Public Comments

The current (15 Sep 21) redistricting map proposed for Teller County is a very accurate representation of our need to be represented in the US Congress. It reflects the diversity of Colorado and Teller County’s need to include all points of view that make our state so strong. As a high altitude recreational area we have constant interaction with fellow citizens and need to further develop our relationships with front range Coloradans. Please continue to include Teller County in the metro political viewpoints. We have a strong need to be included in political representation and not sheltered from front range resourcing decisions. Thank you for your strong work representing Teller County. Very Respectully

I am a registered voter in Pueblo County. After reviewing the different options for redistricting, I strongly support the Tafoya 5 map, This is the most logical and non partisan version that I have seen to date.

1. Rural Colorado is a “Community of Interest” and the First Staff Plan map for Congressional redistricting does not take that into consideration. – This is the most important point you can make because the commission has been specifically charged with taking “communities of interest” into account. A “community of interest” is basically a group of people or an area with common interests that differ from other area’s or group’s interests. 2. The proposed map does not take into account the notable differences between Eastern & Western Colorado. 3. Suggest they revert back to the Preliminary Congressional map and go from there.

Commissioners: Here is the map that I presented at the Grand Junction meeting this summer. The purpose of the map is to get the commission to think of different ways to split Mesa County so that both of the representatives (55, 56) have rural and urban elements, which is classic Mesa County. It would ensure there is another representative who is thinking about and advocating for issues regarding public lands, oil and gas, etc. The map is designed to follow the Colorado River at times, I-70, and major roadways. It would put Debeque and Grand Junction in the same district, but would have Fruita, Palisade, Delta, and the Surface Creek Valley together, which would mean Grand Mesa is in one district, along with the Dominguez and Escalante Canyons, US 50, CO 65, etc. When I presented I was asked if the map splits up the City of GJ at all within it's boundaries. It does somewhat and the reason being is that Grand Junction's municipal boundaries are like a spider web that carves out businesses in Clifton and Fruitvale, but then picks up desirable homes in the Redlands and Orchard Mesa and Independence Valley, but not all of those communities. This map keeps the historic core of Grand Junction together and gives citizens known landmarks for being able to know which legislative district they reside in. The map largely follows the Colorado River and the jets north along a known roadway to the north and follows Mesa County's northern border. My understanding is the Commission is to consider political boundaries, and limit splits, but they are not required to solely follow political lines. Under this map, geographic (the Colorado River), major roadways, and Mesa County's border is used to ensure this district has the 86,000-87,000 people, is compact, is a community of interest in that it connects most of the city limits of Grand Junction, the unincorporated portions of Grand Junction (which by an objective point of view have more in common with the city than with more rural(ish) suburbs of the Redlands or Orchard Mesa south of the Colorado River. This map reflects more or less the way Mesa County was split from the 1970s to the 2010s. The advantage for representation is that it ensures two representatives share the Colorado River in the last County before the water leaves the state. It would also ensure that 5 out of 7 West Slope representatives would have significant portions of the Colorado River in their legislative district. As we will have to fight against lower basin states and the Front Range in the quest to take more West Slope water, more representatives directly tied to the river will help the entire Western Slope community. Mesa County is large enough to have two representatives, however, one of the districts will need to include an area beyond the county to satisfy the population requirements. The submitted map ensures the two representatives for Mesa County will have to represent urban and rural interests. One district is roughly northern Mesa County that includes the Bookcliffs and Debeque (which is directly connected by I-70). The other district is roughly southern and eastern Mesa County and keeps the Grand Mesa whole in one district and includes the Grand Junction suburbs south of the Colorado River (Redlands and Orchard Mesa), and then the rural communities of Collbran, Delta, Cedaredge, Orchard City, Mesa, Molina, Powderhorn, Gateway, Whitewater, Mack, Loma, Fruita, and Glade Park. This map gives Grand Junction influence with two representatives and keeps like-minded small towns together. The southern/eastern Mesa County district is linked by Highway 50, which runs from Delta to Fruita, Loma, Mack, Whitewater, Orchard Mesa. Highway, its linked by the canyons and Gunnison River. The eastern part is linked by Highway 65 and is attached to the Grand Mesa. This map also makes the two districts more competitive than they currently are under the current legislative maps or the preliminary maps.

The function of the western slope is to provide resources for the eastern slope and other states. To change the boundaries would compromise the unity required to properly represent our water interests at State and Federal levels to include Agriculture, industrial and recreation the western slope provides. Someone from a large metropolis would not have the back ground it takes to make the decisions a well informed local representative could. We do NOT want the boundaries changed in anyway! Please keep the Western Slope functional!

I support the newly proposed House 58 District which keeps the North Fork of the Gunnison River Basin watershed intact, and puts the North Fork Valley in a District with part of Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel, Hinsdale, Dolores and part of Montezuma Counties, which for the most part reflects similar geographic, transportation, infrastructure, and economic interests as reflected by maps of Region 10, and the West Region Fire Council.

My name is Mick Bates, I am a resident of Teller County. The current map puts the interests of the urban front range first! The map prioritizes the interests of the Denver metro area and targets the voices of rural Coloradoan's. Our rural county does not have the same values and voices that the larger front range cities have. Please consider something along the lines of the original preliminary map, it better reflects Teller counties needs and desires. Thank you for your consideration, Mick Bates Teller County

Senate districts: I can live with this. Definitely an improvement from the preliminary map that included Boulder with Jackson counties, two extremely different areas with unique concerns. The current (1st staff plan) seems to do a decent job with the western slope areas. Congressional districts: What happened?! This is terrible. The preliminary map was decent, but the current (1st staff plan) lumps Boulder and Rio Blanco counties in the same district – that’s tossing two cats in a bag. Boulder and Rio Blanco (and most of the rest of the proposed district) are different in almost every way, with very different priorities and politics. The district would be weighted to the front range population, with the entire west half of the district feeling like they have zero representation. There needs to be a better urban/rural balance. The preliminary map struck a decent job with this (west, east, urban), and I would suggest returning towards that.

Dear Redistricting Commissioners, I’m disappointed that the commission voted for a congressional map that broke up the western slope. The original staff map took into consideration all the criteria used for drawing maps. The first revised map by the commission is clearly a partisan attack on rural citizens from the western slope. Many people testified to the shared community and business interest on the western slope. Even a teenager knows that the western slope has much different interests than I-25 corridor areas like Boulder county. Indeed, the media is picking up on this and has the potential to seriously tarnish the reputation of the redistricting commission. I think I’m now in agreement with one person who testified in Durango and said this redistricting process is looking like a sham. I testified about the difference in water basins (and associated conflicts) between the western slope and front range . I made it clear I had knowledge of water issues (I serve on a water district board) yet there were no questions from the commissioners and I was cut off before my three-minute limit. However, when a retired forest service person talked and promoted splitting up the western slope there were many friendly questions from the commission. I find this to be very telling of the bias by some commissioners. I’m encourage that a new map keeping the western slope somewhat whole has been proposed and sent to staff. I hope you adopt the proposed map. I expect public and media will be very active if the commission reverts back to their first revision of the western slope map. Further it’s now being reported that some commissioners have financial connections to the redistricting process. I hope this is not the case.

1. Rural Colorado is a “Community of Interest” and the First Staff Plan map for Congressional redistricting does not take that into consideration. 2. The proposed map does not take into account the notable differences between Eastern & Western Colorado. 3. I suggest you revert back to the Preliminary Congressional map and go from there.