Public Comments

To the Honorable Commissioners: As a 30 year resident of Gilpin County I know how important it is for us to remain with and to be included with the Front Range counties of Jefferson, Boulder and Clear Creek. Our schools are affiliated, we do all our shopping in Boulder, Idaho Springs and Golden/Evergreen and we share the lifestyle and community needs of the front range counties. Gilpin shares nothing with Summit and other counties of the Western Slope. Please do not separate us from our neighboring towns. Respectfully Submitted, Rhonda Horwitz-Romano

I am a resident of Jamestown, Colorado - a Mountain Town of 250 residents located in western Boulder County. I am strongly opposed to the proposal to separate Jamestown from the Second Congressional District and place it in the Third Congressional District that lies almost entirely west of the Continental Divide. Shared Interests that unite Jamestown to the Second Congressional District: Employment - the majority of Jamestown residents work in communities in the Second Congressional District. Employment Opportunities advocated by Congress in the Third Congressional District will not benefit Jamestown residents due to the challenging commute across the Continental Divide. Education - Jamestown's K-5 School is in the Boulder Valley School District. Jamestown's Education issues are more closely aligned with schools in the Second Congressional District. Location- Jamestown is east of the Continental Divide. The Third Congressional District is West of the Divide. Logistically - Jamestown is not located near communities in the Third Congressional District. Jamestown has nothing in common with communities West of the Divide. Public Health - Jamestown is served by Boulder County Public Health. Jamestown Residents receive their health care at Boulder County medical facilities. COVID-19 has shown how public health status can vary from one region to the next within a State. A representative from the Third Congressional District would not have the regional connections needed to make informed Public Health policies for Jamestown residents. Environmental- Jamestown shares a watershed with communities in the Second Congressional District. Jamestown's fire, flood and emergency needs and partnerships are aligned with communities in the Second Congressional District. After consideration and reflection of the above comments, I am hopeful that the Redistricting Commission will see that that it is in the best interest of Jamestown residents to keep the Town of Jamestown in the Second Congressional District. With appreciation for your Time. Barbara Byrnes-Lenarcic Co-Chair, Jamestown Land Use and Housing Advisory Committee

I find it very concerning that House Districts 17 and 18 are not being kept in the preliminary map. Both districts are communities of interest. District 18 is a diverse area unlike any other in Colorado Springs. Although diverse many common issues and problems are shared by this old and historical area. District 17 is a community of color with a strong sense of community and neighborhood although also diverse. Communities of interest must be taken into consideration in redrawing this map. Thank you.

I agree with the Redistricting Commission. Summit County shares an economic, geographic and cultural community of interest with the Western Slope, and that’s where our representation in the U.S. Congress and the Colorado Legislature should be. Colorado's Front Range is a densely populated urban area of our state. We are not an urban center and our voices expressing our local concerns get drowned out by the high populations of Denver and Boulder. We have more in common on a wide range of policy issues with our surrounding counties and the Western Slope such as tourism, transportation, water, forest management, education and health care. For these reasons, I support including Summit County in the 3rd Congressional District separating us from Boulder and Jefferson counties. I support the proposed Colorado House District for Summit County. The proposed Colorado Senate District shares some of the characteristics of the House District but could be improved by including Park County with Summit County. I thank the commission for its hard work on this issue.

My name is Kay James and I have been a Colorado resident since 1974. I received a B.A. in Environmental Conservation from the University of Colorado Boulder and an M.S. in Range Management specializing in Mined Land Reclamation from Colorado State University. The early part of my career was spent in the coal industry working on environmental compliance and reclaiming mined land. I currently work as an accountant. My husband and I raised two daughters in Boulder and I recently moved my 98-year-old World War II veteran father to Boulder County after he suffered a house fire at his longtime home in Connecticut. After my daughters moved away to college, I became involved with the I Have a Dream Foundation. I had the privilege to work with the same cohort of low-income children from the time they were in second grade until they graduated from high school. A large proportion of these students were first generation Latinx-Americans. My experience as a tutor, sponsor and mentor provided me with a very different perspective of Boulder. I am embarrassed to say that it had never occurred to me that there was such a large population of hard working, low-income workers in my well-to-do city. It is abhorrent to me that this population is so under-represented that they become invisible to a majority of citizens who live here. By the time “my” I Have a Dream students were in high school, some had taken an interest in politics. They helped run the local caucus, attended a county convention and worked on voter registration drives. They became involved with local advocacy groups in order to better their communities and, most importantly, they voted. I do not want them to become disenchanted with the system because their voices are completely drowned out by those of us with tremendous privilege. I am writing today because I want to make sure that these new voices in our representative system are valued. Although I will not be presenting a mapping suggestion (as I do not believe I have the expertise to prepare one), I am pleading with you to make sure that the low- income and Latinx communities receive proportionate representation in our Colorado maps for U.S. Congress as well as our State Senate and House. Our communities will be stronger if every voice can be heard. Thank you for your time and commitment to the fair drawing of this year’s maps.

This is my second input on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map, based this time on the census numbers that were released in mid-August. These additional comments again use on Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA), which has the current data for counties and precincts. As of this writing, the commission’s tool did not seem to have the current data loaded. My revised draft alternative is at https://davesredistricting.org/join/b26ec349-27da-4df9-a087-ce77af348056. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. Description of Draft Alternative My process started by identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. A second principle I adopted was to prioritize keeping counties intact over municipalities. County boundaries are fixed, unlike municipal boundaries, and do not interlock based on annexation patterns. Precincts and census blocks do not overlap counties, but they may overlap municipal boundaries. Furthermore, county lines more often correspond to other layers of government than do municipal boundaries. This most matters along the western border of Weld County, which several municipalities overlap while also being rather entangled with each other. I was not able to find a particularly elegant alternative to using the county line that would not then require other communities of interest to be divided. I started with El Paso County, which exceeds the ideal district population (721,714) by 8,681 or 1.2%. It therefore must be split among different districts. El Paso, where I have lived for these past 20 years, is itself a coherent community that should remain as intact as possible – no plan that split it into two large pieces would comply with the commission’s mandate. The best options for moving population into other districts would be on the eastern and western edges. The northern part of El Paso County – Palmer Lake, Monument, Woodmoor, and Black Forest – is much more closely tied to the rest of El Paso County than it is to Douglas County. The small population along I-25 in southern El Paso County is also more closely tied to Fort Carson and the Fountain Valley than it is to Pueblo. The eastern parts of El Paso County, on the other hand – Ramah, Calhan, Yoder, Rush, Truckton – have far more in common with Lincoln County and the Eastern Plains than they do with Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, there is not enough population in the easternmost precincts to bring the county within the population limits. Once you get as far west as Peyton, you are reaching the edge of the Colorado Springs exurbs; once you get to Ellicott, you are reaching communities around Schriever Air Force Base that are part of the community of interest associated with the military. Rather than divide the community of interest there, it would be better to link the precincts in Ute Pass, the Rampart Range, and along the southern part of Gold Camp Road with Woodland Park and Teller County. While I will not claim that they are part of the Colorado Springs community, they are more linked to the larger town to their west than the northern and southern edges of El Paso County are to their neighboring counties. The use of census block data, not yet available on DRA, might allow more fine-tuning of this split that creates District 5 out of all but the western and eastern edges of El Paso County. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain District 3, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County and the necessary additions of Lake, Chafee, Park, and Teller Counties. The preliminary commission map would exclude most of the San Luis Valley (all but Hinsdale) from the Western Slope district. Based on the revised census numbers, a district that did this would need to add all of Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Fremont Counties to the Western Slope along with the small part of El Paso County. On its face, this maintains county integrity very well and would be a better map than the preliminary commission map that groups parts of Boulder County into the Western Slope. However, there are two problems with such a design. One would be that it breaks up communities of interest to the east: Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties are more associated with the Denver Metro, and Canon City with Pueblo, than any of them are with the Western Slope. The second problem is that it means any district centered in the North Front Range would need to take on arbitrary parts of neighboring Broomfield and Weld County or an even less-logical division of Arvada or Golden in Jefferson County. The draft alternative map submitted with these comments places the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope. To complete the required population, it adds western El Paso County (as described above), western Fremont County, Custer County, and Huerfano County to the Western Slope district. Certainly, arguments can be made about dividing communities of interest here as well, but ties do exist along the Wet Mountain Valley and across La Veta Pass. Throughout the map – throughout any map – tradeoffs must be made among which communities remain together. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes eastern Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo County, Las Animas County, the Lower Arkansas Valley, and parts of far eastern El Paso County. In the north, this includes all of Weld and Elbert Counties, retaining them as intact political subdivisions. It does not extend into Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, or Douglas Counties. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is approximately the right size to form a district, but the complexities of interlocking communities make it sensible to include Bow Mar and a small piece of southern Lakewood in this district and exclude the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. A great place for a boundary among these three districts that does not split communities of interest is in the area of low population to the northeast of Denver International Airport. District 7 in this numbering (which is arbitrary) would include all of Adams County to the west of the airport: to name only the largest communities, Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld), Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster. It would also include the City and County of Broomfield, and Arvada and the rest of Westminster in Jefferson County. District 6 would include all of the City of Aurora and the parts of Adams and Arapahoe Counties to its east. It would also include Parker, Stonegate, and Meridian in Douglas County; Centennial, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village in Arapahoe County; and the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods in Denver. District 8 would include the rest. It would include all of Jefferson County from Golden and Lakewood south (except for small parts of southeastern Lakewood and western Bow Mar) It would include the rest of Douglas County, including Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Castle Pines, and The Pinery. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.28% (2,038 persons). This is well within the courts’ guidelines for population equality, without even considering that errors in the census data likely exceed this variation, the census data are already a year out of date, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort” and “as practicable” language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance” does not mean “no variance will be allowed.” It may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. Contiguity The draft alternative map meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3. Voting Rights Act The draft alternative map has three districts with an approximately 40% minority population: District 1 (Denver, 41%), District 6 (Aurora, 42%), and District 7 (Adams, 38%). While the preliminary commission maps did not provide clear data on minority populations, this draft alternative meets the goals of the Voting Rights Act at least as well if not better that it does. Communities of Interest Staff presented a long list of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The question of whether to group the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope or with the Eastern Plains was discussed in detail above. An important consideration is not only what happens to a particular community of interest but also what effect its placement has on others. I note for example the preliminary commission map’s choice to create a district that groups communities in southeastern Weld County with Broomfield and parts of Adams and Jefferson Counties. There is certainly valid reason to do this and to use municipal boundaries rather than county boundaries to include other parts of Weld County with Larimer and Boulder Counties. However, doing this has a cost elsewhere in the map. To compensate for not including all of Weld County, the Eastern Plains district must reach deep into Adams County to include much of Commerce City, deep into Arapahoe County to the edges of Aurora, and deep into Douglas County. The price of combining the North Metro suburbs into a single district is to divide up the community of interest that resides in the closer northern and eastern suburbs. Political Subdivisions Three counties must be broken up in any map that maintains contiguity and equal population (Arapahoe, Denver, and El Paso). The preliminary commission map breaks seven additional counties: Adams, Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The draft alternative map only breaks four additional counties: Adams, Douglas, Fremont, and Jefferson. The staff took care to maintain the integrity of cities and towns except where they crossed county lines. Setting aside Denver, which must be split, the largest city in the preliminary commission map that ends up with large populations in more than one district appears to be Commerce City, which is divided nearly in half. In the draft alternative map, the largest city with much population in more than one district within a single county appears to be Lakewood, with less than 5% of its population grouped into the Denver district. Compactness The DRA provides a total compactness score for the set of districts, while the commission provides only an individual score for each district. The draft alternative map has a Reock score of .41; it appears that the preliminary commission map also has a Reock score of .41. The draft alternative map has a Polsby-Popper score of .2966; which is higher than the preliminary commission map’ score of .2288. The better compactness score of the draft preliminary map is borne out by inspection. Competitive Districts The commission staff indicated that they placed the lowest priority on this criterion, which also is one that is difficult to establish given changes in political alignments and uncertainty about which election results one should use. In its release, the commission staff used the 2018 Attorney General results to determine that the eight districts on its preliminary map would be rated as 55.9D, 26.6D, 9.8R, 23.1R, 20.4R, 12.7D, 2.9R, and 7.3D. That is 3 safe (>10) D districts, 2 safe R districts, 1 lean (5–10) D district, 1 lean R district, and 1 toss-up (<5) district. Using the same election results, the draft alternative map districts would be rated as 54.5D, 27.8D, 8.3R, 24.5R, 20.2R, 7.6D, 8.8D, and 2.0R. That is 2 safe D districts, 2 safe R districts, 2 lean D districts, 1 lean R district, and 1 toss-up. The commission has recently changed its baseline for electoral competitiveness to a composite of 2016-2020 results but has not to my knowledge released the impact of this change on the competitiveness of the preliminary staff districts. Using this basis for competitiveness, the district competitiveness in the draft alternative would be 56.0D, 28.7D, 8.3R, 22.3R, 17.4R, 12.3D, 11.9D, and 2.8D. That is four safe D districts, 2 safe R districts, 1 lean R district, and 1 toss-up. Summary As a starting point for developing congressional districts for Colorado, this draft alternative map is superior to the preliminary commission map. It has better results for contiguity, compactness, unity of political subdivisions, VRA compliance, and political competitiveness. The draft alternative’s population equality is close enough to exact to be acceptable. Communities of interest are a judgment call; reasonable people may disagree over how they should be grouped and when they must be divided. Maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions and compactness both go a long way toward meeting this criterion. I welcome further discussion of this proposal. I can be reached at tom@rampartprosolutions.com and can provide a phone number upon request.

Dear Commissioners: Thank you for you efforts for the State of Colorado. I would like to submit the following comments on the preliminary maps which have been drawn. First: The Congressional Redistricting Map for Colorado Congressional District Three. I believe you have drawn a fair map. I would encourage you to keep the Western Slope as a whole, independent district. I know the temptation exists to place more of the I-25 Corridor communities into the District at an attempt to make it more fair, but any movement like that would diminish the voice of the Western Slope. The 3rd CD is one of the most unique and largest districts in the US. It includes so many diverse communities, from farming and ranching communities, to energy communities, to skiing and tourist to communities. The interests of the areas are also divergent. Allowing a more urban influence into that mix would be detrimental. The preliminary map you have drawn appears to be very fair and I would try to avoid making changes, unless it was necessary to adjust for Population. Colorado House Districts 55 and 56; Senate District 6. I believe that there are some adjustments necessary, particularly in HD 55 (currently HD 54). I believe that we need to rewrite the district from your preliminary drawing to include Western Delta County in with Mesa County. There are economic community of interest. Roughly 1000 folks travel up US Hwy 50 from Delta to work in Mesa County. Another 400 Travel the opposite direction to do the same. Many in Delta head to Grand Junction to do their shopping at the Mesa Mall and other outlets. Putting Western Delta County back into HD 55 keeps a long standing traditional lines of over 20 years. It keeps the main geographic feature of the area, the Grand Mesa, in one single district. This geography keeps the Grand Mesa watershed intact. Three creeks coming of the Mesa Feed into the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers. Surface Creek Kannah Creek and Plateau Creek are major drainages coming off the Mesa and would be contained in the district, if Western Delta County is returned into the District. I would also encourage keeping as much of Eastern Delta County in the redraw and trading off the communities of Garfield County. The reality is, the further east you go, the less in common some of those communities have with Mesa County. Those Garfield County Communities belong in the District they are currently in, again with commonality of industry and community running east and north. House District 56 (Currently 55) is commonly known in the area as the Donut hole and was written that way just 10 years ago. The current map retains that look, with a small addition on the South West side of the district to encompass more of the Communities of the Redlands Mesa/ Colorado National Monument suburbs of Grand Junction. I would not have any adjustments made to this district. Senate District 6. Again the argument here would be to retain as much of Delta County into the District, again out of Commonality. The current district encompasses all of Mesa County. I have seen some drawings which would remove Palisade from the District, which would in effect split Mesa County. That would not be acceptable. It is important to retain the unity of Mesa County and its voice in the Senate and House. Thank you so much for your attention and efforts.

Commissioners, I am submitting the below map for your consideration. While the original Commission had many good features I believe this map more closely follows the mandated rules for redistricting. I believe you will find the submitted map meet the following requirements: • This map has 8 full districts within El Paso County which are relatively equal in population. • As much as possible this map preserves whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions. • Keeps predominately minority districts together • Districts are compact and divide along practical boundaries • They avoid splitting neighborhoods as much as possible • It creates 2 competitive districts, HD18 and HD21 and one that Is just outside of competitive, HD17. https://davesredistricting.org/join/12e51dd6-86a5-4636-90ca-1d1829d22271 Thank you for your consideration. I will be present to testify. Sincerely, Lois Landgraf

Commissioners. I, Manuel J. Solano, attorney at law, testified in the Brighton hearing yesterday, August 25th. My concerns are regarding the new Congressional seat 8. As I testified I believe Brighton, Commerce City, Northglenn, Thornton, Fort Lupton and Greeley should be included in this district. This district meets the criteria spelled out in the new Y and Z. My focus is meeting the requirements of the Colorado Constitution as it pertains to Hispanic/ Latino voting strength. Section 46(c) states: "The redistricting commission should set district lines by ensuring constitutionally guaranteed voting rights, including the protection of minority group voting, as well as fair and effective representation of constituents using politically neutral criteria." The next important provision is Section 46(3)(b)(1) which states that " any group in Colo. that shares one or more substantial interests... is composed of a reasonably proximate population,, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation. Section (III) States "Groups that may compromise a community of interest include racial, ethnic, and language minority groups..." What I propose fits squarely within the constitutional requirements. Just Greeley and cities with a large presence of Hispanics and other minority groups in Weld County should be included, not all of Weld County. Attached are New census figures which I used to reach my conclusions. If you have any questions I can be reached at 303-667-9001 and solanolawoffices@gmail.com Thanks Manuel J. Solano

Please consider this map!