Public Comments

https://app.districtbuilder.org/projects/069a3ea9-8906-4b85-96a5-ce52b9ebaaa5 Here is a map that gives you 4 safe democrat seats, because democrats have been doing better in the state and control all chambers in the government and there is only one state wide republican elected in Colorado. There is 2 safe seats for the GOP, which are the traditionally rural parts of the state. And there is 2 tossup seats where republicans and the democrats are within single digits of winning.

AS a resident of Broomfield I strongly disagree with splitting our city and county into two separate districts. POur community deserves to be represented as a whole and not have our voice diluted by being split. Please reconsider this proposed district maps.

Please do not place Highlands Ranch in a heavily rural or conservative district, as the second and third staff maps do. Voting data clearly shows a more liberal band of voters along the north edge of Douglas county, and this area is clearly more suburban in character than the extremely conservative eastern plains we are being grouped with. D4 in the current map even looks like a weirdly gerrymandered district in it's sharp cut into the Denver metro area along the top of Douglas county. Surely there's a straightforward way to round that shape out and more sensibly group Denver's southern suburbs in with similar closer-in communities.

Dear Distinguished Members of the Colorado Congressional Redistricting Commission: I am writing to you today to request that you please keep the City of Loveland in CD-2 with all of Larimer County. Loveland belongs in Larimer County due to its common mountain community interests and shared standards that simply do not align with Weld County and the other rural areas of the Eastern Plains. At the same time, the areas of the Eastern Plains deserve to have their own voice. I believe that placing Loveland in CD-4 would be a disservice to that district, to CD-2 and to the citizens of Loveland. As you know, when describing the communities of Northern Colorado, the City of Loveland is nearly always grouped with the City of Fort Collins due to their many similarities in demographics and values. They are in many respects the Twin Cities of Colorado in nearly every way, shape and form. As a member of two Thompson School District committees I am also concerned that the current proposed map placing Loveland in CD-4 would separate our students into two areas with distinctly differing values. Thank you for listening and your understanding. Kevin Woodward and Jennifer Friedman 319 West 8th Street Loveland, CO 80537

Please do not split the little northwest tip of Longmont near Mcintosh Lake from the main body of the community, They are our neighbor and should be able to vote and rally with the rest of Longmont . Surly in the grand scheme of state population the several hundred voters if that many will not make a great impact on the state legislature but it will make a profound impact on the cohesiveness of our community. Thank you for your attention. Lora Lee Hinton

We are not in favor of the First Staff Plan Mapn nor the third proposed congressional map that has been presented most recently. This map prioritizes the interests of the Denver Metro area (other than Republican Douglas County) and targets the voices of rural Coloradans. The commission also chose to split up the Western Slope, despite the voices of the people who live there. We believe this new map dilutes the voice of those of us in rural areas—we would appreciate our voice being represented as in the Preliminary Congressional maps. We believe our voices and votes are most accurately reflected in the Preliminary Congressional maps released in June, and urge you, the commission, to adopt the Preliminary Congressional maps.

Thank you for your efforts to consider many perspectives and create compact congressional districts with equal population and contiguous geographical areas. I encourage you to support the Schuster Map because it better preserves communities of interest and offers 3 competitive districts. The Schuster Map preserves communities of interest. Grand Junction and Fort Collins are both university towns and share agricultural interests. Mesa County and Garfield County share major economic interests and are in the same district. The Schuster Map keeps the Roaring Fork Valley together and creates a Southern Colorado district able to represent Latino and Native heritage. It keeps the San Luis Valley together with Pueblo and Pueblo's agricultural region. The interests of NW and SW Colorado seem better served by the districts in the Schuster Map. The Schuster Map is the most competitive map still being considered. Communities and democracy will thrive with more competitive districts. I want leadership willing to do the hard work of collaboration and coalition building to find solutions in these complex times. I urge you to strengthen democracy and prioritize maximizing the number of politically competitive districts.

I continue to be dismayed with the release of the Second and Third Staff Plans at the lack of real concern for communities of interest. Instead, the commission has continued to create plans that are partisan in nature rather than considering the real communities of interest as they are chartered to do. More specifically, and as I have commented in the past, there are vast differences between the interests of the Front-Range population centers and the Western Slope. These include water use, transportation, public lands, and the rural versus urban ways of life. There have been many comments made along these lines and the commission does not seem to care. Instead, you continue to push forward your heavily partisan plans with no consideration of the difference in interests. Routt, Jackson, Grand, and Eagle counties should not be grouped with Boulder and Larimer counties. I ask the commission to adopt a districting plan closely resembling the preliminary plan that was released in June and does not combine the Western Slope with Front Range in any Congressional districts.

Schuster map is the best. All districts should be competitive.

The 3rd staff plan in Colorado is not the most ideal plan but it fits better with Colorado than the Schuster . Firstly it has a more Western slope oriented focus. I believe the push for a Southern district is an attempt at creating a gerrymander by partisans. For example pushing Grand Junction which is all the way on the Utah Border with Fort Collins is as bad as putting Fort Collins with the plains. By putting Grand junction with Fort Collins you have effectively cracked the Republicans in the Western part of Colorado. Although partisan fairness is not stated the 3rd staff plan is actually the most fair despite what many would say. Joe Biden won around 56% of the 2 party vote and it seems on average that Democrats would win around 56% of districts with 3 safe Democratic districts, 2 safe Republican, 1 lean Republican in the 3rd district, one lean Democrat in the 7th and one true tossup in the 8th district. This would still be a reasonable definition of around 3 "swing seats" which fits with your criteria. Thank you for drawing a reasonable map and I hope you stick with it.