Public Comments

(PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PDF VERSION, WHICH INCLUDES AN ACCOMPANYING TABLE AND MAP AS WELL AS FOOTNOTES WITH ADDITIONAL DETAIL) Dr. Andrew Therriault 50 Lewis St #441 East Boston, MA 02128 andrew.therriault@gmail.com 978-994-3041 August 3, 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to offer guidance on how the commissions can most effectively address the state constitution’s requirement to promote competitiveness in drawing new congressional and state legislative districts. My background is as a political scientist, with a focus on election analysis and political methodology. I have spent much of the past fifteen years working with exactly the sort of data the commission is trying to analyze, in both academic settings and for political organizations, and I also teach courses in government and data science at Harvard and Northeastern. Currently, I am serving as a consultant for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and in this letter I summarize my recommendations for how to measure district competitiveness and how to apply it in the redistricting process. --- The Constitutional Requirements for Promoting Competitiveness To fulfill their constitutional responsibilities with regard to promoting district competitiveness, the commissions must do three things: 1. Define what is meant by competitiveness 2. Determine the best way to measure it 3. Apply that measurement to the drawing of new districts Fortunately, Amendments Y and Z were very explicit in providing a clear definition of competitiveness: “‘Competitive’ means having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district's representative to change at least once between federal decennial censuses” (emphasis added). Those amendments were also very specific about where promoting competitiveness fit in the broader redistricting process. Only after six other primary criteria (equal size, contiguity , VRA compliance, preservation of communities of interest, preservation of political subdivisions, and compactness) are met should the commissions then “to the extent possible, maximize the number of politically competitive districts.” With that guidance in place, the remaining tasks for the commissions are twofold. First, they must each decide on a measure that matches the constitutional definition of competitiveness. Then, they must decide how to use that measure to maximize the number of competitive districts. In the sections below, I offer my own guidance on how the commissions can fulfill both of these tasks simply and effectively, in a way that most directly fits the requirements presented by the state constitution. --- How to Measure District Competitiveness In testimony and discussions during previous meetings and hearings, other presenters have proposed a variety of ways to measure competitiveness. I have serious concerns about the accuracy of these proposed measures and, more importantly, their compliance with the requirements specified in Amendments Y and Z. Most of these proposals center on using some indicator or set of indicators of past electoral performance - a specific past election or average of several election results, for example - under the theory that a “competitive” district is one that is close to 50% Democrat and 50% Republican. Each of these approaches can be critiqued from a technical standpoint, most notably because they all require making subjective and untested assumptions about the ideal way to weigh and combine past results to predict future trends. But even more importantly, they do not actually follow from the constitutional requirements. The constitution requires a “reasonable potential” for a district to switch hands at some point within 10 years, which is not the same as saying that the next election or the average election will be close to tied. Those proposed measures that look at how close a district is to 50/50 are not optimizing for competitiveness, but rather for balance, which is not what is required. What’s more, unless a state is split exactly 50/50, trying to force any particular district to be balanced requires creating greater imbalances in others, so any partisan “balance” this creates is artificial. And in practice, determining how close to 50/50 indicates a “reasonable potential” to change parties requires the commission to decide on an arbitrary numeric cutoff, which opens the door to further complications and debate. Finally, because the consistency of votes varies across districts, closeness to 50/50 isn’t even a reliable indicator of the likelihood for the district to flip: one district might average a 55/45 partisan split and have mixed results across elections, while another might have the same average and yet favor the same party every time. I propose an alternative approach to measuring competitiveness that is grounded directly in the constitutional test given in Amendments Y and Z: is there potential for switching parties within 10 years? The closest proxy for this outcome, I argue, is what a proposed district’s voters did over the last 10 years, and the best indicator of potential competitiveness is whether the results in that district were mixed during that timeframe - that is, whether they sometimes favored Democrats and other times Republicans, or if instead they favored the same party every time. Neither of these outcomes (whether the past results were mixed or not) is an absolute prediction of future results, but it’s a straightforward and reasonable way to answer the question of whether a district is competitive. This approach has many advantages over the other proposed measures. Most importantly, it aligns with the constitutional definition. It is also very simple to measure, and does not require arbitrary or subjective choices about the relative weights of different elections, the future direction of over-time trends, or where to set a threshold for what’s called “competitive.” This measure also allows the commission the flexibility to draw maps that fulfill requirements to preserve communities of interest and political subdivisions, without risking major delays or complications. To estimate competitiveness in this fashion, the commissions would first need to re-aggregate precinct-level results from past elections to the geographies of new proposed districts. (Please note that this step is required in all the other proposed approaches as well. If necessary, I can provide technical guidance to staff on how to implement this using official election returns.) From there, you would look at votes cast in federal and state races over the past decade in each new district. Proposed districts which have cast most of their votes for Democrats in some elections and for Republicans in others would be coded as “competitive”, while those which have always favored the same party would not be. The commission would then focus on this latter group to see if they could be made competitive, as I describe in the next section. An example of how this is done is provided in Figure 1, below (SEE ATTACHED PDF). In this map and table, I’ve taken the current US Congressional district map and evaluated the competitiveness of each district using all federal and statewide executive (Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, and At-large University of Colorado Regent) elections since 2012. From the table you can see that districts 1 through 5 are all non-competitive by this standard, as in every election the voters in that district supported the same party (CD1 and CD2 are safe Democratic seats, while CD3, CD4, and CD5 are safe Republican seats). Only two districts, CD6 and CD7, are coded as competitive. CD6 shows very mixed results, supporting Democrats in 13 elections and Republicans in 8. CD7 is only barely competitive, supporting Democrats in every race except the 2014 Attorney General’s race. Figure 1: Applying the Proposed Competitiveness Measure to Current US Congressional Districts (SEE ATTACHED PDF) This last district shows the difference between competitiveness and balance in this standard. While it would be a stretch to describe CD7 as balanced, it passes the constitutional test for competitiveness because, in certain years and with certain candidates, its voters have shown the willingness to support Republicans as well as Democrats. This pattern demonstrates a “reasonable potential” for these voters to go either way in future elections over the coming decade, so that district would be coded as competitive using the measure I propose. --- How to Apply Competitiveness in Redistricting The second question is how to apply this measure when drawing new districts to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. As mentioned above, the constitution requires that the commissions meet six other primary criteria before addressing competitiveness. As such, maximizing the number of competitive districts cannot come at the expense of other criteria. To understand why this matters, it helps to think through what would happen if we did try to maximize competitiveness from the outset. Journalist Evan Wyloge did just this for a post on coloradopolitics.com in June. In drawing a map which featured seven competitive congressional districts, he had to make many compromises that led to serious violations of other redistricting criteria. Parts of Colorado Springs were combined with parts of Boulder, which itself was split across three different districts. Meanwhile, three out of the four corners of the state were all in a single district. And that district itself also somehow included pieces of Boulder as well. To be sure, this is just one example of what a map which prioritizes competitiveness might look like, but the key point is that meeting the constitutional requirements in Amendment Y and Z requires following the order they prescribe. To apply competitiveness constitutionally, then, the commission should follow a four-step process: 1. Draw potential districts based on primary criteria (communities of interest, political jurisdictions, etc.) 2. Measure the competitiveness of each potential district 3. Consider adjustments to the boundaries of districts that are not competitive as drawn, but where the results were close in one or more past elections 4. Confirm that these adjustments do not violate primary criteria or make other districts non-competitive The constitutional requirements are then satisfied when there are no ways to make any non-competitive districts competitive without violating other criteria or making other districts non-competitive. --- Thank you for your consideration, and I hope that my recommendations are helpful to the commissions as they determine the best path forward. If it would be of interest, I would be happy to present to either or both of the commissions on these topics in greater detail, and answer whatever questions you might have. Sincerely, Andrew Therriault, PhD

We are in a unique rural area in the southwest corner of Colorado. The four corners area is beautiful and diverse, from its land to the people. We are a tourism area that is surrounded by farming and ranching. I am against doing the congressional redistricting of Montezuma County. We would be pulled in with Durango area which has very different views from our area and we would no longer have a voice on how we vote. MONTEZUMA COUNTY NEEDS TO STAY THE SAME AND NOT CHANGED. Thank you for letting me voice my concerns.

We live in a small town with very different values than the bigger cities. Our community doesn't run like the big cities because we aren't one. Including Ft Lupton in District 8 with Broomfield and other large metro areas will cut us out of representation. We need to be included in a district with other small rural communities like our own so our needs are considered. In this new district drawing we wouldn't be heard because the majority of the district live in these highly populated cities and their voices would take precedence.

Testimony of Frank Sullivan, given July 27, 2021, at Green Valley Recreation Center My name is Frank Sullivan, I live, and have lived for more than 50 years, in the Park Hill neighborhood of Denver. Over most of these years I have also lived in House Districts 7 and 8. I have been politically active most of that time. My testimony tonight revolves around a series of questions concerning the proposed legislative maps of Denver. While I do not deny the competence of the cartographers in drawing maps, I am interested in the procedures and principles that followed while developing these proposed maps. Since your staff is prevented from discussing their plans and the reasoning behind those plans outside of public testimony, how are we to know their reasoning? Did the cartographers develop a list of principles and procedures that would guide their activity? Did you, the Commissioners, have any input into these principles and their development? Or were they given free rein? Did the cartographers know, or realize, or follow the list of constitutional requirements, particularly recognizing communities of interest? I presume, you, the Commissioners, saw the preliminary maps before they were published. Did you have any discussion with the staff before publication to ensure they followed constitutional requirements? What were they? Did you suggest some or any changes before publication? Regarding communities of interest, you undoubtedly know the Black population in Denver approaches 9% of its population, and about 2/3 of that population resides in proposed house districts 4, 6 and 7. More than 22,000 reside in proposed district 4 and 6. Do you realize that by dividing the Black population of Denver in that way, it substantially decreases the chance of a Black person to represent them? Was this distribution done deliberately, or innocently? Did the Commissioners not recognize this whey firs presented with the proposed maps? On this point, the northeastern House districts have been numbered 7 and 8 for many years. And we ae proud of that! In the proposed map, district 7 remains, but district 8 disappears. So, from an historical point of view did the cartographers not recognize the historical significance of the number 8 and is significance to the folks who reside in that district? And did you, the Commissioners, not recognize that as well? Lastly, on the issue of preserving political subdivisions, why, oh why, did the cartographers put the 5 Points are into proposed district 3 and in the process breach I25 twice? My guess is that the new population numbers will require redrawing Denver’s house districts—redrawing, not tweaking. Thank you for participating this process and listening to the folks were have gathered here tonight.

I live in Paonia, part the North Fork Valley, the gateway to the West Elk Mountains. I am a native of Colorado; mostly the front range. I’ve lived here now for close to 6 years. I chose to live here in the NFV because of the night skies, the clean air, the organic orchards, the organic farms, artisan farm to table foods, and just love the wonderful and welcoming people and small town living. I don’t feel like we can be represented adequately by the proposed redistricting map for the following reasons. Like communities tend to have the same landscapes; goals, and challenges, and tend to feel the same way about our shared resources. Some of the mountain towns I feel that we are closely tied to are already linked by house bill HB 11-1031 which designate The Colorado Creative Districts. These Districts are defined as well-recognized, designated mixed-use area of a community in which a high concentration of cultural facilities, creative businesses, or arts-related businesses serve as the anchor of attraction. These towns are linked by a highway corridor connecting Carbondale, Paonia, Crested Butte, Ridgeway and Salida. So Paonia has this in addition to all of the above organic agricultural orchards, vineyards and farms that I mentioned earlier. I don’t have the exact numbers but between the agro-tourism, the fruit, vegetables, and meat produced, the arts, the part we play in Colorado brings in lots of money and taxes. Water is of the utmost importance. Politicians that the people vote in, the Senate and the House of Representatives echo our voice and understand and support and highlight our challenges so that we are fairly represented. That’s why I believe it’s really important to have districts that are represented by these like communities. I believe shared ideals, resources, terrain and like communities actually trump county boundaries. We in the North Fork valley have more in common with Carbondale, Crested Butte, Ridgeway, Salida and Telluride vs the cities and towns that are in this proposed redistricting. Thank you so much for the opportunity to submit my comments regarding the proposed redistricting. In designing a contiguous map, I would take the current house district 61 map and go up a bit North to include Carbondale, ElJebel and Basalt then down the Western Side keeping the existing borders, go South and include the Black Canyon of the Gunnison down to Include Ridgeway and Ouray and then start back North on the East side to include Blue Mesa Reservoir, Gunnison and then follow the Current House District 61 boundaries back up.

I have lived in platteville for over 10yrs now and upon reading that we may be tied into bigger cities like Westminster and Thornton is a bit disturbing to me, I read that this is in part to include cities that are like minded people and I can almost guarantee that most if not all people in platteville have very little in common with other cities like Thornton and Westminster, people that live in small towns like Platteville or Fort Lupton do so for many reasons but I know one big reason is to stay away from everything that comes with big cities, the noise, Starbucks on every corner, Walmart running every business out of town, the list goes on for quite awhile, to think that someone who lives in a big city has the same things in common or the best interest of small town in their minds is down right foolish, and in my own opinion rather stupid to even think it. Small town living is a completely different way of living and includes a completely different mind set then that of the vast majority of people living in big cities, allowing this to happen will be a very big mistake and I hope enough of you have actually done some research and talked to enough of us living in these small towns that you can clearly see there are so many major differences and why this would be such a huge mistake.

Commissioners, Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify today. My name is Gabrielle Aragon, I am a seventh-generation resident of Costilla County, and former Council Member who had the honor of representing Colorado’s “Oldest Town,” San Luis. I am a direct decedent of the pioneers of Colorado and the region. Most famously, my great-great-great grandfather Kit Carson. I have also partnered with NALEO Educational Fund, I am a lifetime member. NALEO is the nation’s leading non-profit, non-partisan organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. I am speaking on behalf of San Luis, Costilla County, and the greater San Luis Valley and Hispano region of the land grants, particularly, the Sangre de Cristo Land Grant (Blood of Christ)- which is nestled between the Summit of La Sierra and the Rio Grande River. The San Luis Valley is in the world’s largest Alpine Desert Valley in old Ute territory, which was once part of New Mexico. We speak English and Spanish. A major US Highway that runs through and connects us is Hwy 160. This highway connects us to major shopping in Pueblo and medical care we do not have access to in the San Luis Valley including Trauma Medicine. These areas are currently part of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District. It is vital for commerce and our economy. We are home to Federally Recognized Hispanic Serving Institutions that include Adams State University and Colorado State University Pueblo, both of which are in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District. Our community is comprised of majority Hispano and Roman Catholic people. These demographics are the foundations of our values and needs. This area’s Catholics belong to the Archdiocese of Pueblo and is home to a lay fraternal organization known as Los Penitentes who preserve and promote the Catholic Faith. We are home to the state’s first water rights. Most notably, the San Luis Peoples Ditch, which has first water rights in the state of Colorado. Were home to communal lands known as La Vega. Costilla County is “Where Colorado Began,” as it is the first county in the State of Colorado. We are also known for having the longest Court Battle in Colorado History that spanned 40 plus years for our right to La Sierra and our birthright to the land, grazing, timber, hunting, fishing, and recreation. Recently, we celebrated 170 years of the feast of Santa Ana y Santiago, which is a unique collaboration of town and church to celebrate the saints of Saint Ann, the grandmother of Jesus Christ, and Saint James, Apostle and Martyr of Jesus and the faith. Recently the Town of San Luis officially became an Official Main Street Community which helps communities revitalize its main streets, helps economic development with historic preservation in mind. The community also came together to build San Luis Community Park in one day through the Kaboom Grant. In addition, we preserved our historic murals and built affordable greens homes so folks could be homeowners. Our watersheds and acequias (a water conducted brought from Spain and adopted from the Moorish for irrigation), such as the Rio Grande River Basin Watershed, are vital to sustain the people, animals, and agricultural economy of the San Luis Valley and beyond. From ground water to surface water, to say that water is integral, is not exclamation enough to stress the importance it is to the people, ecology, and economy of the San Luis Valley. Our water is constantly under threat of extraction or environmental pressures. Our water and land are ours and NOT for sale! Agriculture is our number one industry. Our communities in the San Luis Valley are the poorest in the state. That is not by accident, our voice had been historically suppressed along with our power potential though various political maneuverings. This redistricting plan is the latest. We lack quality healthcare, quality education, broadband, lack clean drinking water, we have antiquated infrastructure, and are constantly in battle to protect our land and water. More Denverite politics and needs always take precedent and our values and needs are neglected, to say the least. These are the issues we face in the district and we need a map that keeps our community of interest together so that our representatives can truly help us tackle these challenges. One can appreciate the commission’s efforts to make the numbers as neutral as possible, but these lines impact the dignity of each person as human beings. This particular issue of land and water will give those representatives direct influence over our water and land, for better or for worse. Therefore, this district line cannot be haphazardly drawn, as if the people in this area were an afterthought and needed to be placed somewhere. Remember the San Luis Valley when you cut into a steak, eat a French Fry, have a pint of beer, or take a sip of water; know that generations of silenced voices are behind each of those commodities. In Spanish, we say, “no hables mal del ranchero cuando tienes la boca colmada” (don’t talk bad about a farmer with your mouth full). Many of these problems stem from an area of land known as “The Notch.” The Notch is articulately described by Virgina Sanchez in her book Pleas and Petitions, which articulates the legal and representative struggles of Hispanos in southern Colorado. It started when this region of New Mexico was cut to make Colorado without any sort of vote by the people. This move displaced over 7,000 Spanish speaking people from their families, land culture, water, and voice. New Mexico Territorial Delegate Miguel Antonio Otero advocated against the move, presenting it to the Congress, and quoted the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidlalgo which said, “they shall be free to continue where they now reside.” The area encompassed the San Luis Valley, the Huerfano County area all the way down to Pueblo. This move was not culturally, economically, historically, geographically, or ecologically contiguous. Today, under the proposed congressional district, this area and its people are being displaced yet again, and our Hispano voice is being silenced through gerrymandering tactics such as cracking and packing. Cracking is the government’s efforts to treat similarly situated people worse than others because of race or ethnicity. Packing is pushing as many minority voters as possible into a few super-concentrated districts and draining the populations voting power. This new plan accentuates the institutional and generational racism and discrimination of Hispanos in this region. Yet again, it is not culturally, economically, historically, geographically, or ecologically contiguous. We cannot be moved from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional to Colorado’s 4th for this reason. We are not contiguous with parts of that District such as Weld County. We hold little similarities with this district, and only hold only a few commonalities in terms of certain agricultural practices and culture, but not all rural areas are built the same or share a complex history like ours. This district is more urban and suburban, than rural and simply does not understand the lifestyle or values of rural America or the San Luis Valley and our western slope counterparts. The 4th Congressional District is 72.9% Urban and 27.9% rural that is a drastic contrast to where we are now in the 3rd which is 64.75% rural and 35.25% urban. The 4th congressional district and its culture are drastically different, and these numbers indicate that. Among the differences are our economies, our industries and most importantly our water uses and needs which ranks at the top on the list of priorities. The Rural issues of the Great Plains are much different that those of more mountainous rural areas. Our voice is already drowned out by these factors such as Denver taking the lions share of attention and resources. Simple or intentional ignorance of rural values, culture and needs also is another chip stacked against us. Ideally, the notch and certain counties in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional should be its own district! This would ensure our voice is no longer silenced and would allow for us to finally have the voice we deserve. Latino representation in the proposal drops significantly. Numbers depending on region show a drop anywhere from 30% to 10%. If we are splintered off into different districts as under the current proposal. This drains our voting power, smothers our voice, and suppresses our impact for positive and sustainable policies. We must have the opportunity to elect representatives who are our peers in our community, through meaningful civic engagement. These lines or any proposed lines that do this deny minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect a representative of our choice, which is in violation of Section 2 Voting Rights Act. When drawing the new districts, I would ask the Commission to take into consideration these highlights and makeup of our complex region into consideration and keep my community-of interest together so that we can keep working to address the values and issues that face us. Thank you.

Please accept this letter on behalf of Civil Rights organizations in Colorado. Re: Support for adoption of policy to require redistricting population data to reflect incarcerated people at their residential addresses rather than their place of incarceration.

Thank you for the critical work you are doing on redistricting. Please make sure your maps stop gerrymandering. Gerrymanderers are deflecting from the importance of this fundamental goal. Redistricting criteria are very important. Gerrymanderers focus on some of these criteria and build maps that stress particular criteria AND the map is STILL GERRYMANDERED. Beware of this ploy. Do not allow gerrymanderers to implement other redistricting criteria in a way that hinders the eradication of gerrymandering. Please, keep your eye on the fundamental goal of stopping gerrymandering. Advocates of particular redistricting criteria should be aware that maps can be drawn that stop gerrymandering and achieve other redistricting criteria. But, in addition to advocating for particular criteria, make sure that gerrymandering is defeated and representative democracy prevails. The Guide to Fair Redistricting provides, for a wide range of states, examples of maps that advance specific redistricting criteria and prevent gerrymandering. https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets/orp/resource/item/60e46f7ea4e06bf9217014db/original/fair-and-square-redistricting.pdf (more than 1500 views and 750 downloads) Best Wishes in the Pursuit of Fair Maps, Jim Fox

Please accept this letter on behalf of Civil Rights organizations in Colorado. Re: Support for adoption of policy to require redistricting population data to reflect incarcerated people at their residential addresses rather than their place of incarceration.