Public Comments

Hello! Upon reviewing the proposed redistricting map and considering the changes, I have a few concerns that I will share with you. First thing to notice is the loss of the San Luis Valley which has been part of CD3 for years and shares many similar concerns and interests with the western slope, and the addition of 3 counties that really share more interests with counties of the Front Range than they do with the western slope. My understanding is that according to the Colorado Constitution, communities of interest that are reasonably proximate should be considered for inclusion within a single district for ensuring its fair and effective representation. San Luis Valley has much more in common with the mountain counties of the current CD3 with regard to water and public lands. High elevation agriculture is very important in both the San Luis Valley and the western slope communities. Also, there is a national park, a wilderness area, several wildlife refuges as well as mountains and tourist destinations that make the valley issues much more compatible with western slope issues. In contrast, the 3 counties, Park, Teller and Fremont, have much more in common with Front Range communities than with rural mountain communities. Many of the people in these counties commute to Denver or Colorado Springs to work and there are very little public lands. Also, the water issues are entirely incompatible. ( Apparently there are several investors attempting to install major trans-basin diversions from the San Luis Valley to some of the front range communities -- if the San Luis Valley is added to a front range district, it's power to oppose such a diversion is severely weakened. This because it has been separated from other communities of interest in this preliminary plan.) The addition of these counties will account for 13% of the population of CD 3 and their interests will be very different indeed from those of the rest of this rural district. They are likely to be very different in their response and understanding of issues with drought and wildfires, which are a major concern for the current CD3. These 3 counties are not true mountain communities in that most workers commute to a major metropolitan area to work and their economies are not greatly reliant on outdoor recreation; there are no ski areas in these 3 counties. They also are not reliant on the I-70 corridor and only a little reliant on the mountain portion of US 50, while many other communities currently in CD3 are very reliant on these transportation corridors. These 3 counties should be placed in a district with other front range communities of interest. Gilpin county should be moved back in to CD3 as it shares the same problems with congestion and road closures on I-70 that is always plaguing the western slope communities. It self-identifies as a rural mountain environment in its planning documents. Another issue that I have with the preliminary map is that it makes CD3 much less competitive compared to the current CD3. It changes the voter registration in CD3 from Republican +6 to Republican +11! This margin would make it very difficult or almost impossible for a someone to oust the incumbent. I believe this violates a section of the state constitution -- section 44.3 (3):(3) (a) -- "...Thereafter, the commission shall, to the extent possible, maximize the number of politically competitive districts." Also, the map is probably out of compliance with section 44.3(4)(a) -- incumbent protection: "No map may be approved by the commission or given effect by the Supreme Court if 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". I'm not saying that this was an intentional move on the part of the commission but it certainly does have the same effect of protecting the current incumbent. In conclusion, I hope you will consider removing Teller, Fremont and Park counties from CD3, add Gilpin county and reinstate the the 6 counties of the San Luis County: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande and Saguache. Thank you for your work and for taking time to read my comments.

1. Leave House District 63 as proposed....community of interest is maintained. 2. Leave House District 64 as proposed...political competitiveness is preserved. 3. Leave Congressional District 4 as proposed...political competitiveness is preserved. 4. Modify Congressional District 8 by moving Broomfield and Jefferson Counties to Boulder and replace them with Greeley and Evans to assure political competitiveness.

1. Please eliminate the slicing and dicing of Weld County in the State Senate and Congressional maps 2. Weld County's community of interest with a proud legacy of working both the land and its natural resources, distinguishes us from Larimar and Boulder Counties...so keep us apart and intact. 3. Please do not make major changes to the proposed House District 64 boundary altering its basic configuration and political competitiveness. 4. Keep UNC separate from Greeley.

The plan proposed by the staff is the worst possible plan that could have been generated and is opposed to the reason that the voters of the state chose to have a commission instead of politcians in the legislature draw the lines. First of all, this whole "communities of interest" is just total B.S. You can slice up the community in in million different ways and all it does is polarize people more. Is the rancher who lives just outside Pueblo have more interest in the city of Pueblo or with someone in Sterling? I would contend that rural people have more in common with the people in the nearby cities (where they shop and sell their goods) that with some other rural people 200 miles across the state. What I believe should be the primary goal of the commission is to create districts that are competitive. People should have a choice in selecting their congressional representatives, not have them chosen by the dominant party in their district. Republicans have no say in CD 1 and Democrats have no say in CD 4. In fact, of the eight proposed districts, only one is even close to being competitive (Perlmutter's, with a 3-point bias in favor of Repubicans.) All of the other proposed districts are strongly skewed to one party or the other. It does not matter if district lines cross county boundaries - that already happens all the time. I want a choice and these districts give the minority party no realistic chance of winning a seat. Districts that are competitive will generate candidates that are in the political center. The skewed districts proposed will generate safe seats for extremist ideologues of both parties. We need more moderates not fewer. I also think that southern Colorado should have a district. The people of Pueblo were stuck in CD 3 and now are stuck in CD 4 with radical ideologues as their representatives. The objection that southern Colorado doesn't have enough people is B.S. Just creep the line northward from the southern border until you get enough people, even if that means pullling in some people from Colorado Springs or Grand Junction or some of the mountain towns.

Re: Preliminary Legislative Redistricting Maps for proposed State House District 53 and 55 and Senate District 6 and 7 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to request the Commission maintain the current Delta County division between current House District 54 and 61 for proposed House and Senate Districts. I am opposed to the preliminary Legislative Redistricting Maps for proposed State House District 53 and 55 and Senate District 6 and 7 for failure to combine communities of interest along specific geographic, transportation, infrastructure, watershed, and economic interests. Article V, Section 48.1(2)(a) of the Colorado Constitution requires the Commission to preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns, as much as is reasonably possible, yet the proposed redistricting divides Delta county four times between the proposed State House and Senate Districts! Article V, Section 46(3)(b)(1) of the Colorado Constitution defines Community of Interest as: "any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of state 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. (II) Such interests include but are not limited to matters reflecting: (A) Shared public policy concerns of urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, or trade areas; and (B) Shared public policy concerns such as education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, water needs and supplies, and issues of demonstrable regional significance.: (Emphasis added.) The North Fork Valley is critical to Colorado’s food security as the largest concentration of organic farms in the State, largest fruit production in the State, and a model for regenerative and restorative agriculture. The North Fork Valley’s agricultural and recreation both depend on water from the Gunnison River and the Gunnison River Basin originates in Gunnison County. The entire Gunnison River Basin should be preserved in one legislative district to include Delta County with Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray, Hinsdale and Saguache Counties. This configuration is supported by the following geographic, transportation, infrastructure, water, and economic reasons: 1. The Gunnison River Basin and surrounding public lands define our community’s character and economy including landscape, unique biodiversity, recreation, ranching, and sustainable agriculture. 2. The North Fork Valley shares a tourism, recreation, and creative arts economy with Carbondale, Crested Butte, Gunnison and Hotchkiss, which is connected via the West Elk Scenic Byway. 3. The North Fork of the Gunnison River has been designated 1 of 15 rare and irreplaceable ecosystems in the United States. 4. The North Fork Valley is a member of Region10, the regional and community economic development resources organization, which includes Delta, Montrose, Hinsdale, Gunnison, Ouray, and San Miguel counties. 5. The 7th Judicial District (Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties) includes the Court that is set up to handle matters related to the Gunnison River from its headwaters to the Colorado River. 6. The West Region Wildfire Council promotes wildfire preparedness, prevention and mitigation education throughout Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel. These counties work together to “mitigate loss due to wildfire in wildland urban interface communities and foster interagency regional partnerships to help prepare counties, fire protection districts, communities and agencies to plan for and mitigate potential threats from wildfire.” 7. The Paonia reservoir, the source of water for the Fire Mountain Canal—the North Fork Valley’s largest irrigation canal which supplies water to approximately 500 families—is located in Gunnison County. The North Fork Valley does not share common watershed, infrastructure, transportation, or economic interests with Mesa and Garfield County. Placing the North Fork Valley in a district that does not represent its watershed, infrastructure, transportation and economic interests deprives our residents of fair and effective representation in the state legislature. Keeping our watershed and ecosystems intact is of the highest importance if we are going to be able to successfully address the threats that hotter, drier, more extreme climate pose to the North Fork Valley’s agriculture and recreational economy, and also our health and safety. Therefore, I am requesting the Commission maintain the current Delta County division between current House District 54 and 61 for proposed House and Senate Districts.

Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions Attn: Legislative Redistricting Commission Re: Preliminary Legislative Redistricting Maps for proposed State House District 53 and 55 and Senate District 6 and 7 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to oppose the preliminary Legislative Redistricting Maps for proposed State House District 53 and 55 and Senate District 6 and 7 for: a) failure to minimize the number of divisions; and b) for failure to combine communities of interest along specific geographic, transportation, infrastructure, watershed, and economic interests. Article V, Section 48.1(2)(a) of the Colorado Constitution requires the Commission to preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns, as much as is reasonably possible, yet the proposed redistricting divides the county four times between the proposed State House and Senate Districts! Article V, Section 46(3)(b)(1) of the Colorado Constitution defines Community of Interest as “any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of state 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. (II) Such interests include but are not limited to matters reflecting: (A) Shared public policy concerns of urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, or trade areas; and (B) Shared public policy concerns such as education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, water needs and supplies, and issues of demonstrable regional significance.” (Emphasis added) The North Fork Valley’s agricultural and recreation both depend on water from the Gunnison River and the Gunnison River Basin originates in Gunnison County. The entire Gunnison River Basin should be preserved in one legislative district to include Delta County with Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray, Hinsdale and Saguache Counties. This configuration is supported by the following geographic, transportation, infrastructure, water, and economic reasons: 1. The Gunnison River Basin and surrounding public lands define our community’s character and economy including landscape, unique biodiversity, recreation, ranching, and sustainable agriculture. 2. The North Fork Valley shares a tourism, recreation, and creative arts economy with Carbondale, Crested Butte, Gunnison and Hotchkiss, which is connected via the West Elk Scenic Byway. 3. The North Fork of the Gunnison River has been designated 1 of 15 rare and irreplaceable ecosystems in the United States. 4. The North Fork Valley is a member of Region10, the regional and community economic development resources organization, which includes Delta, Montrose, Hinsdale, Gunnison, Ouray, and San Miguel counties. 5. The 7th Judicial District (Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel counties) includes the Court that is set up to handle matters related to the Gunnison River from its headwaters to the Colorado River. 6. The West Region Wildfire Council promotes wildfire preparedness, prevention and mitigation education throughout Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray and San Miguel. These counties work together to “mitigate loss due to wildfire in wildland urban interface communities and foster interagency regional partnerships to help prepare counties, fire protection districts, communities and agencies to plan for and mitigate potential threats from wildfire”. 7. And, if these aren’t reasons enough, the Paonia reservoir, the source of water for the Fire Mountain Canal, the Valley’s largest irrigation canal which supplies water for about 500 families, is located in Gunnison County! The North Fork Valley is critical to Colorado’s food security as the largest concentration of organic farms in the State, largest fruit production in the State, and a model for regenerative and restorative agriculture. The North Fork Valley does NOT share common watershed, infrastructure, transportation, or economic interests with Mesa and Garfield County. Placing the North Fork Valley in a district that does not represent its watershed, infrastructure, transportation and economic interests deprives our residents of fair and effective representation in the state legislature. Keeping our watershed and ecosystems intact is of the highest importance if we are going to be able to successfully address the threats that hotter, drier, more extreme weather pose to the North Fork Valley’s and Delta County’s agriculture and recreational economy, and also our health and safety. It imperative to maintain the current Delta County division between current House District 54 and 61 for proposed House and Senate Districts.

I am a resident of Manitou Springs, a progressive town poorly represented in Colorado’s 5th congressional district. I don’t think that Colorado Springs by itself makes the 5th non competitive but the addition of too much rural vote does negate whatever competition a large city would normally have. Pueblo County should be joined with El Paso county as they can’t be properly represented in the 3rd or 4th district and are too large to be canceled out altogether.

My wife and I both want to see Delta County kept in one district. We have been split for the last 10 years and it has not served us well. All of our county being in the district with Grand Junction would be best as many of our county work in GJ and much of our shopping and medical is done there.

Please keep Boulder County together in one cohesive congressional district, and do not split off a slice of western Boulder County from it. The majority of us who live in that slice of western Boulder County want to continue to be part of our current congressional district. Please listen to those wishes. Thank you, Joanna Rotkin Jamestown, CO

We live in Lefthand Canyon, Boulder County, east of Jamestown. Not sure exactly where the proposed redistricting line is, but mountain towns need to belong with Boulder and have Boulder county intact. Lifestyles and shared interests regarding climate change, values are common in the area. Thank you.