Public Comments

I am deeply concerned that a proposed reassignment of congressional districts in Colorado would divide Broomfield City/County into two distinct and different districts. This would greatly reduce our impact on policy and priorities for the significant issues confronting our community and the nation, including climate change, health care, reduction in violence, economic development, affordable housing, education, environmental justice, immigration and civil rights enforcement. We have a proud tradition in Broomfield of working together in a cohesive manner to establish our priorities and public policy goals. This is reflected within our city government and among the many non-profit and civic organizations working to improve this community. Broomfield indeed has a strong sense of community and civic pride. We do not always agree but we work in a civil and congenial manner to work through these differences. This makes Broomfield a very special community within Colorado. Splitting our community into two congressional districts will have a serious adverse impact on our ability to influence public policy. I would urge the commission to create congressional boundaries that would assure that Broomfield is not divided. It is essential for the continuation of the common good of our community, and our spirit of working together to continuously make Broomfield a better place for all of our residents. Thank you for your consideration. John F Dulles Broomfield CO

My name is Yesenia Arreola and .I live in Silt, CO part of the Greater Roaring Fork Valley. Thank you for incorporating our feedback to develop the legislative maps. I support the proposed House district #57 that keeps Parachute to Aspen whole. We are a community of interest. We are connected by our regional transportation system. We live and work up and down this valley. Our children compete in school sports against each other, up and down the valley. The Latino community also lives and works up and down the valley every day. Please keep the Parachute to Aspen corridor whole in House district #57. On the Senate side, we thank you for also trying to keep us whole. Senate district #5 is almost perfect except for New Castle. New Castle was unfairly carved out of SD5 and moved to SD8. This breaks up the Greater Roaring Fork Valley by unfairly excluding a town where Latinos make up 30% percent of the population. If the commission is looking for places to balance population size, it should look to Leadville or Silverthorne. Please keep the Greater Roaring Fork Valley whole in Senate district #5 by adding New Castle back to this district. Thank you for your service.

My husband and I bought our home in northwest Longmont 27 years ago and have raised our children here. We have enjoyed being a part of the Longmont community and have supported the schools and businesses in our community. During the past 27 years we have seen the population of Longmont grow and understand that this growth requires changes in district boundaries. The redistricting maps that have been proposed appear reasonable for the most part, however, as a longtime resident of Longmont, I would like the redistricting committee to reconsider the boundary that affects northwest Longmont. The boundary presently proposed excludes Longmont neighborhoods east of 75th Street, west of Francis Street, South of Hwy 66 and north of 17th Street from the rest of Longmont. Some of the neighborhoods in this area were established in the 1970's and before, and so, have a 50+ year history of being a part of the Longmont community. Homes in this area are zoned to have their children attend Longmont High School and Westview Middle School. Those homes and those schools would be in different districts if the new boundaries are adopted. With the growing population of Longmont it is understandable that the city would have to be divided in some manner to even out the populations within the districts. A suggestion to the redistricting committee would be to include the northwest area of Longmont with the rest of the city (District 11) and instead, parcel out a section in southwest Longmont that is newer and has it's own neighborhood schools. That would be an area roughly south of Nelson Road and west of Hover. These neighborhoods are more likely to have more of a connection to residents of District 13 as that area is closer to the Boulder Diaganol highway, a much used avenue for Boulder commutors. By including northwest Longmont in District 11 and southwest Longmont in District 13, the school boundaries and public use would be more reasonably assimilated. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. - Susan Finnegan

This pertains to the September 4 map as it relates to Congressional District 3 (CD3). Why does the Commission seem incapable of drawing a map that doesn’t include some part of the I-25 corridor in almost every CD? Even a CD that should represent portions of the state hundreds of miles from I-25. Colorado is a lot more than the I-25 corridor. The September 4 map violates the most fundamental principle of congressional redistricting: that communities of interest have representation in our Congress. The Western Slope of Colorado has many common interests. These include water, industries such as agriculture and energy that support our economy, and a culture of fierce personal liberty that sadly is becoming less common around the state. The September 4 map would dilute the voice of Western Colorado in Congress by dividing our region into two CDs, neither of which would represent Western Colorado because each would include areas that are far afield from us and have very different interests. Give those areas on the Front Range their Congressional voices, and give a voice to the Western Slope by keeping all of the Western Slope in CD3.

I disagree with the 9/4/2021 Congressional District 3 map. More importantly, I don't understand why the Commission insists upon including portions the I-25 corridor in CD3. Please keep the Western Slope of Colorado in its own district to maintain "communities of interest" as is required.

I have submitted a proposed house districts map for El Paso County via the ESRI Redistricting Portal based on the First Staff Map. Attached is a background memo that provides additional details on the proposal.

My name is Alex Sanchez. I live in Glenwood Springs, part of the Greater Roaring Fork Valley. Thank you for incorporating our feedback to develop the legislative maps. I support the proposed House district #57 that keeps Parachute to Aspen whole. We are a community of interest. We are connected by our regional transportation system. We live and work up and down this valley. Our children compete in school sports against each other, up and down the valley. The Latino community also lives and works up and down the valley every day. Please keep the Parachute to Aspen corridor whole in House district #57. On the Senate side, we thank you for also trying to keep us whole. Senate district #5 is almost perfect except for New Castle. New Castle was unfairly carved out of SD5 and moved to SD8. This breaks up the Greater Roaring Fork Valley by unfairly excluding a town where Latinos make up 30% percent of the population. If the commission is looking for places to balance population size, it should look to Leadville or Silverthorne. Please keep the Greater Roaring Fork Valley whole in Senate district #5 by adding New Castle back to this district. Thank you for your service.

2nd Staff Map released September 15. I do Not support this map. Las Animas County would be ignored in this huge district. This district would favor Republicans. Pueblo would have no influence. I instead support the Tafoya. 005 map which retains the Southern Colorado Community of Interest.

Hello Commissioners. My name is John Beltrone and I serve on Edgewater's City Council. I wanted to comment on the important relationships that our 5,400 resident city has with the neighboring small cities in Jefferson County. Combining resources with these neighbors is essential for our city to provide a full range of services. In the last year, we have partnered with Golden and Wheat Ridge to hire our first Homeless Navigator. We also were able to hire two police social workers through partnerships with Mountain View and Lakeside. The current makeup of HD24 (which includes Golden, Wheat Ridge, Mountain View, Lakeside, and Edgewater) allows us to have representation that understands the importance of these relationships. Also, when our city gets combined into a legislative district dominated by larger cities like Lakewood or Denver, our voice in Edgewater gets largely overshadowed. Please consider grouping Edgewater and our small city neighbors together in your final legislative maps. Thank you.

As a long time resident of Canon City and Fremont County, I was appalled by a recent map draft that has included Fremont County with areas of suburban Denver. As a rural southern Colorado community, I find it hard to find many "shared interests" with areas of suburban Denver. This community's interests are closely tied with its surrounding communities and have much more in common with El Paso County/Colorado Springs and the western slope of Colorado than it ever would with suburban Denver. Please reject this version of the map and include Fremont County with a voice that reflects our community and way of life in southern Colorado.