Public Comments

While I commented previously (And autofill put in a wrongly spelled name!!) that I thought the Staff First Map was pretty well done and seemed more representative and equitable especially for those of us in CD3, I don't care for their Second Map which basically is same old, same old, especially for those of us who have felt our voices UNHEARD for some time now. The Schuster Map, though initially presented wrong by another entity (and probably garnering skewed comments), does create a huge CD3, albeit better than the entire Western slope being thrown in with SE CO. I would prefer it to the Second Staff Map.

Of the several maps that have been presented for our review, I perfer the Schuster map as it tends to match the needs of our community with like communities of interest. It also seems to allow for including those areas that we communcate with and travel to to been in one area. We seem to have little in common with the northern section of the current District 3.

Please keep Loveland in Congressional Fistrict 2, and do not move it to Congressional District 4. Yesterday on the radio, I listened to one of your Commissioners describing the redistricting process and how important it is to have a "string" (her word) of commonality between communities within a district. I am glad to know that this is such an important consideration. However, there is not a "string" between Loveland and communities farther east; they are two distinct worlds. Loveland is a Front Range Range community and belongs with the others as such. The communities to the east are connected by string to each other and should remain together in the same congressional district. Thank you, Stephanie Muller

I support the Schuster map as it keeps Southern Colorado as a unified district.

I write in support of the “Schuster Map” which advances the goals of the second staff map and meets several requirements for the Commission: -It creates three competitive districts east-west across the state and within the mountain regions. - It creates districts that reflect communities of interest by keeping Southwest Colorado together, the Roaring Fork Valley together, and the San Luis Valley with Pueblo's agricultural region. - Similarly, the Schuster Map keeps Mesa County whole with its economic neighbor of Garfield County to the north, and links it to most of the I70 economic corridor. - Finally, the Schuster Map recognizes that our Western Slope communities are interdependent in our economies. Rural agricultural communities need urban markets. Transportation and tourism flow east-west across our state. Water policy requires east- west cooperation. Competitive east-west districts are needed for our State to create solutions and work together. Please endorse the Schuster Map.

I like the looks of the Schuster Map. Does each district represent a more or less equal number of the population? As I understand it, it takes 750,000 people to represent a district.

After looking at all the redistricting plans submitted so far the one that makes the most sense to me is the Shuster Plan. It aligns communities that have a common interest with each other and at the same time will make several districts that are one sided more competitive.

Please be fair and consider the Schuster map.

I live in Pueblo and would like to support the Schuster map. I would say more but I understand this is due by noon.

We have long been held hostage by the GOP in Montezuma County. If your not a republican there is no need to run for office or to have input on the direction of the county, your opinion is not welcome. Please make our district competitive.