counterargument:**

Barnett’s supporting letter argues against joining that redistricting battle. From this perspective, another state’s partisan conduct is a reason to protect Colorado’s process—not imitate the conduct. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/09/18/amendment-86-will-head-off-redistricting-war-feedback-2/))

Whether retaliation is justified is a political judgment. It is not proof that a partisan replacement map would better represent Colorado communities.

### Existing safeguards may already be sufficient

CPR’s reporting describes an earlier Democratic-aligned redistricting effort that failed after a court challenge. Opponents point to that outcome when questioning whether Amendment 86 addresses a problem that existing rules already handle. ([sentinelcolorado.com](https://sentinelcolorado.com/voter-guide/ballot-questions/co-vote-2026-a-brief-guide-to-pro-and-con-for-the-bevy-of-statewide-ballot-questions/))

Colorado Politics reports that the proposals were blocked because they violated the Constitution’s single-subject requirement. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/redistricting-fight-colorado-amendment-86/))

#### **Counterargument:**

Supporters distinguish between stopping those particular proposals and establishing lasting rules for future efforts. Barnett argues that the earlier court decisions do not remove the need for additional protection. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/09/18/amendment-86-will-head-off-redistricting-war-feedback-2/))

A procedural defeat for one proposal does not necessarily settle how a differently structured proposal would fare.

### Voters may want to reconsider an existing map

The Blue Book’s opposing argument raises a broader concern: voters might want new districts because of dissatisfaction with the existing map, not simply to benefit a party. Requiring commission approval could block that choice, so whether it would be allowed depends on who the commissioners are. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-bluebook-english-accessible_1.pdf))

#### **Counterargument:**

The amendment would still permit changes that satisfy its requirements. Supporters therefore see review as a safeguard rather than a permanent freeze. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

The underlying question is how much authority voters should exercise directly—and how much should be conditioned on independent review.

## Current Colorado Representation

I could not verify each district's voter makeup. If someone has a source to fill in the blanks, please let me know in the comments below. Thank you.

### Colorado voter registration markup versus party representation

#### Colorado Statewide voter registration

| Registration affiliation | Active registered voters | Percentage of total |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Republican | 888,741 | 22.0% |
| Democratic | 994,101 | 24.7% |
| Unaffiliated / independent\* | 2,051,528 | 50.9% |
| Other parties combined | 98,292 | 2.4% |
| **Total** | **4,032,662** | **100.0%** |

Shiftline, reporting date **October 1, 2026**. ([shiftline.us](https://www.shiftline.us/reg-stats/colorado))

Shiftline labels this category **“Independent.”** Colorado election officials use **“Unaffiliated”** for voters who are not registered with a political party; this is distinct from registration with a minor party. These figures are **active registrations**, not active and inactive registrations combined, and not votes cast. ([shiftline.us](https://www.shiftline.us/reg-stats/colorado))

So over half of voters are independents, and Democrats and Republicans are about evenly split, with Democrats holding a slight advantage. So, I would expect that if Colorado is not gerrymandered for one party advantage, we'd have four Democrats and four Republicans representing Coloradans in the House - and we do. 

The **[official U.S. House directory—Colorado section](https://www.house.gov/representatives#state-colorado)** lists each district, member, and party. The names below link to the representatives’ official websites. ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives))

#### Active voter registration as of September 1, 2026

| District | Current representative | Party | Evidence for district and party |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **1** | [Diana DeGette](https://degette.house.gov/) | Democratic | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **2** | [Joe Neguse](https://neguse.house.gov/) | Democratic | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **3** | [Jeff Hurd](https://hurd.house.gov/) | Republican | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **4** | [Lauren Boebert](https://boebert.house.gov/) | Republican | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **5** | [Jeff Crank](https://crank.house.gov/) | Republican | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **6** | [Jason Crow](https://crow.house.gov/) | Democratic | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **7** | [Brittany Pettersen](https://pettersen.house.gov/) | Democratic | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |
| **8** | [Gabe Evans](https://gabeevans.house.gov/) | Republican | Official House directory ([house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives)) |

## Voter registration by congressional district

Another question is, are any of the eight districts gerrymandered? It still could be the case if some are gerrymandered in Democrats' advantage and others in Republicans' advantage. Unfortunately, I couldn't find information on all eight districts. The partial information I did find is below. If you have a source to fill in the blanks, please share it in the comments. Thank you.

**Registration date: September 1, 2026.** These figures count **active registered voters**, not everyone on the registration rolls or everyone eligible to vote. The linked October 2026 voter guides report this September 1 snapshot. ([denvergazette.com](https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/02/kiros-blau-peterson-congressional-district-1/?utm_source=openai))

For “independents,” I use Colorado’s **unaffiliated** registration category, which is separate from registration with a minor party. ([adamscountyco.gov](https://adamscountyco.gov/our-county/elected-officials/clerk-recorder/adams-county-elections/records-and-data/voter-stats/?utm_source=openai))

| U.S. House district | Republicans | Democrats | Unaffiliated / independents | Other affiliations\* | Total active voters | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **1** | 39,456 | 182,669 | 230,147 | 11,764 | 464,036 | [District 1 voter guide](https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/02/kiros-blau-peterson-congressional-district-1/) ([denvergazette.com](https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/10/02/kiros-blau-peterson-congressional-district-1/?utm_source=openai)) |
| **2** | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable |  |
| **3** | 146,977 | 105,631 | 253,443 | 12,336 | 518,387 | [District 3 voter guide](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/jeff-hurd-dwayne-romero-3rd-congressional-district/) ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/jeff-hurd-dwayne-romero-3rd-congressional-district/?utm_source=openai)) |
| **4** | 186,119 | 86,820 | 274,590 | 11,572 | 559,101 | [District 4 voter guide](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/lauren-boebert-eileen-laubacher-congressional-district-4/) ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/lauren-boebert-eileen-laubacher-congressional-district-4/?utm_source=openai)) |
| **5** | 135,866 | 80,284 | 260,565 | 13,397 | 490,112 | [District 5 voter guide](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/jeff-crank-jessica-killin-congressional-district-5/) ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/10/02/jeff-crank-jessica-killin-congressional-district-5/?utm_source=openai)) |
| **6** | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable |  |
| **7** | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable | Unavailable |  |
| **8** | **101,876** | **110,630** | **241,258** | **13,695** | **467,459** |  |

## Fiscal Impact

The official fiscal analysis estimates **$367,603 in additional state spending in a year when off-cycle congressional redistricting occurs**, commonly rounded to **about $370,000**. It does not project that expense every year. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

The estimate includes staffing, commissioner expenses, and outside legal services. It also anticipates additional workload for the Colorado Supreme Court. ([content.leg.colorado.gov](https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2026-fiscal-impact-statements-english-accessible.pdf))

That makes the cost conditional: the additional review process would cost money only when used, rather than create a continuing annual program.

## Conclusion

**The strongest case for voting YES** is that independent review should remain the rule even when parties see an advantage in redrawing districts between censuses. Supporters want Colorado to resist partisan mapmaking rather than participate in it. ([coloradopolitics.com](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/09/18/amendment-86-will-head-off-redistricting-war-feedback-2/))

**The strongest case for voting NO** is that existing safeguards may be sufficient, while another constitutional restriction could limit voters’ choices and Colorado’s response to political developments elsewhere. ([bellpolicy.org](https://bellpolicy.org/colorado-ballot-guide-2026/))

My takeaway is that the most useful question is not, “Would this help my party right now?” It is: **Would I want these same rules when the political advantage runs the other way?** I think that is a better starting point for deciding whether Amendment 86 offers needed protection or unnecessary rigidity.

## Share & Engage

[![](https://7528309.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528309/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/facebook-color.png?width=24&name=facebook-color.png)](https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook)[![](https://7528302.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528302/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/linkedin-color.png?width=24&name=linkedin-color.png)](https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin)[![](https://7528304.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528304/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/twitter-color.png?width=24&name=twitter-color.png)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dtwitter&source=tweetbutton&text=)[![](https://7528311.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528311/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/pinterest-color.png?width=24&name=pinterest-color.png)](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dpinterest&media=)[![](https://7528311.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hub/7528311/hubfs/raw_assets/public/mV0_d-web-default-modules_hubspot/img/email-color.png?width=24&name=email-color.png)](mailto:?subject=Check+out+https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail&body=Check+out+https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsupamericans.com%2Fblog%2Fcolorado-amendment-83-2026-election%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail)

 

If you find this post useful, [sign up](https://whatsupamericans.com/interview-blog-alert-sign-up) for notifications of the following blog posts.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## Related posts

[![Colorado Amendment 83, November 2026 Election](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2083.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 3 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 9, 2026, 8:01:36 PM

On November 3, 2026, Colorado voters will decide Amendment 83, a proposed amendment to the Colorado...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-83-2026-election)

[![Colorado Amendment 82 - November 2026 Elections](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2082.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2082.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-82-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 2 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-82-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 8, 2026, 10:02:27 PM

Colorado Constitutional Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas On...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-82-2026-election)

[![Colorado Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles](https://whatsupamericans.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2085.png?height=200&name=Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2085.png)](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

[voting](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/tag/voting)

## [Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 5 of 14](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

[Marek Bobik](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik) 

 Oct 10, 2026, 8:49:51 PM

A ballot should test your judgment—not your ability to untangle a paragraph that sounds like it was...

[Read more](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/htcolorado-amendment-85-2026-election)

facebook-f icon linkedin-in icon Twitter icon instagram icon

- [Our Blog](https://whatsupamericans.com/blog)

- Privacy
- Terms of Use

[![WUA Favicon-1](https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Favicon-1.png "WUA Favicon-1")](https://www.whatsupamericans.com)

---

**9249 S Broadway, Unit 200-536, Highlands Ranch, CO, 80129**

Copyright © 2024,

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Marek Bobik",
    "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/author/marek-bobik"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-10-12T22:18:06.465Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-10-12T22:18:06.000Z",
  "headline" : "Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 6 of 14",
  "image" : [ "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Colorado%20Constitution%20Amendment%2086.png" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/blog/colorado-amendment-86-2026-election",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://whatsupamericans.com/hubfs/Branding/WUA%20Logo.png"
    },
    "name" : "WhatsUpAmericans.com"
  }
}
```