Public Comments

I'm an interested citizen, not part of any special group. I just moved from Lakewood to Longmont, so have interest in both, as well as protecting the majority of voters in the state. In the current lines of CD 7, I have always felt that it was drawn fairly. The parties that built that district designed it to be 1/3 D, 1/3 R, and 1/3 I. And it's reflected in the voting. I had both R's and D's represent me there, and Ed Perlmutter is an excellent Congressman. He is moderate, and helps people of either party or independent who asks. Your current map of CD 7 makes it a Republican district, ignoring Lakewood's needs completely, which is diverse. I don't pretend to know all of the factors you need to consider. I'm just of the opinion that the current map works for that district and should stay competitive. The state of Colorado's majority is now Democratic. To start with the premise that the districts need to be evenly D and R is just plain wrong, and presumes that we want to be like the US Senate with an even number of representatives, even if that doesn't represent our majority! Start over, and look at the reality that we are now a majority population Democratic state, or else you create exactly the opposite of what the voters intended with this commission, which should be to reflect the actual population desires, not some manufactured "fairness" that doesn't reflect who we ARE. The definitions you show below talk about shared public policy concerns. I know it excludes party, but in reality, those go hand-in-hand these days. Now, for Longmont. Longmont, the city, is not fairly represented by Ken Buck. I live in Boulder County. Many people live in Longmont, but commute to Boulder, Denver, or Ft. Collins. In this case, I agree with the commission that it needs to be moved over to CD 2 from CD 4. It is not a rural community. It was years ago, as Lakewood WAS (past tense), but its population has grown and changed and is more like Boulder now, but with more minority voters than Boulder. Case in point is that in Boulder only 8.7% of the population is Latino, vs almost 1/4 of Longmont's. This fact should help reinforce that Longmont should be in CD2. Mr. Buck should represent his people, those who are more rural and have those policy concerns. Don't lump Longmont into that mix unless you divide Longmont into the Weld County vs the Boulder County sides. The way things are now, CD 4 is not competitive, and that doesn't change by leaving Longmont out of it. Putting Longmont into CD 2 allows our voices to be heard and counted to be represented how we actually are.

The areas of eastern Colorado dependent on Agriculture need to be kept together. There are many shared community of interests including the rural nature of the area, agricultural production, energy production and water availability. To split the eastern plains or tie them to suburbs such as Douglas county does a dis-service to both areas. That area deserves representative that can focus on those issues as much as is possible. I'm sure the same applies to the west slope!

The proposal to lump Jamestown and other Front Range foothill/mountain communities in with the ski towns is misguided and shows a complete lack of understanding of how life in our communities works. We are NOT in any way a part of the tourist economy that the ski towns represent. We have mostly full-time residents who are here year-round, and most of us commute to the Front Range cities such as Boulder, Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette and Broomfield. If we work from home, the companies we work for are also mostly in those cities. We shop there, get our medical care there, our kids attend Boulder Valley School District Schools (starting with the small elementary school in town that is a hub of the community). We're taxed as part of Boulder County. I feel that the redistricting proposal seeks to sever us from the Front Range without any understanding of how connected we are, and that we would be far more likely to be properly represented by legislators from there than by those from the Western Slope - on the other side of the Continental Divide.

We are writing to express our concerns about splitting Jamestown out of It’S current District. Jamestown is an integral part of Boulder County, politically, financially and socially. Moving us across the divide would disconnect us from our larger community and it’s values. The western slope mountain communities do not share our values and our voices would be diminished.

Dear Commissioners, I think it is extremely important that the commission keep its promise to the voters who approved the commission in the first place and prioritize drawing more competitive districts. In their report on the draft map, the commission basically admitted that they ignored the maximizing competitiveness criteria from Amendment Y. The voters approved this language related to competitiveness and the will of the people should not be ignored. Additionally, I am concerned that the draft map does not comply with the voting rights amendment. The map cracks Latino voters and in fact places one of the largest shares in district 4, which is a heavily Republican district despite the fact that Latinos who live there heavily back Democrats. This seems almost intentionally designed to prevent Latino voters from electing their candidates of choice. Both these issues make the commission's map vulnerable to court challenges, which could be costly to the taxpayers of our state. I have edited the commission's proposed map to fix these issues using the new 2020 data (see map here: https://davesredistricting.org/join/8a3ecdb5-2fd8-43da-b64d-6ffc02d79eb5). District 6 in this map is majority-minority (38% White, 62% Non-White) and plurality Latino (39%). The partisan breakdown of the districts based on the 2018 AG's race (the commission's preferred measure) is as follows. District 1- D+49, District 2- D+27, District 3- R+4, District 4- R+28, District 5- R+20, District 6- D+24, District 7- R+1, District 8- D+2. So clearly districts 3, 7, and 8 would all be competitive under this map. Therefore, this map does a better job than the commission's map of maximizing competitive districts.

I am a Weld County native, having grown up on a cattle ranch north of Briggsdale. For the past 20 years I have lived in the current HD 50. It includes all of the University of Northern Colorado, the Business 85 corridor through downtown Greeley, parts of Greeley that are east of Highway 85, Garden City, and Evans. Because of geographic proximity (i.e. compactness), I have been acquainted with all of our State House representatives – regardless of their political affiliations. They understood this community of interest because they lived in this community of interest. I would reside in the proposed HD 64, which divides and even splinters communities of interest – like the University of Northern Colorado and the University District, like LaSalle, and like so many other areas that would be adversely affected. The proposed HD 64 includes areas that have disparate interests – chunks of Greeley, small towns, rural areas, various forms of agriculture, different school districts, and so forth. Should someone from Hudson be elected, it is unlikely that the person would be able to fully understand and appreciate the unique interests of families who live in downtown Greeley lofts. On the other hand, should someone from my neighborhood be elected, that person would not understand lived interests of people who farm or raise cattle south of Kersey. The notions of fairness, “community of interest,” and invested representation would be compromised. The proposed configuration is inconsistent with the concept of “compact.” The current HD 50 is a "community of interest." I am confident that the current boundaries can be adjusted to accommodate the population changes - - without such drastic overhaul that would compromise the advantages afforded by the compact nature of the current map. I would ask you to consider those options. THANK you for your investment in proposing districts that meet the spirit and the letter of the laws and the tasks you have been given.

Redistricting Statement Delivered 8/14/21- Greeley My name is Linae Warden. I have lived in Fort Collins for 20 years and another 20 years in Wellington. As a member of I the Larimer County Rural Stakeholders Committee, I worked on the latest Larimer County Strategic Plan. I have been employed at three high-tech companies, from a start-up to Hewlett-Packard, and also at Regis University. I am proud of the voters of Colorado for passing Amendments Y and Z, assuring nonpartisan redistricting for the future. Because of this, you all have been selected to implement Colorado’s gold-standard process in very trying times. My thanks to you and your staff. Since the proposed maps were released, I have spent hours looking them over, reviewing the criteria, comments, the data, and looking, frankly, for improvement opportunities. Here’s what I’ve found: Congressional Districts -- the preliminary map shows clearly that population is key; people vote -- acreage does not. Friday’s Denver Post reported the Census shows populations dropping in Colorado’s rural areas and growing in urban ones. That makes sense. Cities are where the key services are: jobs, healthcare, higher education. It’s also where the voters are. Contiguous geography is critical here; mountains and plains have different needs and different challenges. I-25 is a man-made line that incorporates overlapping areas of growth, which, as the Post reported the Census shows, are increasingly diverse. It’s clear that the growing population of Larimer County’s interests and needs has changed significantly since 30 years ago. It has increasingly more in common with Boulder County than with Weld County (and has never once threatened to secede). It’s time we look to the present and the future rather than try to hang onto the past. Senate Districts -- the greatest changes may be the district numbers and the numbers of districts. Population booms do that. Again, using population, geography, and communities of interest as key guides, I find the proposed maps sensible, appropriate, and reflecting the communities’ current interests, which are always evolving. House Districts -- populations in these smaller areas are more fluid and dynamic, as people move up and out, businesses are born, grow, move, or whither. Regarding the Northern Colorado area in which I have lived 40 years, I again applaud the mappers for using the available information to identify and consider communities of interest. I trust them to do the same with the Census data. In conclusion, Colorado is a national leader in nonpartisan redistricting: in process, in Commission selection, and criteria. I have full confidence in the Commission and the nonpartisan staff to provide a fair and responsive structure for the next 10 years. It is such a comfort to know that Colorado is leading the way to strengthen and protect all voters’ fair access. I thank you for all your good work on behalf of the people of Colorado.

I am writing to strongly discourage breaking up Boulder County communities as a part of redistricting in Colorado. Boulder Counties mountain communities are suburbs of Eastern Boulder County where many of us work, recreate, and receive services. According to the federal government, we are not even considered rural communities. Representation from the Western Slope divides us from the rest of the county in a way that feels random, and even dangerous. Our representative in District 2 understands the unique dangers we face in the urban/mountain interface in which we live. In recent years, fires and floods in Western Boulder County have spread into urban areas of the county. Effectively mitigating hazards requires that both the urban and mountain leadership work together with our state leadership to effectively protect our communities from wildfire and flood events. Separating the mountain communities from the representation on the plains, creates a dangerous division for both. None of us work on the Western Slope, nor do we send our children to be schooled there. Services that many mountain residents rely on are located within the eastern part of the county. It simply doesn't make sense to break up Boulder County in the way that is being proposed– dividing our communities within the same county. Please, please reconsider this plan for the sake of all Boulder County residents! Respectfully, Calryn Aston Resilience Leader Boulder County

Adding us to a western district makes no sense! Geographically or politically we don’t belong to thst district! Look elsewhere....

My name is Marjorie (Margie) Freedman and I moved to Boulder in 1975 after graduating from college. I met and married my husband in Boulder. We have lived west of Broadway for 34 years, and we share common interests with the people who live in Nederland and other Boulder County mountain communities. These interests include proximity to nature and wildlife habitat and recreational access to hiking, skiing and climbing. We also share similar concerns, especially the threat of wildfires and flash-flooding. I recommend that the legislative district line be drawn at Broadway in Boulder and include Nederland and the other mountain communities to the west of the City of Boulder to the Boulder County line along the Continental Divide. Much of Boulder’s water supply comes from the City of Boulder-owned watershed located west of and above Nederland along the Continental Divide. Barker Reservoir and Dam are also owned by the City of Boulder, primarily for the city’s water supply, and secondarily, for hydro-electric power. The City of Boulder needs local representation for its water and power resources. Eldora Ski Area is a neighborhood resort that is most closely aligned with Nederland and Boulder, unlike the destination ski resorts located in Summit and Grand Counties. For these reasons, I think it’s critical to include Nederland and the mountain communities in the same legislative district with the western part of the City of Boulder. This will allow the eastern part of the City of Boulder to include Gunbarrel and Niwot where the major business parks and corporate campuses can be inside the same district. I think another important reason for the state-wide redistricting is to protect and adequately represent minority communities, particularly Latino citizens. Some districts should be redrawn to give these citizens a majority voice. This would include Denver, Pueblo and other rural communities needing fair representation. After reading an article in the Colorado Sun, https://coloradosun.com/2021/08/12/latinos-colorado-new-redistricting-influence/, I would also like to see that this issue be addressed as Boulder County is redistricted, especially in regards to the large Latino population in Longmont, Lafayette and eastern Boulder County. Latino leaders are concerned that Colorado's once-in-a-decade redistricting process will continue to give them the short shrift at the State Capitol and in Congress, even as their community's share of the population grows to nearly one quarter. Even though Latino lawmakers in the General Assembly include the largest number in the General Assembly's history (14 of 100 lawmakers), the State's Congressional delegation doesn't include a single Latino representative. According to one State Representative, there should be at least 22 Latino representatives in the State Legislature based on the current census. Thank you for your time and effort on the redistricting commission in trying to give every citizen in Colorado a voice and representation in the governance of our State.