Public Comments

I’m a resident of Loveland, CO and I understand that my city may be lumped in with Weld County as a means of accomplishing re-districting. I would argue that there are little if any common interests between Weld County and the City of Loveland. Loveland is known for its flourishing art community, its proximity to the mountains and CSU and its tech and industrial businesses. Weld County sustains none of these interests and rather is looked upon as promoting oil and gas production and agricultural interests. The two places have nothing in common. Please do not re-district Loveland into Weld County! Thanks for your hard work! Lori

Copy of my testimony from 09/18/21.

I have lived in Delta County for 45 years. Most of the changes to our county have been positive. Redistricting for our county would be a devastating decision. Do not do this, it is a huge mistake. Please take into consideration the considerable differences in the county's.

I copied this from an article I read as it is very clear and states my beliefs. "The Western Slope’s vital relationship with water alone is enough to designate it as a community of interest bound by the shared responsibility of stewardship. However, the Western Slope also has commonalities regarding how the region uses water. The Western Slope’s agricultural, industrial, and recreation economies rely on well-informed local representatives to protect the community’s water at the state and federal levels. To split the Western Slope in any way would compromise the unity required to properly represent water interests in the region. There is also a clear divide between the Western Slope and front range communities, clearly designating western Colorado as a community with unique federal interests. Though many of our communities do not have the tax base of their front range counterparts, they still must provide the essential services of government: safe roads and bridges, law enforcement, public schools, and critical infrastructure with minimal resources. These challenges are not experienced by front range communities where virtually no federally owned lands exist. While federal lands are preserved for the benefit of all Americans, the day-to-day responsibilities of preservation fall upon those who live closest to those lands. These lands are managed for multiple uses – from livestock grazing to energy extraction to outdoor recreation. Over generations, communities on the Western Slope have worked with federal agencies to develop and demonstrate best practices for multi-use lands for the country and these uses are limited to county border. The Western Slope must be maintained as a result. Colorado has more than 24.4 million acres of forestland and many of these forests include the headwaters of rivers that provide reliable, affordable water supplies which are foundational to the environment, economy, and quality of life in rural Colorado. In fact, rangeland and forest are the predominant land uses in the Colorado Basin (85%), with forested land present throughout many parts of the basin. A substantial portion of the basin is comprised of federally owned land, with livestock, grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting as the predominant uses on those lands. A Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment identified 642 watersheds susceptible to damaging wildfire, and 371 forested watersheds with high to very high risk from post-fire erosion, many of these watersheds, encompassing about 9.4 million acres of spruce-fir, aspen and pine forests that contain critical infrastructure for municipal drinking water supplies., ALL of these forests reside west of the continental divide. The San Luis Valley has unique agriculture interests and should not be divided. This region should be kept whole and united with other communities of interest. All of these above needs are best accomplished through the map released with the preliminary plan in June. I ask the Commission to adopt a map that closely resembles that initial plan. Residents of rural Colorado have unique interests and need representation in Congress whose constituency does not have divided priorities. Our voices deserve to be heard, undiluted by inclusion in a district with suburban and urban residents. Whether agriculture or energy production, public lands, water, natural resources, or cooperative businesses, most of our issues and needs in Congress differ from those of our Front Range urban and suburban friends and fellow Coloradans. We all care about education and transportation, but no rural county has (or will have) light rail, and no urban county will understand the needs of a small ranch operation. We deserve representation in Congress that isn’t forced to choose between our needs and the issues that matter to suburbia. The June preliminarily plan contains the best map for rural America and will ensure that our voice is heard through two distinct rural districts. Furthermore, if Teller, Park, Chaffee and Fremont counties are no longer going to be in the Fifth Congressional District, then then should be in the Third Congressional District with other communities of interest not lumped in with Jefferson County and other suburban counties with which they have nothing in common." Thank you for your consideration and time. Nancy Bacheldor

Written Comments of Herbert D. Bowman on HD59 with Suggested Map: I advocate for keeping HD59 the way it currently exists but including more of Gunnison County to reach the population target. This is because the current configuration does a better job of preserving communities of interest than the proposed new district and it is competitive. The existing map gives Southwest Colorado mountain towns and the outdoor recreation industries that support them in HD59, a strong legislative voice. The existing map gives Southwest Colorado’s agricultural community, as part of HD58, its own strong voice. I fear your staff map, by forcing together very different types of communities with different legislative priorities, weakens the voices of both. Growing up in Durango in the 1960s, Cortez and Durango were sister towns, similar in size, similar in societal make-up, similar in the importance of agriculture to the economy. But dramatic changes occurred in La Plata County in the 60s and 70s and 80s. Durango got a university. It became a college town. La Plata County got a ski area and Durango became a resort town. When La Plata County became a mountain bike mecca, the transition to an economy dominated by tourism and outdoor recreation was complete. These things didn’t happen, at least not nearly to the same extent, in Montezuma County. Montezuma remained more focused on agriculture – especially its western half. My subjective observations are confirmed by statistics. Department of Labor Statistics for 2020 show that La Plata had at least four times the number of tourism jobs than Montezuma County. These statistics also show that agriculture is a much more significant part of the economy in Montezuma, than in La Plata. And while Montezuma’s economy diverges from La Plata’s in significant ways, the main economic drivers for Ouray County and Gunnison County are similar to La Plata’s. Respectfully, what the staff map does, is stitch together pieces of old fabric that no longer fit. La Plata and Montezuma County, at least Montezuma’s western half, now support different types of communities, with different legislative priorities. It’s difficult to see how one legislator could effectively represent the interests of both. If you feel you must combine Montezuma and La Plata somehow, I would suggest the northwest quarter of Montezuma be allowed to remain in HD58. It is rural, agricultural and has much more in common with the counties to the north than those to the east. The less agricultural parts of Montezuma County, the parts that do focus more on tourism and outdoor recreation including and around the town of Dolores, could then be added to the HD59 map to reach the population goal, and better protect the existing resort/recreation communities of interest in the region. Commissioners asked me during my public testimony if I had seen the Montezuma County GIS map. I had not. I’ve looked at it now and these are my observations: It does not achieve the goal of protecting the resort/outdoor recreation community of interest. It is aimed primarily at protecting the rural agricultural community of interest. The mountain college town of Durango has nothing in common with the flat, immense bean fields of Dove Creek. It may have even less in common, with the remote old uranium mining towns of Nucla and Naturita. I reiterate, the current HD59 achieves all the main goals of the Commission. It protects communities of interests which are the main economic drivers of the territory covered. It is competitive. It has swung back and forth between political parties over the last 10 years. Why change it? But if La Plata is to be joined with some part of Montezuma, it should include the parts where there are the greatest communities of interest. I attach a link to a map that comes closer to doing this than the staff map or the Montezuma County GIS. Here it is: https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::4ddd103e-cb4c-41d6-829a-6fa74cbcdaab. Thank you for your ongoing commitment and effort.

Commissioners. Thank you for your hard work on drawing new district lines. I am writing to express my support for the latest map, released on September 15th, that puts my county, Eagle, into CD2 with the neighboring ski resort counties, plus most of Larimer and Boulder counties. One of your mandates is to keep communities of interest together. The citizens of Larimer and Boulder counties have strong shared interests with those of us who live in the central mountains, including the recognition that our state's amazing public lands need to be conserved and protected. I think your latest map overall represents a good balance of urban and rural populations with the right interests grouped together. Please consider keeping CD2 district lines as they are drawn on the second staff map. Sincerely, Jane Shapiro Edwards, Colorado

I support the Tafoya.005 map because it preserves our community of interest. River basins are preserved intact, and it recognizes our affinity with New Mexico; Hispanic culture and our growing arts identity.

I am a registered Democrat who hates the Democrats and is only registered a Democrat to take part in Primaries to push the party from useless Centrism to Progressivism. But it seems to me like the main "Communities of Interest" are kept in and forcing Republicans to have competitive chances at other districts. Democrats getting packed into various districts in the terms of "Communities of Interest" while Republicans get 3 seats in almost every map and 2 toss up seats in the latest two staff plans. Colorado voted +14 for Biden in the last Presidential election. The fact that there's a +14 partisan difference and the Democrats have a legitimate shot at having a minority of House Seats is absolutely absurd. Looking at similar states, such as Missouri, they voted +14 for Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election, and they have a 6-2 House composition in favor of the Republican Party. Wisconsin is drawn to similar lines. 5 Republican seats, 1 lean Republican seat that's since been flipped by a Democrat, and two Democratic seats. The proposed map discussed today was completely good, and it was shot down for reasons such as "We want the Southern District to include Grand Junction due to playing High School football there" and other silly reasons. The map was edited, and then it was basically admitted the original map was better than any of the edits they tried to make. The reality is this Commission is trying to be fair, but it's at the detriment of reality. If the commission wants to be fair, it should be attempting to force as many competitive districts as possible via silly lines, instead of trying to allow Republicans to have an absurd amount of safe seats they are currently being given. If you want fairness it should be 4 safe Democratic seats, 2 toss up seats, and 2 safe Republican seats. The fact there are the same amount of safe Republican seats in a state that should have a 6-2 lean Congressional outfit is ignorant to the reality of the state and is nothing short of clearly ignoring what other states do in these processes. This is not a swing state. Stop trying to draw Congressional boundaries that are clearly massively overrepresenting Republicans to the detriment of what the people of the state want. If we wanted Republicans to dominate state politics, there would not be a Democratic trifecta in the Colorado government. Partisanship is simply much more important of a criteria than "Communities of Interest" because it is clear that the Republicans do not care about their communities and therefore trying to balance a criteria that is not cared about at the clear expense of the citizens of this state is an improper and visibly insulting gesture.

Central Park, where I live, is a unified planned community. We are an important part of House District 7. (7A, to be precise). The legislative map of Sept. 13 divides Central Park, placing the north in HD 7, the South in HD 8. this will result in a major re-alinement of the district, and will move many PCPs and officers into a new district. It will unnecessarily divide Central Park. I urge you to keep all of Central Park in HD 7.

The first staff plan map for congressional redistricting disregards rural Colorado as a community of interest by lessening our opportunity to be represented in Congress with urban and suburban populations. It also fails to show the differences between Western and Eastern Colorado. Please revert back to the preliminary congressional map and star again. Thank you. Jennifer, Burlington.