Public Comments

Dear Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission, You have a very challenging job in drawing up district lines and I appreciate your efforts to reach out to get local feedback as I am sure it is difficult for the commission to understand population group impacts by moving a proposed district line even a few miles. I live just south of Longmont and just west of Hwy 287. My home currently falls in State House District 12. Your first question was: • What shared interests unite your community? The current District 12 captures the areas east of the City of Boulder, the City of Lafayette, and city of Louisville. In these communities, we have many shared interests and community values. We have collectively a high interest in issues such as homelessness prevention and development of affordable housing. This is closely coupled with how we efficiently manage growth in these suburban areas. However, the proposed new districts would take about half of District 12 and push it out into the new District 38, largely Weld County where these typical suburban issues are not a concern in this much more rural community. Much of the balance of the former District 12 fall into the new District 36 and District 24. Most of these new districts by geography are in the front range mountainous region where again, these suburban issues simply are not on the forefront of their concerns. They have interests around wildfire mitigation, mountain water management and other related issues. To your second questions: • What are your community’s public policy concerns? To this question, if we look at issues including oil & gas development with associated pollution, climate change, and environmental/health impacts, you have very stark differences between eastern Boulder County with the current District 12 and Weld County represented by the new District 38. With about 2/3 of the property taxes paid for by Oil and Gas Companies in Weld County and very low mill levies to fund school (versus opposition to oil & gas expansion and significant mill levies for schools in the current District 12), the proposed re-districting creates a huge conflict of interest between political sub-divisions. This dilutes the voice of the people in the proposed new districts and inhibits the robust debate that needs to occur in the legislature on these important issues. For the reasons noted above in comments to your questions, I would make a couple of suggested changes that would help address these miss-alignments. First, combine the proposed District 36 west of the Diagonal Hwy and District 24 west of Hwy 36 into a single district. This would be a district of these front range mountainous areas with well aligned community issues and values. Second, I would create a new district closer to the current District 12 with western boundaries being the Diagonal Hwy, the proposed District 37, and Hwy 36. I would then move the western boundary of the proposed District 38 to the Boulder/Weld County line, or at a minimum move it out to Hwy 287 to capture the many suburban communities to the west of this highway. Thank you again for the time to make comments to your commission. You have my email if you have any questions. Best regards, Wayne Simmons

Rural Colorado is very well represented in the preliminary Congressional map. I do not want to see the state divided into a southern district as the southeast portion of Colorado and the southwester part of Colorado have very little in common. As well as the bigger issue of combining Rural Colorado with El Paso County. As someone who lives in rural Colorado, the preliminary map makes sense to me. El Paso County should be as close to its own district as possible, because they have many military issues that the surrounding areas are not concerned about on the federal level. The economic disparity from El Paso County to (Baca) County is extreme. By combining the southern rural portion of Colorado then you are effectively saying that El Paso is more important than the rest of Colorado because they will be getting more representation for their area.

Routt County is...different. Different from our neighbors and different from much of our State. While western Routt County remains primarily agricultural and high plains desert, the economic powerhouse of the county is the seat of the county, Steamboat Springs and the engine that drives that economy is tourism. One cannot point to any other place in the county that remains so primarily reliant upon the tourist dollar or on our mountains. As a teacher representative, much time was spent on calculating how Steamboat District RE-2 teachers were to be paid compared to the rest of the State. After long hours of negotiation, we concluded that our district was indeed comparable to those of Eagle, Pitkin, and Boulder and not so much to those of Moffat, Rio Blanco and Grand. I suggest the same for our political redistricting. Steamboat Springs and the surrounding area are different culturally, economically, geographically and politically. Please consider this as new District lines are being drawn.

Summit County needs to remain in CD2. I listened to the Frisco meeting and was appalled at some speakers who stated that Boulder and Summit had nothing in common. As a Boulder resident for 30 years and a part time, now full time resident of Summit County, I can say with absolute certainty that both counties share goals and values, and neither county has anything in common with CD3. Boulder and Summit counties are aligned on environmental protection, outdoor recreation, front range transportation needs, water and climate legislation, lower extraction goals, ski areas, second homes, artistic culture, political will and expectations from our representatives. Both Boulder and Summit counties believe and rely on effective government intervention to help solve some of our greatest issues, including affordable housing and transportation woes. No one is Summit County wants to align with a district that shuns government and elected Boebert. No one wants to lose representation from Neguse, who has been widely recognized as the most effective new member of Congress, to Boebert, whose role is mostly performative, embarrassing, and totally ineffective. Many of us have to endure the traffic on I70 E daily and rarely venture west of Vail unless necessary. Summit and Boulder have a lot of mutual goals and connections that benefit both communities and should stay together in CD2. I don't think a mountain district is a good idea because counties like Chaffee are not as closely aligned to the front range as Summit County is. Many of us consider front range communities to be part of our every day lives, especially those of us who are second homeowners. Summit residents go to DIA, the Denver museums, Red Rocks, shopping districts, etc. No one here travels to Grand Junction unless they are on the way to Moab. Please don't listen to the minority voices who claim we have nothing in common with Boulder. That is utter nonsense. The fact that Boulder and Summit elected Neguse is evidence of our common interests. Please keep Summit in CD2.

Regarding the hearing held in Durango on August 7: Having attended and testified at the Durango hearing, I would like to give you some insight since I knew nearly everyone in the audience. As an Independent voter and fifth-generation Durango native, I believe I have a rather objective viewpoint about local politics, community interests, etc. Mr. Dale Ruggles, a Bayfield Republican, was the only Republican Party official that I recognized. He correctly pointed out that local democrats ran quite a campaign to encouraged speakers to support a congressional map drawn by former state Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush, a Steamboat Springs Democrat, and James Iacino, of Montrose to preserve the currently gerrymandered 59th house district. (See attached example). They even conduced a zoom meeting to prep people on what to say (also attached) What you could not have known is that the hearing was packed with officers of the La Plata County Democrat Party Executive Committee who all promoted their “competitive redistricting” template (the lowest priority of the redistricting goals). The Democrat officers testifying included: 1. Herb Bowman, Chair 2. Katie Stewart MacVeigh, 1st Vice Chair 3. Marcia Sabeti, 2nd Vice Chair 4. Anne Markward, 3rd Vice Chair 5. Jean Walter, Secretary 6. Dan MacVeigh, Treasurer 7. Carol Cure (ex officio and previous Chair), 8. Karen Pontius, 9. Guinn Unger, and 10. Becca Conrad Whitehead Ms. Markward is also the founder and administrator of Indivisible Durango that published the “Call to Action” also attached here. NONE of these people identified themselves as members of the Democrat executive committee to the redistricting commission. Neither they or Indivisible Durango have registered as lobbyists for redistricting. As you know from listening to their preformatted talking points, their preferred outcome is to divide up: 1. SW Colorado (Montezuma, La Plata, and Archuleta Counties), 2. The lands of the Southern Ute Tribe, 3. The interconnected watersheds agricultural communities of SW Colorado, and 4. The oil, gas, and mineral industries that are common to these counties. Most in bothersome in my opinion was the testimony by Gwen Lachelt near the end of the hearing. While she correctly identified herself as a former La Plata County Commissioner, Ms. Lachelt failed to mention that she is no longer a resident of Colorado. For bona fides, Ms. Lachelt also stated that she’s the executive director of the Western Leaders Network that she impressively describes as “a growing organization of 450 local and tribal elected officials.” The fact is, Western Leaders Network it is a private organization she founded and has NO official relationship or sanction by any native tribes or governments. Again, this is just for perspective. Quite frankly, I don’t have a stake in whether Democrats or Republicans have an advantage relative to each other. I do feel however that everyone testifying should be transparent in their identity and motives. Thank you for your good work. Jack Turner - Durango, CO

I am following up on the public testimony I presented at the July 17 Fort Collins hearing and submitting a written comment as requested by the commissioners. As a member of the Fort Collins City Council, I believe it is important for Larimer County and Boulder County to remain together in the new congressional map. Larimer and Boulder County represent a community of interest: both are home to major research universities (the Colorado Supreme Court established that higher education institutions are a community of interest in 2011), tech tourism, and Rocky Mountain National Park. Residents of both counties share policy concerns around public land issues and increasingly devastating wildfires. Weld County does not share these same concerns with Larimer County, and while CSU had historically been an agricultural college, it has expanded its mission beyond agriculture and now has a much broader constituency. Today, both CSU and CU have climate change programs and programs dealing with forest fires, reflecting the shared challenges our communities face related to beetle kill and drought. For these reasons, CD2 should include Boulder, Fort Collins, and the other mountain communities in the area.

I have lived in Fort Collins for 52 years and the proposed map by the redistributing commission accurately reflects our community.

My name is Beth Utton. I am testifying for myself and my concerns as a City of Longmont and Boulder County resident. The values shared by the City of Longmont and Boulder County constitute a strong and increasingly integral community of interest. These values fall within three main categories: environment; public health; and transportation. These values differ markedly from neighboring Weld County. • Boulder County and Longmont are strongly opposed to fracking for reasons of environmental harm and harm to public health. In fact, the City of Longmont voted to ban fracking within city limits. Weld County favors fracking and opposes any state management of the negative impacts of fracking. • Boulder County and Weld County have distinctly different geographies. The foothills of Boulder County and the plains of Weld County do not have all the same environmental issues to consider. For example, fire control concerns are far greater in Boulder County. • Longmont and Boulder County, due to their more concentrated populations, have a need to plan for mass transit options. Weld County does not have this consideration. For these reasons, Longmont should be in CD2 along with the rest of Boulder County. In addition to being a community of interest, keeping Boulder County within one congressional district meets the criteria of preserving whole political subdivisions. Also for these reasons, Boulder County public lands should remain completely within CD2 and with Larimer County. These same reasons are applicable to State Senate Districts. The current State Senate District 17 enfolds Longmont, Louisville and Lafayette (all of which are in Boulder County). The proposed senate districts would put these communities in with Weld County communities. Longmont, Louisville and Lafayette share basically the same environmental, public health and transportation values and issues, values which differ distinctly from those of Weld County communities. The proposed senate district unnecessarily enfolds two different communities of interest, thus potentially leaving both communities of interest feeling poorly represented in the State Assembly. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

I am the Town Manager for Pagosa Springs, the county seat of Archuleta County. My opinions herein are my own and I do not speak on behalf of the Town Council. I would like to express my support for Archuleta County/Pagosa Springs being within the Southwest Colorado legislative region --Senate District #7--rather than drawn into the San Luis Valley as proposed. This county and Pagosa Springs have always been a part of SW Colorado and identifies with the planning management areas of Region 9, the Southwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Transportation Planning Region, healthcare, soil conservation districts, and many other southwest colorado regional entities. To break off the county for redistricting into the eastern/central part of the state doesn't makes sense to me as a local government manager. Our community largely utilizes Durango and La Plata County for services that can not be obtained here (hospital, medical care, DMV, airport, shopping, etc.). We have shared values with the southwest region as a whole and work with the aforementioned entities on regional issues. Thank you for the opportunity to express my personal view on this matter.

The 3rd congressional district should consist of rural western slope areas. These areas share a common interest and economy. Adding front slope interest are areas of totally opposite economies and interest. the western slop should be heard as a common voice.