Public Comments

I support the Schuster map, because it holds together communities of interest on the western slope, groups communities with shared concerns together in southern Colorado, and keeps communities with common interests together in north central Colorado. The Schuster map also keeps communities of interest together in my region of central Colorado. It groups our similar counties together without lumping us in with any front range cities. While our politics are diverse, our rural economies and future are interdependent. We need to have our interests represented in common, so we can work together to find policy, civil, and political solutions that work for us. Our public lands, agricultural lands, rural education, water, public health, and employment opportunities are all important common interests reflected positively by the Schuster map. I urge you to please choose the Schuster map.

I am contacting you regarding moving Loveland into CD4. I think it would be a disservice to Loveland residents to move them away from their community of interest that includes Estes Park and Firt Collins. I

I’m Helen-Marie Baca and I’m not representing any organization with my comments. I have lived in rural Colorado since 2001 and vote in Las Animas County. Last year was my first time voting and I want my vote and my voice to be heard!! As a rural young LatinX woman and member of the LGBTQIA+ community, I want to know my voice and and vote will be heard in Colorado and Washington, DC. I have just become aware of the Schuster Map. I support this concept which includes a competitive southern Congressional District. Creating only western slope and eastern plains rural districts obliterates the diversity of rural Colorado. It dilutes communities of interest among rural Coloradoans of color, particularly LatinX voters. A strong, competitive southern District captures the actual community of interest of that part of the state and keeps the connection between the Pueblo area and the San Luis Valley strong. The proposed map also accomplishes a number of other priorities in other parts of the state including emphasizing the particular rural issues of northwest Colorado and preserving the Roaring Fork Valley in one district. The Constitutional requirement for competitiveness (very important to me and many other voters) is also better met with this map which creates three competitive districts in the state, one more than the Second Staff Plan which dooms CD3 to be noncompetitive for 10 years. With the required focus on priority Constitutional issues including compliance with the Voting Rights Act, compactness, same population in each district, etc., the critical importance of increasing the number of competitive districts should not be lost.

I would like to endorse the Schuster map under consideration by the redistricting commission. Of all the proposed maps, it seems to be: - the map that would keep communities of interest together better than any other - the least partisan - the map that makes districts most competitive Partisan gerrymandering has become toxic, and has removed the voice of the people from the legislative process. At least for Colorado, I find that the Schuster map helps deal with that problem. Please give this map your full consideration. Thank you.

I hope that you will reconsider your intention to move Loveland into CD4. Loveland is a gateway to Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park and as such has strong ties to the Estes Park community. Also, since Loveland is about 15 miles from Colorado State University in Fort Collins, many CSU students and employees live in Loveland ( including my husband and two sons). Loveland should remain within its community of interests with Estes Park and Fort Collins.

For the following reasons, I like the Schuster Map. I do not believe that voters in a substantial portion of the State of Colorado should be locked for a decade into the politics of one party by a redistricting map that creates unnecessarily partisan districts that are beyond contest. I agree with the comments below which make sure that the maximum number of competitive districts are created, while honoring the ability of Hispanic and Native American voters to secure congressional representatives who understand and work for the interests of their communities. I like the Schuster Map. It not only makes a Southern Colorado district with Latino and Native heritage possible, it creates three competitive districts in the process - more competitive 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. - The Schuster Map keeps Southwest Colorado together, keeps the Roaring Fork Valley together, and 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.

Please, please keep Loveland with District two.please.!!

As a resident of Pueblo and current CD3, I support the Schuster Map for redistricting. It's time to recognize and honor the diversity, history, and culture of Southern Colorado and not lump this part of the state in with parts of the state we have little in common with. The Schuster Map also creates truly competitive districts instead of gerrymandered districts. Southern Colorado, Pueblo, the San Luis Valley, and Durango are tired of being the step child of the rest of Colorado. Thank you!

To the redistricting commission: I live in Placerville in San Miguel County and while I know there are several maps being considered still at this point in the process, I’d like to voice my support for more competitive districts overall. Creating a 5-3 split with super districts doesn’t really help the special interest communities the commission was designed to consider and the more “safe” a district is on either side of the aisle the more that congressman or congresswomen is subject to the growing divide in Washington. Largely titled districts also make it harder for representatives to respond to minorities (demo, cultural, economic) when they’re isn’t pressure to win every vote. So please consider adopting a map that makes as many of the districts as possible competitive. Thanks for your service. Jon Jones

Shutter map is best