Public Comments

The committee and staff have worked diligently in their redistricting efforts, and I don't envy their combined tasks of coming up with a balanced and fair map that meets ALL the mandates of amendments Y & Z However, I'm not sure I support a rushed process, when the 2020 Census data was not taken into consideration in the first 2 maps. Redistricting lasts TEN years. Information presented to voters on Amendments Y & Z gave the impression that a BIPARTISAN committee and NON-POLITICAL staff would take competitiveness into consideration in the spirit of non-gerrymandered districts. Yet at a recent congressional public hearing, which I attended and personally made my first time comments, revealed that competitiveness is the last consideration of the committee, and NOT a priority. The changes between the current CD3 district and proposed 2nd Staff map shows a 10-point margin towards Republicans, using Republican and Democrat votes cast in the 2020 CD3 race, despite a 6-point margin in the actual outcome of the U.S. House congressional race. The proposed second staff CD3 district does not take competitiveness into consideration and further extends an already gerrymandered CD3 district. I have been without representation of my values in the U.S. House of Representatives for over 10 years. With the proposed 2nd Staff map it would extend to 20 years without representation. Where does Amendment Y specify that competitiveness is not to be EQUALLY considered along with shared interests (ethnic and otherwise), concise amount and consecutive county configurations? More specifically, just because these mandates may be described in a sentence or listed does signify a particular priority. Nor does leaving out competitiveness altogether. Our state and national constitutions have articles and amendments, but that doesn't make one a priority over another, it was just the order that they were approved. The exception perhaps with the FIRST amendment for free speech, as a priority and foundation of our government's principles. All I would ask is for 8 fair and balanced districts to give all candidates, regardless of party, an equal chance to be elected. The second staff map does not accomplish this--certainly not in the proposed CD3, which represents a district with the largest number of square miles within our state. I implore you to RECONSIDER the existing public hearing testimony as well as the public comments (like this one), taking the necessary time to examine gerrymandering and competitiveness as EQUALLY important in what voters were told when they cast their votes to approve these redistricting amendments, and to create fair and balanced districts. Let's not rush this important process. We need a 3rd staff map. Thank you for your consideration and support in executing amendments Y & Z in the spirit of what was disclosed on the voter ballot and Voter Information blue book.

The Schuster Map is a very smart and competitive map that I whole-heartedly support and am asking the commission to consider. It creates three competitive districts. My home town is situated in Southern Colorado and this area is so diverse in our politics between communities but at the same time so interdependent in our economies and future. Rural agricultural communities need our mountain town markets and jobs. Competitive districts are needed for our region to create solutions and work together...which is the objective of this whole process...to work together.

I strongly urge the Redistricting commission to adopt the Schuster Map as drawn as it creates a more broadly inclusive Northern Western Slope district which incorporates the tourist, rural, and energy rich northern Western Slope region with the I 70 corridor mountain economy, and parts of the culturally similar Eastern Slope Fort Collins urban area, while keeping the Southern part of the state with its Hispanic and Native American roots, agricultural emphasis and Mountain ranching and tourist economy together as well. It meets compactness requirements for redistricting. It includes San Luis Valleyand Pueblo together and creates two more competative districts in the State. Thanks for your consideration

The Schuster map is the only one that makes sense!

We live Parker and looking at the second map I would agree but as the version called the Schuster Map. That one will allow for the most competitive lines. Southern Colorado is so diverse in our politics between communities but so interdependent in our economies and future. Rural agricultural communities need mountain town markets and jobs. Competitive districts are needed for our region to create solutions and work together.

I would like to see the commission adopt the Schuster map. I like the competitiveness of the split Western Slope districts. I like the way it combines both urban and rural interests into both those districts.

I think the Schuster Map puts together more alike populations' interests and keeps our district competitive. Thank you for what you are doing.

I write in support of the Schuster map which respects southern Colorado's heritage and keeps communities of interest together; i.e. agriculture, water and valleys. This map supports legitimately competitive districts.

The Schuster Map is the preferred redistricting map because it keeps the correct communities and economies together. It makes a distinct It Southern Colorado district with Latino and Native heritage while creating 3 other more competitive districts than the Second Staff Map. - Southwest Colorado has very little shared common interest with Grand Junction, Craig, and Boulder. Schuster uses two districts for Western Colorado that much more compactly reflect communities of interest on the ground. As a Roaring Fork Valley resident, I can say that our whole valley should be together, and the Schuster Map does that. It also keeps the San Luis Valley together with Pueblo and Pueblo's agricultural region. It keeps more communities of interest whole than the Second Staff Map. - The Schuster Map keeps Mesa County whole with its major economic and extractive industries neighbor of Garfield County to the north. - The Schuster Map is the most competitive map still on the commission's docket, creating three competitive districts. Southern Colorado is so diverse in our politics between communities but so interdependent in our economies and future. Rural agricultural communities need mountain town markets and jobs. Competitive districts are needed for our region to create solutions and work together. Non partisan redistricting needs to create competitive districts, the Schuster map does that.

I like the map that has all of the southern part of the state together. The rural communities have very little in common with Grand Junction, Boulder, Fort Collins and other northern communities. The map takes into consideration that the rural communities in the southern part of the state need to be together so our voice can be heard.