Article V, § 47 — Senatorial and representative districts

Senatorial and representative districts may be altered from time to time, as public convenience may require. When a senatorial or representative district shall be composed of two or more counties, they shall be contiguous, and the district as compact as may be. No county shall be divided in the formation of a senatorial or representative district. Cases construing "Amendment No. 7" The case of Lisco v. McNichols, 208 F. Supp. 471 (D. Colo. 1962) was the forerunner of apportionment cases. While "Amendment No. 7" was not involved, the constitutionality of apportionment statutes (sections 63-1-2, 63-1-3 and 63-1-6, CRS 53, since repealed), providing for the number of senators and representatives and fixing for their apportionment, was questioned on the basis such apportionment was disproportionate and give unequal voting rights. The court decided that because of the imminence of the 1962 elections and because two proposed constitutional amendments (no. 7 and no. 8) concerning apportionment were on the ballot to be voted on in the 1962 election they would refrain from acting and the case was continued. The question next arose in the case of Lisco v. Love, 219 F. Supp. 922 (D. Colo. 1963). In the 1962 election "Amendment No. 8" was rejected and "Amendment No. 7", amending sections 45, 46, 47 and 48 of article V of the constitution was approved. The question before the court under this case was whether apportionment of the senate under "Amendment No. 7" was valid. The court held the apportionment comported with the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution and dismissed the case. This decision was appealed in Lucas v. Forty-fourth Gen. Ass'y, 377 U. S. 713, 84 S. Ct. 1459, 13 L. Ed. 2d 632 (1964), wherein the U. S. supreme court reversed the district court and held such apportionment did not comport to the equal protection clause and remanded the case for further proceedings. Further proceedings were had in the case of Lucas v. Forty-fourth Gen. Ass'y, 232 F. Supp. 797 (D. Colo. 1964). At this hearing the district court held that "Amendment No. 7" was not severable and therefore failed in toto and subdistricting was not prohibited by section 47 of article V. Furthermore, the imminence of the 1964 election did not require utilization of the apportionment provisions of the invalid "Amendment No. 7" as there was sufficient time for the state to take action to effectuate the U. S. supreme court decision. The matter was set over pending such state action. Following this hearing the Governor called a special session and as a result an apportionment bill (Senate Bill No. 1, L. 64, 2nd Ex. Sess. , pp. 27-37) was enacted. This Senate Bill No. 1 was submitted to the district court which approved it but retained jurisdiction. The decision was appealed to the U. S. supreme court in the case of Forty-fourth Gen. Ass'y v. Lucas, 379 U. S. 693, 85 S. Ct. 715, 13 L. Ed. 2d 699 (1964). The supreme court affirmed all decisions of the federal court relating to federal questions but vacated the decision as to all other questions and remanded the case, leaving open to the district court the question of severability of "Amendment No. 7". Before the decision on this appeal was handed down there was a supervening case in the state court, White v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 291, 394 P. 2d 333 (1964), wherein the constitutionality of that portion of section 47 of article V dealing with subdistricting was questioned. The supreme court held the subdistricting provision was a state question in spite of retained jurisdiction of the federal district court and determined the subdistricting provision was invalid but in view of the imminence of the 1964 election, stayed effect of its judgment until the convening of the 1965 session of the legislature. The Forty-fifth General Assembly introduced an apportionment bill (House Bill No. 1438, later postponed). During its progress through the House interrogatories were submitted to the state supreme court requesting an opinion on the severability of "Amendment No. 7". The court held in In re Interrogatories, 157 Colo. 76, 400 P. 2d 931 (1965), that such amendment was not severable and the whole "Amendment No. 7" was invalid and void.