Public Comments

To the Congressional Redistricting Commission, I am writing as an advocate for the newest Congressional map. My understanding is that it was based on a map drawn by one of your commissioners, Martha Coleman. I think she made some wise suggestions. Since you have to group urban and rural counties together to achieve equal population distribution, it makes sense to group the counties that have common interests. A central, northern mountain CD2 that includes the ski towns of Steamboat, Vail, Breckenridge and Copper plus Boulder and a large portion of Larimer has a compatible and like-minded population. We share concerns like protecting the public lands where we work and play. The tourism driven economies of Eagle, Summit and Routt counties need representation in Congress that will help move the needle on workforce housing and the cost of healthcare. The new L-shaped west and southern district captures a region driven by similar industries – agriculture and extraction – plus the historically blue collar city of Pueblo. The rural and urban areas of CD3 have a strong shared interest in economic redevelopment. The current make-up of these newly drawn CDs 2 and 3 are well considered. I hope you will be able to keep these lines intact going forward. Sincerely, Joy Harrison Eagle, CO

Yesterday I submitted comments regarding the proposed redistricting map of Senate Districts 8 and 5. As I explained as a former Routt County Commissioner (1993-2001) I have experience and knowledge of the politics, issues, and geography of Northwest Colorado. I recommended that staff and the Commission relook at proposed staff map for Senate Districts 8 and 5 regarding shared interest, contiquity and geography. I think staff if they relook at their maps with my recommendations a better more acceptable map could be drawn. After I submitted my comments, I saw this map which conforms with my thoughts. Thanks for your consideration. https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::9fb4232d-863a-4345-861d-639f07ca6f55

I’m George Autobee, and I represent Rural Colorado United. We would like to endorse the Schuster map. This map makes a strong Southern Colorado map. One of the criteria of the constitution is that the districts are competitive. This map has three competitive districts as well as three non-metro districts. This map is the map that needs to be approved and sent onto the Supreme Court. This map also represents the Hispanic community, three of the districts have a 40%+ Hispanic population as well as, two districts that have a 30%+ Hispanic population. This map represents all parts of Colorado and gives Southern Colorado the strong voice that it has long deserved. https://davesredistricting.org/join/e3c5007c-a00d-4bf0-bc53-51269a750102

Commissioners and Staff - Thank you for your service in this new and rather daunting adventure. Regarding (former) southeast Denver HD9 - which no longer exists / vanishes according to the newest (9/13) maps. A little baffling as to the complete disappearance of current HD9 - which was all (40 precincts) in Denver County - plus several (8) Arapahoe County precincts given that they are enclaves surrounded by Denver County. As best I can determine from the latest maps is now divided 3 ways - approximately as follows. 9A - Pcts 901 - 910, 912, 916 (east of Monaco) - 919, 922 and 939 - and 2 small Arapahoe precincts 402 and 475 - go to modified HD6. 9A - Pcts 911, 913 - 915, 916 (west of Monaco), and Arapahoe Precincts 501, 502, 137 - 139 - go to Multi-County HD2. 9B - Pcts 920 - 938 (except 922), and 940 - and Arapahoe 230 - (mostly all south of Hampden) - go to Multi-County HD3. As best I can glean, the new configuration is made to leave Denver County with 8 appropriately populated House Districts - with all of current HD9 south of East Hampden Avenue shifted into Multi-County HD3. I presume that moving the 9B precincts (mostly south of East Hampden Avenue) from Denver County and into Arapahoe County is necessary to achieve the district population balancing - and is made relatively simple / convenient using east / west East Hampden Avenue as the new boundary line. As has been commented on numerous times at the hearings I've observed, multi-county districts are more complicated to "operate". In the past, by virtue of having 9 Arapahoe precincts, HD9 was multi-county - which added layers to the caucus / primary and party organization process. But relatively simple. Shifting 22 precincts to a Multi-County HD 3 / Arapahoe will be more complicated mechanically - if only by being a large block of precincts.. Extending the new HD6 southern south from East Mississippi Avenue to East Hampden Avenue - approximately 3 miles - to capture current HD9 precincts - appears to fit the balancing process. Moving Denver precincts north of East Hampden Avenue, south of East Evans Avenue and west of South Monaco Parkway - including 3 Arapahoe precincts - to House District 2 makes for a clean linear boundary. As to solutions, I have none. Suggested map manipulations to make - none. HD9 was itself a sizable community of interest - and (nearly) all within the City and County of Denver. Given that HD9 has been split 3 ways, that "community" is no more.. As with all things... we will... adjust. Thank you for your consideration.

Legislative Senate District map. All of Delta should be kept whole and placed with Mesa County. It shares the same watershed and most of the Grand Mesa. They are much more unified communities of interest. Place Montrose County with Gunnison County. They have more shared interests than Mesa and Montrose Counties. Legislative District Map. All of Delta County should be kept whole and placed with Mesa County. It shaes the same watershed and most of the Grand Mesa. As described above, splitting Delta County reduces its voice and places undue hardship on the citizens, businesses and governing officials of our County.

I see that the committee is considering placing Fort Collins in a district with all of Eastern Colorado. This would be a travesty - a great political injustice. Fort Collins is part of the urban Front Range corridor, and tends to be left-leaning - unlike the very conservative majority on the eastern plains. Placing Fort Collins with the conservative eastern plains amounts to placing Ft. Collins under minority (and foreign) rule. Fort Collins has very little in common with the farmers and ranchers of the eastern plains. Lumping Ft. Collins in with the eastern plains means we won't have representation at the federal level. When the Republicans were in charge of redistricting, this is what they did - place Ft. Collins in with the rural eastern plains. The result was to mute the voices from Ft. Collins, and leave us without representation. Seems like a political move designed to make Ft. Collins politically irrelevant, much like what happened in Austin, Texas. Do not include Ft. Collins in with eastern Colorado - this would be a great political injustice to the people of Ft. Collins.

My name is Alex Sanchez and I am here speaking on behalf of Voces Unidas, a nonprofit based in Glenwood Springs. We work in the Mountain Region, including Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield counties. As you may recall, our organization and many Latina and Latino leaders testified in Carbondale and asked that our Latino communities in the Greater Roaring Fork Valley from Parachute to Aspen AND the Eagle River Valley from Gypsum to Vail be kept whole because we are communities of interest. And you did that in the proposed House maps. Thank you for listening and incorporating community feedback. The proposed House district #57 keeps Parachute to Aspen whole. This is important because this is the corridor that connects those of us who live and work up and down the Greater Roaring Fork Valley. People in Parachute are connected to Aspen via our regional transportation system. Our children compete in school sports against each other, up and down this valley. The Latino community lives and works up and down the valley every day. Please keep the Parachute to Aspen corridor whole in House district #57, as is proposed in the current map. Proposed House district #26 also keeps the Gypsum to Vail corridor whole, where a large segment of our Latino community live and work. This district is different to what we proposed in the CLLARO map, which we helped to inform. For example, in the CLLARO map, Eagle River Valley is combined with Summit and Lake, which makes sense. On the Senate side, we thank you for also trying to keep us whole. We appreciate the attempt to keep both the Greater Roaring Fork Valley and the Eagle River Valley, from Parachute to Aspen and Parachute to Vail in one single senate district. Senate district #5 is almost perfect except for one problem. New Castle was unfairly carved out of SD5 and moved to SD8, which makes no sense. Eliminating New Castle from the rest of the valley breaks up the Greater Roaring Fork Valley and excludes a town where Latinos make up 30% percent of the population. If the commission is looking for places to balance population size for SD8, it should look to Leadville, Breckenridge or Silverthorne. You can easily add New Castle into SD5 and give SD8 population from the Eastern boundary of SD5, like Leadville, Breckenridge or Silverthorne. Please keep the Greater Roaring Fork Valley whole in Senate district #5 by adding New Castle back to this district. Thank you.

The lives of residents in urban areas and those in rural areas of Colorado are vastly different. Our need for Congressional representation for our unique priorities is a must. Our businesses, agriculture, water and other natural resource needs are very different than those for Front Range residents. Our business, transportation and educational needs are so different in every day ways that there is simply no comparison to those living in an urban area. The people of rural Colorado deserve to be represented in Congress along with our specific needs and concerns. The map release on June 23rd and the September 15th Second Staff Plan maps are the best for representing us. I urge you that one of these maps or a combination of the two should be chosen to be sure we are heard and are understood.

- Our Teller County has nothing to do with Jefferson and Douglass Counties. This current districting map waters down the Teller County votes to nothing. - There is only one narrow county road that connects Teller with Jefferson and Douglass counties; it is not even a State road. - Traffic flow in and out of Teller County is 70% with El Paso County East, 15% with Park County West, 10% with Fremont County South, and 5% with Jefferson and Douglass Counties to the North. - Our federal public land use, land use, mining and the extraction industries connects us more to the counties of the Western slope and Southern region. - We share communities of interests with El Paso County for employment. - Our county shares communities of interests with Fremont and El Paso Counties for commerce. - US Highway 24 connects us to multiple Western-slope counties with similar landscapes. - Geographically, the Palmer Divide separates Teller County into the rural, mountainous Southern region. - Our county's wildlife management shares communities of interests with the Western slopes and Southern mountainous regions.

- Our Teller County has nothing to do with Jefferson and Douglass Counties. This current districting map waters down the Teller County votes to nothing. - There is only one narrow county road that connects Teller with Jefferson and Douglass counties; it is not even a State road. - Traffic flow in and out of Teller County is 70% with El Paso County East, 15% with Park County West, 10% with Fremont County South, and 5% with Jefferson and Douglass Counties to the North. - Our federal public land use, land use, mining and the extraction industries connects us more to the counties of the Western slope and Southern region. - We share communities of interests with El Paso County for employment. - Our county shares communities of interests with Fremont and El Paso Counties for commerce. - US Highway 24 connects us to multiple Western-slope counties with similar landscapes. - Geographically, the Palmer Divide separates Teller County into the rural, mountainous Southern region. - Our county's wildlife management shares communities of interests with the Western slopes and Southern mountainous regions.