Public Comments

My name is Carol Cure and I’m a registered voter in CD3 in La Plata County. I am writing to urge the Commission to adopt the Schuster Map. I have submitted written comments recently favoring the Schuster Map and I am asking that those comments be incorporated herein and considered by the Commission. As a retired lawyer who has closely examined all of the draft maps in line with the mandates of the Colorado Constitution, I am quite disappointed to see that the Third Staff seems to completely ignore the important goals of protecting communities of interest and making districts compact and competitive. It also seems to disregard the requirement of compliance with the Voting Rights Act since it dilutes the Latino/Hispanic vote. The Schuster Map accomplishes all of these mandated goals, keeping more communities of interest aligned, providing more compact districts that can reasonably be served by their representatives, and making each district more competitive. At the same time, the Schuster Map better protects Southern Colorado's rural agricultural lands and its Hispanic communities by combining the San Luis Valley and Pueblo and keeping the Southeastern counties of Prowers, Bent and Baca with their agricultural neighbors of Pueblo and the San Luis Valley. It also keeps Southern Colorado communities more aligned with the communities with which they have the most in common, including tourism, outdoor recreation, and the arts. Southwest DOES NOT belong with a district with Northwest Colorado, with its very different focus on Oil and Gas interests, different water issues, and minimal tourism or outdoor recreation interests. The Schuster Map is also commendable for placing in one district the university towns of Fort Collins and Grand Junction, both of which are projected to continue growing impressively in the near future. The challenges both of these communities face are similar, as are their significant federal policy concerns. In addition, the Schuster Map keeps Northwest Colorado's ranching communities separate from Boulder, a great desire of those communities. The Schuster map also keeps the Roaring Fork area together as one. The Schuster Map puts three distinct areas with little in common into their own logical districts and provides for three competitive districts rather than the wildly uncompetitive districts projected in the Third Staff Map. The goal of Constitutional Amendments X & Y was to prevent gerrymandering and to create a system that would respect all of the goals set forth in those amendments. Unfortunately, the Third Staff map makes a parody of those goals.

Of the two maps under consideration today, I am writing in favor of the Schuster map over the third staff map. I like that my agricultural community of Ridgway is tied to other farming and ranching communities across the southern part of the state. Having Pueblo united with the San Luis Valley is also important to me. Similarly the oil and gas producing regions of the north west are kept together. These are critical communities of interest that need to remain connected. There are also watershed issues that make the Schuster map more sound and appealing. Finally, the competitiveness of the Schuster map is far better than the third staff map. Thank you!!!

I would personally like to see actual competitive districts from the redistricting process, especially for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District. Thank you.

Please—I beg of you to reconsider this “final draft.” The community of interest comprised of the San Luis Valley, Pueblo south to the NM border, and the Arkansas Valley to the KS/OK line should not be divided. Ties of history, ethnicity, and culture unite this area. People from Alamosa to Lamar often come to Pueblo for shopping, medical care, and rely on Pueblo media. Please, please consider the map that includes a Southern district. It could also include Fremont and Chaffee counties for the same reasons.

Recently, I received information on a Schuster map which addresses the concerns concerning gerrymandering and competitiveness I voiced in a recent public comment on BOTH redistricting maps in the legislative and congressional committees. Said Schuster map provides a more fair and balanced CD3 district, albeit +5% leaning to Republicans. This Schuster 5% margin in CD3 is more fair and balanced when compared to the Second Staff map, which favors Republicans by almost 10%. These margin percentages were based upon actual 2020 votes in the U.S. House CD3 race. I strongly urge the committee, and their staff, to consider the Schuster map in your final CD3 district map Thank you very much.

I prefer the Schuster map proposal as it keeps whole the recreational interests of the central and southwest ski towns, and the agricultural interests of San Luis Valley and SE CO along with the ranches of SW Colorado. The lines are drawn more east-west, which groups by climate much better than the north-south lines of the most recent staff map. Finally (and importantly, for me) it keeps CD3 competitive and doesn't split the NW part of the state.

I am employing the commission to reconsider the lines drawn for CD8. I spoke to the commission at the Greeley hearing, and ask again to properly draw the lines. The people of Weld have little common interest with that of Adams county, specifically Commerce City, and Thornton. Greeley DOES NOT have much in common interests with that of the paired cities. And I also ask you to STOP THE RACIAL GERRYMANDERING! There are people making it about race, and it’s wrong. It’s wrong to have a map draw out a map for Hispanic representation. If that’s the case, make a district for our Asian population and our Native American population. It’s absolutely shameful that your maps cave to their demands. As I said, it’s principles and values that bring people together, NOT RACE! I am asking you to put Greeley back in 4. Enough is enough. This is nothing but politics in play using race as an argument, which is absolutely ridiculous! Greeley does NOT belong in 8.

The commission published four maps over the past few months. These maps reveal that there are red lines that are self-imposed to preserve the interests of residents and minorities. I believe these red lines are, and this is just my guesses: Denver remains united; Aurora remains united; Colorado Springs remains united with a district in solely El Paso county; Provide for Hispanic voter opportunity in Southern Colorado and Metro Denver while observing the city unity requirements; avoid paring disparate cities like Grand Junction and Boulder or Greely and Pueblo; no seats that attempts to include the different interests of rural, urban, and suburban residents; and maintain the unity of localities and cities even when they cross county boarders. These goals have tied the commission into a knot. Pueblo and her environs in the San Luis Valley must be kept whole, but adding them to one of the neighboring seats makes said seats overpopulated. The changes necessary to accommodate this addition of population have so far proven to be unpopular: Staff Plan 1 in regards to both Fort Collins pairing with the High Plains and Boulder with the Northwest Corner; Staff Plan 2 in regards to Loveland pairing with the High Plains and Jefferson with the counties south of Park; and Staff Plan 3 when it comes to both proposed districts seven and two entering the Rockies. The solution to this conundrum is to give the Pueblo region a seat where it has the greatest influence over the result. This was attempted on Staff Plan 1, and the reaction to a southern trans-mountain seat proved unpopular. With option eliminated, the eastern seat remains the only viable partner. To ensure Pueblo voters have influence we must put the Douglas suburbs with other suburban seats and Hispanics in Greeley with other Hispanic voters in Adams County. Communities in both Weld and Douglas are paired with neighboring commuters in Metro Denver and the Northern Front Range. The Divisions of Weld work because this proposal cuts Larimer County from the west with the proposed third District. This does not take any major center of population and pair it with the Western Slope, that option was rejected by public outcry. Loveland and Fort Collins remain in the proposed second Boulder County-based district. This cut takes the communities of residents who work in the tourist hotspots of Estes and Rocky Mountain Parks and puts them with other tourism-focused communities like Breckenridge and Aspen to the south. Cutting into Larimer allows the proposed second district to takes more of the cross-county communities of Weld County, then allowing the proposed eighth district to avoid compromising Hispanic opportunity with these majority-white communities. Only five cities total statewide are cut under this proposal. One is Denver and unavoidable. Two are tiny cross-county communities of Green Mountain Falls in El Paso and Teller Counties, and Brook Falls in Jefferson and Clear Creek Counties. Lone Tree in Douglas County and Commerce City in Adams are the only communities cut intentionally, and not cutting these would increase the number of localities cut overall or hinder the maps ability to follow the commissions other guidelines.

I live in Durango and have always been frustrated by our representation being so spread out between areas that are so unalike and communities that have such different priorities and goals. This is why I support the "Schuster" map. It brings together like agricultural, gas/oil, college/university towns and areas and will help us be more competitive politically. This map keeps us together with our agricultural areas to the east, but combines our Fort Collins, Grand Junction and Durango college/university goals and visions. Let's use this Schuster map to create a true sense of fair play!! Thank you for your consideration. Tiare Flora

I have looked at the proposed legilative districts that I am in -- House 52 and Senate 14. They both appear reasonable to me, and I do not think there is any need to change their boundaries.