Public Comments

The preliminary map released June 23 was a solid step in the right direction from the perspective of creating districts of people with common interests. The latest version released September 3, does not. How can one representative reasonably represent Boulder and Rifle. Boulder and Rangely? Fort Collins and Craig? Longmont and Meeker? Castle Rock and Walsh? No one earnestly and honestly trying to create districts of common interest would produce the September 3 map. Clearly the September 3 map is trying to accommodate an agenda different from the political representation needs of Colorado's citizens. I was skeptical as soon as I heart the name, Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission. The preliminary map had me questioning my skepticism and distrust. The latest map confirms my distrust, and is just another reason that, for proper representation, this state should be split into three states, forming the new states of Western Colorado and Eastern Colorado, each with one Congressional representative, two U.S. Senators, with state capitals and state legislatures that will respond to our needs. If you submit the September 3 map to the Colorado Supreme court for approval, you show once again that the directives of one political party supersede the diverse interests of the people, and demonstrate an arrogant belief that one group of people may be empowered to impose their preferences on others. Only corruption and/or political bias can explain the current map. People who live in urban environments have different needs and points of view than those who live in rural areas or small cities. People with common interests tend to group together. Boulder didn't get it's reputation for nothing. The viewpoint of Boulder's citizens should be represented, but should not be used drown out the representative needs of rural northwest Colorado. The current Colorado 3rd congressional district finally has a representative who actually and passionately represents rural Colorado, and the "independent" redistricting commission serves another master by working to undermine that representation, and don't even pretend that the changes between the preliminary and current map are not, at least in part if not in total, aimed to damage the current 3rd congressional district, and those of us who campaigned for, voted for, and absolutely love our representative, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert. You simply cannot justify coupling Boulder county with Garfield County with any amount of spin. Return to the preliminary map and restore some integrity.

Hi, I live near the northwest corner of Douglas County, and I am writing to request that the relatively liberal band of Douglas County, roughly running along the norther edge of the county, not be placed in a strongly conservative or rural district. It looks like the 9/3/21 staff map does this to some extent--I'd be in D6 there, and I really appreciate the carve-out of that smallish section of Douglas County, to group it in that district. That's area also contains the addresses of many of my friends, in Englewood and Centennial. I also think there's a coherent community of the suburbs of Denver, with most of the built-up suburbs around the city having fairly different political priorities than the more rural band beyond that. I think Douglas County is particularly affected by this, with a fairly clear voting split at the precinct level, showing relatively liberal populations in the areas closer to Denver, and relatively conservative populations further out. My biggest ask is that this relatively liberal band of Douglas County not be cast off into a heavily rural district, where moderate and liberal voices would likely not be heard. Thanks for your consideration, Brian Hilbert

This redistricting once again punishes the rural populous and gives 80 percent of the state only two districts. The people living in cities have the most votes and voice. I guess I expected nothing less with so many members of the commission having served previous government tenures. This is a sham.

I'm extremely disappointed to see Douglas County once again wrapped up in the eastern counties. I urge you to reconsider. Douglas County is made up of more than rural conservatives, but the voices of the more reasonable cosmopolitan members of this community will once again be drowned out by the politics of the unreasonable far right agenda that has a stronghold in this area. This county needs the chance to elect a common sense politician that will actually consider the concerns of all citizens, celebrate diversity, believe in science, and help the county evolve.

Congressional Redistricting: Thank you for the hard work you have done on this map. I like that there is a balance of urban and rural populations in CD3 because I think it is important that the leadership of the district has to reach out and listen to the concerns of all the citizens and then share these concerns with the opposing groups of the population. That is the only way that we can bridge the gap in understanding. We all have an interest in fair utilization of water resources: ranchers, farmers and city dwellers. We depend on each other for food and for the infrastructure in the cities that we in the rural area of the district need. Legislative: Thank you for listening to the comments from Archuleta County regarding our need to be in the same house district as La Plata County.

I have lived in Ed Perlmutter's current district, the 7th, for as long as I've lived in Jefferson County. I would like to see this district retained as it is, as much as possible. We tend to vote for democrats, and I think the redistricting should respect that and not throw us in with the new district or ones that are more republican. Thank you

I am thrilled with the latest map, which keeps mountain counties like mine on the eastern slope together. Please keep.

I’m Emily Tracy and I’m not representing any organization with my comments. I have homes in two communities – Cañon City and Breckenridge – and vote in Cañon City (Fremont County). I have lived in rural Colorado since 1977. Since 2002 I have run for office in a total of 13 rural counties. I am a supporter of the southern district concept and am writing comments now specifically in regard to the map submitted by Commissioner Tafoya at the September 10 Congressional Redistricting Commission’s meeting – the “Headwaters” map. As I’ve noted previously regarding the First Staff Plan, a southern Congressional district meets southern Colorado community of interest needs. It reflects the cultural history, the watersheds, commercial and outdoor recreation connections, and transportation corridors. Note: Tafoya’s southern district in his Sept 10 map is very similar to the one I submitted in July – “Southern Colorado Congressional District – Emily Tracy” (7/26/21). Tafoya’s Headwaters map includes the Arkansas River from its origin in Lake County to where the river exits Colorado at the Kansas state line. It keeps the San Luis Valley whole including the Rio Grande in Colorado. It connects southwest and southeast Colorado counties to south central Colorado, and recognizes important transportation corridors including US Hwys 50, 160, and 285 plus multiple state highways that serve southern Colorado. There will likely be objections to this proposed map from some in Eagle and Summit Counties, who would perhaps prefer to remain aligned in some way with the I-70 corridor. However, there are some commonalities of Eagle and Summit with counties in the southern district proposed by this map, including mountain resorts (Eagle, Summit, Chaffee, LaPlata, San Juan, San Miguel, and Archuleta), rural economies, agriculture, plus water and broadband issues, among others. You have heard many comments about the importance of reflecting rural Colorado needs in the map. For example, proponents of western slope and eastern plains districts say those districts would better reflect the needs of rural Colorado. However, rural Colorado does not speak with one voice – there is great diversity in economies, cultures, and partisan politics. In my opinion, absorbing southern Colorado into western and eastern districts drowns out the southern Colorado community of interest. Commissioner Tafoya’s proposed Headwaters map does an excellent job of reflecting substantial rural interests within three proposed Congressional Districts instead of just two. I would like to briefly note something re: the Commission’s process: As a listener to the September 10th Commission meeting, I noticed that some of the greatest struggles seemed to come from the focus on maps as opposed to a ranking of priorities and needs. As someone who has worked and trained a bit in the field of conflict resolution, the struggles seemed to me to be a symptom of trying to move to a solution (a map) too quickly instead of first ensuring that interests and needs are met. It might help to have more discussion regarding the interests and needs – of Colorado communities AND Commission members – then go back to the focus on maps. The two approaches could perhaps be done together as long as looking at maps happens along with discussion of needs and interests across Colorado, and how pieces of any particular map either meet or do not meet those needs. Southern Colorado is a community of interest. I urge the Commission to fully explore Tafoya’s Headwaters map.

Thank you for all your hard work on this huge project! I am excited that Park County is kept in one piece in CD 3. As a state we have really needed to recognize a mountain community that is a little more Front Range than it is Western Slope. Many people from this area commute to the Denver metro area regularly for work, shopping, and entertainment. This gives much less in common with the ranching/farming interests of the Western Slope. This map will allow districts to represent more interests in common and should move us in a better direction to the future. Well done!

Thanks so much for working on this redistricting issue and for keeping my county, Park County, whole. I feel I am more fairly represented with your design of a front range district not connected to Western slope. Thank you for considering public comment from those voters directly affected. Connie Gardner Voter and retired public school teacher