Public Comments

Dear Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissioners, Thank you for your service and dedication to our state. When Colorado voters approved Amendments Y & Z, creating the Independent Commissions, voters took redistricting out of the hands of partisan politicians and established robust public input requirements for the entire redistricting process. Public participation is a critical component to ensuring that the maps you draw are fair, equitable, and prioritize communities of interest. The delays in the release of the 2020 Census data have made your jobs more difficult by requiring the adjustment of multiple deadlines and the use of estimate data to draw preliminary maps. Despite these obstacles, you all have committed to maintaining the robust public input process established in Amendments Y & Z. By committing to hold seven additional public hearings on the staff maps drawn using 2020 Census data, you are ensuring that the public has adequate input on maps drawn with accurate data. Without those hearings you risk compromising the legitimacy of this critical process. Thank you for your commitment to public participation. These maps will define outcomes for communities across Colorado for a decade, the people deserve to have a say in how the lines are drawn. Sincerely,

I've lived in Fort Collins for 10 years. think the proposed map makes sense from our community.

I am writing to ask you to keep the rural parts of Colorado together. The preliminary map does just that. Some of the other configurations that have been presented are not good for rural representation. One of the key items that seems to be overlooked is that the cities need water that the rural counties have for farming. It would be awful to combine El Paso County with the lower Arkansas River Valley and give El Paso the federal power to take the water. I ask that you keep rural Colorado together and give them someone to fight for their water rights, instead of stripping their water rights away.

Dear Commissioners. We object to extending the boundary for representation at the State Capital for Eastern Boulder into Weld County. When our family was transferred from the United States, we had a choice of any city in the U.S. to move to. After considerable research, we chose Colorado. And within Colorado, we chose to work and live in Niwot in Boulder County. Our neighbourhood (Wildview - N. of Niwot Road, E. of 287, S. of Oxford Road, W. of 95th) will be affected by any decision to extend the House District Boundary into Weld County. There are many values that makes Boulder County exceptional, separating itself from other counties in the state. As a "transplant" into Boulder, we very much appreciate Boulder County's Mission Statement to “conserve natural, cultural and agricultural resources and provide public uses which reflect sound resource management and community values”. [https://www.bouldercounty.org/open-space/management/2020 vision/] These goals include: 1. preserve rural lands and buffers 2. preserve and restore natural resources for the benefit of the environment and the public 3. provide public outreach, partnerships and volunteer opportunities to increase awareness and appreciation of Boulder County’s open space 4. protect, restore and interpret cultural resources for the education and enjoyment of current and future generations 5. provide quality recreational experiences while protecting open space resource Boulder County sees itself as a leader and takes pride in being a model for sustainability and the protection of the environment and wildlife. We also appreciate Boulder's building height restrictions thereby preserving the Rocky Mountain viewing corridor for all to enjoy. Values such as the above are what makes Boulder County unique. We are concerned about the environmental impact from oil drilling and fracking, which appears to have good support from those of Weld County. We have no direct association or relationship with Weld County. We do not live, shop or work in Weld County. Since we have no ties to Weld County and have concerns that Weld County's interests and/or values may differ from those of Boulder County, we are equally concerned that if the House District boundary lines should change, any future elected representative at the State Capital may have values that may not be shared by an elected representative that serves those people living in Boulder County and especially Eastern Boulder where we reside. In summary, please do not extend the House District Boundary to include Weld County. The boundary should end at the Boulder County/Weld County line. Respectfully submitted,

I’ve lived in East Boulder County for over 40 years, in Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville and in unincorporated Boulder County. I live in Lafayette now. I'm concerned about the preliminary map suggesting that my East Boulder County CO House District 12 would be carved up and split into several other CO House Districts. One goes into Weld County to the east, one goes into Jefferson County to the south, and one circles around the City of Boulder to the north and west. I don’t understand how anyone could think this is appropriate. The current East Boulder County HD 12 communities of Lafayette, Louisville, and southeast Longmont are a cohesive community of interest in many ways, but I’ll focus specifically our concerns about air quality . We’ve experienced 38 days in a row of air quality alerts this summer. Some of the pollution is from forest fires in California and Oregon, but much of the invisible pollution in East Boulder County is ozone caused by Volatile Organic Compounds coming from the oil and gas operations in Weld County. This issue of industrial scale air pollution coming from Weld County into Boulder County has been going on for years, getting much worse in the last few years. We in East Boulder County have a very strong common interest in a clean environment, including clean air. We don’t want to be lumped in with Weld County. They have shown very little concern for our air quality. I’m also wondering if this carving up of the current CO House District 12 would result in fracturing the Latinx vote in the communities of Lafayette and Longmont. It seems to me that it would. We don’t want that. We want our East Boulder County communities of southeast Longmont, Lafayette and Louisville to stay together in a new East Boulder County House District. In closing I’ll say, I am glad to see that the preliminary Congressional Redistricting Map moves Longmont into CD 2, where it should be, with the rest of Boulder County. There are countless recreational, cultural, educational, business and community ties of common interest between Longmont and the rest of Boulder County. One of the most important of these is protecting our treasured public lands. Please keep all of our Boulder County public lands in CD2 along with Larimer County and its public lands so that our representative may serve our common desire to protect and live sustainably near our treasured public lands.

I am a resident of Boulder, Colorado, live within proposed State House District 37, which would comprise most of Boulder, Colorado, and wish to raise concerns about this proposed House District. I have two concerns and I will expand below. 1. Boulder has a community of interest with mountain communities and counties to the West because of shared hazards such as fire and floods. 2. A single district Boulder is much less likely to be competitive than two or more districts comprised of parts of Boulder and mountain communities. Community of Interest. Boulder city limits go into the foothills and the proposed district directly abuts the foothills. Because of our proximity to the mountains, we share interests with the communities particularly on climate hazards. If the mountains face fire risks, we face fire risks and certainly get the smoke from the fires. If the mountain areas flood, those floods come downhill into Boulder. I saw this dramatically in 2013. My neighborhood was flooded and many nearby buildings, homes, and roads faced severe damage from the floods. Last year we experienced the CalWood fire in the neaby foothills, pouring smoke into our neighborhood and threatening us all with fire. Boulder also shares water supplies which originate in the mountains and flow down to the city. The quantity and quality of the water I drink, bathe in, and use for other purposes comes from the mountains. Climate change adaptation will be a major concern for the Colorado state government this decade. We need legislative districts that promote cooperation and common solutions on adaptations. Issues such as fire and flood management, as well as management of our at risk water supplies, are critical for Colorado’s well being and future. State representatives whose districts cover foothills, mountains, and lower elevation areas will better be able to craft solutions that will be more acceptable and successful than if representation is divided between mountains and lower elevations. Competitiveness. A House district made up only of Boulder residents will most certainly not be competitive. In the 2020 Presidential election, 77% of Boulder County voted for the Democratic Presidential nominee, with only 21% voting for the Republican candidate. The margin going Democratic in the City of Boulder was almost certainly higher. In contrast, Grand County to Boulder’s west, split almost evenly between the two parties. Jackson county, to the north of Grand, voted Republican by a margin of 78-20. A combination of portions of Boulder County with rural counties such as Grand and Jackson would yield more competitive house districts. Such districts will better promote moderation, compromise, and ultimately good and effective governance, much moreso than districts that are almost entirely urban, suburban, or rural. In conclusion I urge to create multiple State House districts that combine Boulder and mountain residents to capture a broader community of interest and create more competitive districts.

RE: State Legislative Redistricting Currently in House District 12 -- Proposed to be in new District 38, should be in 36 Comments also apply to State Senate Redistricting -- Proposed to be in 32, should be in 33 Comments also apply to US House Redistricting -- currently in District 2, should remain with Boulder County I oppose the western boundaries for new Colorado District 38, which lump me in with southwestern Weld County. I have nothing in common with this locale. I do not shop there, I do not patronize restaurants there, I do not recreate there. I have lived at my current residence in rural eastern Boulder County for 26 years and have a strong connection to my Boulder County community, who share my interests and public policy concerns. I identify with my friends and neighbors in Boulder County who support values such as clean air and a healthy environment, oversight of oil and gas production and development, affordable housing, responsible gun ownership, affordable health care, science-based response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and crucial measures to counter climate change. I do not identify with Weld County constituents who have disparate, opposing, and competing values. I do not identify with a County who has expressed desire to secede from Colorado in favor of joining Wyoming. I have little or nothing in common with predominant Weld County interests. If the new district boundaries are established as proposed, I my voice will be taken away. I will no longer be represented. My vote will not count. I strongly urge you, implore you, to make the proposed western boundary of the new District 38, south of Longmont, the same as the Boulder-Weld county border, and keep rural, unincorporated eastern Boulder County aligned with Boulder County (together with the new District 36), where it belongs. Thank you.

I do not believe that adding Nederland to otherwise entirely western slope district represents our needs as a community. We have very different interests from those in the rest of the proposed 3rd district. The residents here either work locally in town or work in Denver, Boulder, Gunbarrel and surrounding areas. We do not go to the other side of the divide for work, or education. While it may look geographically close it is not even close by any form of transportation other than hiking over the divide or driving to Denver and taking the train to Winter Park. I would like you to reconsider our needs as a community and include us with our more educationally, politically, geographically and policy aligned fellow front range residents. I feel our needs as a community would be neglected if we were part of a district that is several hours drive away.

As a resident, property owner, and, most particularly, as a tax-paying citizen of Delta County, I am concerned that the preliminary redistricting maps recently (June 29, 2021) released showing proposed new State House and Senate District boundaries feature some rather bizarre divisions that might carry along with them unintended consequences. It's disturbing that no comments were solicited in the process from representative persons or groups from Delta County or from the North Fork Valley, although I understand that some “listening sessions” have since happened and at this point public comments are being accepted. Just to cut to the chase, I'm fine with anything that more closely resembles the current groupings, especially with regard to House Districts. There the proposal appears to carve out a portion of the shared Gunnison watershed and throws it in with Mesa County. Something similar seems to occur with the proposed Senate map, dividing Delta County roughly down the middle. I'm not sure that I'm really all that well-informed on how the redistricting process works (I'd welcome an explanation), but it does seem to me that, as a general principle, governance should flow from communities of shared interest. A watershed – in this instance, that of the Gunnison River Basin, of which the North Fork Valley watershed is a component – should figure as one such community, especially in an area so dependent on agriculture, ranching, and outdoor recreation. These maps strike me as having been drawn in deliberate ignorance of such concerns, based solely on a “balanced” numerical representation that reflects changes in population over the past decade. As those changes play out in public policy debates, the consequences may very well not be in our best interest if these artificial divisions are approved as proposed.

Legislative Redistricting Comment: My name is Carol Cure, I’m a retired lawyer and a 15-year resident of La Plata County. I’m here to provide comments about the Legislative Redistricting of HD59, designated on the Preliminary House Plan as HD52. I am asking the Commission to revise the map to combine La Plata County with Gunnison, Hinsdale, San Juan, and Archuleta Counties. This configuration would best recognize and protect our local mountain resort counties as a community of interest as mandated by the Colorado Constitution. The Preliminary House Plan produced by staff does not comply with the constitutional mandates set forth in Article V of the Colorado Constitution, specifically Section 48. There are two serious problems with the plan. First, the plan completely ignores the requirement that a district “preserve whole political subdivisions“ such as counties intact to “facilitate the efficient and effective provision of government services.” In fact, the Colorado Constitution establishes a presumption in Section 48.1 of Article V that counties will be kept whole, stating that “the commission shall presume that [a county] should be wholly contained within a district.” This presumption can only be overcome where a “preponderance of the evidence in the record” indicates that a community of interest’s legislative issues are more essential to the fair and effective representation of the county’s residents. There has been no such showing as between Montezuma and La Plata Counties and, in fact, they share very few legitimate community interests affecting representation of their respective residents. Rather than respecting Montezuma County’s borders, the Preliminary House Plan splits it in half, separating out the western part of the County and lumping the northeastern part, which includes the county seat of Cortez, in with La Plata. This makes absolutely no sense in terms of the provision of county services and would potentially pit the representative and constituents of half the county against the representative and constituents of the other half. It’s my understanding that Montezuma residents, as well as its government officials, are strongly opposed to that plan and have vigorously voiced their desire to be kept whole and combined, instead, with a district including Montrose, San Miguel, Delores and Ouray, other counties that share Montezuma’s significant rural agricultural concerns. Second, the Preliminary House Plan totally ignores the constitutional requirement that the plan “preserve whole communities of interest.” As stated, Montezuma County shares almost no legitimate community interests with La Plata County. We have little in common with Montezuma’s rural agricultural economy. Instead, we have much more in common with Gunnison County, which like La Plata is home to a major four-year college and to a well-known ski resort. Fort Lewis College in Durango is very similar to Western Colorado University in Gunnison. Both are situated in mountain resort areas and emphasize their outdoor recreation, mountain sports and wilderness pursuits, with world-class skiing in their backyards at Crested Butte and Purgatory Ski Resorts. Both counties, as well as their neighboring, contiguous counties of Hinsdale, San Juan and Archuleta share many common state policy concerns. These communities are all tourist and outdoor recreation destinations with San Juan County’s county seat of Silverton as the destination for the Durango to Silverton narrow gauge railway and the Silverton Mountain Ski Resort. The train supports much of the tourism economy in both towns. Hinsdale County is covered by mountains, including multiple “fourteeners,” the 14,000-foot mountains that people from all over come to Colorado to climb. Archuleta County is home to Pagosa Springs, where you can find the world’s deepest geothermal hot springs and well as many other tourist attractions, including nearby Wolf Creek ski resort with some of the best snow depths in the area. Small businesses, tourism, public lands, and outdoor recreation are the lifeblood of these mountain resort communities and the importance of legislation protecting their public lands, common interests and unique state policy concerns cannot be underestimated. The climate crisis has led to drought, a reduction in snow and rainfall, and an increase in in wildfires and their severity, which negatively affects both winter and summer outdoor recreation tourism...the biggest industry in our communities. Because the Preliminary House Plan set forth by staff for what is now being designated as HD52 (currently known as HD59) is constitutionally infirm and cannot withstand scrutiny by the Colorado Supreme Court, I urge the Commission to instead adopt a map placing La Plata County in a house district with Gunnison, Hinsdale, San Juan and Archuleta Counties, and placing a unified Montezuma County in a house district with Montrose, San Miguel, Delores and Ouray. This configuration would better meet the requirements of Article V, Section 48.1 of our Colorado Constitution and would ensure the fair and effective representation of their respective residents. Carol Cure 747 Oak Drive Durango, CO 81301 carolcure@gmail.com Cell: 602-402-2424 Home: 970-382-8286