Public Comments

I have lived in Colorado since 1991. In 1996, my husband and I moved from the city of Boulder to unincorporated Boulder County. We have lived in a log cabin on a mountain lake 6 miles north of Nederland, Colorado and 1/2 mile east of Hwy. 72 since then. We live surrounded by the Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest. In the 25 years that we have lived up here, we have maintained robust work and social networks in the city of Boulder and built friendships in Nederland. Both our children attended elementary school in Nederland and middle school in Boulder as we took advantage of our inclusion in the Boulder Valley School District and appreciated the highly educated Boulder population and superb school district. It takes ten minutes for us to drive to Nederland and just 30 minutes to drive into the city of Boulder. My husband and I have worked from home, in Boulder, and in Denver. We do the majority of our food and essential shopping in the city of Boulder and, as mentioned above, have maintained strong social and professional networks in the city of Boulder. I mention all of the above to demonstrate how closely we are aligned with the public policies and political concerns of mountain towns east of the Continental Divide, Boulder County, Boulder and the Front Range rather than those of the Western Slope. My number one issue is addressing the environmental degradation that has been caused by climate change brought on by subsidized oil and gas and carbon emissions. I live at 9,000 feet surrounded by National Forest and directly abutting the City of Boulder Watershed. I live along a scenic byway which has been inundated by tourists and recreation seekers. My mountain neighbors and I have been very engaged with and supportive of Congressman Joe Neguse's considerable and successful efforts to address wildfire danger, risks to air quality, and watershed health. He has been a tireless and creative advocate in Congress for mitigating risks of catastrophic wildfire and working toward protecting the watersheds and public lands in the current 2nd Congressional District. As I understand it, the independent commission is considering lumping the Nederland area together with the current 3rd Congressional District. At this moment, the current 3rd CD Representative (Republican Lauren Boebert) denies climate change, boosts continued fossil fuel extraction, supports fewer public and environmental health regulations on carbon-emitting businesses, and is seemingly willfully ignorant of the proven science underpinning climate change. Furthermore, her current district, for how vast it is in area, is dominated by public lands leased for agriculture (crops and/or livestock) or resource extraction. Her predecessor, Scott Tipton, while less incendiary and more educated and thoughtful, also prioritized extraction industry leases and low regulation over environmental health. Lumping my immediate small mountain town of Nederland together with the likes of Grand Junction and Fruita would seem to guarantee that our priorities would be overlooked and underserved. In the coming years, Western Slope citizens, businesses and politicians will be increasingly focused on dealing with diminished water in the Colorado River and transitioning their economies away from oil, gas, and coal. My personal concerns align very much with those of Nederland and Boulder, two communities that value science, facts, and environmental and public health. Boulder, known for its enlightened and progressive political policies and extremely well-educated citizenry, has enjoyed a booming economy for decades. Please recognize that the mountainous Nederland and foothills Boulder communities deserve Congressional representation that is focused on improving the likelihood that the Northern Front Range will survive and can even help turn the tide on the climate change disaster that is upon us.

The following is the text of the in-person testimony I gave on August 4th at the Golden Meeting. After hearing some of the other testimony, I'd like to add that I strongly disagree that Community Interest is partisan and that the commission should look at as many election races as possible to "smooth out the data". Elections results have a trend over time rather than a cumulative effect! First, I’d like to thank the Commission and staff for the hard work completed so far. My husband, Brian and I live in Indian Hills, and I’d like to specifically address the draft map of proposed changes to HD25. HD25 currently consists of the unincorporated foothills region of Jefferson County. Over the past few years our district has been very competitive. I’m advocating that HD25 should be allowed to remain as it is currently defined. In particular, the common interests in the foothills are shared among the unincorporated areas such as Indian Hills, Morrison, Evergreen, Dakota Ridge and extending to Pine and Conifer. The draft changes that propose we be included with parts of Golden, Superior and Louisville would mix unincorporated with suburban interests. Given that CO house districts are the smallest political districts, I’m asking the commission to keep the status quo so that unincorporated JeffCo is fairly represented. Currently HD25 resides solely within JeffCo. The proposed map includes part of Boulder County. Whenever possible, it seems best to have one house representative serve one county’s interests and also one school district as is the current district. In some cases, unincorporated neighborhoods may look suburban, but the common interests for unincorporated areas are very different and include: • Special districts for water, sanitation, fire etc. vs. municipal services in suburban areas • Healthcare • Economic interests • Transportation needs This doesn’t mean all the citizens of unincorporated JeffCo agree on these issues, but they are common to us. These interests need focused representation from our legislators. Again, as it currently exists, HD25 is an extremely completive district that allows constituents the opportunity to elect representatives that are advocating for their interests. Thank you again for your work and for allowing me this time to speak.

It was my pleasure to provide testimony at the Durango meeting. Due to the 3 minutes time limit I wanted to officially submit two maps. One is the planning and management regions which are important because they are the boundaries in which the governments already work. Currently in SW Colorado this includes CDOT Transportation Planning Region, SW Colorado Council of Governments, Region 9 Economic Development District, DOLA Planning Regions, Workforce regions, Water Basin regions. area agency on aging regions, housing regions etc. Keeping those regions whole will benefit those communities and how they already do business. With that in mind, please keep San Juan County in HD 52. They receive all services to the South including Heathcare, transportation, Human Services etc. To the North is red Mountain Pass which is huge geogrpahic barrier making connections for San Juan County difficult. The second map is a proposed revision for Senate District 7 so that Archuleta can be included per their desire and how they already work with SW COlorado. We are trying to keep regions as whole as possible and proejcted Census numbers. Archuleta County does not traditionally work with the San Luis Valley with another geographic barrier of Wolf Creek Pass to the Valley. The proposed Congressional District 3 has SW COlorado working with Region 10 and 11 to the North. That aligns with what is already occurring.

My name is Andy Kramer. I’ve been a life-long resident of Colorado, and moved to Broomfield in 2006. Several months ago, I sent a letter to the Redistricting Commissioners. In this letter I respectively made two requests with regard to future boundaries of Colorado Legislative Districts. Firstly, I asked that Broomfield’s Communities of Interest be considered. Secondly, I asked that the City and County of Broomfield “remain whole”, and be represented by a single Senator and Representative. Broomfield is a vibrant suburban community that shares interests with the neighboring cities of Thornton, Westminster, Boulder, Superior, Lafayette, and Louisville. We share very few, if any, common interests with communities in Weld County. I would like to focus on one specific interest, and that is education. As a retired teacher who taught in both urban (Denver) and suburban (Adams-Arapahoe and Douglas) school districts, I know firsthand the importance of local control. Elected school board members are charged with representing the needs of their communities’ students and parents. Broomfield’s students and parents are primarily served by the Boulder Valley School District, the Adams-12 School District, and the Jefferson County School District. Broomfield’s families are not served by school districts in Weld County. Our representatives in the General Assembly make decisions regarding funding of public education. It is important that these representatives understand the needs of their Senate and House districts, just as do elected school board members in their communities. Broomfield needs a State Senator and a State Representative who will keep in mind the educational needs of the communities of interest they serve. There’s one more important consideration for keeping Broomfield within a single Senate and House district. Broomfield officially became a city and county in November, 2001. Prior to that date, Broomfield was served by portions of four counties. During the past 20 years, Broomfield has forged a strong sense of community, and in doing so, has thrived healthfully, socially, and economically. This is another compelling reason for Broomfield to be represented by a single Senator and Representative in the General Assembly. Moreover, both of these representatives should reflect the communities of interest of which Broomfield is a part. Sincerely, Andy Kramer 4252 Corte Bella Drive Broomfield, CO 80023

In the most recent preliminary legislative district map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be spit between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior residents who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We are also very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Thank you for considering the voting needs of the residents of Wind Crest. Sincerely, Marilyn and Dave Binkley (submitted via email 8/8/21)

Thank you for all your work on this important issue. I’m writing as a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I request that the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. In the preliminary legislative district map, the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus, just like one small town. We also are very active voters. Having our community artificially located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities as one united community. Richard Arden Slotter (submitted via email 8/8/21)

Greetings, Thank you for undertaking this important matter for the benefit of all Coloradans. I am a resident in Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch (80129). According to the preliminary plan, this community of over 1,600 residents that occupy 16 multi level, interconnected buildings will be split into two districts - DIstrict 22 and District 23.. I respectfully ask that this community be assigned to only one district. Average age in this community is 78. We share 8 dining rooms, several libraries, meeting rooms and many common areas. In order to avoid the loneliness of retirement, there are over 90 clubs and numerous communal activities. Because of our size, we have many politicians visit our community. Splitting our community into two districts will be confusing to residents and the state election boards. For the few acres it takes to put our community into one district, you will make life easier for everybody. Respectfully, Raymond S Venoski (submitted via email 8/7/21)

Commissioners: I’m a grandfather living in Durango, CO, very invested in the futures of my 3 Coloradan grandchildren. Our democracy is of primary importance to their and our welfare, and I thank you for taking on the task of protecting it with properly-drawn congressional districts. Failing at your task necessarily puts our balanced and inclusive form of government at risk. I strongly believe that the Commission’s Preliminary Plan district for CD3 fails miserably in multiple constitutionally-mandated ways. 1) The Commissions’ proposed district breaks up a recreation-centered “community of interest,” making it less possible for voters with similar interests to vote together in a block to achieve needed Federal protections and other legislation. Primary to successful communities and happy lives is economic vitality, and a shared economy creates a core “community of interest.” Western Colorado definitely shares an economy centered around recreation, because our region is known world-wide for its natural scenic beauty. Our economy – local businesses, support industries, and jobs - is based on tourism that brings in millions of visitors and billions of dollars each year. The principal attractions that bring visitors back (while employing many western Coloradans) include our stunning national parks and historical monuments, our world-class ski and other resorts, successful support industries, and the bulk of public lands in the state. The Commission’s proposal separates these tourism-centered regions into 2 districts, cleaving like-minded voters and workers apart (while adding another faction). This would deprive them of their cumulative voting power to protect their jobs, businesses, and environment by electing a Representative focused on their needs. This would threaten a primary economic engine of this state. We need strong Federal legislation that protects our parks and monuments, and our environment ref ecosystem support against wildfire and drought. Our voters want a powerful voice in Congress whose constituents are not divided against each other on these issues, nor on water rights and economic issues. There is no valid reason to use the Commission’s flawed Preliminary Plan. 2) The Commissions’ proposed district makes our CD3 district far less competitive. I understand that by doing so, some other districts may have been made more competitive, but such a sacrifice of one for others is still counter to constitutional mandates, fairness to CD3 voters, and common sense. The Commission’s Preliminary Plan for CD3, as you know, nearly doubles the existing sizeable in-balance between the political perspectives. Some voters in this area already wonder why to even bother – to vote; to run for office or support a candidate; even to just be informed about what some regional issues are, since their outcomes are already sewn up. As someone active in the community, I hear these valid complaints regularly. Near-doubling the margin of un-balance by giving a “lock” on elections to some voters will guarantee that other voters will step back from civic participation. Can you blame them? This sets up unhappy relationships between political communities, and lop-sided policy with bad outcomes. I urge the Commission to adopt the alternative district plan for CD3 known as the CD3 Competitive Map (please see attached graphic). Reference point 1 above, this map better addresses the fractured “community of interest” shortcoming of the Commission’s proposed district, by including in our district ALL of Colorado’s national parks and monuments, as well as ALL of Colorado’s major ski and related recreational resort areas – a single cultural area. Reference point 2) above, using this improved district map gives all voters in CD3 a chance to be represented in Congress by reducing the lopsided advantage of one political perspective by nearly half. Reducing the power in-balance puts meaningful participation within reach for voters who have until now have suffered having little say. Thank you for your hard work on this vital issue, and for your attention to voters’ concerns. Sincerely, Kirby MacLaurin (submitted via email 8/7/21)

Dear Commissioners, I'm writing to express my concern for the Commissions Preliminary Districting Plan. I feel that the plan as currently proposed divides "communities of interest" which in turn diminishes the value of their vote to promote common interests in a legislative agenda. Theses common interests include (but are not limited to): environmental concerns public health concerns and water resource management. Thank-you for your good work, and your consideration of public comment. Sincerely, Wendy Pollak (submitted via email 8/7/21)

Hello, I live in Hesperus, Colorado and am concerned that the proposed redistricting map for CD3 breaks up communities of interest that should share a common district. In order to fulfill the requirement of creating/maintaining communities of interest, CD3 should contain our national parks and ski areas, and not divide these areas that rely on tourism into separate districts. The link below is to an alternative map that satisfies the "common interest" requirement much better than the Commission's proposed map. https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::72e027fe-d181-4053-a915-743df53445f6 Please consider this map as an alternative. Thank you, Philip Riffe (submitted via email 8/6/21)