Public Comments

Sirs/Ma’am’s, The proposed redistricting map (as of 6 Sep 2021) is the result of solid and thoughtful work on your part. I can’t thank you enough for balancing this new district to better represent the people of Teller County. For too long we have had little to no voice in the business and politics of Colorado. This redistricting takes our needs into account and properly balances our representation for all. Thank you again for your strong work and I look forward to Colorado’s continued success. Very respectfully, Edward M. Cassin Divide CO 80814 (submitted by email 9/6/21)

Hello, As a resident of Fort Collins for the past 7 years, and a resident of northern Colorado for the last 12, it turns my stomach to think I might be voting in Ken Buck's district with a preliminary estimate of a 70k vote disadvantage. Fort Collins is a vibrant, engaged, and enthusiastic community that deserves a representative that reflects our values, not to be sliced off to balance district 4 when other options are available. There's no reason to add Windsor and Greeley to District 8 when they have a long established connection to district 4, and currently Windsor is listed as Ken Buck's home! Windsor, Severance, Evans, Eaton, and Greeley are a connected community. Why would you split half of them into the new district to vote with metro Denver and Firestone?? Use that population to shuffle Loveland to District 8 and keep Fort Collins in District 2. Or create a corridor and add us to 6. There's just absolutely no justification to throwing us into District 4 when our voters have absolutely nothing in common, and would be massively disenfranchised. Democrats will have 2 safe, packed seats. Throw some more Republicans into 4. It's the fair thing to do. Sincerely, Allen Edwards Fort Collins voter (submitted by email 9/6/21)

Commissioners, Thank you for listening and keeping Fountain with Colorado Springs, The eastern part of the county has more in common with the eastern plains while Fountain is an integral part of the Colorado Springs area. The maps I know will change but they have fulfilled the intent of the law – to be competitive. I would prefer more Democratic districts but that is not the right thing to do. Sincerely, Anna T Lopez Colorado Springs, CO 80917 (submitted by email 9/6/21)

A look at the draft plan is startling in that Douglas County is the only populated and suburban county in the 4th district. Please draw the lines in a a way that includes us with other metro counties that share the same community, geographic and transportation concerns and needs.

To Whom It May Concern, As a resident of Garfield County and Glenwood Springs, I am concerned that in the latest redistricting map, splitting the population of Garfield County between two Congressional districts is problematic. That is especially true when the County Seat resides in a separate congressional district from the large majority of the population for the rest of the county. The part of the county in District 3 represents only one-third of the county’s total population. Two thirds of the county’s population would now reside in District 2. Splitting the county into two districts is problematic for the following reasons 1. We need to maintain contiguous geographic areas as well as preserving communities of common interests. 2. Election management will be more difficult for our county clerk’s office with the district split in two. This will create greater opportunities for election tabulation and voter confusion concerning district identification. It would also be harder to protect voter privacy. 3. Splitting Garfield County in two will reduce the county’s influence in federal elections and potentially harm advocates of local county or community issues. I believe that this argues for including the south east corner of Garfield County into District 2, as well. Including this population in District 2 provides the following advantages. 1. It maintains contiguous geographical areas that have been locally associated with one another for decades. 2. It keeps the county entirely intact for both the two-year and four-year election cycles, which will allow local election officials to maintain business-as-usual administrative practices. 3. It would allow the County Seat to be included with the rest of Garfield County. If the County Seat were included in District 2 our city and county governments would only have to contact or petition a single representative instead of two, with potentially different political directions and objectives. 4. The south east corner of Garfield County only represents a population of about 18,000 people. That’s a little less than one third of the total population of the county. Since a major goal of redistricting is to ensure roughly equal populations within congressional districts, it makes more sense to move 18,000 people from District 3 than 45,000 from District 2. Finally, I spent about 10 years as a non-profit and nonpartisan lobbyist in the Colorado General Assembly. Throughout that time, I became very aware of the adversarial issue divide between rural and urban areas, as well as the divide between West Slope and East Slope Colorado. In far too many instances that divide was never adequately breached. The new construction of District 2 requires the Congressperson from that district to address the needs of rural areas on the western slope, as well as urban concerns on the front range. Including all of Garfield County in District 2 will help promote that compromise instead of keeping all of Garfield County in its current predominantly rural District 3 assignment. Robert W. Semro Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 (submitted by email 9/5/21)

I am not understanding why you would separate Fort Collins from Larimer County. This makes no sense to me, nor am I happy about it. What's the rationale behind this? Don't do this to our city. Why also would you make the city of Fort Collins part of Weld County? Weld County is very different, with different needs. Don't do this. (submitted by email 9/4/21)

I was totally dismayed to see the newest 'staff mapping' for our community! It seemed to prioritize politics over community of interest and public policy concerns. It ignored geographic issues such as mountain passes. For example... One of the largest policy issues to face the entire state of Colorado and the 40 million downstream users of the Colorado River is the ongoing drought and municipal and agricultural water supplies! Somehow the Colorado River basin and it's headwaters were divided in half! It has never been more important for all the headwater counties to cohesively learn and address the significant challenges facing Western Colorado. The Western slope (from the very north to the very south) are facing megadrought conditions. The Front Range counties are experiencing normal moisture levels. One has to live on the Western Slope to understand the significance of this issue. Did the staff consider the headwaters? Do they understand the priority water legal issues? Do they understand the Colorado Water Plan and current basin roundtable efforts to cohesively address watershed health and wildfire risk? This is a primary 'community of interest'! Next, as a prior school board member, all of our common issues were Western Slope specific. The transportation costs are similar along the W. Slope and largely because we also have to consider winter travel over mountain passes as a day to day consideration. Front range counties are not typically well versed in this. Also of note, is that the sports communities from middle schools to high schools and team sports play north and south along the West Slope. In Montrose we do NOT compete as far east as Crowley, Otero, or Las Animas counties but we do play from Durango to Craig, Glenwood and Carbondale.... Again communities of interest. Next as a 10 year member of the CO Dept of Labor Workforce Development board, our community of concern was from Grand Junction to SW CO and the very same Director worked both the Montrose Office and down to Cortez and coordination with Grand Junction. The San Luis Valley workforce board often managed very different labor issues. Next when observes the electrical grid which is under drastic stress as we convert to renewables. The Tri-State grid goes north to south not west to east. For ex the issues with the Craig power plant is almost diametrically opposed to the issues in Boulder which are dependent on Xcel Energy. Two very different communities of interest. Also from North to South in Western CO we are very involved in hydropower development and new and added water storage... Again a critical issue that defies a southern district approach. Last is the analysis of the recovery from the 'Great Recession' of 2008. The Front Range - from Boulder south- recovered robustly from the recession. The economies of Western Colorado not so much!! This is evidence the very different economies that occur in our beautiful and precious state. Front Range solutions did NOT benefit Western Slope communities! Also Front Range counties have very limited exposure to managing public lands for logging or ranching... This is another reason why the economics beg for a Western Slope rural district. Geography plays a big role in the various economies of CO. Therefore our hospital systems and airports have unique needs that are drastically different from a Boulder County that can rely on multiple hospitals in the urban area and has access to DIA. Likewise the medical community in Montrose is not at all related to the health care needs of the far eastern counties of the new southern district. In conclusion, over and over I find it beyond comprehension that one congressional position can address such varied interests. Please consider the well thought out map provided by Club 20 and Action 22 and Pro 15. This map with the attendant FACTS capture the reality of living in W. Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I am attaching a principle paper developed by the Colorado Forest and Water Alliance. I am also on that board which was carefully crafted to have a Western Slope member - Club 20 and a Front Range member... In that way we cover the very different challenges faced by the different sides of the continental divide. Respectfully, Nancy Fishering

Rural Colorado needs to have a voice. Please do NOT change our districts.

I did not move from Douglas County to Elbert County to be placed in the same district. Elbert County must remain whole if we are to have suitable representation of our state in Washington, D.C. The way I see it, this is Gerrymandering and it should not happen. Thank you for listening.

Hello! I just learned you are considering moving the Front Range cities of Loveland and Fort Collins to District 4. => YOU CANNOT DO THAT!!! Our lifestyle. Our viewpoints. Our whole way of life is MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED with Boulder & Denver, not Weld County. => If you move us, we will lose our representation in Congress! Ken Buck does not represent Front Range values! DO NOT DESTROY OUR QUALITY OF LIFE!! Please. Leave us with Joe Neguse. Sincerely, -CLMcDonald Fort Collins, 80521 Correction. I re-read the article. It’s just Fort Collins that you’re kicking off the island. Don’t do it. Please don’t do it. Fort Collins is a major college town, just like Boulder. We hike & bike as part of daily life, just like Boulder. Do not put us with Weld County. We don’t fit. Begging & Pleading, -CLMcDonald (submitted by email 9/4/21)