Public Comments

The dramatic change in the congressional map from the one we had takes control from the western slope and gives it to the populated area including Boulder county. The map that had divided the districts had populations that had similar interests and could elect representatives who would be better able to represent our interests. The values and political beliefs of the western slope are dramatically different from the eastern slope and metropolitan areas of Colorado. Please give us representation that matches our political trends. Thank you Beverly Counts 970-326-8592

Fort Collins does not belong in the 4th Congressional District. It has been well represented during the time it was in the 2nd Congressional District because it shares the interests of Larimer and Boulder Counties in fields such as the arts, in being home to a university that draws students from all over the U.S., in attracting technology and pharmaceutical businesses. The citizens of Fort Collins are seriously concerned about the environment, especially with regard to global warming. Fort Collins has its own electric utility that is focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels. These are all areas that have been well represented in Congress for the 2nd Congressional District, while the representation from the 4th Congressional District has been one that actively opposes progress in all these concerns that are of vital interest to the Fort Collins community. There are essentially no interests that Fort Collins shares with the Eastern Plains. Please do not punish us by carving Fort Collins out of the 4th Congressional District.

Commissioners: The proposed Congressional district map should be changed to retain Fort Collins with the rest of Larimer County. As a 60 year resident of Fort Collins, I’ve seen Fort Collins change from a small town with an agriculture history and a small land grant university to a city with a whole lot less agriculture and a large and growing university that has become a research and high tech employment hub. Fort Collins is now more like Boulder and a lot less like the Eastern Plains. A stated goal of the Commission is to preserve whole communities of interest and political subdivisions. Separating Fort Collins, Larimer County’s county seat, and the largest populated metro area from the rest of Larimer County, would be a bad choice. With Fort Collins as the county seat, our Larimer County and Fort Collins elected officials collaborate and make decisions about urban and quality of life issues, many of which relate to workforce recruitment and retention in support of Colorado State University, the largest single employer in Larimer County for decades. As a university research hub, high tech companies are increasingly spun off and nurtured, expanded, and relocated here. This economic activity has implications for growth and management of infrastructure and small city living amenities such as housing and recreation to attract and retain a highly educated workforce. These goals are very different from the Eastern Plains. With Fort Collins as a leading city in the “NoCo” region, tourism and recreation activities also drive a large percentage of Larimer County’s economy. The associated issues of air quality, transportation development, and climate action activities are top agenda items and are very different from the Eastern Plains agenda. Forest management in the two National Parks and wildfire mitigation efforts are increasingly big issues for the Fort Collins community, which are not issues shared with the Eastern Plains. In addition to the leading economic goals and quality of life activities of Fort Collins, there is an increasingly diverse population arriving in Fort Collins from other states and countries with different needs and expectations from the Eastern Plains. With personal understanding of the differences in culture between Fort Collins and the Eastern Plains, I would expect that the Eastern Plains citizens wouldn’t be too happy about Fort Collins showing up in their Congressional district, either. With the shortened time period the Redistricting Commission has had to hear public comments, please be assured that there are tens of thousands of people who view these issues as I do but have not had sufficient exposure to the decision-making process to voice their objections. Do the right thing and keep Fort Collins with Larimer County in the new Congressional district. Jean Grove, jgrove@bajabb.com, 970-493-8462

Dear Commissioners, As a life-long citizen of Fort Collins, I urge your rejection of staff's first maps which put Fort Collins into CD-4. Fort Collins and the remainder of CD-4 could not be more dissimilar nor could they share any less a community of interest. I respectfully request that you direct staff to revise its first Congressional District maps with instructions to put Fort Collins into a district with which it shares common values and interests. Thank you, Former State Representative Randy Fischer

First of all, I want to express my appreciation for your work on the needed redistricting within the State of Colorado. According to Section 44 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, one of the guidelines for determining the boundaries of the Congressional districts allotted to Colorado is that of "Community of interest". That guideline is defined as "any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, is composed of a reasonably proximate population, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation". The map from the First Staff Plan (presented on September 3, 2021) fails to adhere to the "Community of interest" criteria for at least four of the proposed Congressional districts; * 2nd Congressional District -- The current 2nd CD includes the areas around the two major universities within Colorado (University of Colorado in Boulder, and Colorado State University in Fort Collins). These communities, as they are in support of higher education opportunities within the state, "[ share ] one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action". The 2021 First Staff Plan maintains Boulder within the 2nd CD, but places Fort Collins within the 4th CD. Such placements are NOT in line with the required "Community of interest" criteria. * 3rd Congressional District -- The current 3rd CD includes most of the counties which are to the west of the Continental Divide as it goes through Colorado, plus other areas of the state to maintain population requirements. The residents of the Western Slope in Colorado share a serious common interest of the availability of water to their communities. The vast majority of the population within Colorado resides on the Eastern Slope, and has consistently retrieved water supplies from the Western Slope. The 2021 First Staff Plan divides the northern and southern parts of the Western Slope, placing them into two different Congressional districts, CD2 & CD3. Such placements are NOT in line with the required "Community of interest" criteria. As much as is possible, all of the Western Slope MUST be included within a single Congressional district, since these communities ""[ share ] one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action". * 4th Congressional District -- The current 4th CD compromises mostly the rural, agricultural areas of our state. The 2021 First Staff Plan includes with the 4th CD two large urban areas of our state (Fort Collins & Douglas County). Such placement of these urban areas do not comply with the required "Community of interest" criteria. It would be much more logical to place Fort Collins within CD2 (and removing the western portion of the First Staff Plan from CD2, to place that western portion within CD3). It would be much more logical to place Douglas County within CD7 (and removing the western counties of the First Staff Plan from CD7, and placing such counties within CD3). * 7th Congressional District -- The current 7th CD is an urban district. The 2021 First Staff Plan takes mountain communities out of CD3, and places them within CD7. Such placement does NOT meet the "Community of interest" criteria. It would be much more logical to keep those western counties (as shown in the First Staff Plan) within CD3, where they maintain more community of interest, and to place Douglas County (or at least the more urban areas in western Douglas County) within CD7. Once again, thank you for your efforts. Yours, Rick Foster (Colorado citizen & resident since birth)

Thanks for your work but I see major issues in what is being proposed: 1. There truly is an Urban/Rural Divide. The interests and beliefs of rural living people do not conform with those of the high population areas. East of I-25 and South of Denver voters should be kept together. Boulder and the N.W. Counties are oil and water. Very little about them fits together 2. I consider myself a conservative, rural voter (living in the Fort Collins Zip Code). I have seen the shift of the power fulcrum of my area far to the liberal left, resulting in the constant undermining of my beliefs and interests. What I have read seeks to make that phenomena statewide. 3. The physical features of Mountain, Plateaus, and Plains each drive a certain economy and lifestyle. Again, if I see anything, I see that fact out of tune with the proposed districting. Thanks Steve Zelenak

Summit County using any objective analysis should be with our west slope neighbors in a district that is not dominated by the urban front range Counties.

My name is Diane Brower. I have lived in Routt County since 1980 – 41 years. I appreciate the efforts of the Redistricting Committee and the staff in working to create redistricting maps that meet the criteria of fairness and impartiality that the people of Colorado support. The first Congressional map was problematic for Routt County because it placed us, a county primarily driven by tourism, recreation, and the environment, in a district that would have been primarily agricultural, with few of the common interests of Routt County. The second version of the Congressional redistricting map is much more appropriate – grouping Routt County with counties to the east which share our interests in recreation and tourism as economic drivers. I know it is challenging to meet all the criteria of communities of interest as defined in the Colorado Constitution related to population and contiguity. With that said, I do question the inclusion of parts of the Front Range urban corridor (specifically Boulder) with mountain communities for the proposed District 2.. Historically the interests of the urban Front Range have been different from the interests of Colorado's mountain communities. In my public comment for the first round of the hearings, I pointed out that geology is a high determinant of economy, culture, and human activity broadly. This is certainly true in Colorado. Mountain communities in Colorado are tourism and recreation focused. Unusually high cost of living and more limited social and economic resources of some kinds. result in common issues such as scarcity of affordable housing, lack of sufficient public transportation, high cost of health care,and dependence on climate factors like snowfall. I would suggest including Routt County in a district that stretches east, as in the current second map, and farther south to include other mountain areas, rather than include eastern urban areas such as Boulder. I do recognize that there may a problem with the population factor when trying to build districts that are of approximately equal population. If this necessitates grouping a population center like Boulder in with mountain communities, then that is better than grouping Routt County with agricultural counties as in the first version of the map. I would encourage you, if you haven't already, to consider districts that have a more north-south configuration, rather than east-west. For example, Routt County would be in a district that also includes Eagle, Pitkin and Summit Counties, which also have ski areas and similar seasonal economies that depend on climate factors. These counties share Routt County's concerns and interests Thank you for considering my comments. You certainly have my strong moral support in your work completing the Colorado redistricting maps. It's a difficult and challenging effort and I believe the changes you've made so far reflect your commitment to producing a fair and impartial outcome. Sincerely, Diane Brower Steamboat Springs, Colorado

Dear Commissioners, Thank you for all of your time and efforts on our state redistricting efforts. I am writing with feedback on the most recent Congressional district map released at the start of September. In this map, CD 2 expands all the way to the western border of our state. My concern is this has led to breaking the mountain region (ex: Eagle, Summit) into three different district areas and weakens the representation provided to Latino communities in those areas. This past spring, I was a member of the Chinook Fund Giving Project which awards grants to social justice organizations across the state, with priority given to rural groups. In that work, I heard frequently from Latino leaders in the mountain region about the need to organize their community around common issues faced while living in that area. Furthermore, as a resident of Boulder, I do not feel connected to the areas in the far west of our state that would now be in this district. Living with a disability, my community includes many others with disabilities who access similar medical, transportation, and independent living supports in my area. Many of the people I consider to be part of my community live in Boulder and to the north in Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins. My experience is very different from individuals with disabilities living in more rural areas where there are far less resources and much larger barriers. Thank you for your time and consideration, Shelby

The Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission’s First Staff Plan for Colorado Congressional Districts, issue on September 3rd, has major changes from the Commissions’ Preliminary Plan. Supposedly, these changes were made because various “minority rights” groups threated to sue the Commission if the Preliminary Plan were implemented. However, the First Staff Plan seems to give preferential rights to these so-called minorities at the expense of other Colorado citizens, and would be very detrimental to rural Coloradoans. Rural Coloradoans are already greatly disadvantaged by the Front Range voting block in the Colorado state government, to the extent that rural voices largely do not count. At least rural Coloradoans interests were represented in the U. S. Congress by the current District 3 and District 4 boundaries. With the Commissions’ proposed Preliminary Plan, rural areas of the former District 3 would be lumped in with the urban counties Boulder, Larimer and Pueblo. The Commission’s Preliminary Plan also strips portions of largely agricultural Weld County away from District 4 and lumps them in with urban Broomfield and Adams counties in the new District 8. If the Commission’s First Staff Plan is implemented, the rural areas of Colorado would also lose their voices in the U. S. Congress. The other thing I find quite onerous about the Commission’s Preliminary Plan is that it appears that these so-called “minority rights” issues are a thinly-disguised trojan horse dreamed up by Democrat political operatives to get Rep. Ken Buck and Rep. Lauren Boebert out of office by changing their district to include heavily Democratic constituencies. Rep. Boebert’s district would include heavily-Democratic Boulder and Larimer counties; Rep. Buck’s district would include heavily Democratic Broomfield and Adams counties. These Democrat political operatives’ dream is to get rid of the remaining Republican members of Congress from Colorado, and the Commission’s Preliminary Plan appears to align magnificently with that objective. If the Commission is to retain any measure of “bipartisan” credibility, they cannot allow this power-grab by Democrat political operatives, as proposed in the Preliminary Plan, to be enacted.