Public Comments

It is imperative that our redistricting reflects the geographic connection of populations as well as the ratio of the residents’ political wills in each district; it is understood this requires separate national Congressional and state legislative districts. At the Congressional level this probably requires “disconnected districts”, which may be contrarian to what looks good and will not reflect what is needed at the local legislative levels, but congressionally we must have ratios and balance that assure racial divisions are kept balanced and representative within each district. Remember at both Congressional and legislative levels here are two primary goals: one-person-one-vote, and; that redistricting must avoid gerrymandering districts to one faction or another. For local legislative representation to be accurate, maintaining the geographic relationships that reflect our community interests like creating and maintaining our places of recreation, educational and regional services and pushing us toward a more racially balanced population, must be accurately reflected in the vote. For the national congressional to be most accurate, what is most important is that the balance of votes reflect political wills of all the voters in as close to a one-person-one-vote relation as possible. With these goals in mind, the proposed local legislative redistricting is a bad move that breaks up the fundamental reasons for having districts and something that should not come to be. The current boundaries of House District 38 accurately follow and represent our geographic needs and as evidenced by many of our new residents, seems to be moving us toward a better racial balance. The new one will disband this and will not serve the people in the district. Concurrently, the proposed Congressional districts while maintaining contiguous geographic boundaries do not reflect the balance of political wills throughout the state. Instead, it creates pockets that are biased only on a geographic region and reflect the will of a geographic group not the will of the state. Changing the congressional seats as proposed biases the state backward 60 years reflecting a relaxed rural community primarily of agricultural and recreational interests; it does not reflect the vibrant and vital high technology state, we are today; one that is primarily built of a vigorous high education, high technology, suburban residential and industrial economy. We are not what we were 60 years ago. As the courts decided, districts should be set up to equally reflect the overall political will of the state’s political factions as our voter registrations show them to be; i.e. 45.1% Republican, 51.6% Democratic, and 3.3% Other. Form one point of view it might makes sense to set up districts to be 3 votes Republican, 4 votes Democrat and 1 vote other, but this distribution is clearly gerrymandering, and it ignores the will of the majority to reflect the will of a few. This result would be unconstitutional gerrymandering and it would be the worst representation of one person one vote the state could have.

How are you defining and accomplishing "competitiveness" in the redistricting process? What factors are you considering to achieve this principle?

I am very concerned by the redrawing of legislative districts in a manner which isolates the City of Boulder from its surrounding rural areas, both east and west of the City. The current lines tie western Boulder's residents to the western portions of Boulder County lying beyond our shared urban wildland interface. The west side of the City shares concerns about floods, fires and well-managed access to public lands. Similarly, the areas lying to the east of the City of Boulder currently includes many Boulder residents in the area east of the Foothills Parkway and north to Gunbarrel. These folks are being lumped in with Lafayette and Lafayette and Louisville are being separated in the proposed draft map. This makes no sense. I recommend that commuter shed analysis be performed to help redraw these "community of interest" maps, since in-commuters spend half their waking hours in the urban job centers. Commuter sheds track with some geographic features, but what matters more to communities of interest is where you make a living and where you shop, play and sleep. Representatives whose districts include some in-commuters from proximate rural areas along with their urban residential and commercial constituents will bring a more balanced perspective to their work in the legislature. We need to think more regionally. Redistricting using commuter sheds will help us do that.

If the map files I created and attached for the second congressional district in my comment yesterday did not come through, this is the link to the map on Dave's redistricting website: https://davesredistricting.org/join/c9a05cf9-bbb2-4eb3-9696-1c2b8b22a07e Thanks.

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a resident of a small village called San Francisco, located 10 miles SE of San Luis, Colorado. We are part of the villages of the upper Culebra river. Our watershed is the Culebra Watershed. Our villages are the oldest in the state of Colorado. The oldest water rights numbers 1 to 20 are located in our villages around the oldest town in Colorado which is San Luis. This enclave of villages and small towns make up Costilla County, in the great San Luis Valley. Our county votes heavily democratic and now, the redistricting process has caused me concern. Lauren Beaubart won the congressional seat for our district in the last election. However, her goal is to make herself as ignorant as possible while representing a diverse minority district. Our county, Costilla County is one of the poorest in the state. This is a harsh reality. We are Latino voters, who still retain many customs and viewpoints of agriculture, education, economic improvement while fighting inequities in health care and economic programs from the state. We require a person who represents us to be sensitive to our unique issues. We, as a county come out to vote in every election and we argue politics just like any community in the state. I'd like to see our district stay attached to Pueblo. There is a huge Republican advantage in Las Animas county with 15.6% Obama voters voting for Trump. Huerfano county has 6.61% who went for Trump. Conejos county, which is our neighboring county went 3.56% for Trump. From Trinidad, CO across the border of New Mexico is Colfax County and they went a whopping 8.55% for Trump. Our county is fast becoming surrounded by Trumpites and republicans would love to hold these counties in their grasp. Our voting rights will be affected if these counties remain within our district 3. That is how Lauren Beaubart won the election with the help of republicans in these counties that are very dissatisfied with with election results of President Biden. I would like to see us attached to Pueblo, who share many of our agricultural roots and the whole San Luis Valley together. As I look at the map, I see heavily populated areas north of us such as Lincoln, Elbert, Arapahoe, Adams, Morgan, Weld, Logan counties that cause me to wonder why include them? Their issues are not our issues. For example, water is the major one for us, as well as the health of our agricultural industry and cattle ranching. Those folks north of Pueblo county are mostly white with republican tendencies. They are not as agricultural as they used to be because they sold their birth right of water to the cities up north of us. Please keep us apart from counties north of Pueblo. Keep the San Luis Valley intact and away from the western slope too. They are not like us. They have issues distinct to their part of Colorado. I believe the redistricting map should show commonality. The way it is drawn now, there is no issues or concerns that we share. My ideal map would be all of the San Luis Valley, Pueblo, Huerfano county, the Arkansas Valley counties. We share water issues and ranching, agricultural problems. I don't like the leaning of pivotal counties but I believe we can all iron out our differences if we try. Thank you, Junita Martinez San Francisco, Colorado

This is a copy of the presentation I made at Koebel Library August 3rd

To whom it may concern, Please keep our district mapped as it is currently. Having Representatives like Julie McCluskie who reach out and connect with people in our district while supporting progressive initiatives is crucial to the sustainable growth of our community. Because of our location in a conservative district, having the insight and support for anti racism and inclusion from a broad spectrum of people both socially and politically is crucial for this type of work. The environment here is crucial both to our lively hood as farmers and agricultural producers and for tourism income. We need political support to protect our land and keep destructive extractive industries out and to elevate organic farmers and migrant workers. Please keep us aligned with the representatives who serve and represent the underrepresented in our community.

Hello Please leave Delta County intact. Overall this particular county is very unique and requires its own representation. Mesa County and Gunnison County do not share the geographical concerns or residential interests. By destroying Delta County you are undermining the area’s (Ie the local people’s) sovereignty and ability to appropriately respond to these changing times. Dismantling Delta County would be a blatant slap in the face to the people of Delta County and an obvious disregard for the area’s particular needs. Stop consolidating power inappropriately and allow the people of a particular geographical (to include water shed) area manage their own affairs accordingly. Keep this area free from oil, mining, fracking, etc. We grow healthy food here for everyone. Stop actively trying to poison this area. Clean water, clean air, clean food, and local food are more important than anything else. Sincerely, MB Eland

I live in the North Fork (of the Gunnison) valley. It is a very special valley that is home to a beautiful mountain landscape and a resurgence of organic agriculture and tourism. This valley is unique in that it is in the process of actively and successfully moving to diversify our economy away from extractive industry and move into agricultural based tourism, creative arts and organic foods. Unfortunately, the proposed map lumps our valley in with counties that continue to pursue oil and gas extraction as one of their primary economic development efforts. Additionally, given the worsening drought and climate crisis, it would be incredibly helpful for us to have representation that includes our cohesive watershed in one district. To date, our House and Senate districts have lumped us into Mesa county. Instead we should be included with Gunnison County, with which we share both a watershed, and a community of interest in the process of successfully transitioning to more diverse economies as the extractive industries are shrinking. I would urge you to please consider this important watershed in developing your maps. I hope you value the citizen input that this redistricting effort has received. Thank you for your consideration. Shane Smith

I live in western Boulder county and the preliminary map shows that this area will be sliced off from the rest of Boulder county and put into district 3. This makes absolutely no sense, and would make sure we never get the representation we need to address the concerns of residents in this area. I urge you to keep western Boulder county in district where we belong.