Public Comments

Greetings, I am a resident of the northwest corner of the City of Boulder and as such am currently located within State House District 10. I understand that my neighborhood is proposed to be included into a new State House District 36 that extends to include Lafayette and portions of Longmont. I believe this would be a mistake. The western portion of the City of Boulder has far more in common with the current statehouse district 13 which extends far west and north of the city. We share substantial commonalities with these areas, particularly with regard to environmental stewardship, conservation, recreation, and concerns over floods, fires, and wildlife. The linking of the City of Boulder with these mountain communities would allow us to maintain strong state representation because our interests are so aligned. I recognize that the commission needs to divide Boulder into two districts. I would, however, encourage these districts to be drawn in a manner more closely aligned with the current HDs 10 and 13, which group Boulder with the western most reaches of Boulder County, Clear Creek, Glipin and surrounding areas. I believe maintaining such a grouping more accurately combines us with communities of interest. Thank you for considering my request. Carl Castillo

It was with sadness that I heard your committee is talking about splitting the large senior community of Wind Crest into two districts. We are in the twilight of our lives and many of us have the time to be socially and politically active and wish to do so. I believe this would weaken the ability we have to make a difference in a good way for the state and the country. It certainly seems that you caring folks could find a better way to divide up legislative districts than to run the division through a senior community. Sincerely, Doris P. Helms (submitted via email 8/9/21)

Members and Staff of the Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission - Via the link below, please find memoranda and attachments providing context and information about the Colorado House of Representatives and Colorado Senate redistricting plans submitted by the Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy, and Research Organization (CLLARO) for the commission's consideration. The memoranda will describe House and Senate districts centered on communities of interest, with particular focus on Latino communities. Of the 65 proposed House districts, 16 districts are 30 percent or more Latino. Additionally, 10 districts are competitive according to recent election results. Of the 35 proposed Senate districts, 10 districts are 30 percent or more Latino. Additionally, 8 Senate districts are competitive according to recent election results. CLLARO has prioritized 17 House districts and 13 Senate districts that are centered on Latino communities across the state. Full Plans: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1v_WS3anWIn25QYUf8hdg5cnHMj9Jf6FK?usp=sharing

I am very pleased with the preliminary new boundaries for Congressional District 7. I have had no representation or voice in policy matters since the 2011 redistricting . In 2011 a small area of Jeffco in which I live (Columbine) was included in Congressional District 1. I strongly believe that this was a deliberate action designed to cancel votes of the predominately moderate to conservative population in this area of Jeffco. I have little or nothing in common with the city and county of Denver.

As a voter and the elected Sheriff of Weld County I have definitely experienced some confusion in how the current district boundaries are constructed for "communities of interest". Speaking directly to the new 8th Congressional District, it appears that the current proposed lines don't take into account the fact that Community of Broomfield is more closely aligned with Boulder County and Erie while the Northern edge of the proposed 8th CD border leaves out Windsor. In all actuality, Windsor, Johnstown and Loveland share several points of interest to include major roadways, shopping centers and similar demographics. It seems logical to remove Broomfield from the 8th CD and include Windsor in exchange. This change would also make the 4th CD more focused on the Agricultural areas of the Eastern plains with much more similarity in communities. As currently drawn, there seems to be several areas within the proposed legislative districts that simply don't have any population. I would ask that the local Clerk and Recorders be asked for more precise locating so that new precincts aren't designed that have no voters included.

Minority residents in Longmont, mostly Hispanic, have as a result of being in CD-4 have had no effective representation in Congress. Longmont needs to be in a congressional district where minority populations are sufficient that their vote can have reasonable influence. Not only is this fair it will also encourage minorities to register and to vote. It will also encourage the member of congress to consider their concerns and needs when voting in congress. This certainly has seldom been the case in CD-4 . For the state legislature. We have elected legislators that have been supportive of minority issues and for that mater women issues. We much prefer to keep the Longmont legislative districts largely in tact as we have been able to keep our residents politically active and informed and our elected state legislators aware of the needs of our local concerns as wells as the broader needs of the state.

Good evening. In the midst of this redistricting, and as a resident of Otero county for 10 years and the rural southeastern Colorado region for over 20 years, I would like to provide my input on both the legislative and congressional maps that appear both favorable and unfavorable to my sense of community and representation. In my opinion, counties of like interest in the agricultural, economic, energy and social similarities should be represented together. For example, while industry may look the same to some, there are far more differences in circumstance between Southeastern Colorado and Southwestern Colorado and therefore representation of the citizens should reflect this to ensure the unique regions of our great state are adequately spoken for in all levels of government. We have does business with, gone to school sporting events, and interacted with communities of common interest throughout the Southeastern and Eastern region far more often than Southwestern. The counties of Pueblo, Otero, Bent, Prowers, Crowley, Kiowa, Baca and even Las Animas have unique similarities and I feel these similarities need to be considered in the redistricting effort. Thank you for the public forum for us to provide this input.

As an Otero County citizen and registered voter, I want to keep our legislative and congressional representation as "rural" as possible. I, therefore, believe that a map grouping the Northeast counties with the six (6) Southeast counties is a wise move. Even though I live in Otero County, I can often be found doing business with others on the Eastern Plains and in Northeast Colorado. I can't remember a time that I have ever gone West of Pueblo to conduct business. We are a farming and ranching community, with Hwy. 71 and Hwy. 287 cutting right through SE Colorado. This past weekend, the 84th Annual Kids' Rodeo was hosted in La Junta. Young people from across the Eastern Plains and the six (6) SE Colorado counties took part in the event. We also have a very successful Youth Entrepreneurship Project (YEP) that has been implemented in the six (6) SE Colorado counties, as well as in the Northeast Colorado counties - providing a unified "community of interest" and tying the rural communities together with those common interests. Please consider seriously just grouping the Northeast counties with the Eastern Plains counties and the six (6) Southeast Colorado counties to make the new congressional and legislative district.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal for redistricting that would move part of Nederland, Colorado and Boulder County to a predominantly western slope district. I have lived in Boulder County my entire life, I spent many years teaching here and I have deeply shared interests in the education policies of my county and city. Nederland is in a unique position- only 25 minutes from Boulder, we face issues around growth and infrastructure that have to be of one piece- you can't have a slice of a community that is somehow having a different conversation about roads and water that serve the entire community. Perhaps most importantly, we share needs as a town and county regarding fire mitigation and use of open spaces. These are issues that a unified community must tackle. When Joe Neguse came to Nederland to offer help with an infrastructure issue, it would have been unthinkable for part of the community not to be a part of the conversation, to have no input. Dividing a small community like Ned in two is just unthinkable. I can't begin to imagine the basis on which this radical change would be suggested. It may appear to have some merit based solely on some set of numbers, but it is utterly illogical and utterly inappropriate to my community and our shared concerns. Again, I am strongly opposed to this proposal. Thank you, Lisa Navarre

I am frustrated that you can not sign up for a virtual comment after a meeting has started. If I was in person, I could have signed up at any time during the meeting, and I should not be punished because I am virtual. We should at least have a fifteen minute window, where the chair can let us know that we need to sign up online in the first 15 minutes, even up to an hour. It is frustrating to find out you can attend a meeting in your area virtually because your calendar opened up, only to not be able to speak at that meeting.