Public Comments

What does the committee think about visually overlaying geographical data and socioeconomic data on the final redistricting map? (considerations: hidden systemic biases, influencers, exploring strengths/weaknesses in meeting the needs of our communities, anticipating the next redistricting, connecting to educational initiatives, what does the data reveal?)

My name is Jennifer Filipowski and I am a registered voter in Eagle County, in SD5 and HD26 and I am speaking as myself. Thank you all for your work on the commission…these maps are an improvement over the Preliminary maps. House District wise, thank you to the commission for listening to prior testimony regarding the similarities between Eagle and Routt counties. I appreciate your attempt to come up with a compromise by adding Steamboat Springs back into HD 26, however I still believe the entirety of both Routt and Eagle have more in common than only Steamboat Springs, and more than the rest of Routt has with the extraction-based county economies to its West. Yes, Routt is more than Steamboat, in virtually the exact same way as Eagle County is more than Vail and Beaver Creek. Routt has minimal extraction, and is more dependent on outdoor recreation tourism and outdoor manufacturing. Many people in Routt work and play in the Steamboat area, and those who don’t serve people who do, just as is the case in the Eagle River Valley (i.e., Edwards, Eagle, Gypsum). You would be hard pressed to find any two more similar counties than Routt and Eagle, so I encourage you to keep them together as HD26 in a manner that is closer to its current iteration (2011 maps). To follow up on previous speakers in an effort to keep Summit whole, adding the entirety of Routt could help alleviate the discrepancy, but I am not sure of the population counts in that regard… I echo the comments made by Diane Mitsch Bush. SD8 lacks compactness and groups a number of counties with public lands, rural mountain resorts, and headwaters, with extraction counties, which have diametrically opposed goals and values. I encourage the commission to find a way to group more of the rural mountain resort communities counties together. Grouping Eagle minus the 4 precincts in the Roaring Fork Valley with Clear Creek, Summit, Jackson, Grand, and Routt together would be preferable and help alleviate some of the issues you have heard from those communities regarding having completely different needs that the counties included in SD8 to the West wrapping SD5.

I have just heard some disturbing news that Loveland may be carved out of Larimer County and added to HD no. 4. Loveland has very little, if any, common community interests with Weld County and the rest of HD no. 4. Loveland has very little extraction industries such as oil & gas, no CAFO's, meat packing, agriculture and other rural activities that are prevalent in HD no. 4 . Loveland's community of interests aligns perfectly with those areas and cities located west of I-25 such as Fort Collins, Berthoud , Boulder, etc. Like wise, we do have an abundance of natural resources, high tech enterprises, higher education institutions, and a robust health care systems that are somewhat lacking in HD no. 4. Please don't make Loveland an "orphan" community by removing it from our present HD and the rest of Larimer County. Thanks for your out reach and consideration.

As a resident of mountainous and rural Teller County, I am NOT in favor of Teller County being included with Jefferson County in proposed new Congressional Districts, and hereby request that Teller County instead be part of Western Slope and Southern Region. We share very few, if any, common “communities of interests” with Jefferson County. Including such divergent Counties, which will result in the larger County having undue influence over the smaller, will definitely be a monumental mistake in my opinion. Please create a fair map that preserves our rural voice because residents of Teller County have much different needs and challenges than those of urban Denver communities. Thank you.

Dear Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission, I do not agree with the proposed redistricting. The redistricting as drawn, miss-represents rural residents and over represents front range residents. Plkease redraw the districting so that rural residents have much stronger representation. Regards, Curtis L. Ditzell

The Second Staff Plan for Colorado Congressional Districts is fair and should be selected. The western slope should be kept together and in CD3. I oppose the first plan that would split up the West Slope and join with the East Slope. For the Legislative Senate District map, Delta and Mesa Counties should be kept together as they share the same water shed and Grand Mesa. They are much more unified communities of interest. For the Legislative District Map, all of Delta county should be kept whole and with Mesa county. Splitting Delta county reduces its voice and places undue hardships on the citizens, businesses and governing officials of our county. Thank You

My name is Megan Burch, and I am a resident of Roxborough, which is located at the northwest part of Douglas County. This is my fourth time providing public comment on how Roxborough has been drawn in the congressional map. I have provided written comment and have provided public testimony twice. Each time, I have requested that Roxborough is acknowledged as the suburban community that it is, with close ties with Highlands Ranch and Littleton, and is subsequently placed in a suburban, not rural, congressional district. This latest version of the congressional map is the MOST damaging to our community of Roxborough, as the map has split our community into two congressional districts. I realize the need to separate large communities, such as Denver, into separate congressional districts; however, there is no need to separate a small community, such as Roxborough, into two districts. The most current map has Roxborough split between CD4 and CD7. We are ONE community. My FIRST request is that the map is redrawn to keep Roxborough whole. I realize that you are navigating strict population requirements; however, the size of Roxborough should not make this difficult. My SECOND request is that Roxborough is placed with a suburban, not rural district. I have read and listened to a lot of testimony from both Douglas County residents, as well as residents on the eastern plains of Colorado, that have requested that the maps separate out rural and suburban areas. Please honor this request. If these communities are kept together, this will harm the needs of both communities, for the next 10 years until the maps are redrawn. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am concerned that the recent map intentionally dilutes all rural areas by cutting/carving out sections of densely populated Democrat areas to overwhelm the rural interests. Why are you ignoring the needs of rural America by removing rural counties in the current Third Congressional District that include Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, Garfield, Jackson and Grand counties and lumping them in with Boulder and Larimer, two counties with which they have little to nothing in common? This drastic departure from the current Congressional Districts is a disservice to both the residents of the Second and Third Congressional Districts. Residents of rural Colorado have unique interests and need representation in Congress whose constituency does not have divided priorities. 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. The Western slope should remain in one CD, as it is now. Eagle County needs to remain in CD3. The preliminarily plan released on June 23rd is the fairest map that is consistent with the Congressional Constitutional language approved by voters. The Rocky Mountains provide the obvious divider between the western slope and front range communities.

I understand that the purpose redistricting is to place communities together that have similar concerns, cultures, challenges, interests, etc. things like growth, transportation, recreation, water, fire management, proximity to the mountains, both being Front Range cities. Loveland is a part of Larimer County Emergency Management which ensures a coordinated response in case of a disaster. Loveland shares so much in common with Fort Collins and Larimer County and nothing with Weld County and communities further to the south. We are a progressive community and need progressive representation. DO NOT DO THIS !! It makes no sense at all. Thanks- please keep Larimer County together where we belong.

My name is Nicole Hensel, I use she/her pronouns, and I am the Executive Director of New Era Colorado Action Fund. New Era is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to mobilizing and empowering young people to participate in our democracy. We work with young people ages 18-34 across the state, breaking down barriers to participating in our democracy, and advocating for the vision they have for Colorado. I am here today on behalf of the thousands of young people we work with across the state every day. I hope to speak to the ways that the current map does not adequately represent the interests of communities of young people on college campuses. In particular, there are several instances on the house maps where campuses are split apart from surrounding student housing and youth communities - creating a barrier between students who live on campus or off campus. The two biggest examples are at CU Boulder and CSU. In Boulder, while the official CU campus lines are kept intact in HD-10, a huge portion of students live in the University Hill neighborhood to the West of campus, which is currently placed into HD-13. My suggestion would be to add the University Hill (aka "The Hill") neighborhood (attached below) to HD-10, and potentially splitting some of the eastern portions of that district out to make room for the students living off campus. Another example is CSU, where the official campus is drawn into draft HD-53; however, many of the students we work with live east of College Ave and south of Mulberry which is currently in draft HD-52. I would propose adding this portion of student housing (attached below) to HD-53 to keep students together Young people, and students of these universities whether they live on campus or off campus, are a clear community of interest that care about similar issues. Another issue with with the House map is separating young people at Ft. Lewis College in Durango from students at Western State University in Gunnison. These campuses are currently contained in what is now HD-59; but in the first staff map they are now separated into different districts, separating a clear community of interest of higher education. I would propose reshaping HD-59 so that it includes Durango and Gunnison similar to the current version of HD-59 (attached). We just conducted a statewide listening tour of young people’s hopes, dreams, and vision for our state and it's clear that our generation cares deeply about similar issues: racial justice, student debt, climate, and economic justice. Young people surrounding these campuses should be kept together so they can work with their representatives to make changes in their communities; for instance, students we work with have contacted their representatives for greater action on climate change, investments in higher education, student debt reform, or divesting from campus policing. Separating young people dilutes the power of the largest voting bloc in the state. Finally, separating young people into multiple districts makes our work to educate young people about voting even more difficult. Young people face steep barriers when it comes to democratic engagement, especially voting. As a nonpartisan organization, we try to provide young people with as much information as possible about the logistics of voting, including the importance of down ballot races, to increase their participation in the system. Research shows if young people vote three times, they become lifelong voters. Over our 15 years of work, Colorado now has some of the most accessible elections and the third highest youth turnout rate in the country; nut, when young people in the same community are separated into multiple districts, it makes our work to educate them about who and what is on the ballot much more difficult. I ask today that you make these important changes in Boulder, Ft. Collins, Durango, and Gunnison so that the interests and needs of the next generation can be best served. Thank you for your time.