Public Comments

Rural Colorado is a Community of Interest and the First Staff Plan map for Congressional redistricting does not take that into consideration. The proposed map does not take into account the notable differences between Eastern & Western Colorado. It is suggested you revert back to the Preliminary Congressional map and go from there. Kind Regards, Kari Reents

I am a resident of Johnstown, CO and I prefer Map #2 that has both Johnstown and Milliken in that same congressional district. Map #1 splits the towns into two congressional districts. This is bad because Johnstown and Milliken are one community. We share business networks, schools, a school district, and many community events. The two towns cooperation as one community is what makes our area thrive and I love it here. I have lived in Johnstown for 17 years. Ultimately I believe we should still be in CD4 and that is preferable over Map #2, but Map #2 is preferable over Map #1. Thank you.

I live in Fremont County and you have grouped us into a district that includes areas up by Denver. My area is a rural area of the State that does not have the same issues as areas near Denver. I live in a community that has no ties to the I-70 corridor, no ties to Cities like Golden, or Lakewood. These are not rural communities that rely on tourists to survive or have to fight for tax dollars to get our roads fixed. With this plan, it would be possible to have 4 people live in the Denver area and represent our State. That keeps the interest of State focused on Denver and the areas up North. I know that numbers have to be as equal as possible and lines have to be drawn, but our community is closer to places like Springs or Pueblo, than a community like Golden. Please keep the little people in mind when you consider these maps.

I am very concerned about the plan to separate communities within Larimer County. Loveland needs to remain with Fort Collins and the rest of the county. On its surface and drilling down, the redistricting plan does not make any sense. The judicial district covers the entire county. The Sheriff's office covers all five communities in Larimer County including the bigger cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. These cities also have elected county commissioners who are responsible for the entire county, Summitstone Health Partners (mental health and addictions) covers the entire county and the public health department and council for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion address the county as a whole. The county's population reflects similar demographics and linked economies, especially Loveland and Fort Collins. All the larger not-for-profit agencies such as United Way, ARC, or Neighbor to Neighbor, focus their services, program beneficiaries, policy questions, and fund raising throughout the entire county. To divide the county reeks of party politics rather than doing what is best for the county. PLEASE do not take Loveland away from the rest of the county. Thank you.

Dear Commissioners, I'm writing to object to the inclusion of Eagle County in CD2 along with Routt, Jackson, Grand, Summit, Larimer and Boulder in the latest map. We demand that the western slope remain in one CD, as it is today. We literally have nothing in common with the I-25 Corridor or Boulder. This action violates the most fundamental principle of congressional redistricting: that communities of interest have representation in our Congress. 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. Isn't it enough that you have 80% of our water from the west slope ? The Western Slope’s agricultural, industrial, and recreation economies rely on well-informed local representatives to protect the community’s water at the state and federal levels. To split the Western Slope in any way would compromise the unity required to properly represent water interests in the region. There is also a clear divide between the Western Slope and front range communities, clearly designating western Colorado as a community with unique federal interests. Colorado has more than 24.4 million acres of forestland and many of these forests include the headwaters of rivers that provide reliable, affordable water supplies which are foundational to the environment, economy, and quality of life in rural Colorado. In fact, rangeland and forest are the predominant land uses in the Colorado Basin (85%), with forested land present throughout many parts of the basin. A substantial portion of the basin is comprised of federally owned land, with livestock, grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting as the predominant uses on those lands. A Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment identified 642 watersheds susceptible to damaging wildfire, and 371 forested watersheds with high to very high risk from post-fire erosion, many of these watersheds, encompassing about 9.4 million acres of spruce-fir, aspen and pine forests that contain critical infrastructure for municipal drinking water supplies., ALL of these forests reside west of the continental divide. The San Luis Valley has unique agriculture interests and should not be divided. This region should be kept whole and united with other communities of interest. All of these above needs are best accomplished through the map released with the preliminary plan in June. I ask the Commission to adopt a map that closely resembles that initial plan. 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 deserve representation in Congress that isn’t forced to choose between our needs and the issues that matter to suburban Boulder, as would happen in the current iteration of the map. The June preliminarily 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 then 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. Unfortunately, the first Staff Plan map released on September 3rd ignores 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. CD3, as drawn in the preliminarily plan released in June, made great improvements that unified communities of interest and shared public policy concerns. Tourism, education, public health, education, transportation, water and other mutual issues of concern for our residents were well represented on that map. I was excited about the possibility of a district that ensured the people of the Third District were well represented and connected. Unfortunately, the first staff plan released September 3rd decimates the rural voice in northwest Colorado and disregards the critical communities of interest that make up the fabric of western Colorado. These recent changes to the map ensure that residents on the other side of the mountains and in Denver who share little in common with us are responsible for making decisions on behalf of rural Coloradans. Whether you are living in Craig, Durango, or Yuma - these changes to the map do not allow our voice to be heard or our interests to be fairly represented. Keeping the Western Slope whole will put a Congressman in the best position to improve our infrastructure and best serve our ski resort and rural agricultural communities. Colorado generates over 95-million-acre feet of water annually, and about 10-million-acre feet leave the state through its borders. Of the 10-million-acre feet that leave Colorado, 81%, or 8.1-million-acre feet, exit through the Western Slope. This means that the Western Slope is responsible for stewarding a large portion of Colorado’s water, which will be made far more difficult if the Western Slope is split up. Communities like Moffat, Rio Blanco and Garfield will be ignored by their Representative and not receive the attention they deserve, particularly when it comes to water, if they are lumped into the Second Congressional District and removed from the Third. Please keep the Western Slope whole so our water-related issues can best be addressed in Congress. Please keep our community of interest intact with those who share substantial interests with us, as I highlighted above in several areas. West slope water interests alone are a demonstrable regional significance and cannot and will never be aligned with water interests in the Front Range. Thank you, Tambi Katieb Eagle, CO

The latest version I have seen, released Wednesday, looks more round/square and less salamanderish than the previous version. (The 1st and 6th districts are still salamanders, but at least they connect metro areas with metro areas.) I am in the metro area and find that city interests are fairly different from rural interests; each should have a voice without being shackled together. I am trying to make an urban farm out of our property and although that gives me a lot of sympathy with rural farmers, it is still different. If areas of high population are allowed to drown out larger areas of low population, Colorado will eventually lose any voice in Congress for exactly the same reasons.

I am concerned about representation not population. Redistricting should not put Eastern slope and Western Slope in the same districts.

I am saddened that it appears we are going to thrown back into the front range and Boulder area. Simply, we do not have anything in common with district 2. Please leave us where we are in district 3. Moving us ti district 2 is just. Political hot job to take our voices away. If we are moved to district 2, it is just another political effort to take our voices away.

Though I would prefer redistricting doesn't happen, my preference would be for Johnstown Milliken to be together in CD8 Thank you

I prepared a redistricting map proposal back on September 10th on the ERSI map portal, but received an error message that it was not posted and to talk to an IT administrator. I was finally able to talk with Louis Pino of the Commission staff today [the 16th] after several days of phone tag. He's making sure my proposed map is now available for review, under the title "thumb off scale plan", by Gary Nation. I would really appreciate it, as a minor party affiliated voter, if this could be reviewed prior to the Commission adopting a final map...as I think the latest proposal [2nd map] while better, is still missing a once-a-decade opportunity to consolidate major Hispanic populations into a common eastern plains District. I approached the mapping task not from a partisan perspective but from assuring a real voice to common groups, especially rural and minority [i.e. Hispanic]. When counties with these populations are thrown in with large urban centers their voices are overwhelmed. So I started my map with two Districts, one on the Western slope where unique water issues, ranching, and tourism/recreation, mountains are major characteristics; and another on the Eastern Plains with the major Hispanic population counties of Weld and Pueblo and rural plains counties and non-urban parts of Adams county where the common characteristics include dry land farming, self-sufficiency, tight-knit families, traditionally religious. These are characteristics are shared by both Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups alike. Next, I looked at those counties with sufficient population to justify a District in themselves, or close to it. El Paso and Denver are two obvious candidates for Districts. Then I looked for similarities in the remaining counties. Boulder and Larimer are educational and technology centers with common issues like open space conservation, urbanization, affordable housing, etc. Their census counts alone nearly meets the requirements for a District. My proposal would be to include Broomfield county, similar in most regards, to reach that threshold. At this point I was faced with how to assign the remaining portion of the state into the remaining three districts. I suggest putting the similar, long-established areas abutting Denver in districts: Jeffco with adjoining parts of Arapahoe County along the West and Southwest Denver borders; and Adams County with adjoining portion of Arapahoe County along the East Denver border. That left one final district to be designated: the remaining area is comprised of Douglas County, Elbert County and the adjoining portion of Arapahoe county to the South of Denver. These are the areas experiencing high growth, somewhat of a "bedroom" to the Denver and Colorado Springs, with similar geography, transportation issues, etc. That's my suggestion. Don't let the urban areas disproportionately put their thumbs on the scale by including rural counties in their districts. Start with a Western slope voice, and then a plains voice. The commonality of these areas outweighs partisan considerations, in my opinion. Let's be fair, and not overly worry about "competitiveness. Thank you for your consideration.... gary nation fort collins,co