Public Comments

In your proposed redistricting, half of Delta County is with Mesa County, and the other half is with Montrose County in both the State House and Senate Districts. Historically all of Delta County has been with Mesa County. Between 20-25% of the working people in Delta County now commute to work in Mesa County, since the coal mines were forced out of business. For the past 22 years during which we have lived near Hotchkiss, we have been represented in the state legislature by people living in Aspen, Breckenridge, Vail, Cortez, and Alamosa. None of these places are similar to Delta County in any way. The senators and representatives from those locations have represented us poorly when we raised important local issues, particularly agricultural, mineral, or water related. We have instead had really good response from the Mesa County representatives and senators of both political parties. It is a long-distance phone call via land line to call Montrose County, but local to call Mesa County. By putting Paonia and Hotchkiss in separate House districts, you are splitting the North Fork High School into two separate districts. The same is true for Cedaredge and Orchard City being in different districts but attending the same high school, elementary and middle schools. Grand Mesa connects Mesa and Delta Counties both recreationally and agriculturally. There is no route by land to go fron Paonia to Mesa County without going through another district using the preliminary house and senate maps. Delta Conservation District and the North Fork Water Conservancy District both encompass all of Delta County and are being split. Therefor we would recommend that all of Delta County be made whole with all of Mesa County and for that part of Garfield County included in the proposed district 55 be returned to new district 57 with the inclusion of Glenwood Springs south of I 70 be put in with new district 54 for the house. Further district 53 could include all of Montezuma County to help balance these changes. As for the senate, we again would like all of Delta County to be put with Mesa County with perhaps Mineral County put in proposed District 7 Thank you for considering our comments

I have lived above Boulder for 43 years. I pay taxes in Boulder County and do all my business there and worked in Boulder until my retirement. My parents lived and died in Boulder. It makes no sense to move us into some other area that does not care about our values. This is our community. How can we vote for a place that we do not go to, give taxes to, use services there or anything else? How can we vote for people who do not care about us? Is it only to get some bodies into their district? Who came up with that idea? People should be near the area where they can participate. It could not be more wrong for us who love it here and want to continue living and contributing to this area to be moved. PLEASE do not let this happen!

I have lived in the mountains above Boulder for 43 years. My doctors are in Boulder, I pay taxes in Boulder County, I worked at NCAR, Celestial Seasonings and Boulder County my entire worklife. This is our community! How can you separate us from this? And, how can we vote for areas that we are not affiliated with and know nothing about? It makes no sense. We cannot even go to the other district unless we cross the divide. It would be wrong for us who love Boulder, pay taxes here, have doctors here and use all the Boulder services to not be able to vote for our area? The district that you are thinking of adding us to does not include any of our values. If you want to add a population to the other district, take it from someplace on that side of the divide. This makes NO sense! This is by far, one of the dumber ideas we have heard about...... Please, please keep us as we are on this side of the divide with people who represent our values and care about our communities. The representative on the other side does not believe, care or share anything we do or believe in! We feel violated that this may happen! How can we trust our officials?

This has been a very strange year due to the pandemic and the political scene. I am only beginning to understand how impactful that has been for us all, especially for people already marginalized. We need to reclaim our democracy and restore the American dream that has never really been realized because of forces that work against it and, at times, our own apathy and lack of access to vital information and services. It is definitely time to act in North Boulder for people of color, our working class, elderly, students, those seeking higher education under the burden of enormous college debt, DACA recipients, women, the elderly, disabled, those with health issues, our low income population, people living in our homeless shelter, in low cost housing, and the growing number of unsheltered people in our population. One way to assist those who are struggling most is to offer written testimony at this time in the redistricting process for a community of interest. My husband and I moved back to Boulder after being away for 20 years living on the Oregon Coast and in the Pacific Northwest. Boulder has changed in many ways during the time we were away, and now we urgently need to advocate for the people who have been left out of the mainstream. We sold our car when we returned to Boulder and rely on public transportation through RTD. We have Eco passes and do quite well navigating here, despite the major road reconstruction on North Broadway, the major thoroughfare in the area where we live. We do see, however, that the project is focused on cars and people who drive rather than on pedestrians, people who walk, ride bicycles and rely on public transportation. We have a large population in North Boulder of people who are disabled, students, young and old in the working class, low income and elderly people who don't have a strong voice. I would like to advocate for those people who need affordable or free bus passes, more bus stops and shelters from the heat and cold with places to sit while waiting for a bus, and more stops near facilities that struggling people need to access. For example, the West AgeWell Center for elderly people at 909 Arapahoe is far from any bus stop. More people would use their services if they could get there. There are, undoubtedly, many more examples of this inconsistency that need to be investigated to present accurate data that time does not permit. I must add that in North Boulder, where there are significant numbers of low cost housing units, there is not a single grocery store, pharmacy or hardware store within reasonable walking distance for those without cars, and who are disabled or elderly. Lucky's Market is one mile from my home each way and is on the bus route if bus transportation were affordable for all residents. Pharmaca at Broadway and Alpine, our closest pharmacy, is 2.3 miles away, and McGuckins, at 10 miles away, is our nearest hardware store. Please consider the North Boulder area as a Community of Interest as we seek to find ways to increase accessibility to needed services for those without cars, who are disabled, homeless, low-income workers, students and elderly, particularly as North Broadway is, and will be, under construction for a year or more. The construction project itself must include improvements for this Community of Interest, as well as consideration of this population during the long construction phase. Maps of the Area of Interest: According to the Preliminary Map of the State House Districts, Area 37 represents the Community of Interest from Arapahoe Avenue on the south to the northern boundary of Area 37, along Broadway from 28th Street (also designated as Hwy 119 and US-36), the eastern boundary of Area 37, to the western boundary of Area 37. Boulder is in District 2 on the Colorado Congressional Districts Map. Thank you for your consideration of this Community of Interest In Boulder, Colorado.

To whom it may concern: I write in connection with the proposed map for El Paso County. Using an analogy, the proposed map appears as a pie, with a community of interest at the center divided almost equally into segments that dilute that interest by carving it into slices predominated by other interests. Adopting a structure as proposed would assure that all Colorado representation from Colorado Springs would be one-party. Approximately 40% of the voting population in concentrated in Manitou Springs and central Colorado Spring, now House District 18, and southeastern Colorado Springs, now House District 17. These areas are geographically connected with older homes and long-term residents, by contrast with surrounding areas where there has been significant growth. Present House District 17 is also a distinctive community of color. The same arguments support preservation of an outline for Senate districts, where Senate District 11 presently overlays House Districts 17 and 18. Combinations presented in the redistricting proposal do not offer a competitive or representative opportunity for communities of interest described above. People in present House Districts 17 and 18 and Senate District 11 deserve an opportunity to have representatives that share their interests. What’s presented at this stage appears to be gerrymandering. It would be absolutely inappropriate to adopt what has been proposed at this stage. Yours truly, David Anderson

Dear Commissioners, By melding the town of Louisville, Colorado with different communities in each of the three preliminary maps, Louisville residents are deprived of the benefits of a community of interest. This fracturing fails to provide a coherent community and deprives Louisville’s residents of fair and effective representation, amplifying the difficulties of addressing the interests of our community. The proposed Colorado house and senate maps split Louisville from the rest of Boulder County, separating our town from the Boulder Valley School District, the local library consortium, and the applicable CDOT transportation region. The Congressional map lumps Louisville in with communities in a completely different watershed that have no meaningful economic or cultural ties to Louisville. Oddly, Louisville is paired with different geographic communities in local house and senate maps. For House District 24, Louisville is paired with communities to the south and to the west of Louisville. But then the preliminary map for Colorado Senate District 31 pairs Louisville with a small part of Boulder County and much-if not all-of Broomfield County, lying to the east. From a community of interest perspective there is no apparent rhyme or reason for this inconsistency. In addition, Colorado House District 24 is particularly oddly shaped and not compact. The economic, educational, recreational, spiritual, and environmental ties of the residents of Boulder County are strong. Boulder County residents share a strong interest in protecting the environment, fostering entrepreneurs, cultivating science and engineering, exploring spiritual traditions, outdoor recreation, eating nourishing foods, and addressing climate change. The distribution of the Daily Camera and other local news outlets provides evidence of the interests and contours of the community of interest in which I live. The preliminary maps include many communities for which the ties are no closer than the ties between Colorado and residents of other Western states. Louisville belongs with the rest of Boulder County. Finally, it is disappointing to learn that the analysis of racial, ethnic, and language minority groups shows that the representation of these groups decreases from current levels under the preliminary maps--while census data show population increases. Ultimately, our representational form of government succeeds only if it is actually representational. Recent events demonstrate that excluded communities of interest suffer. And, their suffering undermines our democracy. As a citizen of Colorado, I have an interest fostering the well-being of the community at-large and ask you to address the valid concerns of racial, ethnic, and language minority groups. You are in a position to empower Coloradans to make Colorado even better. I look forward to significant revision of the preliminary maps. Best regards, Cathern Smith

To Whom It May Concern:  I am very concerned about the preliminary State House Map presented to the public.  The map as drawn makes little or no sense, discriminates against communities of color, and eliminates competitive districts, helping to demolish our free and fair democratic elections in El Paso County.         Why are former House Districts 17 and 18 being broken up?  Both House Districts are communities of interest.  House District 18 is already geographically connected from Manitou Springs to Old Colorado City to downtown Colorado Springs.  This area is comprised of older homes with similar interests and needs.  House District 17 is another community of interest, serving the needs of Southeastern Colorado Springs.  Destroying House District 17 is a disservice to the communities of color that lie within its boundaries.  Both of these districts are competitive.  Changing them would nullify that fact and certainly make them non-competitive.      Furthermore, I am mystified by your delineation of the boundaries of the proposed House District 49.  It comprises only half of the Tri-Lakes area, making absolutely no sense.  The Tri-Lakes area is another community of interest and should be kept together as a geographically contiguous district.  The Tri-Lakes area of Monument and Palmer Lake has totally different needs from Colorado Springs.   Colorado Springs should definitely not be apportioned to the proposed House District 49.       I hope that in the future this State House Map contains competitive districts and accommodates communities of interest, not blatant political opportunism and gerrymandering.  This is still a representative democracy, a republic, and public officials such as yourselves need to act in a forthright fashion and champion the democratic ideals of our republic. Respectfully submitted, Charlotte gagne

Re: Congressional Redistricting I live in rural SW CO. My concerns include proposed pairing of the tourist driven/small ski towns with large industry driven populous towns. A Congressional Representative cannot equally represent these totally opposite communities. I also am concerned that the rural, agricultural San Luis Valley might be grouped with a metropolitan area. This does not make sense. Please keep tourist economies/National Park communities together. Please keep ski towns together. Please keep rural/agriculture areas together. Thank you.

Greetings Redistricting Committee Members: I want to first express my thanks for your efforts and work on this extremely important subject. My name is Jerome Davis and I reside in Aurora, Colorado. I am a Colorado native and a 36 year veteran of the energy industry and a recent retired executive of Xcel Energy in Colorado. Before retiring last December, I was the Regional VP of Customer and Community Relations for Xcel Energy – Colorado, and I reported to the Colorado President. My organization accountabilities included: local and county governmental affairs, economic development, community relations, social investments, managed accounts, wholesale accounts, and market strategy. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, sees itself as a partner in the carbon-free energy future of Colorado. We are leading the way in helping the State reach its goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2030. And, in 2018 the company was the first major North American utility to establish a goal of ultimately delivering 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050. As with most bold visions they are not easily attained without broad partnerships and stakeholder support. I am writing you today to discuss a few of those partnerships. Colorado’s Eastern Plains are where 95% of the state’s wind energy is generated. The unseen but essential connection between energy production and energy use is the complex transmission network that delivers the wind energy produced and makes it available daily for use by consumers and businesses. When Xcel Energy builds transmission facilities for this purpose it is a critical, ongoing partner of the communities where the wind farms reside along the eastern plains. Most recently, in 2020, Xcel Energy completed construction of a 500 megawatt wind farm in Cheyenne and Kit Carson counties consisting of 229 wind turbines that will provide enough carbon-free energy to power 270,000 homes. Making this project a reality required the partnership of the farmers who lease land for the construction and operation of wind turbines, and the communities where those farmers live. Additionally, Xcel Energy built a 125-mile transmission line from Morgan County into Douglas County at the Daniels Park Substation. This is described as the transmission network to bring the carbon-free electricity into the more urban population centers. This critical 345 kilovolt transmission line actually links 2 different wind farms – the Rush Creek Wind Project and the Cheyenne Ridge Wind Project – to Douglas County where it can be accessed for local and other metro area use. This transmission project doesn’t happen without the approvals Xcel Energy needed from local governments, and no local government was more open to being a partner in the company’s carbon-free vision through wind energy development than Douglas County which changed its zoning code and granted permits to allow this project to go forward. Wind energy has been nurtured thanks to the active role of the federal government, both in the R&D phase in the early days and in the tax credits which provide an incentive for development currently. These federal partnerships provided a roadmap for an electric carbon-free future! More than anything, I want you to understand that there is both reliance and partnership between eastern plains counties and certain metro area counties like Douglas County to achieve a bold carbon-free energy future. In conclusion, I am sure people will tell you they have nothing in common, but the truth is, there is a very clear dovetailing of their common economic and environmental concerns that provide for a successful and enduring partnership. Thank you very much for your review and consideration of my letter. Sincerely, Jerome Davis 4741 S. Atchison Court Aurora, CO 80015 jeromedavis1@comcast.net

To Whom It May Concern: I am very concerned about the preliminary State House Map presented to the public. The map as drawn makes little or no sense, discriminates against communities of color, and eliminates competitive districts, helping to demolish our free and fair democratic elections in El Paso County. Why are former House Districts 17 and 18 being broken up? Both House Districts are communities of interest. House District 18 is already geographically connected from Manitou Springs to Old Colorado City to downtown Colorado Springs. This area is comprised of older homes with similar interests and needs. House District 17 is another community of interest, serving the needs of Southeastern Colorado Springs. Destroying House District 17 is a disservice to the communities of color that lie within its boundaries. Both of these districts are competitive. Changing them would nullify that fact and certainly make them non-competitive. Furthermore, I am mystified by your delineation of the boundaries of the proposed House District 49. It comprises only half of the Tri-Lakes area, making absolutely no sense. The Tri-Lakes area is another community of interest and should be kept together as a geographically contiguous district. The Tri-Lakes area of Monument and Palmer Lake has totally different needs from Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs should definitely not be apportioned to the proposed House District 49. I hope that in the future this State House Map contains competitive districts and accommodates communities of interest, not blatant political opportunism and gerrymandering. This is still a representative democracy, a republic, and public officials such as yourselves need to act in a forthright fashion and champion the democratic ideals of our republic. Respectfully submitted,