Skip to main content

Public Comments


Filter or Sort Public Comments

Yvette V

Commission: congressional

Zip: 80111

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

Danny Moore is a great fair minded and successful person with the background and common sense to serve on this commission. The cancel culture being used here is unfair and highly offensive. Please keep Danny on this commission

Jessica Bassan

Commission: congressional

Zip: 80129

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

Keep Danny More for his experience, impartiality, honesty and because is a great person. I give my complete support to him in the Committee. Regards.

Darrell Eldridge

Commission: both

Zip: 80247

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

The separation between the people and their government is widening which is at the root of all of these unnecessary and inappropriate measures to assemble our government. We have forgotten what we are trying to do when we vote, and we absolutely do not know the purposes of voting or the requirements which must accompany any legislative process. We in Colorado have a very distorted view of the role of voting and what constitutes a democracy, and we don't understand where these legislative decisions are made. The goal of redistricting is then very important to discuss, because like the right to vote, the right to assemble determines how you participate and the power of your participation. So, what is the goal of redistricting in Colorado, and to say congressional redistricting or legislative redistricting is exactly the same even for the State and Federal government systems. This assembly of districts is established unalterably by Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States making each State's representative delegation in the House dependent on each State's assembly of their own most numerous legislative branch, a process that is established in each State's own constitution. So, the answer to the question of what we are trying to do with redistricting should be to assemble our own most numerous legislative branch in our State, because that will simultaneously set how we assemble our State's federal legislative delegation. This assembly being established in our own constitution would make the assembly of our most numerous legislative branch unalterable by Congressional Statute or even by this redistricting commission, it would fall under the requirements for amending our own Constitution. This leads to the question of what is our goal of assembling our most numerous legislative branch? If it's not to assemble the People of our State as equals to make all the collective decisions of our State together as equals, then we have a problem! The next question then is; how is redistricting going to help us achieve the assembly of all of the people of our State as equals with equal suffrage to reach a collective majority consensus? The answer to these questions is that redistricting to assemble the legislative functions of our State by party affiliation, which will result in control of our legislative assembly by majority party affiliation, fails on all counts, and the contingent nature of the assembly process leads directly to mutability of government where each successive legislative assembly and administration changes what policies and decisions their predecessors made. This leads us to the question of; what is a constitution? A general congress is a general assembly where interested parties meet to discuss matters of common interest. A legislative congress is a legislative assembly where decisions can be made on those matters of common interest governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of those assembled, empowering their assembly to make collective decisions which all parties have agreed to comply with. This makes the rights of assembly, distribution of representation and suffrage, and participation in legislative processes to reach an established majority consensus the basis of the agreement between the parties which governs their legislative assembly. These factors are then formalized and are unalterable without the consent of all that are parties to the agreement. This formalized agreement is a constitution, making the Articles of Confederation the first Constitution of the United States, and making the Constitution of the United States an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution must be simple enough to never need amending, and the amendment processes must be adequately difficult to make amendment and alteration impossible at best. This is where most misunderstanding of the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation begins, both documents only establish how to assemble a congress, a meeting of the States, as a legislative assembly with legislative processes for the States to reach a majority consensus forming collective decisions of their Union. Therefore, the Constitution only establishes the benefits, rights of participation, and cost of being a member State in the Union, then everything else including the administration of government and establishing a conflict and dispute resolution process are determined through the legislative process by the States as a legislative assembly. This is as simple as it gets, and no justification can be argued to change these rights of assembly, distribution of suffrage, or what constitutes a majority consensus. Embedded in the assembly of a legislative assembly are the districts, being defined as the members of the assembly themselves, therefore, every State is a district of the federal legislature. In a unicameral legislature each State was required to have 2 to 7 representatives selected by the State legislature, but when deciding questions in congress, each State had only 1 vote to reach majority consensus. This is a confederate legislative assembly. When we consider a Confederated Republic assembly in a bicameral legislature, then the States are still the members and districts, however each State is apportioned per capita representation and suffrage based upon their proportion of the total population of the country in the House of Representatives, meaning each State still gets 1 vote, but it's a proportional vote to reach a majority consensus. The Senate, on the other hand, is a confederate assembly, meaning they have 2 senators each with one vote, but each State has 1 vote to reach a majority consensus of the States as equals as it is under the confederate assembly above. Together the States are assembled equally in the House and as equals in the Senate making it possible to assemble the States truly as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus as the Union. That makes understanding districting simple, for Colorado and for Colorado's delegation to the Federal Government. Colorado is a district in the Federal Legislative assembly, and the counties of Colorado are the districts in Colorado's legislative assembly and in determining Colorado's Federal Legislative delegation by the same processes and qualified electorate that forms Colorado's legislative assembly, a process which is established in Colorado's own Constitution. That makes the decision of this redistricting commission very simple; Colorado has no choice but to use its counties as its districts for both the assembly of Colorado's most numerous legislative branch, and to form Colorado's delegation to the Federal legislative assembly in the House of Representatives. Notice, these modes of assembly of, and distribution of suffrage in, our legislative assemblies does NOT establish the composition and distribution of suffrage by party affiliation, since the composition and distribution of suffrage is stipulated in our constitution, nor does it establish control of our legislative assemblies by majority party affiliation. Party affiliation has absolutely no bearing on the assembly or distribution of power through rights of suffrage in our legislative assemblies. If there is a compelling argument why it's necessary to divide our legislative assembly by party affiliation and establish control of our governing institutions by Majority Party affiliation, then that is an argument which must be made to amend our State and Federal Constitutions to adopt a Party Governing System over a Governing System of, by, and for the People which then can gain the majority consensus of ALL the People of Colorado, and ¾ of all the States in the Union, to amend our Constitutions to reflect those improvements, if in fact they are improvements.

Deborah Flora

Commission: congressional

Zip: 80134

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

I want to voice my support for Danny Moore, the Chairman, Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission. He is one of the most fair-minded, even-tempered, and thoughtful people I have encountered. He truly has the best interest of Colorado in mind as well as our wonderfully diverse population. To remove him from this well-deserved position would be a purely partisan, politically and ideologically motivated act that runs counter to everything the citizens of Colorado voted for in selecting this bi-partisan committee.

Stephanie

Commission: legislative

Zip: 80121

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

One of the great things about our country and our state is the diversity of thought. Danny Moore is a strong leader and is always looking to better those around him and his community. His thoughts and ideas will be so helpful as he is the Chair of the commission.

Keith A Churchill

Commission: congressional

Zip: 80521

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

I fully support Danny Moore as Chairman of the Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission. I know David very well and support him in this position. We have chosen David as the Chairman and we should stick with this decision and move forward with this process. Thank you. Keith Churchill

Cat Hendrix

Commission: both

Zip: 80916

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

I am here today to show my support towards having Danny Moore as chair of this committee. You will not find anyone more upstanding and honest. Danny truly cares about Colorado and wants the best for everyone in the state. To remove him from this committee would be a true detriment and loss. I urge you to retain him as Chair and allow his work and leadership to speak for itself. Danny Moore is the best choice, and as a native of this great state he is my first and only choice for this project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Edward Kipfinger

Commission: both

Zip: 80526

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

Greetings, my name is Edward Kipfinger And I am sending you this message In support of one of your board members, Danny Moore. I have known Danny for the past two decades and I’ve always respected him mainly for his concern about his fellow community members. The time he has given to the issue of redistricting in Colorado is of tremendous value to the people of this great state. Danny has always had a powerful impact on his community whether it be Mentoring folks at work or building businesses that celebrate diversity of talent and critical thinking. When it comes to the issue of redistricting in Colorado I can think of no other person who is more qualified, more caring or more capable of ensuring equality for all and fair voting opportunities for all legal voters in the end.

Nicholas Morse

Commission: congressional

Zip: 80550

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

We need to trust the commission with who they elected chair. This process was random draw, filtered, screened, more random draw and it gave us the group we have. They elected a chair person and we need to stick with this and get this commission underway. Stop letting outside actors sway decisions that have already been made. Let Danny remain the chair and let’s get this group focused on what it was commissioned to do.

Jan Kulmann

Commission: both

Zip: 80602

Submittted: April 05, 2021

Comment:

I'm very concerned about the calls for Danny Moore's removal as chair of the Congressional Redistricting committee. An independent committee that picked it's own chair needs to stay independent and keep outside influences out of their realm. Any time a chair of a non-partisan group is identified as part of a political party (even though political party representation was a requirement of the role), the other side will have something negative to say. I'm sure that this is the first of many complaints that the public will see of this group. The chair has no more authority than anyone else in the group. It's ridiculous that the fighting has begun already before any real work has begun. I'm sure there are several members that are registered as independent that were members of one party at one time or another. Does that mean they aren't really independent? Maybe. But maybe we should see the outcome before we pass judgement.

Submit Public Comment