Public Comments

I live in the Erickson Wind Crest Community. One entrance, one gate. I do not want Wind Crest divided into 2 House Districts. We are one community, retired with common interest.

See attached for LULAC and Colorado LULAC's Comments and proposed plans. This is a resubmission; prior submission inadvertently omitted the map files.

This is typical political bullshit! Stop creating imaginary groups for your advantage. Michael Brotherton

The map now proposed for Congressional Redistricting for CD3 does not comply with the constitutional criteria in sections 44.1 or 44.3 of our revised Colorado Constitution: In 44.1: Declaration of the People 44.1 (c) 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 44.1(d) Competitive elections for members of the United States House of Representatives provide voters with a meaningful choice among candidates, promote a healthy democracy, help ensure that constituents receive fair and effective representation, and contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions Communities of Interest defined in the Colorado Constitution 44.3(b) (I) "Community of interest" means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, 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 44.3 II and III (section elaborates on interests and policy) Communities of Interest are not preserved in this Preliminary Congressional map for CD3 Contrary to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, as amended and section 44.1(d) of our Colorado Constitution, the map dilutes and divides Hispanic communities of interest in the current CD3. The proposed preliminary map separates San Luis Valley and Pueblo from the Hispanic Communities on I-70 corridor and in other mountain communities on the Western Slope. Hispanic communities in the current (old) CD3 have different interests than do those up in Weld county/Greeley. Many families in the San Luis Valley are proud that they are 6th or 7th generation from when this region was part of Mexico and before that the Spanish land grant. This map weakens the ability of Hispanic Communities of Interest to be adequately represented. It may be a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended at Section 2(Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 52 U.S.C. 10301, section (b) at https://bit.ly/3f52VWm. Accessed on June 25, 2021) Instead of retaining the SLV in CD3, proposed the map adds 3 counties not in current CD3 that share communities of interest with Colorado Springs, Jefferson County, and other areas of the Front Range, not with the Western Slope: Park, Fremont and Teller. In the proposed map, these 3 counties account for over 13% of the population of the proposed CD3 or 92,072 of the population of 721,71.3. By adding these 3 counties to CD3, this map fails to reflect our State Constitution at 44.3 (b) (I) "Community of interest" means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, 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 44.3 (b) (I-IV) The inclusion of these 3 counties is particularly problematic with regard to fair and effective representation of the Western Slope on Federal Public lands policy, Federal Water policy, Federal Housing Policy, and climate policy, as well as economic communities of interest. See below for more detail on how Fremont, Teller, and Park differ significantly in communities of interest from our Western Slope counties and should not be included in CD3 By adding Park, Fremont, and Teller, the preliminary map would make it very difficult for the interests of many of our Western Slope counties to be represented in the US House. 3. Water- The proposed staff map removes the San Luis Valley from CD3 and places the San Luis Valley with Weld county and other counties in the South Platte Basin and the Colorado Springs area who are currently destinations for proposed major trans basin diversions from the San Luis Valley. Regarding public lands and water the SLV has much more in common with the mountain counties of the current CD3 than with those CD4 counties in the new map. The Western Slope mountain counties are headwaters for major rivers that are water sources for our whole state and for states to the West and East of us. The Club20 map previously presented to you keeps the SLV in CD3 for these reasons and because high elevation family agriculture is critical in both the SLV and on the Western Slope. One national park, a wilderness area, and several wildlife refuges along with mountain ranges are major tourist destinations for outdoor recreation in the SLV, just as similar areas are on the Western Slope. Competitiveness of congressional districts (Section 44.3 (3) (a) through (c)) The map makes CD3 far less competitive compared to the current CD3. Current CD3 has a Republican +6 voter registration. The proposed map is R+11 voter registration. Thus, it does not comply with section 44.3 (3): (3) (a) “..Thereafter, the commission shall, to the extent possible, maximize the number of politically competitive districts. (b) In its hearings in various locations in the state, the commission shall solicit evidence relevant to competitiveness of elections in Colorado and shall assess such evidence in evaluating proposed maps. The +11 margin would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a challenger to oust the current incumbent. While not intended, the map is out of compliance with section 44.3 (4)(a); “incumbent protection” 44.3(4) No map may be approved by the commission or given effect by the Supreme Court if: (a) It has been drawn for the purpose of protecting one or more incumbent members, or one or more declared candidates, of the United States House of Representatives or any political party Because it changes CD3 from R+6 voter registration advantage to R+ 11, it will likely protect the current incumbent until 2032 Solutions for the Commission to consider To solve these non-compliance issues the preliminary map for CD3, I propose: 1. Remove Park, Teller and Fremont counties and 2. Add Gilpin Reinstate the 6 SLV counties of Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Detailed bases for these solutions Removal of Park, Teller and Fremont counties These 3 counties share many interests with Front Range counties of El Paso County, Douglas County and Jefferson County, and they are in the economic and water orbits of the Front Range. They do not share some key Western Slope interests. Indeed, their interests seem to be the opposite from Western Slope interests in many cases. 1. Public lands and county policies. Unlike counties in current CD3, these three counties have a smaller proportion of their landmass in Federally managed public lands and, as per their websites, seem to view public lands very differently than do counties and people in current CD3, especially with regard to Federal policy on protection of public lands. 2. Unlike counties on the Western slope, these counties’ websites have no climate plans or Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction plans. These are major Federal policy issues for Western Slope counties, given the relationship between climate change, drought and wildfires, as well as the impact of climate change on snowpack and the ski industry. 3. These three counties’ water interests are significantly different from the Western slope counties. All three counties are Eastern Slope routes or destinations for transmountain diversions from the Western Slope. In fact, the oldest Trans basin diversion in Colorado comes over Hoosier Pass through Park and into Teller to supply Colorado Springs. Currently there is an additional, new trans basin diversion proposed from the Homestake area (partly in Eagle County, partly in Lake) over to Front Range. As mentioned before, several investors are attempting to do major trans-basin diversions from the San Luis Valley. Moreover, these 3 counties are lower on key drought indices than the state average. All Western Slope Mountain counties score significantly higher than the state average drought index. All Western Slope Mountain counties are now in either “severe”, “extreme” or “exceptional drought”. Being at severe, extreme, or exceptional makes family farming and ranching even more difficult and uncertain than agriculture already is. Additionally, ranking at extreme or exceptional means higher likelihood of catastrophic wildfires and greater difficulty and danger in containing them. These 3 counties do not share this community of interests and should not be in CD3. 4.Contrary to the staff summary of public comments on the website under “Regional Comments- Mountain counties”, these 3 are not “mountain counties”. They contain no ski areas and are not members of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. Their economies are not primarily outdoor recreation based. Outdoor recreation industries, both retail and manufacturing, are not a significant element in their economies. In contrast, outdoor recreation industries are key elements of the economic base and increasingly important job generators in Western Slope mountain counties and in Mesa County. There is a major synergy in all the Western Slope Mountain counties between public lands, snowpack and water, the outdoor rec industry and the ability to attract new businesses and new skilled employees. Also, Teller, Park, and Fremont have zero reliance on I-70 and little reliance on the mountain portion of US 50. As noted in points 1-3, above, the communities of interest in these counties are quite different from Western Slope Mountain Resort Counties regarding water interests and their economies. In fact all three are closely associated with Front Range counties, including Jefferson, Douglas, and/or El Paso. 5. In Fremont County, 20% of the population is incarcerated in the 15 prisons in the County. This needs to be considered for reliable and valid determination of eligible voter numbers because these inmates cannot vote, but the Census counts them as residents. 6. Economy: key industries and jobs in these 3 counties are significantly different from those in actual Western Slope Mountain counties. Instead they align with larger metro counties on the Front Range and should be grouped with them. Fremont- The major jobs generator is the 15 prisons in the county. They are by far the largest employer. Another way to look at Fremont County is to examine what industries account for the county’s total 15,206 jobs in 2020. Government (which includes prisons and ancillary government services as well as other state and local agencies and land management agencies) accounts over 5,000- by far and away the largest employment sector of the county’s total 15,206 jobs in 2020. The sectors usually prominent in mountain resort counties account for far fewer of the jobs in Fremont County (outdoor rec, outdoor retail, accommodation and food, construction). Economically, Fremont County is very different from Western Slope Counties. It should not be in CD3 Teller – Within Teller County, the top job generators are government, accommodation/food services, retail, and mining. The mining jobs are primarily gold mining in and near Cripple Creek and Victor. There are other smaller mines that extract other minerals. Mining accounts for about 600 jobs, and government jobs account for over 1,400 jobs out of a total of 8,047. However, the majority of people in Teller County work in Colorado Springs, and Teller is in Colorado Springs SMSA. The 911 emergency services are “Teller-El Paso”. Teller is considered Front Range I-25 corridor, and it is in the Colorado Springs SMSA Teller County’s non-profit coalitions, mental health services, and broadband are all organized with El Paso County. Teller County is a satellite for El Paso. It should not be in CD3. Park Similar to Teller, a substantial number of Park county residents commute to other counties for jobs, mostly to the Front Range. Some People from both Alma and Fairplay commute to Summit County to work, however the number seems to be small. Subdivisions around Bailey account for about 65% of Park County's 16,029 residents. The Bailey area is closely connected to Jefferson County, especially with regard to construction. According to the most recent Park County Master Plan, “The rural Bailey area appeals to people who want to work in the Denver Metro Area and live in a more rural and natural environment “… and “When compared to nearby counties, Park County has the highest percentage of residents who work outside of the county with 67% of the population commuting to other counties for employment. Park County is far more connected by communities of interest to the Front Range than to the Western slope. In fact, it is included in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area. It should not be in CD3 Add Gilpin County to the proposed CD3 Gilpin County shares the same I-70 congestion concerns that plague Western Slope mountain resort counties from Grand to Summit to Routt to Eagle and Pitkin. And it self-identifies as a “rural mountain environment” in its county and chamber planning documents Put the San Luis Valley back into CD3 where it has been for over 50 years: 1. Compliance with voting rights act: by splitting it off, the Latino culture and voting power is diluted and divided. 2. Communities of interest share much with Western Slope Mountain counties, including a major ski area, Wolf Creek. 3. Water issues as noted above include the threat of new trans basin diversion from the subsurface waters of the SLV (Rio Grande aquifer) to supply Front Range Metro areas. 4. National Park and national wildlife refuge 5. Family agriculture The Club20 CD3 map also keeps the San Luis Valley counties in CD3.

Western Boulder County is mountainous, and shares much in common with communities north and south of each town, along the Peak to Peak Highway. Nederland is the largest community, the Library district is entirely in Western Boulder County. Folks that live here have more in common with Eastern Boulder County in that we commute there for work, schools, and shopping. No one commutes to the Western Slope. We do not share school districts, nor human resources such as food pantry's, people with disabilities, Emergency Assistance Fund (Lyons and EFAA) with Western Slope communities. The only thing we have in common with Western slope communities is living at higher elevations. It makes no sense to lump western Boulder County with the Western Slope. We are not even connected by roads and even the USFS districts are different. Please do not sever us from the communities we are very much connected with, those in Eastern Boulder County.

Dear Commissioners, I am a third-generation Coloradan and have resided in Delta County since 1993. I have been involved in our electoral process since 1972. These facts give me a historical perspective of how our representative government has worked for the past 50 years. I am writing in regards to the three draft maps for redistricting in Colorado in 2021. I appreciate the efforts you all have made to produce these maps. I am commenting on the Congressional Redistricting Map and the Legislative Redistricting Maps. My comments are as follows: 1) Congressional Redistricting Map – My area of concern lies with CD3. I believe this is a fair and balanced configuration. Removing the area around Pueblo and the San Luis Valley and placing it in CD4 and adding Eagle, Summit, Grand, Park, Teller and Fremont counties, as well as some of western Boulder County seems like a fair and balanced adjustment. While overly large in land area, the composition of counties seems to be similar enough in interests to meet the community of interest test. Please keep this configuration as currently drawn. 2) Legislative Senate District Map – My primary area of concern is Delta County. The current configuration splits Delta County in half, with the west half of the county being placed in SD 7 (comprised of western Delta County, Montrose County, Ouray County, San Miguel County, Dolores County, San Juan County, Montezuma County and La Plata County). This extremely large district includes all or parts of 3 separate mountain ranges, i.e. San Juans, Uncompahgre Plateau and part of the Grand Mesa. It also has 4 major drainages, flowing in opposite directions – the La Plata flowing to the south, the Dolores, the Uncompahgre and the Gunnison all flowing to the north. Since rivers are the lifeblood of the West, these different drainages have different uses and concerns. Splitting Delta County and putting it in SD7 injures Delta County by splitting its voice between two Senate Districts. This will require citizens, leaders and businesses to communicate with two different state senators and reducing the effectiveness of their voices. The second Senate District is SD 6, which includes the eastern half of Delta County and Mesa County. While Delta County has much more in common with Mesa County than the other 7 counties in SD 7, Delta County is injured by requiring citizens, leaders and businesses to communicate with two different state senators and reducing the effectiveness of their voices. I strongly request that you keep Delta County whole and place it in SD6 with Mesa County. This is a more natural configuration keeping the district with all its natural resources in the Colorado River/Gunnison River/Uncompahgre River watershed, with one National Forest (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest). This will best serve the citizens of Delta County and also well serve the citizens of Mesa County. 3) Legislative House District Map – Again my primary concern is Delta County. This configuration places the northern part of Delta County in HD 55, which includes Mesa County, except for Grand Junction, and includes a small part of Garfield County around Silt and Newcastle. The southern part of Delta County is included with Montrose County, San Miguel County, Ouray County, Hinsdale County, Dolores County, San Juan County, and part of Montezuma County. This is probably the worst configuration. All of Delta County should be placed with Mesa County. It shares the same watershed and most of the Grand Mesa. As described above, splitting Delta County reduces its voice and places undue hardship on the citizens, businesses and governing officials of our county. In fact this configuration splits our county between two districts where the people of Paonia are in HD 55 and the people of Hotchkiss are in HD 53. The Paonia High School was just combined with Hotchkiss High School to form the North Fork High School located in Hotchkiss. So now the parents of the Paonia-area students are in one House District (55) and the parents of Hotchkiss-area students are in another House District (53). This should not and does not need to happen. Place all of Delta County in HD 55 with Mesa County; place all of Garfield County in HD 57. Don’t force county residents to have to deal with two different representatives. I realize that you are following the principle of one citizen, one vote. However, because so much of Colorado’s population is now residing along the Front Range, this has created an increasing disparity between the rural parts of the state and the urban areas. In the Congressional Districts, six of the eight districts represent the urban areas (which consist of less than 20% of the state’s land mass). The remaining two districts, CD3 & CD4, represent the Western Slope and the Eastern Plains or 80% of the states’ land mass. This fosters the urban/rural divide. This issue is also occurring with the State Legislature’s and it is much worse at the state level. In the state Senate of the 35 Senate seats only eight or 22% (SDs 1,5,6,7,8,10, 34 & 35), represent the rural parts of the state. However these eight districts account for over 80% of the state’s land mass. In the state House, it is even worse. Of the 65 House Seats, only 12 (HDs 34,35,40,41,51,52, 53, 54,55,57,58 and 65) represent the rural areas. These 12 seats represent 18% of the House seats but they cover over 80% of the state’s landmass. This disparity has gotten much worse over time. Look at the districts in 1960. Another issue is when the Western Slope counties are split or blended with Front Range counties, it dilutes our voices. Delta County becomes a small part of a district that has either one large county (Current proposed HD55) or a small part of a district with numerous other counties (Current proposed HD53). At times it even puts the representative in a position where the interests of one county are in conflict with the interests of another county. Such as trans-basin or trans-mountain water diversions. In fact, for the past 10 years we have been represented by individuals who not only did not listen to Delta County residents but actually supported legislation harmful to our citizens and industries. Please, keep Western Slope counties whole and base their boundaries on the natural landscapes and communities of interest. Thank you. David Bradford Paonia, Colorado

It's quite clear that the interests of Summit County are much better aligned with like mountain resort communities with the same issues that are found in these communities on the Western Slope.

I recently attended a redistricting meeting in Carbondale. I was impressed by the diversity of speakers and the concern they had for the many issues facing the people of the district: agriculture, tourism, water, the ski industry, etc. I was a bit taken back by the man who spoke on behalf of the Hispanic population. If I understood him correctly, he strongly recommended that the Hispanic population be kept in one district for better and more fair representation? I am a native of this area, I have seen the disparities that exist between Aspen and Parachute . Many, many anglos face the same issues (affordable housing, lack of healthcare, education, transportation, etc.) as Hispanics. I think it’s time to address these issues for everyone and not just some. Thank you for your time.

I believe the summit county belongs with the 3rd congressional district. We are mostly a rural community and even though our elected Democrats want us with other Democrats, our votes should be with other rural communities even if there are fewer similar votes. I live on 4 acres, don't have cell service and have to drive 17 miles to the grocery store. I don't want to be treated as if I live in a huge apartment complex in a Denver suburb. I can't order things and have them magically appear within a week. I can't stream video without it skipping. Infrastructre upgrades rarely make any difference to me. Rural areas have different concerns than urban areas. We also want to keep our environment as unpolluted as possible after the mining boom. Please district us accordingly.

We have lived full time in Frisco for the last 16 years. During this time I’ve watched our political class do everything possible to transform Summit County into Boulder West. Now is the time to stop this transformation. I strongly support Summit County becoming part of the 3rd Congressional District. Please carefully and strongly consider this “Rescue us from Boulder” request. Thanks for your hard work. Joe