Public Comments

I apologize for dribbling in my comments, but I'd like to note one final reason why the Montezuma GIS Group's map taking Archuleta County out of HD 59 should not be considered. Archuleta, La Plata and San Juan Counties are the three members of the Sixth Judicial District and the courts within that district that serve the citizens of these counties. It would be anomalous to have one of these counties in a different House District and would impair the ability of the District Attorney to work with HD59's House Representative to obtain litigation to improve the workings of the courts. This is just one more example to add to my previous comments about not dividing important political subdivisions and organization that serve the citizens of HD59, such as the SWCCOG and the San Juan Basin Public Health Department. See https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/District/Index.cfm?District_ID=6.

Broomfield one and Broomfield strong. Our citizens amended in 1998 and officially became our own county in 2001. Redistricting and splitting Broomfield dilutes our voices. We have our own representation in these matters which we as a community have worked to obtain. Broomfield has a unique economy of businesses, public health, transportation and environmental issues. We stand on our own, our taxes pay for that right and obligation. This reduces our representation and does not accurately reflect Broomfield and I am vehemently opposed. This would be in violation of fair and effective representation.

Hello, I would like to oppose the current plan to move Teller County from the 5th Congressional to the 3rd on the Western Slope. First off is the fact that this is an Arkansas River Valley Watershed which flows east from here and is tied to the water needs of Colorado Springs and not anywhere west of the divide. This seems to me to be an obvious attempt at gerrymandering to allow one party rule in a huge and important part of the state. Secondly, there are zero community ties to the western slope here. Everyone commutes east to work, shop and play. To move this district would be for the sole purpose of interfering with free and fair elections by diluting the voices of thousands of Coloradoans. Please keep Teller County in the 5th Congressional where it belongs! ~Bo Ayad

As a former Western Sloper of 20 years (and Front Range for 17), I look at the redistricting map and feel the districts discriminate against the Western Slope. Lumping Boulder in with Grand, Routt and Jackson counties would be like putting a piranha in a tank with gold fish. If you want districts that fairly represent the interests of Colorado, Boulder should be moved to a front range district. Grand, Routt and Jackson counties are mostly ranch driven, their concerns are water, land and agriculture. That is the complete opposite end of the academia that is represented by Boulder. Those areas are far outweighed by the Boulder population, therefore their vote, and their concerns for their livelihood would be overshadowed. As Colorado continues to see unprecedented growth, I believe it is imperative that those that are on the Western Slope feel like they have a voice in the concerns of this state. I know when I used to live there, I felt like many other residents of that side - that we could just cut our state down the middle and each side would be happier as we always felt like our concerns were overruled by the "big cities" on the Front Range. You have a chance to give the Western Slope more of a voice, please do so. Thank you.

Broomfield is one community of interest and should not be divided!

My name is Carol Cure and I’m a registered voter in CD3 in La Plata County. My comments concern the 2nd Staff Plan for CD3, which does not comply with the mandates of Colorado’s Constitution in a number of ways and, I strongly believe, is constitutionally infirm. While I do appreciate the difficulty of the Commission’s job and understand how hard they have worked, I am asking the Commission to reconsider its vote and approve Staff Map 1, with some modifications such as perhaps adding Lake and Chaffee Counties to CD3 and moving all of Eagle County into CD2 rather than splitting this political subdivision. Staff Map 1 had better resolutions of the many difficult decisions that must be made than does Staff Map 2. The counties added to CD3 north of I-70 do NOT share our Southwest Colorado policy concerns, and their economic drivers are very different. The northern part of the Western Slope is historically distinct from the southern part of the state. While all the maps have been drawn to have population equality, I’m afraid this was done at the expense of many of the much more critical factors set forth in the Constitution. I previously proposed adding Lake and Chaffee Counties to CD3 in Staff Map 1 because of our common interests and combining all of Eagle County with the proposed CD2 district included in Staff Map 1, to even out the population requirements for CD3. This would make sense because Eagle is more aligned with what was proposed in Staff Map 1 as CD2. This would have avoided splitting Eagle County as has been done in Staff Map 2, but this suggestion was unfortunately ignored. Staff Map 1 was much more in line with comments made at the many public hearings regarding CD3, as it better protected community voices and communities of interest and better followed the remaining criteria set forth in the Constitution: Compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Preservation of whole communities of interest and political subdivisions, Compactness, and Political Competitiveness. Let’s look at these criteria in reverse order. Political Competitiveness: This means having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district’s representative to change at least once over the next decade. Competitive elections for members of the U.S. House of Representatives should provide voters with a meaningful choice among candidates, promote a healthy democracy, help ensure that constituents receive fair and effective representation, and contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions. The configuration of Staff Map 2 fails this test, and the district would be solidly Republican over the next decade. It is possible to draw congressional districts that are competitive, but this map doesn’t do that. Nonpartisan staff considers a district competitive if neither party has an advantage of more than 8.5 percentage points. The metric looks at the difference between the percentage of votes cast for a Republican candidate versus the percentage of votes cast for a Democratic candidate. Over eight statewide elections between 2016 and 2020, the Republican edge was 9.7% and the presidential differential in 2016 favored Republicans by 15.8%. In statewide races, the Republican differential in the AG race was 10%, State Treasurer 9.5%, and the 2020 Senate race 11%. CD3 in Staff Map 2 does not meet the 8.5 % standard and is NOT competitive. Compactness: According to the criteria set forth in the Colorado Constitution, Congressional Districts should be compact, not strung out far and wide. CD3 is much more compact and much better in many respects in Staff Map 1. Staff Map 2 makes CD3 the largest Congressional District in the state, covering 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 this proposal that meaningful representation will be extremely difficult. There are significant negative issues with extra-large CDs such as that proposed for CD3. The northern line of the proposed Map 2 district is the Wyoming state line reaching all the way down on the South to the border of New Mexico and extending the full length of Utah’s eastern border. In Staff Map 1, a much less mammoth configuration, the northern border was roughly I-70, with CD2 running from the start of I-70 north to Wyoming, enhancing the unique interests of each area, and giving the Western Slope a second vote, essentially doubling the Congressional impact. A more compact district would make travel for its representative much easier, eliminating the requirement of covering a huge number of miles from south to north and east to west, as well as difficult winter travel over mountain passes. This situation makes the provision of effective constituent services extremely difficult, and the likelihood of far-flung communities having any kind of meaningful interaction with their representative extremely improbable. Constituents in our southern part of the district might never see their congressional representative. Remember “Where is Scott Tipton?” who was almost never seen in La Plata County over most of his decade in Congress. Further, it would be difficult for someone representing this huge district to represent everyone equally, not only because of the immense geographical distances but based on the enormous diversity of interests between northwest and southwest Colorado. Where would the congressional offices be placed in this huge CD3? Current CD3 offices are in Durango, Pueblo and Grand Junction. Would the northern part of the proposed district have a nearby congressional office, or would they have to travel great distances to see their representative? Under Staff Map 1, Southern Colorado would be better linked with its important community interests and have a better chance at having its representative advocate effectively for its interests in Congress. That configuration would enhance the policy interests of both north and south “Western Slope” areas, and areas of commonality/communities of interest would be better aligned. Preservation of political subdivisions: City and County splits are not preferred, but Staff Map 2 now splits Eagle County in CD3 and divides 6 counties in CD2. It also divides populations that should be linked together such as Lake and Chafee County’s Hispanic votes by placing them into CD7 rather than CD3 where they would have a much more effective voice. Placing these two counties into CD3 based on their common interests would give them a percentage of the vote over 26% as opposed to the 14% they have in CD7 under Staff Map 2. Communities of Interest: "Community of interest" as defined in the Constitution means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, is composed of a reasonably proximate population, and should thus be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation. Preservation of Communities of Interest previously described by many who testified, such as Federal public land policy, Federal transportation policy, Federal housing policy, Federal water policy, Federal climate policy, as well as economic communities of interest such as tourism, jobs, shopping, recreation, healthcare, broadband, educational policies, water districts, and judicial districts, are much better preserved in Staff Map 1 and would make for more effective and fair representation of SW Colorado. Importantly, the areas added to CD3 in Staff Map 2 are also very different culturally than those proposed in Staff Map 1, and this is another critical failure of the 2nd Staff Map. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965: The Constitution provides that maps should not dilute or minimize minority votes. Latinx and Indigenous communities are to be kept intact to the extent possible to comply with the Act. While Staff Map 2 does recognize Southwest Colorado’s strong interest in keeping together the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribal lands, with approximately 3% Indigenous representation in CD3, Hispanic/Latinx voters could have been better kept together even though Pueblo and the San Luis Valley were kept together as the majority in these communities requested. Making a Southern District across the bottom of Colorado could have included approximately 7,000 more Hispanic voters in Prowers, Bent and Baca Counties. Staff Map 2 appears to weaken the ability of Hispanic Communities of Interest to be adequately represented and may be a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments to the Congressional Redistricting Commission and Staff, and I appreciate the hard work by both the Commissioners and Staff, but I urge you to review these comments and to reconsider the vote to approve Staff Map 2, which I truly do not believe comports with the requirements of the Colorado Constitution. Carol Cure 747 Oak Drive Durango, CO 81301 carolcure@gmail.com Cell: 602-402-2424 Home: 970-382-8286

The most recent proposal has the community of Loveland in Congressional District 4. Loveland should be moved back into Congressional District 2 to maintain our community of interest with areas west of I-25. Loveland has strong economic ties with Estes Park (RMNP) and with Fort Collins (CSU), which are both in Congressional District 2. Loveland does not have strong economic ties with the communities in District 4. The Arkansas Valley should be moved back into Congressional District 4 with Weld and other Eastern rural communities. This would balance Loveland returning to CD2.

Comment on the 2nd Staff plan: Routt County is placed in the 2nd district, with Boulder County. The 2 Counties could not be more different. Wouldn't it be in our best interests to maintain communities of interest in the same congressional district? Boulder is an Urban City, with the interests focused on the big city. How could they represent our rural county? Routt County is a rural community, with a focus on ranching, agricultural interests, energy industries such as coal mining, and have the need to maintain our water rights for the purpose of our livelihoods. We need representation in congress that represents our interests. We are part of the Western Slope, our interests are more in line with the Western Slope, and not Boulder.

I am writing regarding the revision of the second draft of the Congressional Redistricting map. It is more appropriate for Loveland to be located in Congressional District 2. Loveland. It shares most of the same environmental characteristics with Fort Collins, Berthoud, and Longmont. It is also tied with Estes Park through tourism connect to Rocky Mountain National Park. Loveland does not have agriculture, ranching nor extraction industries that are found in CD 4. You should put the Arkansas Valley communities back in Congressional District 4 in place of Loveland's move back to CD2. The Arkansas Valley has many similarities with the other rural communities to CD4. You can return the Western side of CD2 back to CD3, again because of their geographic and economic similarities. Thank you for considering these revision to the second redistricting draft of the Congressional Districts. Kathy Wilson

After reading through the comments submitted 9-21 and 9-22 we are convinced that most people know very little about Colorado, just what they read in the Denver post and other Northern Colorado publications. We will agree that the majority of the population may live within the ‘vicinity’ Denver Metro Area and yes at least four Congressional Districts will be formed fron Northern Colorado, however, do not think for one second that the Denver Metro, Northern Colorado speaks for the entire state, it does not. In fact, its’s collective voice is not as loud as some of the submitted comments to the commissioners want us to believe it is projecting. From the from comments, we have read during the past 24-48 hours that Commissioner Tafoya commits the gravest of ‘mortal sins’ by excluding Fort Collins from District 2, and how dare does he have the audacity to split ‘poor ‘ ol ‘small’ Broomfield into two congressional districts, “it would just break our hearts”. Actually, this map really is straight to the point and the best submitted so far to the best benefit to the entire State of Colorado. Did you notice I used a word that does not get used a lot during process, ‘Entire’’, and that brings me to the subject of Southern Colorado. Look at the facts, look at the demographics, look at the population and then tell me that Larimar and Broomfield Counties are getting the short end of the strict. Traditionally, the has been South-Central and Southern Colorado’s role, however not this time, not on the ‘peoples watch’ (meaning with the y & z referendum we are to take the politics). This commission has performed very well all through this seven-month process, so commissioners, please do not spoil your efforts now by getting political and from the comments made at the last meeting, politics are creeping its ugly head. Remember your mandate is to be unbiased, so revert to a non-biased demeanor and finish this process as unbiased commissioners. Earlier inthis month, we submitted a pdf document that supported that 91% of Colorado lives within the Central Colorado corridor from North to South, and we broke it down into regions such as Northern, which is actually Larimer County and their population is 349,377 or 6.9% of Colorado’s population, however if you go back and review the consensus is that they act like they are one-half the State. Larimer County is only 6.9% of Colorado’s Population. Broomfield represents only 1.3% of Colorado’s total population and reading their comment, you would think they were in the majority. Denver Metro and vicinity is about 3.5 million people which will support 5 Congressional Districts and that is the consistent with correct Congressional Representation. Which brings us to the Western Slope and Eastern Plains which together will be lucky to field a half of million people (under 500,000), so who does that leave us? Southern Colorado, more specific South-Central Colorado with cities like Pueblo, Trinidad, Alamosa. Walsenburg, Cañon City, and La Junta, and you better pay attention to our united voice. In Southern Colorado we have 1,065,909 residents and you better pay attention to us, because we have water, we have wind, we have a workforce that will stay long after the technology industry goes somewhere else (and they will -remember the oil boom of the 1980’s) ) , and when the military will be downsized, Colorado will still have Southern Colorado, and Colorado Springs is an interictal part of Southern Colorado. Colorado needs a Southern District, it needs to somehow stop pitting rural v urban, and the northern portion of the state must reach out to the Southern portion of the state, and we need to make Colorado a unified, solid Congressional delegation and then we as a whole state can accomplishes wonderful things. Larimer County, Broomfield County! When we were revieing your comments it was almost as if you felt you are better that Southern, Western, and Eastern Colorado and do not want to get you Lilly White hands dirty by shoveling ‘Rural Prosperity’ as we have in Southern Colorado for millenniums., and we most certainly support Commissioners Tafoya’s Headwater map, it makes the best sense for ALL of Colorado including Broomfield and Larimer Counties along with the 1,065,909 million people of Southern Coloradoans. Please read, and re-read Emily Tracy’s comments on 9-21-2021 because she makes a very strong and a very true stamen about Rural versus Urban when she writes about the Tafoya Headwater Map “ There is NO ONE “rural Colorado,” but instead there are multiple interests which concentrate geographically in this proposed map, for example: (1) The energy and agricultural interests of northwest Colorado; (2) The agricultural, tourism, and public lands interests of southern Colorado; and (3) the agricultural and non-public lands (mostly) interests of northeastern Colorado. Thomas McKenna On Behalf of not only the Concerned Citizens of True Southern Colorado, but for all Coloradoans and may we become united, speak under one voice, and becomes the leaders of the Western States. We are all Colorado, and we can do it.