Public Comments

Highlands Ranch is considered part of the South Metro area of Denver - Why would it be put in the VAST and more rural section, the new District 4? I'd like to see it be a part of a more urban part of the state, which the city is.

There are many Coloradans who make a living off the land in some way. Boulder County voters are more removed from the urgency of land use issues, such as water and forest management, federal permitting, and agriculture/ranching rights. I think that there is less of a chance for Western Slopes advocacy in Washington, if Boulder County is included in the 2nd Congressional district. I will not be a resident of any final map of the 2nd congressional district. However, as a Coloradan, I am concerned that our Congressional delegation should reflect the geographic and economic interests of all Coloradans.

Thank iyou all for the major improvement on the Congressional from the Preliminary....Thank you for keeping Aurora whole and Arapahoe County whole. It's good to see that Jefferson County is also kept whole and that Douglas is keep whole and in the 4th CD where they are most similar...it appears the county lines were respected and most city lines...a suppose there are a few exceptions. Thank you for listening to the comments--I am impressed the new work. Not thrilled with the Moore or Tafoya maps.

I strongly support redistricting via an independent commission! My one important request is for both the congressional and the legislative commission to keep Broomfield together, since we are a city as well as a county, like Denver. Also like Denver, our community is kind of strung out from Southwest to Northeast, but culturally and politically, we nevertheless function as one community. Please keep Broomfield united! Thank you!

It is imperative that Western Colorado remain under one Congressional District, keeping our water rights, preserving our oil&gas rights and our cultural integrity.  We need to keep Garfield, Rio Blanco, Moffat, Grand, Jackson and Routt Counties in District 3; a large portion of Colorado's natural gas comes from the Northwest counties and their voices will be silenced.  In the Colorado Congressional Districts (First Staff Plan) you are eliminating Northwest Colorado's representation by overwhelming their votes with Boulder and Larimer County votes.  We appreciate Congressman Boebert, trust her to work "for" us and want to keep her, but with this plan you would be severing our representation by her.  Urban dwellers in the Boulder/Larimer County areas have no idea the needs or desires of people in rural Western Colorado.   Thank you.

Summit County should not be divided, nor should it be mixed in with Boulder. We belong with smaller west slope counties. I do not support the proposed redistricting.

The redistricting commission held only one meeting in the southwest quarter of Colorado, one in the south central, and maybe two more on the western slope. Of course your input was biased toward urban influences because you held how many meetings in the other less than half the state where travel is faster to get from location to location. You started out with an agenda to not listen to the rural parts of Colorado and to the western slope and south east areas. Your current mapping proposal represents your preconceived plans by totally disregarding rural communities of interest in infrastructure, water, land use, resource development, and way of life. By lumping the rural communities in with an urban center totally disregards any consideration of rural interests in our state. I suggest you to go back to the mapping suggested by the rural and ag communities with a western slope district, and eastern rural district, and then divide the rest of the urban corridor into districts of size and common interests in infrastructure and land use and population growth. The whole idea of an independent commission was to take away the tendency to draw imaginary lines to lump people of different cultures, interests, and geographic locations into political subdivisions that would be totally controlled by one segment of the population in each district like a large urban area in with the rural agriculture areas without consideration of differences in issues of concern or even the reality of travel within that district crossing mountain passes, rural roads, and Colorado weather impacts. Your current staff generated map is exactly the issue that has existed in redistricting in the past meaning that this commission is failing to meet the spirit of the mission that you were given to not divide and dilute communities.

I have put together a map that I think solves multiple problems facing the commission, including reflecting communities of interest and creating competitive districts: https://davesredistricting.org/join/557caef3-b444-4719-b793-075134c19a10. District 1 (CPVI D+29): Denver-based district District 2 (CPVI D+14): Urban/Suburban district including Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collis District 3 (CPVI R+4): Western Slope-based district, plus Western Boulder and Larimer Counties District 4 (CPVI R+11): Eastern Plains, suburban Douglas County, and southern Latino counties District 5 (CPVI R+10): Colorado Springs-based district District 6 (CPVI D+8): Aurora- and Araphoe County-based district District 7 (CPVI D+0.6): JeffCo plus Central CO-based district District 8 (CPVI R+1): Adams and Weld County suburbs from Commerce City/Thorton to Greeley/Windsor, heavily Latino Based on my experience drafting the map, I would like to note that it is more feasible to include the Southern, heavily Latino communities with the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope as the commission has been trying to do. The Western Slope plus this Southern region is just too populous and thus the Western Slope would inevitably need to be heavily split in such an arrangement. Additionally, it is much harder to draw competitive districts this way.

Undoubtably, the job of redistricting a state after a census is a daunting task, especially when there are so many stakeholders expressing their desires and perspectives. These are the “trenches” of our democracy and while I see worthwhile goals trying to be met by the Commission, I hope this comment period sheds some perspective to the task at hand. If we are fundamentally looking at effective representation across our state and looking to link common communities of interest following Colorado’s Constitution, I’m appalled that Fort Collins would be carved out of District 2 and placed into a district with completely different regional interests let alone public policy interests. As I’ve traveled across this great state of ours, I’ve become keenly aware that the eastern half of the state is very different than the central and mountain regions not only topographically but also philosophically. As a resident of Fort Collins, we are, and will continue to be, more aligned with the counties in the district we currently reside in. The differences between District 2 and District 4 are numerous and the similarities few. For example, 1. Geographically, the communities along the front range share more cultural identity due to the proximity to mountain recreation versus the plains and its focus on agriculture and extraction. 2. Water-wise, separating Fort Collins from being in a district with its water sources is short sighted. 3. Public health wise, there couldn’t be a more current and notable perspective difference of health priorities between the counties that make up District 2 and 4. 4. Economically, Fort Collins’ base is healthcare, technology, tourism and education not agriculture, oil and gas. Again, the proposed congressional district map makes the districts have population numbers that look neat and tidy but the community interests and public policy aims of Fort Collins and it’s potential new district could not be more diametrically opposed. I urge the Commission to let Fort Collins remain in District 2.

I submitted comments on June 14, 2021, expressing my view that a Southern Colorado River Basin district as has been proposed by others makes the most sense historically, geographically, economically, demographically and culturally for Western, Southern and Southeastern Colorado. The September 3, 2021, "First Staff Plan" is an improvement over the June, 23, 2021, "Preliminary Map" in that it recognizes including the historically tied San Luis Valley-Pueblo Counties, along with Huerfano, Crowley, Otero and Las Animas Counties that have historic, cultural, demographic, economic and water-based ties to Pueblo County in a congressional district comprising Colorado's counties north and east of El Paso County and Weld County/Greeley is an ill-fit for all communities concerned. However, the plan that makes the most sense for both northern and southern Colorado is the "Tafoya Map" that is included in the Commission's list of plan options. The Tafoya Map reflects the very real north-south division of Colorado for the reasons previously cited in support of the Southern Colorado River Basin proposal. Contrary to some of the posted comments, while there is indeed a traditional East Slope v West Slope divide in Colorado, the oldest of Colorado's divisions, dating back to before statehood, is the north half of Colorado v the oldest settled, demographically different southern Colorado. For those who insist on the importance of preserving Colorado's minority rural voice in Colorado as against the majority, urban and suburban population of Colorado, the Tafoya Map actually give rural Western and Eastern Colorado (including rural Southern Colorado) THREE congressional voices.