Public Comments

I am writing in support of the Schuster map, which most closely upholds the criteria set forth in the Colorado Constitution, Congressional Districts should be compact, not strung out far and wide. Similar to Staff Map 1, the Schuster map provides for a much more compact and representative 3rd Congressional District by creating it as a southern district. Staff Map 2 is far inferior to either Staff Map 1 or the Schuster map because Map 2 makes CD3 the largest Congressional District in the state. Map 2 creates a CD3 that includes almost 50,000 square miles – almost 20,000 square miles more than the next largest district, CD4, and leaving CD2 covering only 11, 000 square miles. CD3 would be so large under the proposed map 2 that meaningful representation will be extremely difficult. There are significant negative issues with over-sized CDs, such as the proposed CD3 under Map 2. The proposed mammoth 3rd District under Map 2 extends from the Wyoming border in the north to nearly the full line of Colorado counties along the New Mexico border in the south, and extends the full length of the state’s border with Utah in the west. The Schuster map proposes a much more compact 3rd district — than under Map 2 —with a 2nd District the runs from I-70 on its southern boundary and north to Wyoming. The Schuster map enhances the unique interests of each district area, and gibes the Western Slope a second Congressional vote, essentially doubling the region’s Congressional impact. The more compact 3rd District proposed by the Schuster map would make travel for its Representative much easier, eliminating the requirement of covering a huge number of miles from north to south and east to west, as well as reducing difficult winter travel over mountain passes. The constituents of both the Schuster map 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts would be more likely to regularly see and talk to their Representatives. Map 2 forms a CD3 that makes effective constituent services extremely difficult, and the likelihood of far-flung communities having any kind of meaningful interaction with their representative extremely improbable. Under Map 2 CD3 constituents in our southern and eastern counties might never see their congressional representative. I urge the Commission to reject Map 2 and adopt the Schuster map.

We need a fair redistrict process, not a gerrymandered pay to play corrupt map where election officials continue to pick their constituents. Creating districts where there is a healthy balance allows for a more proper elections where ideas and platforms get elected and not just R’s or D’s. I do not support districts that will never have the healthy balance. We do not need to create career politicians because of a district map. So carefully look at the data and ensure that districts are drawn in a manner where we the people can chose our representation rather than them choosing us! District 3 specifically needs to be addressed in its current form. I understand it’s a population thing, but it’s also geographical. How can a district that is more than half the state have fair representation? The southeast part of district 3 has yet to see or hear from or be included in any discussions of our needs from the current corrupt clown show that is supposed to be our representation. Make districts accessible. Make districts geographically make sense. Opposite corners of the state for a single district doesn’t accomplish this.

On the State House First Staff map, the portion of north Aurora that is included in HD36 should be divided between HD36 and HD42, with Chambers Rd as the north/south dividing line. This would keep "original" Aurora that spans Colfax on the north and south more intact, putting the eastern part of the Adams County parcel in HD36. Chambers Rd. should continue to divide HD36 and HD 42. As currently drawn, HD 36 covers neighborhoods from the 1890s to the 1970s to the 2000's to rural Arapahoe county. This is hardly a single community of interest. HD 36 should be more compact than it is drawn on this map. On the State Senate First Staff map, the portion of north Aurora that is in Adams County should be drawn into SD 28 to parallel the way the House districts are drawn. If you believe north Aurora should be kept together with the rest of Aurora on the House map, then it should be the same on the Senate map. The dividing line between SD28 and SD29 should be Chambers Rd. as suggested above.

I support the Schuster map because it creates Western and Southern competitive districts. It maintains a more compact district and preserves our community of common interests in Southern Colorado. Thank you.

Having reviewed the various alternatives for redistricting in Colorado I much prefer the Shuster Map. I have lived in western Colorado since the 1960s and have not felt represented by my congress person most of those decades. The Shuster map creates three competitive districts and keeps like with like (see "shared public policy concerns" below) in terms of the communities that will be represented in each district. I also feel it is important to have a Colorado district that honors the indigenous and Latinx people who have lived there for a very long time. Having two districts that allow common interests to be represented in western Colorado make a lot of sense. Finally, having competitive districts honors our constitutional mandate to allow all people to be heard.

I am in support of the Schuster Map. As a resident of rural La Plata County, this map most closely aligns our region in southwest Colorado with the southern and mountain regions that share our economic and cultural interests. This map also creates competitive voting districts, which best fits Colorado voters' mandates to create districts that avoid gerrymandering while keeping communities intact.

I support the Schuster Map which keeps our CD3 communities contiguous and keeps the district competitive. We need to keep our community together.

I support the Schuster map. 1.Competitive districts in the West and South. 2. Community of interest in Southern Colorado will be maintained.

I am in favor of the “Schuster”map. Make it so!

I have seen the most recent Congressional redistricting maps, and hope you will adopt the so-called "schuster" map. From what I can see, it creates 3 competitive districts, and I think competitive districts are generally good. It also keeps Aspen/Vail in the same CD, which I thinks makes sense. I live in Old Snowmass in the Roaring Fork Valley. Respectfully submitted, Andy Wiessner