Public Comments

Thank you for your work in reviewing public comment and revising the legislative redistricting map for the state. Because Pueblo County is too large for one House or Senate district, I believe you have done a great job of dividing Pueblo into districts that maintain the different communities of interest in our county. The eastern portion of the county is most like the Arkansas Valley and the agriculture areas SE of Pueblo, and the eastern precincts of Pueblo City are the most Hispanic area of our community and have a great deal in common with the citizens of the San Luis Valley. I think the map looks fair and is sensitive to Pueblo's diversity.

Thank you for all your efforts to address public comment in redesigning the maps for Colorado's 8 congressional districts. I very much approve of the redrawn map which includes a southern congressional district. I live in southern Colorado and have commented before on the need for a district that addresses the overlapping communities of interest in our region. We deserve a congress person who will understand the challenges in our area and work for federal policies to meet the needs of our citizens. The new preliminary map, which includes a southern region, does give southern Colorado the chance for representation that will meet southern values. It keeps intact much that makes us a unique community of interest - the historical and cultural communities in Pueblo and the San Luis Valley; many counties with similar economic, infrastructure, and educational challenges; and the geographic feature at the center of our economy and culture - water. Although the map is not designed exactly as I might have drawn it myself, I understand the difficulties in designing 8 congressional districts of equal population and similar communities of interest. The current, newly drawn map would provide southern Colorado with a voice we have not had as long as I have resided in Pueblo. Thanks for listening.

Congressional Redistricting Glenwood Springs and Garfield County / District 2 and 3 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 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. 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 to promote that compromise instead of keeping all of Garfield County in it’s current predominantly rural District 3 assignment.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Congressional redistricting maps. As an elected Trustee (speaking personally and not for the town in an official capacity) to the Town of Superior, I want to voice my strong support for continued prioritization of the community of interest that Superior has with its neighbors of Louisville, Boulder, and Lafayette. I am working with other elected officials from these adjacent jurisdictions and the larger Boulder Bounty to pursue shared solutions on multiple fronts, including - building codes, green house gas reductions, gun violence prevention ordinances, water conservation efforts, inclusivity and diversity initiatives, and attainable housing. It is imperative that our shared values and results that we are in the process of demonstrating locally are represented on a national level with a member of Congress that not only shares those values but brings a passion to the issue and ensures they do not die of neglect when they are addressing such important issues. As the Southern border of the staff proposed CD-2 map, I am concerned that Superior could become the "swap" of population used to rebalance districts in finalizing the maps and thereby diluting, or worse eliminating, our voters voice in Congress on these vital issues, and our ability to fight for Federal prioritization of these initiatives with the associated funding that is necessary to see them to fruition. Thank you, Tim Howard Superior Board of Trustees

Good day Commission, I am writing to express my gratitude in your listening and responding to our community concerns regarding the division of the city of Arvada as well as the rest of Jefferson county into two separate congressional districts. I am a citizen of Arvada and in the 7th Congressional district. Per the newest map, my residency will now remain in that district. I have written previously regarding my concern of dividing our community from the rest of Jefferson county. To reiterate, Arvada and Jeffco represent to me the definition of a common interest community. Arvada and Jeffco share special districts such as the Jefferson County School Board, Jeffco Library District, Water Districts, Arvada Fire District, School District, Judicial District and Transportation Commission District. Additionally, we have shared resources such as Standley Lake, Transportation Corridors, Canals and JeffCom. There are intergovernmental agreements such as Rocky Flats that I believe will be weakened with the division of our greater government. Finally, we have common Jefferson County services such as Open Space and our Public Health Department. Each of these are common interests unique between Arvada and other Jefferson County communities. Further, these shared services are all to a far greater degree than the those between Arvada and the Adams County communities. I thank you for acknowledging these shared, common interests and adjusting the map as you have. Being a Jeffco resident is a point of pride for myself, my family and my neighbors. By not placing a border between us, we are further strengthened in that bond. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Doll

Fort Collins, a Larimer County city, districted with Weld County? This smacks of gerrymandering for more favorable Republican votes in a larger metropolitan area than the cities of Weld County. I work in Weld County. Had I wanted to live in a more conservative part of Colorado I would have moved there to begin with. One of the reasons I chose Fort Collins as my home (6 years now) is because of it's forward thinking government and representatives.

I'm extremely concerned at seeing Fort Collins voters diluted out into the new District 4. Fort Collins is a much more Democratic leaning area than Weld County. It is definitely more in line with (and part of) Larimer County and should continue to vote with the rest of Larimer County.

I'm extremely concerned at seeing Fort Collins voters diluted out into the new District 4. Fort Collins is a much more Democratic leaning area than Weld County. It is definitely more in line with (and part of) Larimer County and should continue too cute with the rest of Larimer County.

Commissioners, I wish to express my concern over the inclusion of Fort Collins in the proposed congressional district 4 with the entire eastern portion of the state. As college town along the front range, Fort Collins shares far more affinity with other cities and towns along the front range than with our fellow constituents in the eastern plains. By placing Fort Collins in this district, it will nullify the voices of the residents and voters of our proud and progressive city. Thank you.

So you are an independent committee? Why would you then purposely put the Republican's home into Neguse's district. STOP TRYING TO SILENCE THE PEOPLE! I'm getting tired of living in this state trying to become the next California.