Public Comments

People choose where they live based on the society it produces. Please keep like minded people in the same district.

I strongly urge the commission to not remove Fort Collins from District 2 and shear it from Larimer County. The Fort Collins community is built around progressive economic and social factors: technology, brewing, healthcare, environmental tourism, and education. The city is designed with sustainability in mind, with an emphasis on making the city more pedestrian and cyclist-friendly. Climate initiatives are important for many residents, as are protecting public lands and preserving wildlands. The political, environmental, economic, and social elements that fuel policies in Fort Collins do not relate to the issues in other rural, agriculture-focused communities, which the proposed redistricting maps would lump together. This restricting option would dilute the Congressional representation of both communities, leaving parties feeling unvoiced in Congress and disconnected from the political process. Thanks for your time and effort in working through a difficult process.

My name is Christy Fidura and I live in Pueblo County. I previously spoke at the Pueblo August 20th Meeting with a heavy focus on keeping Pueblo whole, and with the release of the First Staff Plan I was happy to see that Pueblo was in fact kept whole. In looking at this newest plan, however, my concern has now shifted to the division of land that fails to address the unique needs of Rural and non-urban Colorado by grouping counties like Routt, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Grand and Garfield in with Boulder and Larimer where there is an obvious disconnect in common interests, such as river basins, mountain tourism, natural resources. and federal land use As I said when I testified on August 20th, I grew up in Aurora, I went to college in Durango where I was an Agriculture major with a focus on animal husbandry, and I currently live in Pueblo West. I can only speak to the common sense need of what I’ve experienced in my time in these communities. Each area is individual in their need for certain types of representation. In Aurora and the front range urban and suburban areas, the need for representation that is focused on forestry management of federally owned land is non-essential based on simple geography, where that is the complete opposite in communities on the Western Slope and Basin where much of our land needs to be continually maintained for multi-use purposes such as livestock grazing and outdoor recreation that supports our tourism industry. In addition, Colorado’s agriculture industry needs to be fairly represented from the eastern plains to the San Luis Valley with emphasis, not only on the farming and ranching communities, but also on management of the state’s watersheds. Managing watershed infrastructure should be a high priority factor in finalizing the maps as the majority of the water that leaves the state does so through the Western Slope. As we have unfortunately seen in years past, forestry and water management need to go hand in hand in order to reduce our risk of devastation during fire seasons and therefore, need singular Congressional Representation that focuses on the management of forests and best practices for utilization of Colorado’s water resources. When you look at the Urban vs Rural aspects of Colorado, there was a preliminary map in June that best represented the needs and shared interests of all of Colorado, but did not divide communities of interest with the exception of Pueblo County, who, for all intents and purposes, should also be included in CD3 based on Pueblo’s historical rural and agricultural values. This map kept the Western Slope whole, drew 2 rural based districts, and would allow all of our Colorado Representatives to focus on the areas that have already been established based on the needs of constituents in each. I’m asking that the Commissions go back to the June 23rd Preliminary map that reflected the needs of rural Colorado and the need to keep the Western Slope whole and solidly represented, giving the people of the 3rd district a fair voice.

Douglas County should not be packed into congressional district 4. Douglas County is an metropolitan district that should not have its votes diluted by the GOP bias of the rural communities that make up the rest of the district. Please work harder to create more competitive districts and prevent the further entrenchment of representatives that have no interest is respecting the views of a large portion of the voters in the district. This first iteration of the redistributing map made much more intuitive sense than the new version; I hope aggressive lobbying by entrenched political interest didn’t cause your process to go awry. More visibility into how these decisions are made would also be appreciated. Thank you.

You must take Pitkin county out of CD 3 and add it to the 2nd Congressional district. Pitkin county has not had equal or adequate representation of our concerns and issues in many years. Pitkin county has been disparaged and ignored, even though we contribute far more in revenue than any of the far-Right counties like Mesa and Delta. Pitkin County deserves the representation in CD 2. Give the rest of Garfield County back to CD 3 where they belong. Garfield does not want any part of CD2, while Pitkin County would prefer it.

I have lived on the western slope for 40 plus years I do not want the Denver elites to make decisions for me if what is best for the west slope communities make let us have a day into what is best for Colorado especially for the west slope communities.

To: Independent Redistricting Commission, 1. Please consider that the area in the new map, east of 75th, north of 17th(Hygiene Road), and south of Hwy 66, holds neighborhoods that have been in Longmont for 40 to 50 years or more and have strong ties to the city of Longmont and not to District 13. 2. There are many professionals, volunteers, business owners and families that live in this section of Longmont that helped build Longmont and its thriving business community and have never been separated from Longmont proper in their representation. These neighborhoods helped to build Longmont. 3. These neighborhood families are now separated from the same district that holds the middle school and high school that serves their kids. (Westview Middle School and Longmont High are drawn into the new District 11 but our neighborhoods are not) 4. It makes more sense, since all of Longmont can't be in one district, that the SW corner of District 11 in the new map, be instead placed in District 13. This area is much closer to Boulder, very close to the Diagonal Highway, and likely has a larger contingent of commuters. The SW area to consider is west of Airport Road and south of Nelson Road. 4. The SW corner has homes that are less than 20 years old and therefore the ties to Longmont proper do not have the same long history that exists in the NW corner neighborhoods. 5. The SW corner area neighborhood would keep their middle school and high school with them even if placed in District 13. (Altona Middle School and Silver Creek HS) 6. McIntosh Lake is a huge recreation site for the citizens of Longmont and should be in the same district with the rest of the city. This change we are asking for is a simple one and would be profoundly impactful to our community. Thank you for your serious consideration. Fran and Brent Wahl Longmont, CO

It is clear that these new district lines are drawn to flood the rural counties with Front Range votes thereby eliminating rural colorado having input on anything. There are land masses that make clear and obvious borders yet they have been ignored. It really only takes a second to see that this is straight Gerrymandering to overload all of the conservative rural agricultural parts of our state with liberal front range votes. I am actually appalled that anyone thought we would not be able to see through this sham of equitable redistricting.

The proposed Senate Districts 8 and 16 are simply terrible. There are no communities of interest kept together, the districts are not compact and these odd redistricting choices seem to help one party. Therefore, it is crucial that the districts 5, 8 and 16 get redone. Also one comment in general, municipality borders are oftentimes terrible COI in Colorado. Those borders are mostly grown from historic issues that don't matter anymore.

After watching the Commission meeting yesterday, I am writing in support of the Tafoya map discussed at that meeting (the second Tafoya map). Although the Tafoya map differs from the configuration I initially supported (Southern Colorado Water District), it preserves a community of interest for Southern Colorado. The other major map discussed at the meeting (the Coleman 4 map) dilutes the role of Southern Colorado within a huge district with a variety of competing interests. That district is very similar to the current CD3 – with all its challenges for the diverse voices in my area of the state. The Tafoya map provides a strong vision for redistricting for the whole state: 1.) Its districts are more compact (i.e., smaller in size), offering a legislator and district citizens more opportunity for a voice. The huge L-shaped CD3 in the Coleman 4 map (and the huge CD4 in the Preliminary Map) is predominantly rural, which makes access to constituency services more difficult. Although this may not be a significant challenge in urban/suburban districts, it always is in rural areas. In the Coleman 4 design, unless the legislator lives in Southern Colorado, we would rarely see her/him (check out the number of town halls we have had outside of political events for the last two legislators for CD3). Zoom options for constituency work are simply not options for many rural citizens. This challenge with the Coleman 4 map makes it less likely that the voices of southern citizens will be heard and decreases the effectiveness of constituency work for many voters. 2.) Tafoya’s design ensures the most competition between political parties. Although a commissioner suggested that CD3 (in the Coleman 4 map) was “competitive,” it is difficult to understand how a 10-point advantage by one party in the district makes it competitive. In reviewing recent elections, districts with such a spread are not competitive. The legislation that formed the current redistricting process specifically addresses the need for as many competitive districts as possible. Competition is healthy for democracy – it is vital for supporting a rigorous arena of ideas and can mitigate against our current divisiveness and tribalism. If you live in a non-competitive district, you understand the importance of competitiveness. With a 10-point advantage, candidates often are selected who are most interested in addressing the needs of their base, not serving the needs of their entire constituency. 3.) And, importantly, Tafoya’s map designs districts that maintain important communities of interest. For many citizens of Southern Colorado, a critical interest is WATER. Federal policy and federal resources related to water use and conservancy are key to our future. A legislator elected to the Tafoya CD3 will be required to understand and address the issues around water. As I’m sure you have heard before – RURAL IS NOT THE SAME RURAL everywhere. The economic and other needs of rural areas in the NW, NE, or South are not the same. The Tafoya map includes three different rural districts with three different communities of interest. Because the Tafoya map provides more opportunity for better government for Southern Colorado’s citizens, and, because it more closely meets the criteria for redistricting to “maximize the number of politically competitive districts” in Colorado law, I strongly recommend adoption of the design of the Tafoya map.