Public Comments

I am the Elections Services Manager for Douglas County and we have some concerns with the most current preliminary legislative district maps for the communities of Douglas County. When reviewing the initial proposals against our current active registered voter populations the current maps would create, due to diverging along small areas, voter precincts of very small sizes which would require extraordinary measures of protection and redaction from election reports to protect voter anonymity. Some sample map portions from Douglas County are included to demonstrate areas of concern where precinct sizes would be restricted due to the Title 1 requirement for a precinct to not cross over Federal or State Legislative district boundaries. Our office has noticed there are multiple areas where legislative lines for the State House and State Senate will run together and then diverge for very small sections of land and create these small areas that would require precincts of small sizes and populations. The lines, as drawn, create precincts of very small sizes: o One precinct in Parker that would have 46 voters o One precinct in South Parker that would have 2 voters o One precinct west of Parker that would have 0 voters but is so small that could only hold a few voters if developed. o One precinct in the Southeast corner of Douglas County with 36 voters o One precinct (the one that has a line that follows I-25 South of Castle Rock for about 5 miles with space on both sides of the highway with 17 voters o A precinct on the south end of Castle Rock where the divergent lines would result in only 124 voters in the precinct We ask that the Commissions coordinate, where possible, to ensure that the separate lines for each of the Congressional Districts (Federal, State Senate, and State House) run together and where they diverge by necessity that the Commission attempt to make large enough areas of divergence to include significant populations to allow for precincts of significant enough numbers (1000 - 2000 people) to allow for the protection of voter anonymity in election reporting.

This is a copy of the public comment I gave at the Centennial Public Hearing on August 3rd, 2021, and am posting here as requested. Good evening. My name is Renee Anderson. I am a Colorado native, and have lived in Highlands Ranch since 1991. I grew up in Lakewood / in Jefferson County, so I know the proposed CD 7 area well. I’d like to share my support of these initial efforts you all have drafted in coming up with the newest proposed Congressional District, boundaries. In particular, I would like to speak to the benefits of the draft map for the 7th Congressional District which combines western Douglas County with a large part of Jefferson County. This map seems to me to be more in line with the communities of interest that surround Highlands Ranch, and Douglas County, as well as Jefferson County. The previous CD 6 bounded Highlands Ranch as the only part of Douglas County within that district, with Arapahoe County and Adams County, and had very little in common related to services provided, or other representation and partnerships, and just never made much sense to me. I currently am elected to two special districts, the Highlands Ranch Metro District, which as you know is population unincorporated northern Douglas County, and the South Metro Fire Rescue fire district which serves a large portion of Douglas and western Arapahoe Counties, in addition to parts of Southern Jefferson County. The SMFR fire district within Jefferson County includes Lockheed Martin, the Trailmark neighborhood, and much of the area that feeds students to Columbine High School. There are many Lockheed Martin employees who live in Highlands Ranch due to their proximities. Water is another important issue for our community. Over the last several years, we have worked to partner with water providers in Arapahoe County to meet water supply needs in the south metro area. This includes the Chatfield Reservoir reallocation project, as well as, the WISE partnership that includes, among others, Centennial Water and Sanitation, serving Highlands Ranch, Dominion Water in northwest Douglas County, Castle Rock water, Castle Pines North water, Pinery Water and Wastewater and Parker Water and Sanitation. These providers are in partnership with Arapahoe County Water and Wastewater, Inverness, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation, and the Meridian Metro District. These little districts having a unified voice in Congress, outside of Denver Water and Aurora Water, matters to us as we continue to build the infrastructure to provide water to the south metro area. I believe there is so much great work accomplished when leaders work together, sharing their knowledge and experience, while serving the communities they love.

I live in Delta county and want our county to be kept whole in with Mesa County as we are political interest are more the same and we are more of a farming community. We do not have that much in common with the Aspen and Vail areas. Are county is not urban. Our county has been split and it does give the population a voice as we are out voted by the big cities. As an example the wolf into in which it was voted against by Delta county voters but passes because of the high population areas of the eastern slope, where the wolf would not bet introduced. PLEASE GIVE US BACK A VOICE!

Platteville Colorado - As a resident here for years, we feel that redistricting to the 8th district would be a disaster for our community. We have nothing similar to Brighton, Arvada, ETC. We feel that our community would be better served by the cities like Greeley and the surrounding areas. PLEASE stop this power grab!

As a part of the mountain community our voices can get lost but would be even more lost if we get lumped in with the new proposed redistricting. We love being part of District 2 here in Nederland. We’ve already had visits from our representative and he’s already secured funding for a much needed easement in our neighborhood for safe escape should a fire ever occur. He hears us. If we get lumped in with the Western part of the state we will lose a voice at the table.

ALL ski areas, all national parks, most national monuments, 90% of public lands/forests, three watersheds (Colorado, Rio Grande, Arkansas), all rural colleges (Mesa, Western State, Adams State, FLC). Also, small ag / traditional ag growers instead of huge industrial ag operations on eastern side of state should be lumped together as common communities of interest. Please consider this alternative map https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::72e027fe-d181-4053-a915-743df53445f6

I'd like to start by thanking the commissions for your work to ensure that Colorado's congressional and legislative district maps are drawn fairly, and I would also like to thank the hard-working non-partisan Staff, without whom this process would not be possible. My remarks are addressed primarily to Staff and to the Congressional commission. These thoughts are my own. In the Congressional Preliminary Plan Memorandum, in the "Constitutional Requirements" section, Item 3, Staff explains the rationale for taking no specific action w.r.t. Voting Rights Act (VRA) compliance. To support that, they appeal to the Thornburg v. Gingles case, in which three preconditions were established to claim a VRA violation. As each point is analyzed, however, assumptions take the place of the data and expertise needed to provide a thorough assessment. On the third precondition, specifically, the question of whether "the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it...to defeat the minority's preferred candidate" is addressed. In the memo, Staff argues that because a potential majority-minority district is subsumed in existing districts that--in the past--"have elected Democratic Congressional representatives" that the majority is not defeating minorities' candidates of choice. This part of the rationale reads as a caricature of minorities' interests--as if the election of any Democrat in the general election is an adequate proxy for representing the needs of a minority community... as if minorities' candidates of choice can't be reliably defeated in a Democratic primary. The argument continues, noting that "courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as prohibiting drawing districts predominately on the basis of race, unless compliance with the VRA is required." Well, compliance with the VRA is required here, per Amendment Y Section 44.3, where it says "(1) IN ADOPTING A CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL: (b) COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL 'VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965'." Unless I am misunderstanding the language (which may be referring to whether compliance is federally required), this component of the argument appears to be irrelevant. With the challenge of minority representation reduced to a question of whether or not we live in a district that elects Democrats and with the Equal Protection Clause argument reading as a red-herring, I believe that the rationale for effectively ignoring the Voting Rights Act that are outlined in the Congressional Preliminary Plan Memorandum are flawed. My requests are: 1) that the Congressional commission review and critique those rationale; 2) that staff revise their assessment and follow the approach they are taking on the legislative side, consulting a VRA expert; and 3) that Voting Rights Act compliance be reconsidered in the creation of future Congressional district maps. - - - As a follow-up to my original oral testimony, I would like to thank Commissioner O'Leary for taking an interest in this topic and for her educational points on the current status of the VRA, on the incorporation of some of its criteria directly into Amendments Y and Z, and on the Legislative Commission's use of a Voting Rights Act expert in their deliberations.

All the other cites Platteville would be grouped together in are all very different. I'd prefer if Platteville were kept in align with more conservative like minded cities/towns.

In 2018, Colorado voters overwhelming passed Amendments Y and Z to create non-partisan commissions to redraw congressional and state legislative districts. We now have the preliminary maps appear to have delivered the very problem Amendments Y and Z sought to resolve. The draft plans may not be a product of politics, but the end result is the same: communities including Arvada, have been splintered and the pieces illogically paired with other communities that don’t share the same characteristics and challenges. In the Congressional District map, Arvada is separated from Jefferson County and placed into a new district with Weld and Adams Counties. This ignores Arvada’s deep, foundational ties to JeffCo. It was Jefferson County Health that led our pandemic response and recovery. Our kids go to JeffCo Schools, we use Jefferson County Open Spaces and libraries. Arvada deserves representation in Congress that will understand and look out for our interests, which are likely to be quite different than the interests of Weld and Adams. In the proposed state legislative maps, Arvada is split in half between two Senate Districts and a whopping four House Districts carve up eastern Arvada. But we are one community. And we need a unified voice at our state capitol dedicated to serve us. The residents of Arvada are more than just blocs of a population. Arvada should be kept whole and a part of Jefferson County. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share comments.

I do not agree with the redistricting of our community of Platteville, Colorado.. we are a small rural community steeped with conservative values, a community based on agriculture, gas and oil and living a free life.. by redistricting and grouping us with these mega cities you steel our voice!! Why should cities like Aurora have a say in what our values, beliefs and economy should do!!