Public Comments

This second version of the Congressional District map is not nearly as good as the first version. This second version splits the western part of the state in half... why? This is a whole geographic area of interest in terms of just about everything, not mention an area of community interests. And it appears to be drawn with a very partisan agenda, which of course is not allowed. The western part of the state has been ignored for far too long and deserves 1 person representing their interests, which are completely different than the major metro areas of the state.... the first version was correct. The eastern side of the state is basically one intact whole district of community and geographic interests and so should the western side of the state be. Thank you for making this change.

Urban and Rural areas have much different priorities for example 1. city water vs well 2. policing a vast area vs a high density apartment complex 3. areas where a majority own their own homes vs an area were a majority rent Sure there is a greater population in an urban area but the maps need to be drawn where each has an equal voice in state politics. each being the urban / rural own / rent persona The proposed map is too heavily weighted toward urban needs in a fair system it should be 4 rural districts and 4 urban districts

Why did you release the new map on a Friday before the holiday weekend and only allow 4 days for comment? Probably because it was such a big change from the preliminary map and you knew it wouldn't be popular and that is what a PR firm tells you to do to minimize impact/response. What caused the big changes at the last minute? This new map will mute the voice of rural voters by placing the in the same district as large metropolitan areas that have very different views. Letting the people of Boulder represent the interests of Rio Blanco County is ridiculous. I live outside of Durango and our new district will include not only Grand Junction but also Las Animas County. While this area is mostly rural, we have very different needs related to agriculture production, tourism, economic drivers, education, and energy production. Therefore, we are not a Community of Interest. Please do not lump us all together just because we're outside the front range. Better yet, visit these areas personally so you can see how different they are. With 38,900 farms spread across 31.8 million acres (https://farmflavor.com/colorado-agriculture/) out of 66 million total acres so 48% of land in Colorado is farms owned by less than 1% of population. The Colorado ag industry greatly supports the local economy, contributing approximately $47 billion each year and employing more than 195,000 people ( nearly 5.8 m people so only about 3.3 %). The rural population is a minority but control the land and in many cases the water. We need fair representation that does not force us out of business so that the metro areas can have water to keep expanding.

I always find it sad that these maps make sure that conservative counties are gerymandered into being attached to predominately highly populated predominately blue voting districts so as to dilute our votes . The largely populated urban suburban counties that vote left know nothing about their rural neighbors and don't care . These redistricting lines once again prove that. I do not support the newly amended lines.

The purpose of the districts and their representatives is to be the voice of like minded people. This current map is ludicrous. Stripping rural Colorado of their voice! There have been much better districts already proposed and debated over in 36 different hearings across the state. Why the change at the last minute? What a waste of good people’s time and energy. Please consider revising this current plan back to the previous one, or make one that represents rural Colorado better by not including major metropolis’s with rural areas. We are not the same and our voices should be heard separately!

I urge the Redistricting Commissions to energetically push for adoption of the latest congressional districting map. As a resident of the 3rd Congressional District, I have felt for years that our district was hugely disproportional. It dumped my Pueblo County residence into a gigantic geographical swath of southern, western, and northern Colorado, along with counties like Rout, Moffat, and Rio Blanco which I have never visited in my 72 years as a Coloradan! The newest proposed congressional districting map makes me feel like more of a true resident of the 3rd: I frequently utilize the southern I-25 corridor from Pueblo to the New Mexico border; I have strong family and recreational ties to the four corners area including Durango, Ouray, Telluride, the San Luis Valley, and the San Juan Mountains; and I often drive Highway 50 east to Kansas and west to Grand Junction. I relate to this iteration of the 3rd congressional district as it reflects me as a person as it does for my family and friends. And that is as opposed to the current map that lumps me into areas such as Dinosaur National Monument that I have never visited (although I probably would benefit from doing so!). I therefore strongly urge the Commission to replace the outdated, wildly disproportionate map with this new version. Thank you for your efforts! Philip Pierce Pueblo, CO

Two completely different lifestyles and one should not have more of a voice than the other because it’s far more densely populated. Power grab, it doesn’t represent people of this state.

This map ignores the agricultural interests of our state. Yes I reside in the metro but my livelihood comes from a strong Ag sector and this map will diminish the interest of communities in rural Colorado's plains and the western slope. Be fair. Group more of the metro together and let the eastern plains and rural western Colorado have a fair voice. We in Ag insist that Commissioners recognize rural Colorado as a distinct community of interest with the same public policy concerns based on agriculture, employment, and water needs and supplies, which are different from urban and suburban communities included the "Preliminary plan." Please reconsider. Brenda Siefken Broomfield resident

The map released should be reconsidered. It ignores agriculture and rural Colorado's unique community of interest by combining it with urban and suburban populations. Western Colorado, the Front Range, and Eastern Colorado all have different water administration, ag industry makeup, and social landscape. Rural Colorado doesn’t have a voice in this. Please recognize rural Colorado as a distinct community of interest with the same public policy concerns based on agriculture, employment, and water needs and supplies. These are all different from what the urban and suburban communities need, which as of now would all be captured under this map released.

I live in Moffat county, a rural community for the most part. The agricultural interest is perhaps the largest common interest here. Many representing the agricultural interest are cattle ranchers and/or grain farmers which by virtue of larger numbers becomes a major common interest. Other common interests which includes non agricultural citizens is the small town or rural life style. This includes a favorable social structure fostered by knowing and trusting your neighbors. The love of the aesthetics of our natural environment in and around our town and homes. Hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, camping are among the common pastimes we enjoy. Thats why we choose to live here. Therefore, protecting all of the above becomes EXTREMELY important to us. I see in the new boundaries our district extends east to include some counties on the eastern slope. I lived, for a time, in the Denver area and I know the public policies and uniting interests are not the same as rural Colorado. Having said that I must protest the boundaries in the proposed map. I have nothing against my fellow Coloradans living in the metro areas but their increased numbers gravely dilute our votes concerning our community interests. Want proof? In the last election the question for introducing wolves back into Colorado was raised. It was passed by the overwhelming numbers of ill advised voters in the eastern slope communities. BUT where will the wolves be released? On the western slope! In our back yards! Now we have to deal with it. In conclusion, I am respectfully asking the commission to examine these boundaries with more attention to the things you asked me to use in writing this letter; uniting community interests and favorable public policies. Respectfully, James L. Cooper