Public Comments

The needs of rural and agricultural Colorado are lost when the population centers of the front range are tied into the same districts! Population centers do not have the same issues and very seldom recognize or acknowledge how rural communities are affected by their actions or proposed rules. The proposed redistricting plan strips rural communities of proper representation. I despise the proposed redistricting plan. Please do not accept it.

I attached a letter on 9/10 but don't see a place where you can access it on the public comment. So I am pasting the contents in the comment box. Dear Commission: I spoke today as a Westminster resident and touched on the issues of Ft. Collins, the concept of “legal issues,” and Westminster. I did not have enough time to make some critical comments about the legal issues and Westminster and so I add them below to supplement my testimony. I. Legal Issues A. Voting Influence of Racial and Language Minorities I respectfully asked the Commission to consider announcing its positions on several legal issues. These are issues over which the Court will have complete authority to decide when you submit the plan. But, no matter what anybody tells you, I can assure you from experience (as a litigator and appellate administrative law judge) that many appellate judges will consider what the Commission has to say about legal issues and how it applied them. The first legal issue I mentioned was the Commission’s legal interpretation of Section 44.3(4)(b), Article V of the Colorado Constitution. That provision prohibits the Commission and the Court from approving a map that has the purpose or “result” of “diluting” the “influence” of a racial or language minority group. I do not think the public knows if the Commission is interpreting that to be synonymous with the Federal Voting Rights Act. As I mentioned, anybody offensively or defensively relying on this provision will have to (1) interpret the words “diluting,” “impact,” “group,” and “influence,” and (2) ensure that there is record evidence supporting his, her, or its position. This issue directly relates to how the Commission perceives the electoral influence of the racial and language minorities in District 8 drawn in the first staff plan, a group that arguably traverses the northern boundary of Denver. See below about the significance of the Denver county boundary versus communities of interest that cross the northern boundary into Federal Heights, Westminster, Thornton, Commerce City, and moving northward. B. The Hierarchy of Communities of Interest, Counties, Cities and Towns Another legal issue is the Commission’s interpretation of Section 44.3(2), Article V. That section requires the Commission, “as much as is reasonably possible,” to “preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns.” The question is whether these categories are on equal footing. If so, the Commission must balance all these interests without giving extra weight to one group over the other. I believe they are on equal footing. In fact, if there is any hierarchy at all, the fact that “communities of interest” is listed first raises the possibility that it ranks higher than the other groups. Deciding whether the constitutional amendment puts these on equal footing is a legal issue. Deciding, on the record evidence, whether to keep a city boundary whole or split it because of a county boundary is a discretionary decision. This ranking issue is significant for Westminster and for Latino communities of interests that arguably start in north Denver and travel north. As I mentioned, I agree with Commissioner Leone that keeping Jefferson County whole should not be a per se rule, but it should be balanced against the political boundaries of Westminster. I mentioned that Westminster is a “home rule” city that, as you and your attorneys know, means Westminster oversees its own local government issues rather than being managed by county governments. Westminster needs to lobby the federal government for its water, environmental, natural gas regulations, federal financial assistance for issues like COVID-19, among other issues. C. Competitiveness I did not have time to mention the legal issues surrounding the balancing of the “competitiveness” criteria referenced in Section 44.3(3). The legal question is whether you must finish recognizing every single community of interest, county, city, and town before you even touch competitiveness. The use of the word “thereafter” in Section 44.3(3) is significant. But “thereafter” must be interpreted in the context of the entire amendment. An extreme definition of “thereafter” seems wrong for many reasons. I only cite a few. First, “competitiveness” is one of the purposes explicitly identified for the passage of Amendments Y and Z. Second, throughout the criteria in Section 44.3, the Commission is required to engage in balancing “as much as is reasonably possible” or “to the extent possible.” Lastly, leaving “competitiveness” for the extreme end of the analysis essentially obliterates that criterion. As the Commission is doing, it makes sense to wrestle with the definition of “communities of interest” so that such criterion does not swallow the entire process (after equally dividing the population and complying with the Federal Voting Rights Act). Congressional districts are so big that you necessarily group distinct communities and political subdivisions such that, while recognizing communities of interest, the Commission could move some communities from one district to the other while considering competitiveness. Again, I believe how you decide to rank “competitiveness” in your efforts is arguably a legal issue, but you have discretion to decide which districts are competitive based on the record. II. Westminster I respectfully asked that the Commission keep Westminster whole. I mentioned that it is the eighth largest city by population, it is a “home rule” city, and its council is elected at large as one voting bloc (not by wards). I want to add that it is a city on the I-25 corridor that regularly interacts with the cities on that corridor. I want to add that, in the Staff plan’s District 8, I think the Westminster population should replace Windsor, the residents north of Greeley, the residents in Johnstown, and the residents between Windsor and Johnstown currently placed in District 8. These changes should result in a more compact district. Greeley is a tougher issue because of its size, but I believe Greeley could be divided just as much as Westminster could be divided, but dividing either city should consider the Latino community of interest to the extent supported by the record. Westminster deserves to be kept whole just as much as Aurora and Commerce City. I note that District 8 is often referred to as the “new” district. The use of the word “new” can be distracting because it implies that the Commission should grant some deference to the 2011 redistricting map and wedge a “new” district into that map. But the Commission’s task is to create eight districts consistent with the constitutional criteria and beginning with a blank slate. The previous map is not entitled to deference. Notably, the 2011 map drastically differs from the 2001 map and so the 2011 map has limited historical value. There is much more I can say, but I will stop at this point. I appreciate your time and consideration. Good luck and great work! You have already made Amendments Y and Z successful. Sincerely, Luis A. Corchado

COLORADO INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION Step 1 - Commission gives staff a set of criteria for developing a redistricting map Step 2 - Staff creates and publishes a preliminary redistricting Map 1 based on Commission’s criteria Step 3 - Several hearings are held around Colorado on Map 1 during the summer of 2021 Step 4 - Commission gives input and guidance to staff to create Map 2 based on public testimony on Map 1 Step 5 - Map 2 is created by staff and released by Commission Step 6 - Four hearings on Map 2 are held during the week of Sept 6 - 10, 2021 Testimony is positive in some areas. Many people saying thank you for hearing them during the first round of public testimony. Testimony is also very critical of some aspects of Map 2. Several maps are submitted by the public that use Map 2 as a baseline with some adjustments. Step 7 - ??? I’m confused and concerned about the Commission’s next step. Shouldn’t Step 7 be editing and adjusting Map 2 based on many hours of written and public testimony building toward a final map? Many people who testified thanked you for hearing them and many people testified that adjustments needed to be made. Shouldn’t the Commission be adjusting Map 2 and editing the areas that the public testified against and leaving the areas where the public thanked you for hearing them in the first round of testimony? Shouldn’t the hearings result in a progression of draft maps building toward a final map with each map improving through public comment? Shouldn't Step 7 be to use Map 2 as a template and adjust according to public testimony?

Good Morning. As far as redeploying the districts while the concept makes sense, the actual change is not practical because daily life, commerce, and rules that apply in one district could possibly not apply at all to another district because of the commerce conducted in District A vs. District B. and the combining and governing of both districts as one. This is not like an excel file where you can just concatenate two cells together to make one cell. As a concerned citizen, my suggestion would be to focus on the commerce that drives the area from a data science point of view and then look for outliers such as a area that was previously all farmland and is now farmland + dispensary business locations. If all of the district property lines will be redrawn, then perhaps a complete change is required with just one district being the large populated area providing directions for the entire State and all of the State falling under those directions without a requirement for any district management. Or, not make any changes. Thank you for the opportunity to voice an opinion.

The residents of the western slope need to have a fair and free voice just as any other group in this State! Why do the eastern slope big cities continually try to shut us out when all democrats preach about is equality for everyone? The redistricting is Gerrymandering! If there really is any equality left in this State for conservative voters you will reconsider this plan for the 3rd District!

I am totally opposed to the map recently published This map is destroys rural communities of interest and is designed to force urban valves on rural Colorado and is partisan to the benefit the Democratic Party Clearly the commission has ignored my comments given orally at Craig I again incorporate them by reference Respectfully submitted T Wright Dickinson

I live in Garfield county and grew up in Moffat county. For these counties to be included with Boulder and larimer county are for political gain solely. These counties have nothing in common and it would be a complete detriment to these agricultural areas to be included with the big cities. There is a complete disconnect with the people who reside in the bigger cities and the Rural areas. We cannot allow our rural communities to be ran similar to city areas it just will not work for our industries.

I live in a large rural community in Northwest Colorado. Our community has strong interests in Agriculture and Energy. Both of these interests are what support the majority of our residents. These interests/livelihoods continue to be attacked not only at the state level but at the Federal level as well. After viewing the Congressional map dated September 3, 2021 I have deep concerns of the impact this map will have on my community. This map has large communities like Boulder and Broomfield who do not have "like" interests with my community. The majority of the counties to the East of us have very different opinions on water usage and wildlife management such as the reintroduction of wolves just to name a few. Just these two example will have devastating affects to the communities in the Northwest corner. I understand that one of the Constitutional requirements of redistricting require rural communities with like interests to be together. This map does not reflect that requirement. Our rural communities voices will be watered down, unheard and discarded by the metro communities by this map. I strongly urge this commission to reevaluate District 2 so that my community will be represented.

The first staff plan map largely ignores agriculture and rural Colorado's unique community of interest by combining it with urban and suburban populations; fails to reflect the differences in water administration, ag industry makeup, and social landscape between eastern and western parts of the state; ignores testimony from around the state regarding desired district lines.

I am writing in support of the First Staff Plan, splitting the Third Congressional District north and south so that Rio Blanco would be included in a northern tier with, e.g., Larimer and Boulder Counties (plus others). Rio Blanco politics are dominated by the local Republican Party and, in reality, by only a handful of power brokers. Local elections offer essentially no choice. Candidates are selected by the Party apparatus. There is no meaningful election debate. In order to participate in a primary, if there is any contest among Republican hopefuls, a citizen of the County has to be Republican or registered Independent and select a Republican ballot. It is admittedly the case that the Republican grip on politics probably does largely represent the ideological inclination of the majority of the County, but that can't be demonstrated without meaningful alternatives in our election contests. A more open contest, as would be encouraged by the proposed redistricting, would generate more careful consideration of issues, more productive debate, and in the long run better policy.