Public Comments

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. Logan Burlington

I am dismayed that yet again this commission has to put together a non-competitive proposal for congressional districts. In fact, this is sadly the least competitive proposal yet. The law we passed mandates that the commission "maximize competitive districts" yet time and time again the commission has blatantly ignored this criteria without justification. It is quite possible to draw districts 3, 7, and 8 so they are all competitive and would have supported both democrats and republicans in recent years (just look at the maps drawn by the public and you'll find many examples). I am pleading with the commission to actually pursue this as the law suggests they are supposed to. Not only is it the best thing for democracy, but it will also save taxpayer money by limiting the possibility of a costly court battle.

So far as I can see these maps of proposed redistricting benefit only the Democrat party in this state and all but eliminate the more conservative voices of the much smaller western counties. The Colorado Congressional Districts as represented in the Second Staff Plan, lump two large counties (Larimer and Boulder) with five other small western slope counties. Those five counties combined don't even equate to half the population of either Larimer or Boulder. If the purpose of this redistricting is to silence the voices of any opposition to Colorado left-wing elite, the plan currently advanced is a huge success. I'd say go back to the drawing board and work on a way that gives equal representation to all Coloradoans and not just to the those in the major population centers.

Members and Staff of the Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission - Via the link below, please find memoranda and attachments providing a response to the First Staff Plan from the Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy, and Research Organization (CLLARO). CLLARO has provided a response and revised map for the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives in an effort to incorporate the elements required in the Constitution, including: adherence to political subdivisions, communities of interest, and competitiveness. These maps also include the relocation of Colorado’s incarcerated population as directed by the Commission.There maps also attempt to incorporate other discussions the Commission has been having in recent meetings and testimony the Commission has received via public input. In creating our original maps and the revised maps, CLLARO’s primary goals are to make adjustments to better reflect communities of interest and to address issues of potential voter dilution in areas where the Commission’s own Voting Rights Act analyst has identified racially-polarized voting. In addition, CLLARO seeks to maintain or increase the number of competitive seats, and minimize the number unnecessary of county and city splits. Additionally, CLLARO has provided a memo focused on the Commission’s metric on competitiveness, which does not accurately predict the seats that would have changed party control over the past decade. As an alternative, CLLARO suggests a metric that considers a district as competitive if it is within the same 8.5% margin in individual races the Commission referred to in adopting their metric. CLLARO’s alternative metric more accurately predicts the seats that would have changed party control over the decade, as required by the constitution. The full submission is available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nM6n1Gta9orxOG29EcK8rC8RULFyd6Vr?usp=sharing House Map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/c52dd408-50b3-435a-ba78-5a2509979c88 Senate Map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/1c930a22-71f1-4fce-bc92-5f70cd0f2131 The teal boundary lines in the map reflect the First Staff Plan to make changes easier to observe. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Alex Apodaca-Cobell

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 preliminary 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 they 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.

Keep all of Larimer County together, not just with Fort Collins or Loveland, but Berthoud and especially Wellington. Please do not add Wellington to Weld County’s Districts. Wellington residents use hospitals, schools, stores and churches in Larimer County, not in Weld County. Larimer County is more than Fort Collins And or Loveland. Please keep Larimer County while when considering these districts.

I strongly oppose the plan of dividing Broomfield among multiple districts. The Broomfield community is truly a community of interest where we share many public policy concerns. Especially during and after Covid we have seen how our community’s population has shared interests regarding public health, employment, education, and transportation.

First Staff Plan map is not best for rural Colorado It ignores agriculture and rural Colorado's unique community of interest by combining it with urban and suburban populations: It fails to reflect the differences in water administration, ag industry makeup, and social landscape between eastern and western parts of the state: It ignores testimony from around the state regarding desired district lines. Please recognize rural Colorado as a distinct community of interest with the same public policy concerns based on agriculture, employment, and water needs and supplies, which are different from urban and suburban communities, and captured in the "Preliminary Plan."

The thought of Loveland being lumped into Weld County and Ken Buck make me......sick to my stomach.

For the Colorado Congressional Districts, the 2nd Staff Plan is fair and should be selected with the western Slope being kept whole and in CD3. The 1st Staff Plan with Larimer and Boulder County in with NW Colorado is terrible and brings into question the integrity of the "Nonpartisan Staff" and should be rejected. The Legislative Senate District map is fair and all of Delta County should be kept whole and placed with Mesa County. These counties are a unified community of interest with the same watershed and most of Grand Mesa. The Legislative District map which splits Delta County is unacceptable. All of Delta County should be kept whole and placed with Mesa County. The east half of Delta County, being in with Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray San Miguel, Hinsdale, Dolores and part of Montezuma county, has no shared interest with those counties. Delta County should be placed with Mesa County as they share the same watershed and most of Grand Mesa and have closer business interests.