Public Comments

Political activism has become the snare to deprive Coloradans of their right to vote. To arrange every district to favor one party is criminal and should be over ruled. Democrats have gerrymandered for years. The demographic moves and so they change the district balance. A fine example is Douglas county that always was a conservative district and is now looking to become socialist.

I have concerns with redistricting in grand county. While very much so rural we are also very dependent on the tourism industry I feel those representing the congressional district three would not have the best interest in our growing industry. I believe focus would only be on agriculture concerns and healthcare would take a far right approach which with little resources we already have it would be detrimental to our community to have any of those resources altered for personal gains or beliefs.

The most recent map eliminates the current Congressional District 3 representative from being able to represent approximately 25 counties that elected her in 2020. CD 3 currently represents much of the Western Slope, the southern half of CO, up through Pueblo County. It makes no sense to exclude Garfield County from CD 3 and add Boulder County to CD 3. This appears to be politically motivated, since the current representative is quite outspoken in her support of the issues that clearly matter to CD 3 interests (natural resources, ranching, agriculture, small businesses, and the rural CO way of life that deserves to be represented by a proven individual). Boulder County does not represent the current CD 3 and is so powerfully liberal and political, that I find it unconscionable and offensive that the newly proposed map is being seriously considered. The current CD 3 is already challenged by the 'political weight' of the Front Range communities, so I respectfully ask that you reject this newly proposed CD 3 map. Thank you for your consideration of the geographically large part of CO that deserves a voice, not just large metropolitan areas that do not understand or appreciate the needs of those living and working in the rural landscape of Western and Southern CO.

Please do not put Ft Collins into a separate congressional district from the rest of Larimer County. Ft Collins has more in common with the communities in our current congressional district 2 that the communities on the eastern plains of congressional district 4. In addition to a large research university, we also have a CDC research facility. As a community, we are working towards reducing our carbon emissions by supporting renewable energy sources. This is very different from the priorities of Weld County which is counting on continued revenues from the oil wells. In fact a large part of the current CD 4 has expressed a desire to become part of Wyoming leading to one ballot initiative with talk of another one last spring. Once again this demonstrates our common interests with the rest of Larimer County. It doesn't make sense for the county seat to be considered a different community of interest from the rest of the county. Please keep Ft Collins in CD 2 with the rest of Larimer County

I’m very concerned about the proposed redistricting of CD 2 and CD 3 which effects the western slope, and northwestern Colorado in particular. The high population areas of Boulder and Larimer county do not share the same community interests as rural western slope communities. They don’t understand agriculture, water issues, livestock issues, wildlife issues, hunting issues or any other topic which are part of western slope people’s daily lives. A good example is wolf reintroduction. The western slope, who is the recipient of this reintroduction voted against it, but the high population areas on the front range voted for it. Rural Colorado wouldn’t have a voice if they are put in the same congressional districts as high population front range urban and suburban populations. Please make western slope one congressional district! Thank you.

To the members of the the Redistricting Commission, I am a 48 year resident of Routt County and have written to you in the past but wanted to ad and additional comment. The Western Slope has little in common economically with the front range Urban Quarter. In spite of all your work, it is unfortunate to see that you negating the interests of the entire western slope on your current map and from my perspective the current work appears to be Gerrymandering at its highest level! The current proposed map indicates a population of close to 950,000 residents. 14% of these residents live on what we call the western slope which represents and entire different way of life and economy than the other 86% who live on the urban quarter. The rural quarter represent 40% of the land mass of the state and our culture and economy are based on ranching, mining, energy production, water conservation and preserving a rural way of life with local schools. We are asking you not to drown out our voices. Sincerely, Mary Weiss

I'm writing to support the southern district in district 3 proposed in the first staff plan. We share much in common with other communities across Southern Colorado that the preliminary map left out. As a fifth-generation Coloradoan and LGBT person living on a large farm and working at an educational institution in Montezuma County, my community needs support for diverse cultural heritage as well as agricultural and water rights. The shared indigenous and early Hispanic heritage in southern Colorado is much better represented by keeping the first staff plan boundaries, than the proposed alternatives, including the current district. This also keeps larger communities easily accessible from Montezuma County like Alamosa, Pueblo, and Grand Junction together. Northern Colorado is much farther away and only represents a subset of our diverse interests. I want to encourage you to keep a district that's more representative of all of the voices in our diverse community together, rather dividing southern Colorado.

Public Response to Colorado Congressional District (First Staff Plan) I completely reject the September 3, 2021, First Staff Plan for District 2. This plan for District 2 is the Antithesis of the Constitutional Criteria: Preservation of Communities of Interest and Political Subdivisions. It is starkly illogical and smacks of a political power grab by the left to combine Northwestern Colorado rural and largely conservative counties in which the top 3 primary industry sectors are: Energy production, Agriculture and Ranching, with the urban ultra-left liberals of Boulder and Broomfield Counties in which the top 3 industries are: Aerospace, Bioscience, and IT/software. In fact, the “non-partisan staff” would be hard pressed to find two more disparate communities and political subdivisions to combine into one district. The 6/23/2021 Preliminary Map is more acceptable. As a concerned citizen I wonder how such a drastic and nonsensical revision of District 2 transpired within the space of 2 ½ months. A quick search of the primary economic drivers of the rural Northwestern counties now thrown in with urban Boulder/Broomfield counties in District 2 show that the counties have markedly dissimilar economies and, therefore, different communities with different political and legislative priorities. Top Three Primary Industry Sectors for each county in District 2: Larimer: Agriculture, Energy Production, Manufacturing. Jackson: Energy Production, Ranching/Agriculture, Forestry. Routt: Travel/Vacation Services, Healthcare, Construction. Moffat: Mining/Energy Production, Ranching, Public Land Tourism. Rio Blanco: Energy Production, Agriculture, Ranching. Garfield: Energy Production & Natural Resources, Ranching, Tourism. Grand: Tourism/Outdoor Recreation, Construction, Public Administration. Boulder: Aerospace, Biosciences, IT/Software. It is fact for example that voters of the urban areas of Boulder and Broomfield Counties have actively sought to limit or eliminate energy extraction – the lifeblood of numerous communities in the Northwest counties. One need only drive along I-25 north of Denver to see how mass urban development has changed once verdant ranch and farmland; these interests are hardly aligned. As a citizen, I greatly appreciate and admire America’s backbone agrarian and natural resource communities that feed, fuel, and drive our economy and lifestyle that America enjoys. The 6/23/2021 Preliminary map kept communities of similar economic drivers and political subdivisions (per constitutional criteria) together in District 1 and District 3. The current UNACCEPTABLE 9/3/2021 (First Staff Plan) map for District 2 has divided the rural conservative 3 rd district essentially in half and thrown together disparate communities and political subdivisions effectively favoring Democrats who hold a majority in the ultra-liberal urban Boulder/Broomfield counties. It also makes no sense to move the Democrat-leaning City of Fort Collins into District 1. It seems that the objective of the “non-partisan staff” is to also dilute the conservative rural vote of the 1st Congressional District by including liberal Fort Collins. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE 9/3/2021 FIRST STAFF PLAN DISTRICT MAP. I WOULD SUPPORT THE 6/23/2021 PRELIMINARY MAP IF FORT COLLINS IS PUT INTO DISTRICT 2. Michele Miller District 2 Loveland, CO

The commissioners have put the interests of the urban Front Range first by diluting the voice of rural Colorado and completely changed the map from the first preliminary Congressional maps released in June that were the subject of 36 hearings across the state. This map prioritizes the interests of the Denver Metro (other than Republican Douglas County) and targets the voices of rural Coloradans. The commission also chose to split up the Western Slope, despite the voices of the people who live there. This is not a fair redistricting option.

Thank you all for the time and effort you have dedicated to this process. ————————————————————————————— I would like to make comments about House District 24, and how it would join very different communities into this one district. Included in HD 24 are Conifer, Evergreen, West Golden, Morrison, Aspen Park, Genesee, Kittridge, Indian Hills, and other mountain / foothills communities that share many of the same interests in the areas of traffic, transportation, fire mitigation, fire departments, water availability, police, land use, and parks. But the more urban areas of Superior / Louisville, which are also included in HD 24, it seems to me, would have very different interests and priorities. Representation regarding these divergent communities could be very lopsided to either the more urban area of the north part of HD 24, in the Superior/Louisville area or to the foothills/mountain areas. It might be very difficult to be fair to these divergent interests. I am proposing that this District be re-worked, since there are mountain / foothill communities joined together with more urban communities that seem to me would not share common interests. —————————————————————————————————— As to the Senate Districts, the city of Golden, is split. I was wondering if this may just be a mapping error, but in case it is not I would like to propose that the City of Golden not be divided. It seems that this split would make people in the same city be at odds against each other, when they are naturally unified by the city they live in. This seems to not to be in the spirit of maintaining communities of interest. It would also take away the citizens’ voice as a united “Golden”. If you would like a suggestion on how this might be fixed I suggest that the entire of city of Golden go to SD 35. Please don’t split Golden! Thank you!