Public Comments

I object to the redistricting of Fort Collins that will split up larimer county and add it to weld county. In larimer county, we are concerned about issues such as, the environment and climate change, improvements to public education, daycare compensation, national healthcare, preservation of the land, protecting each other from virus’s and controlling the spread of a pandemic. We do not support fracking, use of coal, and the oil industry; but, support renewable energy and retraining individuals to work successfully in modern age energy alternatives.

I have lived in Blue River and lived and worked in Summit County for the past 40 years. I very much object to small population groups within Summit County being separated from the larger population centers within the county. In Blue River, we are solidly connected to the interests of the ski industry dominated by Breckenridge and all activities along the i-70 corridor. On issues ranging from tourism, affordable housing, climate change, healthcare to core infrastructure, we have little in common with the urban corridor that the latest plan attaches Blue River to. From a shear geographic perspective, we have the continental divide separating us from all others in our proposed district. We will be isolated and have no voice. There are probably fewer than 1500 full time residents in these smaller Summit county communities. Surely, those are small stakes within the context of 715,000 targets. Please reunite Summit County into a single district. on an unrelated note, I congratulate you on creating a southern Colorado district.

I am not in favor at all for any of this redistricting of our great state. I grew up on a farm in eastern Colorado that I’m sure most people on the front range would even know where it’s at but they can make decisions on how the business is ran from Ft Collins ? I am not is support of this at all. I now work and live in Weld County in which they are taking a portion of to help the cause for their voting decisions to water down our voices? I think it is high time the elected people listen to the ones that they represent to help keep this state great! Please no reform !

As a resident of the Western part of Colorado, I am concerned that the redistricting commission did not take into account the geography of the state as they proposed the redistricting. With several weeks of the inability to easily transport people, goods and services from the east to west in Colorado this year, and many other times during other years, I find it unacceptable to expect someone to faithfully represent all areas of these new districts that extend large swaths of area from east to west. Additionally, the needs/wants of the community of Boulder and other I-25 corridor urban areas, for example, are quite disparate from those of more rural areas in the western part of the state in communities that have completely different economic systems/commerce/industries/public transport. Both deserve representation, but in a way that provides multiple points of view in the legislature, not by overwhelming one area with the larger voting block of the urban areas. Please reconsider the map as proposed to allow for better representation for the rural west. Thank you.

Rural CO must have a voice. These areas need to be heard as CO is predominantly rural. Denver and the front range should not dictate the entire state. Everyone's voice deserves to be hear and rural Coloradoans voices will be silenced by the restructure!!

I am concerned with the apparent gerrymandering of the Congressional Districts specifically the 2nd and rd Districts. When the preliminary maps were released earlier this year there was a loud outcry from the Routt County Democrats about how "they" belonged in a Democrat district not in a Republican district with other "lower level" west slope residents, specifically they objected to being represented by Lauren Boeberg even though she was elected by a majority of the voters in the district. The map published for comment accurately incorporates the comments of the Routt County Democrats and appears to have been incorporated. There was discussion that the original districts were developed to maintain a balance of population numbers I don't see how the redrawn districts will accomplish that objective since a large portion of Grand and Routt counties will now be lumped with Boulder, Ft. Collins, and Loveland. The interests of the Front Range communities are in direct conflict with the communities added with the exception of Steamboat Springs, many voters in these districts will lose their voice tio the large population centers. Please reconsider the apparent politically influenced districts created.

I am strongly in favor of a congressional map that includes Grand County in a district with Front Range communities. Grand County is primarily a recreation-based area and economy, and it shares more communities of interest with Boulder and Larimer County than with western counties, which are primarily agriculture and resource-based. My concerns about housing, the environment, equity, and public health are much more similar to residents on the Front Range. These concerns have been routinely rejected by congressional representatives from the western part of Colorado. A representative from the western part of Colorado would be less likely to understand, and therefore, represent our interests. The current proposal is preferable because it consolidates the recreation-based counties (Grand, Routt, Eagle, Summit, Pitkin, Lake) so that those communities of interests have stronger representation.

I am a resident of Grand County CO and would oppose a congressional redistricting for Grand County to be placed in District 3. Being so close to the front range and not close at all to the western slope I would support Grand County in district 2.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I have been looking at the 1st draft of the proposed Colorado Congressional District Boundaries. I believe the proposed districts are the same population size and political representation is balanced between Republican, Democrat and Unaffiliated. However, I cannot be sure of this because we do not have transparency as to how you arrived at these boundaries. The geographic size of the districts 2, 3 and 4 are enormous. This, in my opinion, does not meet the requirement of preserving political subdivisions, communities of interest and especially the requirement to keep districts as compact as possible. The proposed District 2 pits the “Cattle ranchers against the vegans in Boulder” to paraphrase Frank McNulty in an interview with CPR news as well as oil and gas interests against climate activists. The political subdivisions between the needs of the Front Range (Boulder) and Western Slope are vast not only in size but in communities of interest. Take for example gun regulation. This new map would set Lauren Boebert, a second amendment rights advocate, against Joe Neguse, a gun regulation advocate. In another example, the community of oil and gas interests from the western slope will be juxtaposed the community of climate activists from Boulder. Depending on who wins the election, a very large group of voters in district 2 could be disenfranchised and their representation might be viewed as diluted or possibly dismissed under this redistricting map. The current map needs to address political subdivisions, communities of interest as well as minority group representation. With the addition of a new district, I suggest you consider redrawing all districts to keep the geographical size as compact as possible while recognizing we are diverse state requiring you to allow for the regional communities of interest and political subdivisions. I request your staff provide detailed demographic information about each proposed district’s profile including ethnic information, political affiliation and communities of interest using compiled occupational and industry data for the district. The more we can see how you arrived at your decision and your need to be as equitable as possible, the more we can accept, maybe not agree, with the outcome of your work. I recognize this is a monumental task, you are juggling several balls in the air and experience has shown me nobody is happy with the first draft, but it is a start. I commend you for your efforts, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Sincerely, Tom Hoehn

Greetings Commissioners and thank you for the opportunity to comment on Congressional redistricting. As a 13-year resident of the western slope, I am in favor of two western slope districts. I would like to see the I-70 corridor remain intact including Eagle, Garfield and Mesa Counties in the northern district. I also feel that Boulder does not fit well with the northern western slope district communities of interest and would advocate to replace Boulder with Fort Collins to balance population metrics. As a result I favor what is called the amended LULAC map (attached) that is the most competitive version of a map to date and for the most part maintains rural communities in contact, advances the connection within and between Latinx voting regions, maintains the connectivity of the I-70 corridor and the Colorado River watershed. I hope you too will select the amended LULAC map. Thank you for your service!!!