Public Comments

The residents of rural farming and ranching western Colorado have very little in common with the very liberal views of Boulder and the surrounding area. Lumping them together would not represent the western slope interests well. I can rhink of no other reason for swallowing up the less populated western slope with the interests of the more populated Boulder area, than a political power grab by the left.

I want to emphasize how important it is that Longmont is not put in the same district as Weld County and the eastern plains. We couldn’t be further apart with our solutions to the problems we face. I have had to travel to as much as 5 hours round trip in order to attend a town hall since my representative refuses to hold them in our town. We should be made whole with the rest of Boulder County. Thank you, Mary Duke Marydukehr@gmail.com

Thank you for your continued work on producing our maps for the next decade. I'm very pleased to see that the commission is open to trying new ideas, including a southern Colorado district. However, I have a significant concern with the most recent draft map. I'm from Silverthorne, and I represent a community of interest consisting of highly tourist-dependent mountain towns along the I-70 corridor. We have unique interests that are not the same as most of the rest of the Western Slope, and certainly not the same as Front Range cities. The balance of tourism with conservation, both of mountain environments and local livelihoods, is a delicate one, and allowing this community to speak with a unified voice is critical to representing that interest in Congress. If I had to define borders for my community, it would consist of all of Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin counties, and the I-70 corridor as far as Glenwood Springs. The most recent plan fractures this community across three districts, even going so far as to divide Glenwood Springs and Breckenridge right down the middle. This commission should take a page from the Legislative Commission's book, which has clearly recognized and dignified my community with a single, unified state Senate district. I would request that you consider including this area entirely within a single district. However, at the bare minimum, Summit County must not be divided. More so than any other county that I know of, we have a powerful county identity. When asked where they are from, many residents will reply with "Summit County" rather than the name of their specific town. Where else in the US is that the case? That identity is a special thing that should not have a line drawn through it. As you finalize your plans, I would implore you to keep my county whole. Thank you for your service, Eli Schwanitz

The First Staff Plan map which modifies the 2nd District to include the north west corner of the state is a good solution to several issues. In Colorado it is becoming abundantly clear that Climate Change, and the issues of drought, water management, wildfire mitigation and land management are some of the most pressing needs for the state, and certainly the earth. This 2nd District would include the headwaters and watersheds for several major rivers in the state, the Colorado, Yampa, White, Little Snake, Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and St Vrain, just to name the major ones. By placing these "river counties" together, representation and advocacy for the rivers and waters are stronger, and the communities within these counties share this interest in protecting the rivers and watersheds. Some of these counties have also experienced some of the largest and most devastating wildfires in recent years, particularly Larimer, Grand and Boulder, and this year Routt has had two major wildfires. Providing representation that recognizes the need to manage open land and forest service land to mitigate wildfires is critical for all counties in this new District 2. The economy of this region is also in transition due to climate change. The energy economy of the western counties is shifting, and there is a push by county leaders in Moffat and Rio Blanco to focus on river tourism, hunting, and fishing as important economic generators. Routt, Grand, Boulder, and Summit are all home to major ski areas that are driving economic components of these counties. Additionally, Jackson, Larimer, Grand, and Routt are significant hunting, fishing, and summer tourism destinations that are also dependent on a philosophy of water and land protection. Finally, ranching and other agriculture endeavors are through out this region from the western border east to I-25, and clearly water and protection of the land are of great concern for their livelihoods. Some fear that the city of Boulder could over shadow the needs of the rest of this new proposed district, but in reality, Boulder is just a more compact example of the need to protect our water and land and to combat the effects of climate change. Working together, this district can start addressing pressing needs and look for innovative solutions.

Please DO NOT split Broomfield into two separate district. We became and City and County in 2001.

Dear committee: I am concerned about what I have read about the "new" redistricting maps giving more political power to the Front Range cities and counties than to our rural friends. I've lived in the Denver metro a long time but as a Colorado resident of 65 years, I am alarmed at the political cudgel increasingly being used against my rural Colorado neighbors that seems all too often to put them at some kind of disadvantage, usually by force of numbers. I couldn't do your job. I believe it must be extremely difficult to try to weigh all the factors involved in drawing "fair" redistricting boundaries but I believe that for any group of people to be fairly represented, the "tyranny of the majority" must be avoided at all costs. It appears you may not have yet attained that noble goal and I ask that you try again. Thanks. Sincerely, David Cassidy Denver

Broomfield is a City and County and should not be split into separate congressional or legislative districts. Please respect our borders and allow us all to have the same elected officials to represent our interests. To do otherwise would be chaotic for our community.

I am a 4th generation native Coloradan, who grew up in Boulder. I have lived in Montezuma County for the past 42 years. I believe a third Congressional District that focuses on southwestern and southern Colorado is the best choice for our area. The "Amended LULAC Map," suggested by the Colorado Rural Voters is an excellent suggestion. Not only does it address many of my social and economic concerns it also creates a more geographically manageable district for a representative. (See attachment.) It is important to remember that while the Rocky Mountains offer a convenient geographic manner in which to divide the state, Congressional Districts are social and political divisions. The "West Slope" is not a unified entity. A study of transportation routes shows that the southern portion of Colorado is not directly connected to the northwest and north central part of the state. • There is no Interstate Highway across southern Colorado. Goods are transported to southwestern Colorado primarily from the east, along the Highway 160 across LaVeta and Wolf Creek Passes, and from the south or north on Highway 491. The shortest and quickest route to Denver is via Highway 160, then north on Highway 285. For Gunnison and Montrose Highways 50 and 550 are primary transportation routes. • Economic shared interests include agriculture, tourism, and recreation. For example, Cortez serves as the shopping hub for southeastern Utah and northeastern New Mexico, as well as for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. It is not unusual for residents to go to Farmington, New Mexico, to shop at Lowe's or Dillards, nor is it unusual for businesses, such as Four States Tire, to have locations in Cortez, Durango, Farmington, and Pagosa Springs. • Southern and Southwestern Colorado is a region of deep, rich cultural traditions. It includes both the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, as well as the long Latino tradition of the San Luis Valley and places on the East side of LaVeta Pass. • The historical mining towns such as Creede, Lake City, Ouray, Telluride, Silverton, and Durango now depend on a strong, interconnected recreation economy. • Regional shared interests revolve around watersheds, specifically the San Juan, Dolores, Rio Grande, and Gunnison watersheds. A perusal of Federal agency regional areas shows that many entities manage this area through units that roughly encompass these watersheds. A Congressional District that addresses these watershed areas could address regional natural resource concerns.

Please maintain the unified representation of the Boulder communities. It would cause serious problems if the legislative districts were to be redrawn without considering the advantages of the present distribution. I feel strongly that a strength of the Boulder community has been a widely shared interest regarding environmental initiatives and responses to natural disasters. The local municipalities are generally aligned on public health, housing and employment concerns, district wide. It is important for the safety of the Boulder community that the issue of Gun Safety have consistent area representation when it is considered at the Federal level.

I'm opposed to gerrymandering. The proposal divides communities in Boulder County and as a result, our local representation is weakened.