Public Comments

I’m Emily Tracy and I’m not representing any organization with my comments. I have homes in two communities – Cañon City and Breckenridge – and vote in Cañon City (Fremont County). I have lived in rural Colorado since 1977. Since 2002 I have run for office in a total of 13 rural counties. I am an uncontested candidate for the City Council of Cañon City in the November election. I am a supporter of the southern district concept and am writing comments now specifically in support of the amended Headwaters map submitted by Commissioner Tafoya at the September 20, 2pm Congressional Redistricting Commission meeting. As I’ve noted previously regarding the First Staff Plan, a southern Congressional district meets southern Colorado community of interest needs. It reflects the cultural history, the watersheds, commercial and outdoor recreation connections, and transportation corridors. I’m impressed with the September 20th Tafoya map. It appears that great care was taken to not only reflect communities of interest but to also address the other Constitutional priorities (Voting Rights Act, compactness, same population, etc). In addition, the Tafoya map appears to increase the number of competitive districts as required by Section 44.3 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution. The three significantly rural districts the Tafoya map proposes truly reflect different concentrations of rural interests. 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. I know that the Congressional Commission has struggled with process, and unfortunately seems now to be suffering from not clearly determining early on how to measure Constitutional and Commission priorities. As stated in a recent Colorado Sun article, “Legislative attorney Jeremiah Barry noted several times at a meeting Thursday that the commission hasn’t given nonpartisan staff direction on complying with constitutional-redistricting provisions, including where to set the bar for political competitiveness. ‘We still have no direction,’ he said.” The clock is now running out, so the Commission probably DOES need to play out their process without going back to correct early errors and omissions. Of course, maps themselves convey implicit priorities so the discussion now centers around multiple divergent maps. The Second Staff Plan map conveys certain priorities and the Tafoya September 20th map conveys others. My concern is that the Commission’s majority support (confirmed by a 11-1 vote this evening) for a western slope/eastern plains configuration suggests – to me - that partisan voices are being heard more than community of interest voices. There are rural organizations weighing in heavily on this process who purport to be the voice(s) of rural Colorado. They do NOT fully represent rural Colorado. Instead, they represent rural Republicans.

The recent version of your map places ALL of Douglas County within Congressional District #4...REALLY??? You think a district that... -Is commercially connected to the Denver metro area -Has had MASSIVE federal, state, and local $$$$ invested in the redevelopment of the I-25 and C-470 corridors -Had had MASSIVE investment in light rail lines extending south to Lone Tree and into Ridgegate in Parker -Has some of the highest concentration of educated professionals ...should be voting with farmers and rancher on the plains??? This is NOWHERE even close to fair for both areas, which have COMPLETELY different needs. Urban residents won't understand the issues that rural voters need addressing, and rural voters won't vote for the complex legislative needs for urban areas. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider this MASSIVELY unbalanced arrangement, and place the urban areas of Douglas County in a congressional district that reflects the federal and state dollars spent to boost urban economic production, thank you!

I know this is not what you want to hear. But as an independent, I would rather that the maps were just a simple density map which would encourage people to connect and communicate with each other. I am tired of hearing about Republicans and Democrats trying to manipulate this process to their own political advantage versus helping Coloradoans to come together and work together to deal with our problems.

We can appreciate everyone’s hard work and input, however when it comes to CCD 3 we are finding that most of the Commission and certainly the staff does not have a good focus on Representation. Many are focused on rural v urban which we have argued are intertwined in Colorado. Staff Plan 2 does not take this in consideration , those models seem to want to lump Western and Southern Colorado together and do not take in consideration that those two geographical areas are not compatible and what happens is either one area gets represented while the other does not, and therefore we are back to political influence and the process does not work. The argument against Commissioners Tafoya’s Headwaters 007 plan have been mainly from Commissioners who have affiliations with the Republican Party and this is because if Commissioners Tafoya’s Headwater’s 007 plan is adapted then the Republican will lose an effort to be able to easily control CCD 3,whereas if the Headwater plan is accepted there will be enough compatibility throughout the district to provide even representation for all. Staff plan represents am almost current model of CCD3 and there is plenty of substantial data that with the current alignment and if Staff plan 2 is excepted a very similar pattern of control will occur, however on the other hand it the Headwaters Plan is accepted the CCD3 will be assured of much better opportunity for compromise and consideration of issues and the result will lead to better overall representation for all.. Although we, the concerned citizens of True Southern Colorado, would like to split El Paso County and create a separate South-Central Colorado District it seems that the consensus of this committee have not indicated the South-Central Colorado Congressional District is an option, so therefore we will support the Headwaters Map 0087hthe Headwaters 007 Map is the best map we have seen for a Southern District, and we support that. As far as Fort Collins is concerned, the argument that they must be in the same district as Boulder to accommodate academic ideas from University of Colorado, that is not true. There are ae in fact at over twenty-five colleges and universities (including my Alma Mater – Regis University) that offer Bachelor and Graduate programs that are not in Larimer and Boulder Counties. In addition, there are numerous forth-seven very fine Community Colleges throughout the State. The argument from the Academica of Larimer County is in essence saying, “We are better than you, and do not want to be associated with you”, and with that in mind we cannot accept that the reason that opponents to the Headwaters Map or any other plan that excludes Boulder and Fort Collins in the same Congressional District is to better serve Colorado academically. As Concerned Citizens of True Southern Colorado, we find that reasoning is biased and prejudicial and detrimental to the entire State of Colorado. If the reasons stated are sufficient to allow two locations to be allowed to be in one district, then we are sure a cavalcade of other motivations can also surface. Certainly, there may be flaws within this plan however it does represent ALL areas of Colorado and is designed to deliver a fair representation to congress than anything that this commission of Staff has proposed. We understand that not everyone can be accommodated, however this headwater plan is the best we have seen come from either this committee of the redistricting staff. Thank all of you for your efforts ‘Thomas McKenna On behalf of the Concerned Citizens of True Southern Colorado

Please do NOT divide Broomfield in the new congressional redistricting process. Broomfield is one community of interest. Dividing Broomfield will hurt the political voice of every community member, regardless of political affiliation.

We moved here because Broomfield is one county. Do not divide Broomfield! We are too small to be divided!!!

My name is Steven Arauza I live in Rifle, part of the Greater Roaring Fork Valley. Thank you for incorporating our feedback to develop the legislative maps. I support the proposed House district #57 that keeps Parachute to Aspen whole. We are a community of interest. We are connected by our regional transportation system. We live and work up and down this valley. Our children compete in school sports against each other, up and down the valley. The Latino community also lives and works up and down the valley every day. Please keep the Parachute to Aspen corridor whole in House district #57. On the Senate side, we thank you for also trying to keep us whole. Senate district #5 is almost perfect except for New Castle. New Castle was unfairly carved out of SD5 and moved to SD8. This breaks up the Greater Roaring Fork Valley by unfairly excluding a town where Latinos make up 30% percent of the population. If the commission is looking for places to balance population size, it should look to Leadville or Silverthorne. Please keep the Greater Roaring Fork Valley whole in Senate district #5 by adding New Castle back to this district. Thank you for your service.

Please find attached comments from the Boulder County Board of Commissioners regarding the Congressional Second Staff Map. Thank you, George Twigg

Please keep Broomfield in one district!!

Broomfield is one community of interest that should not be divided