Public Comments

Senate: Please consider adding the Northeast portion of Douglas County near Parker into SD4 and removing it from SD16. You can balance this adjustment by adding Castle Pines into SD16. This will help keep the areas around Parker, heavily tied to and reliant on Parker, in one Senate District while keeping Castle Pines, an incorporated town and community of interest, in one Senate district as well. You could also remove part of North Castle Pines from SD30 and balance this by adding more of the Roxborough area to SD30. This would all, taken together, also give SD16 at least one significant population center in Douglas County, something it currently lacks. This will also help eliminate the "horseshoe" shapes that can characterize Douglas County legislative districts, i.e. districts that wrap around all borders of the county. House: Please consider addressing the ram-head shape ("A" on attached) in north central Douglas County. This is a truly unusual way to draw HD39 that takes the most Democratic-precincts in Douglas County and dilutes them into the reddest, largest House District in the county. The cutout of Lone Tree, which is almost urban in nature, and lumping it in with the most rural parts of Douglas County is difficult to understand. Either the current HD43 or HD44 could absorb this area and "give" balancing population to HD39 in exchange. You could also add "B" (in attached) into HD43 and extend HD44 through "A" and into the eastern boundary of HD43 in this plan. Giving the southern extent of HD44 to balance population in HD39. This would create more competitive, cohesive, districts with communities of interest in the northern portion of the county and make for a more coherent, unified HD39. I want to commend the work on HD35 and keeping Aurora's southern extremity in one district.

I will be submitting more thorough comments soon, but I wanted to submit a proposal for House District 11 in Longmont prior to tonight's meeting. Thank you for all your hard work on this commission. https://davesredistricting.org/join/e1ecb1d1-b813-4708-9d35-722f5a18fa4c

I provided comments previously on this topic and unfortunately they don't appear to have had much impact. I am concerned about how the Commission is ripping Larimer County in two, apparently with the goal of achieving population balance. The latest map pulls Loveland and most of eastern Larimer County back into District 4. We have argued before and continue to argue that the community that should be held together is Larimer County This map actually is worse than previous versions. The other issue is that Loveland and the I25 corridor are more urban than rural and we will be dwarfed by the rural areas of the state. We generally have little in common with the mall towns on the eastern plains. Why pull us into District 4 when you could avoid splitting Greeley and Milliken into two districts by moving all of those communities into 4 and leaving us in 2 or 8. Please reconsider this most recent change. Ron Steinbach

I have reviewed your latest map draw-ups and see some progress, here are my comments: I find the Second Staff Plan for Colorado Congressional Districts is Fair and Balanced and should be selected (the First Staff Plan was terrible), i.e. the Western Slope should be kept whole and in CD3. On the Legislative Senate District map: Delta should be kept whole and joined with Mesa County. Both share the same watershed and most of the Grand Mesa. They are much more unified communities of interest. Join Montrose County with Gunnison County, they have more shared interests than Mesa and Montrose Counties. On the Legislative District map: Delta County should be kept whole and joined with Mesa County. Both share the same watershed and most of the Grand Mesa. Splitting Delta County would reduce its voice and places undue hardship on the citizens, businesses and governing officials of our county to be fairly and evenly represented. Thank you, Marc Y.

To Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission. As a sixty year resident of western Colorado I am definitely not in favor of the proposed redistricting that this committee has conjured up. The western slope counties must be grouped together as the larger populated counties of Denver and surrounding counties will over ride the western side of the state with their urban ideas and their liberal philosophy. The rural areas of Colorado have a much more conservative approach to life and these two groups must reach a mutual approach to the regulatory system of government. Respectfully, Cheryl Kilgore #2 Twelfth Ct. Grand unction, CO 81506

9-17-21 Dear Commissioners’, I am a landowner at the base of Mt. Lamborn near Paonia within Delta County, Colorado. I offer the following comments regarding the redistricting process. The maps seem to follow a traditional pattern of working county splits using existing roads to define boundary lines. In this case a North/South division using State Hwy 92 and West/East divides via Leroux Creek Road. From a historical perspective many counties were derived from old wagon roads that no longer exist and consequently any commonality tended to shift over time. As a plea and paradigm shift, I request that the commissions take into account doing everything they can to keep the Gunnison River Watershed intact and even further suggest that all watersheds be granted the same consideration. Watersheds especially in this time is of shared interest toward continued sustainment of the environment and the economic engines of the constituents locally as well as throughout the southwest. The Gunnison River Watershed is a supply source that not only provides for domestic and agricultural water use for both Delta and Gunnison Counties but supplies a 6th of the surface water for the Colorado River Compact that serves 7 states and the needs of roughly 40 million people. At this time we have seen the continued effects of drought that even now drains large reservoirs in this state to supplement water for Lake Powell and Lake Mead to levels not seen before they were initially filled It appears to me that one of the most important legislative issues for constituents living in this area that affect all of our futures here are water, watershed management, ecosystem protection, wildfire and geologic hazard mitigation, regenerative agriculture, protection of public health, safety, and welfare. I appreciate the work the commissions have before them to seek a fair and balanced approach to establish these districts going forward. It seems that now more than ever managing and preserving our watersheds needs to be a frontline consideration for any further planning. Sincerely, Bill Harding

My name is Brad Roe and I have lived in Otero County, specifically outside the town of Manzanola. Southeastern Colorado Counties have a tough enough time not only earning a living and keeping our businesses but competing for a voice in what happens in our state through the legislative process, including tax dollars spent. We deserve to be represented by the same people as our neighboring counties. Combining our counties with those of the southwest/western slope is unjust and only works to divide an already divided state. We need our own voice and that voice should represent all of southeastern Colorado. Thank you!

I am not entirely sure how this independent redistricting committee is coming up with the maps they have been putting out. I really am not trying to be rude, but each consecutive proposal I've seen seems to hold little regard for actual communal identity, instead of seeming to be concerned with coming off as bipartisan and reacting to every minor political whim of the state. I was always taught that the congressional delegation was supposed to be representative of enough of a cross-section of our current population that is added to our representative democracy. As it currently stands, with the second congressional staff plan for the congressional house elections, not only does it feel entirely unrepresentative of the current Coloradan populace, it also seems to ignore the current political and demographic breakdown of the state. In a state that has grown increasingly less competitive on a macro-level, with current trends favoring that of the Democratic Party, the attempt to make the state more competitive, while understandable, should not actually be the priority of this committee. Frankly, you all know this, but rather than actually creating a map that reflects the state's current population, it seems that the committee would rather act like our state's demographics haven't shifted since the last census date. There is no reason to divide the state in the way the committee has proposed, there just isn't. The way the districts have been drawn in such a way that the GOP receives a much more favorable map than the current numbers actually reflect. 3 districts have been pushed into a non-competitive range securing the GOP at least 3 congressional seats, with another favorable district in the newly created 8th district. Likely resulting in a 4-4 split in our congressional delegation when the GOP has been unable to come close to consistently performing at a statewide level for more than a decade, with some minor outliers. Frankly, the first map proposed made more sense, but speaking as someone from the 7th District, the committee seems to not realize the repercussions of their potential decisions. The more suburban half of Jefferson County has very different needs and interests than that of the more rural and mountains half of the county, creating a scenario that pits two communities against the other. Across the board, this seems to have not been taken into account with the exception of the 1st district (encompassing all of Denver County) and the 5th District (predominantly El Paso County). My biggest suggestion to this committee would be to actually listen to the criticism you are receiving. In fact, districts proposed by groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) have made public their proposals for what they consider to be the best way to divide the state. To conclude, I would say this committee needs to hear the critiques the citizens of Colorado have of their current proposals. Each map put out thus far feels like a rejection of the will of Colorado people, opting instead for what the committee deems to be the most appropriate way of splitting up the state. As the committee charged with overseeing how our state is represented at a national level, the committee must be adherent to the actual will of the people it represents. That is what makes this committee unique from partisan redistricting plans which are still common across the country. Trying to impose whatever view the committee currently holds as the most appropriate way of dividing the state clearly is not representative of our state's population and I hope that the committee has enough good sense to realize and correct itself.

This current map up for debate is just embarrassing. It creates a clear advantage to Republicans to retain a 4/4 split in a state in which a Republican presidential candidate hasn't gotten above 45% since 2004. The 8th district is clearly drawn to make it more favorable to Republicans as well as the 3rd being drawn up to shore up that district for Republicans as well. Just speaking in my own district (the 7th), the people of the metro area of Jefferson county have extremely different needs from those in the mountain communities. I have lived in both and can tell you that a major source of issues was the fact that the needs of the mountain communities would be neglected, in order to help the cities and vice versa. Somehow these maps have increasingly gotten worse and worse and more nonsensical. While I do agree with the potential pairing of Ft. Collins with Boulder, it doesn't really make sense geographically. This map simply seems to be an attempt to retain the status quo, but Colorado has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and we all know it. To deny that fact and to not reflect those changes in the congressional map is a blatant neglect of reality.

It has been difficult to try and understand how Fort Collins, which has an integral community of interest with agricultural concerns (from CSU's Agricultural and Veterinarian schools; to a USDA Research Center and the farming communities surrounding Fort Collins) is taken out of the 4th CD compromising the Eastern Plains; while Highlands Ranch, which is a planned densely packed suburb with NO agricultural interests at all is forced to remain in the 4th CD. But it appears the answer is pretty clear now: "Commissioners voted earlier in September to base the latest map on one drawn by Commissioner Martha Coleman, a Democrat from Fort Collins who is a geographer." https://castlerocknewspress.net/stories/latest-congressional-map-keeps-house-members-apart,382193 I urge the commission to not let personal parochial concerns impact their decision-making but keep focused on grouping geographic areas with communities of interest together. If so, then it is impossible to believe that Highlands Ranch should not be in the suburban Congressional districts to its North, while Fort Collins has far more in common with the Eastern Plains agricultural communities. Fully understand that Commissioner Coleman would prefer her home area of Fort Collins to not be in the 4th CD as a Democrat. But an objective view of the legal criteria that must be considered would show that bowing to such a demand when it negatively impacts other places in the state like Highlands Ranch, is totally inappropriate. Thank you.