Public Comments

Hello, I have lived in and very near Longmont since 1983, and during that time I have seen drastic changes take place here, transforming the city from a small rural town whose economy depended heavily on big agriculture and petroleum production to a large urban area with an economy more focused on high tech, the arts, and organic farms. Longmont is now a community focused on a clean, healthy environment along with cultural diversity and expression. Many of the proposed redistricting maps I have seen show Longmont split into two districts, with part of it remaining with Boulder County and part with Weld County. I strongly object to splitting the town, as Longmont is a community of interest that should not be divided. It is much more similar to other towns in Boulder County, such as Lafayette and Louisville, and distinctly different from Weld County. Putting Longmont into a district with Weld County and the Eastern plains in the past has caused serious lack of legislative representation for Longmont for the past 10 years! Moreover, there is no need to split Longmont between Boulder and Weld counties, since both counties have enough population to have their own House/Senate districts. Here are some of the differences between folks in Longmont and those in Weld County: * Longmont has banned fracking in the past and still works to limit oil and gas production, while Weld County welcomes the petroleum industry with open arms. * Longmont is very concerned about its air quality, paying for an outside consultant to monitor it, while Weld County remains seemingly unconcerned about the effects its petroleum-polluted air has upon its citizens and those downwind. * Longmont area farms are increasingly focused on the environment and organic, regenerative agricultural practices, while Weld County is a bastion of big ag practices that rely heavily on artificial fertilizer and pesticides. * The majority of Longmont residents willingly followed Gov. Polis' Covid safety protocols, whereas the majority of those in Weld County disregarded them to such a serious extent that the Longmont mayor considered disallowing Weld County residents to pre-empt Longmont residents from Longmont hospital beds. * Longmont has a welcoming, culturally diverse population and a strong middle-class across racial groups, while Weld County is primarily (and proudly) Caucasian and much more economically stratified across racial groups. I strongly urge that the new state and U.S. redistricting maps you come up with keep all parts of Longmont together within Boulder County. Thank you. Mary Headley 1615 Bowen St. Longmont, CO 80501

I am submitting the following in connection with the Congressional Commission's development of standards, methodologies, and guidelines to be provided to the staff for its development of the first staff draft redistricting plan. At the direction of the Commission's legal counsel, I am doing so both in my capacity as one of two co-authors of Amendments Y and Z and as a "redistricting lobbyist" for Fair Lines Colorado. For your information, Fair Lines Colorado also filed the "friend of the court" brief at the Colorado Supreme Court in support of the Commission's authority and the Court's authority to depart from constitutionally enumerated timelines: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Redistricting/21SA208/Brief%20of%20Fair%20Lines%20Colorado.pdf Thank you for considering the following law and fact based standards and guidelines. PROPOSED COMMISSION STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES - INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION 1. The Commission shall make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts. Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(1)(a). 2. Districts must be as compact as is reasonably possible. Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(2)(b). 3. All geographic areas within a district shall be contiguous to one another. Id. 4. The Commission’s redistricting plan must not be drawn for the purpose of protecting any incumbent, declared candidate, or political party. Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(4)(a). 5. The Commission’s redistricting plan must not be drawn for the purpose of, or result in, “diluting the impact of [any] racial or language minority group’s electoral influence.” In re Interrogatories re SB21-247, 2021 CO 37, ¶14, citing Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(4)(b). 5. Communities of interest, as well as counties, cities, and towns, should be preserved whole “as much as is reasonably possible.” Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(2)(a). 6. Communities of interest are pertinent for redistricting purposes because they are central to “the overarching goal of fair and effective representation for all citizens.” Hall v. Moreno, 2012 CO 14, ¶94, ¶46, 270 P.3d 961, 979 (quotation marks omitted), citing Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565 (1964). 7. Communities of interest must be drawn to enable fair and effective representation to address current and future policy issues rather than just historic matters. Id. at ¶49 (communities of interest look to “the challenges of today and tomorrow – and not the challenges of yesterday”). 8. Communities of interest must be drawn to reflect “shared public policy concerns” and “substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action.” Colo. Const., art. V, §44 (3)(b)(I), (II). 9. No community of interest that comprises a racial, ethnic, or language minority group may be used to draw district lines if it abridges or denies the right to vote of persons belonging to that group. Colo. Const., art. V, §44 (3)(b)(II)(B). 10. The electoral influence of racial or minority groups is preserved by the use of minority influence districts; “influence districts” exist where such minorities comprise over 20% of a proposed district. See Beauprez v. Avalos, 42 P.3d 642, 651 (Colo. 2002) (if 20% of a district’s population belongs to one minority group, it “comes close” to comprising a minority influence district and avoids any allegation that “minority vote dilution occurs in the adopted plan”). 11. Competitiveness is the final factor to be applied in the redistricting process and therefore cannot be elevated over any other redistricting factor. Colo. Const., art. V, § 44.3(3)(a) (“Thereafter” commission may maximize competitiveness “to the extent possible”). Competitiveness cannot be prioritized over constitutionally prioritized redistricting factors. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 332 P.3d 108, 111 (Colo. 2011). 12. Competitiveness, where applicable, should result in the possibility of contested elections between political parties. Colo. Const., art. V, § 48.1(3)(d). Therefore, competitiveness is not the functional equivalent of partisan balance within the congressional delegation, as partisan balance is not referred to in Amendment Y and was not a voter-approved goal. 13. The standards for competitiveness should include: (a) use of multiple statewide elections to assess partisan performance; (b) such statewide elections should pertain to multiple offices; (c) the elections used should have been held in multiple years over the past decade (2012-2020); and (d) reliance on those elections where the partisan affiliation of the elected official switched between elections during the decade. Colo. Const., art. V, § 48.1(3)(d) (defining “competitiveness” as the “reasonable potential” for partisan affiliation of officeholder to “change” at least once during upcoming decade). 14. The elections that meet the test Paragraph 13 above, reflecting a “change” in office between the 2014 and 2018 elections, are: (a) attorney general; (b) secretary of state; and (c) state treasurer. 15. The election that meets the test Paragraph 13 above, reflecting a “change” in office between the 2014 and 2020 elections, is the United States Senate. 16. No standards relating to communities of interest or competitiveness – both of which are to be considered after taking evidence from the public – shall be adopted by the Commission until all public hearings have been completed so that citizens from all parts of Colorado can be heard.

It has come to my attention that the town of Jamestown, Colorado is under consideration for redistricting from CD 2 represented by Joe Neguese to CD 3 represented by Laura Boebert. I find this to be unacceptable for several reasons: 1) The most important reason is that no matter the representative, the needs and issues on the Front Range are vastly different than concerns on the Western slope; 2) I find Ms. Boebert's interests and philosophies have nothing in common with the majority of residents of Jamestown, Co; 3) Ms. Boebert is a toxic voice in Congress spouting her conspiracy theories and supporting the big lie of election fraud, which did not happen; and d) In the midst of a fatal pandemic, Ms. Boebert is actively encouraging people not to get vaccinated, which puts so many in harm's way and impacts all of us throughout the country. Separating Jamestown from the whole of Boulder County and the Front Range is unreasonable and offensive to those of us who have lived here for nearly 50 years and paid taxes to support our local governments. I do not want Ms. Boebert speaking on behalf of any of us on the Front Range. Even if she were voted out of office tomorrow, a Western Slope individual is not likely to be in tune to the specific needs of Front Range residents. Please retain Jamestown, Co in CD 2. Thank you, Dr. Nancy Loving, Jamestown, Co

Hello, I have spoken at both the Salida and the Alamosa Redistricting Committee meetings. Unfortunately, I’m not a very effective speaker, so let me try be more clear here. The proposed map is absolutely the wrong approach. Teller, Park and Fremont counties belong with CD4, while the San Luis Valley (SLV) and Gilpin County, belong in CD3. I don’t want to rehash the arguments for that because you have them in testimony before you already. That said, I do want to talk about the need for a CD8 that comprises the southern part of the State, the three river basins of the San Juan, the Rio Grande, and the Arkansas (the SCRB Plan). The two other major river drainages, the Colorado and the Platte, belong in CD3 and CD4, respectively. To achieve that, coalitions between rural and urban communities will have to be built. This is important because of the interdependency on water they share. This should be their primary community interest. In the face of climate change, and absent stronger leadership on the state and federal level, neither urban or rural will survive without the other. You all have a heavy burden, but, also, a unique opportunity. I want to encourage you to look hard at the current demographic (once it’s known), economic, cultural, and historical conditions of the State, but also the environmental conditions of the State, i.e. water. To make your job even harder, I want to encourage you to look ten years down the road and envision what our State will look like in the face of even harsher climate conditions. You must try to build political structures that will encourage cooperation and protect the people of the State as much as possible as we head into an uncertain future. Cooperation between urban and rural watersheds will be key. To that end a southern Colorado CD8 will also be key. God bless you with wisdom and insight as you pursue your deliberations. You’ll need it. Chuck Tidd Cwt29@icloud.com 719-221-8433

Climate change/extreme weather is the existential threat of our time and watersheds need to remain intact along district lines if we are to advance resilient policies to address our changing climate. Keep the Gunnison River Basin intact along district lines. In particular, keep the North Fork Valley (Paonia, Hotchkiss, and Crawford) watersheds intact and in the same district as Gunnison County. Maintain the current Delta County division between current House District 54 and 61 for proposed House and Senate Districts, which at a minimum extends west to all of Gunnison County. Some things to consider to support your position are the Gunnison River Basin Map, the West Elk Scenic Byway, Highways connecting the communities, CDPHE Health Statistics Regional Map

I am a resident of Colorado House District 26. I am writing in support of the current district boundaries, consisting of Routt and Eagle Counties. I believe this is the appropriate configuration of the District, as our two counties share demographic, economic and social similarities, and common public policy issues such as a mix of rural, ranching and tourism economies, the cost of housing, and access to healthcare. I strongly oppose the proposed redistricting map which would separate the two counties and place Routt County with Moffat, Rio Blanco and Garfield. Routt shares few interests with those counties, and would in fact be poorly served by that configuration. I urge the Redistricting Commission to reject this proposal and maintain the current District 26 of Routt and Eagle Counties which serves constituents well.

In reviewing the preliminary redistricting maps for both Congressional and State Legislative Districts the Commission on balance has done a good job following the legal requirements for drawing new Districts and I support them. Colorado’s Front Range is an increasingly densely populated urban and suburban area of our State. There has always been a tension between West Slope Counties and the Front Range. Examples include diverting water from the West slope, dominating spending on transportation infrastructure, disparity in health care costs, etc. While there are some policy issues Summit County shares with Front Range Counties, we are not an urban center. Our voice will always be drowned out by the huge difference in the population of the Front Range. Summit County has far more in common on a wide range of policy issues with our surrounding Counties and the West Slope in general such as a tourism economy, transportation, water, education, and health care. For these reasons, I SUPPORT including Summit County in CD 3 and separating us from Boulder and Jefferson Counties. I SUPPORT the proposed State House District for Summit County. It is compact and includes the surrounding Counties that have a shared interest in all the issues that support our economies and residents. The proposed State Senate District shares some of the characteristics of the House District, but could be improved by including Park County with Summit County. All of Summit County’s elected officials, who are Democrats, followed all of this logic and voiced support for the State Legislative Districts, but then somehow ignored it when complaining we should be part of Congressional District 2 with Boulder and Jefferson County. This would seem to be a transparent attempt to find a community of interest with these Counties based on a relationship with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates, which is expressly disallowed in the legislation. Boulder, which dominates CD2, last elected a Republican to Congress in 1972.

Thank you for your work on drawing new maps. Wind Crest is a large retirement community of over 1600 residents. Unfortunately the High Line Canal is in the middle of our new home. We are one large 'family' who share many meetings together, restaurants, religious gatherings and more. It would be very confusing to have two different districts splitting the neighborhood each with its own caucuses, etc. Please keep Wind Crest whole - One community. Thank you, Pat and Bill Nottingham (submitted by email 7/31/21)

To the people on the committee to redistrict Colorado. Please keep the districts balanced and don't let the people's interests be watered done in a district that won't fairly represent the people of the current district. Karen Gross Boulder, CO 80302 (submitted by email 7/31/21)

Do not redistrict Boulder County it is fine the way it is. We certainly do not be in Weld County Kristen KInard Longmont CO 80503 (submitted by email 7/31/21)