Public Comments

I am a resident in the 3rd Congressional District... and I have a strong interest in see the redistricting be fair and representative of the communities within it. I expect the Redistricting Commission to do everything in its power to make sure the 3rd CD is competitive, by balancing Democrat and Republican voters in the district, as is required by law. I also believe that the district must, by law, represent communities of like-interest which means that all the counties that share agriculture and outdoor recreation industries in western Colorado should be in one district AND that we should not have any urban counties in our district—they do not share our interests, our economy, or our more rural lifestyle. My recommendations: 1. Fremont, Teller, and Park don’t belong in the 3rd Congressional District 2. All mountain resort communities, sharing water, agriculture, economic, and public lands interests should be included in the 3rd CD 3. The map should be more competitive, not less, as proposed in your initial map 4. Add these counties back into CD3: Gilpin, Mineral, Saguache, RioGrande, Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla. Thank you for your consideration. Rita Robinson

Comments from Frisco public hearing, July 31, 2021: Thank you, Commission members and staff, for the opportunity to speak today. I’m Emily Tracy and I’m not representing any organization with my comments. I will be addressing both Congressional and state legislative maps. I have homes in two communities – Cañon City and Breckenridge. I have lived in rural Colorado since 1977. Since 2002 I have run for office in two rural state legislative districts, in northwest and south-central Colorado – a total of 13 rural counties. I served for 8 years on the City Council of Cañon City in the 1980’s and early ‘90’s. Most of my comments will relate to where I’m registered to vote – southern Colorado - but I have a brief comment regarding the proposed Senate District 5 (most of what WAS SD8 in northwest Colorado). Having traveled all over the District as a candidate in 2012 and 2016, I can say it’s a geographically difficult District. It does not make sense to add in part of Larimer County. Now I want to address southern Colorado. I’ve had a home in Cañon City since 1977. There are primary ties between Cañon City and Pueblo which I will outline in a moment. THESE TIES BETWEEN FREMONT AND PUEBLO COUNTIES ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL OR STATE HOUSE PRELIMINARY MAPS, and there is only part of Pueblo County with Fremont in the (new) state Senate District map! Regarding the staff preliminary Congressional map, first I must say that Fremont County is not naturally connected to the Western Slope – instead it is part of what I call the “Southern Slope” – it’s connected to Pueblo and Chaffee counties, plus Custer and other nearby counties. In reference to the preliminary map, I would also say the San Luis Valley is in no way connected to northeastern Colorado. Now I would like to address my proposed map for a southern Colorado Congressional district. I created the map using the Esri mapping tool on the Redistricting website: 1. Sign into the mapping tool 2. Select “Colorado Congressional Districts” 3. Click Open 4. Select “Southern Colorado Congressional District – Emily Tracy” (created 7/26/21) 5. Click Open Plan 6. Select District 6 (I named it “District 6” because I wasn’t sure what CD number to use) I have also attached a .pdf of the map. In my proposed Congressional District map for southern Colorado, there are no split counties, no flagpoles, and there is no gerrymandering. Southern Colorado is a community of interest. According to the Esri mapping system, my proposal is currently only 4,086 people below the 721,714-person target. I understand there are others proposing a southern Colorado Congressional District, and that they have provided substantial details in support. There are geographic commonalities and key highway systems: US Hwy 50 (which runs from the border with Kansas, to Grand Junction where it joins with I-70), plus Hwys 160, 285, 550, and many state highways. Rivers and watersheds include the Arkansas River from the Lake County headwaters to the border with Kansas. There are commuting corridors related to work and family connections. There are shopping and retail connections: • Southeast Colorado connects to Pueblo and does Fremont • The San Luis Valley connects to Salida and Chaffee County • Southwest Colo connects to New Mexico and Utah, but also Montrose to the north There are other connectors: Tourism, education, cultural, and multiple rural-specific issues subject to policy decisions such as health care, broadband, economic development, small business, agriculture, natural resources, and public lands. Regarding the state legislative maps: I would first say that Fremont County can and should be kept whole for the state House and Senate District maps. Regarding the staff preliminary House District map, as noted previously Fremont is more connected to Pueblo than any other counties and is also connected to Chaffee and Custer. I suggested in my June 9 written comments to the Commissions that Fremont, Custer, Chaffee, and Park would be a good House District – that four-county District would match the counties of Judicial District 11. Regarding the Senate District map, I suggested in my June 9 written comments that a combination of Fremont, Custer, and some of the population density of Pueblo would be an ideal District. The staff preliminary Senate District map isn’t too bad EXCEPT it should include Chaffee. It has a closer connection to Fremont than Huerfano and Las Animas counties do, and you drive through Chaffee County to reach the San Luis Valley. I propose that the Senate District include Fremont, Chaffee, Custer, the San Luis Valley counties, plus whatever population is needed from part of Pueblo County. I’m happy to answer any questions.

To whom it may concern, I presented a version of this comment at the 7/31/2021 meeting in Carbondale, Colorado. I was asked by Commissioners to provide additional information, particularly regarding DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES and the COGCC map. Below is a transcript of my public comment with links added to the end that provide the requested information. Note that I also provided a hard copy of the following transcript along with maps to depict the referenced communities to the Commission during the 7/31/2021 meeting. Good morning, Commissioners and fellow Coloradans. My name is Steven A. and I live in Rifle, Colorado. I am here to discuss how the Preliminary Map for State House Districts has the effect of cracking and disenfranchising my Communities of Interest: Rifle area Latinos and Latinos of greater Garfield County. These Communities of Interest include designated Disproportionately Impacted Communities or DI Communities as defined in the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (CRS Section 25-7-105). This Act defines DI Communities, in part, as communities impacted by a “lack of opportunity for public participation” and describes situations contributing to environmental health disparities suffered by these communities. This definition aligns with that of Communities of Interest and illustrates the intersectional nature of redistricting, environmental justice, and public health concerns. The COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) website includes a map layer of DI communities that correspond to U.S. Census Block Groups with minority populations exceeding 50%. In my area, this makes DI Communities a useful analog for Latino populations. Latinos of Rifle and Garfield County are disproportionately impacted by environmental justice issues as we were disproportionately impacted by the county and federal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. I urge this commission to utilize the DI Communities map layer on the COGCC’s website to assess other Communities of Interest and to revise the Preliminary House Map accordingly. This Preliminary plan is damaging to the political well-being of the Latino Communities of interest because the district boundaries through Rifle divide designated DI Communities. The Preliminary House Map separates roughly 1/3rd of Rifle’s DI Communities by area, cracking it in half by population and diluting the area with the higher Latino population density into District 55, which does not have comparable DI Community numbers. As currently defined, this plan has the effect of cracking an important Latino Community of Interest/DI Community in Rifle and the larger Garfield County Latino Community of Interest. I urge this Commission to uphold Sections 46 and 48 of Article V of the Colorado Constitution by preserving the whole Rifle, Colorado and Garfield County Latino Communities of Interest. The State has designated us as Disproportionately Impacted, we cannot afford for our voices and representation to be diminished. The Preliminary State House map does a disservice to the Latinos of Garfield County by creating arbitrary divisions of important Political Subdivisions. The boundary between Districts 55 and 57 follows the county line between Garfield and Mesa counties for approximately 75 out of 103 total miles, with the exception of jumping to the I-70 Corridor to arbitrarily annex approximately 335 square miles of Garfield County that includes Rifle, Silt, and half of New Castle, into District 55. These divisions arbitrarily divide communities of Rifle, Silt, and New Castle, which are not restricted along lines of incorporation. In this way, the Preliminary State House map also creates an arbitrary division of Garfield county. Under Article V, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution, the people of the State of Colorado find and declare, in part, that “Competitive elections for members of the general assembly…contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions (subsection 1d).” Section 48.1 of that same Article directs this commission to construct a plan that must “preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions as much as reasonably possible” and to minimize the number of divisions of a political subdivision (subsection 2a). This subsection also states that “a community of interest’s legislative issues are more essential to the fair and effective representation of residents in that district.” USEFUL LINKS BELOW Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Map: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/ COGCC video discussion DI Community data (DIC presentation starts at 37:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VodRhUk2y78&t=3463s COGCC 100-Series Definitions, including DI Community: https://cogcc.state.co.us/documents/reg/Rules/LATEST/100%20Series%20-%20Definitions.pdf

I think most people in Summit County are upset by the prospect of trading the most effective new member of Congress for one whose role is largely performative, however there are many other valid reasons that Summit County should not be part of CD3. Summit County is a tourist driven economy with needs that differ greatly from those of rural ranching communities. We have both different goals for our communities, and different expectations of our legislators. CD3 elected Boebert on her anti government, anti mask, pro gun stances. Summit County residents elected Neguse in recognition of the value of effective government legislation, advocacy, and funding. Restaurants, lodging, and resorts have had a challenging time during covid, and although anti mask sentiment might work in a ranching community where people can distance naturally, that sentiment would kill tourism in Summit County. We can't possibly survive another covid surge with representation that does not consider tourism needs and the safety of the local community. We have a serious affordable housing problem in Summit County, and it needs to be addressed so that locals can maintain their jobs up here and not flee the community. Ranching communities are not facing the same staggering housing prices, issues with second home ownership and short term rentals, and the prospect of losing their entire service economy. Again, the needs of the communities are vastly different. Where CD3 ranchers may need guns and representation that promotes them, just the opposite is true in towns crowded with tourists and resort activity. Again, the needs of the communities do not mesh. As an outdoor tourism destination within commuting distance of Denver, Summit County values protection of public land and wildlife from oil and gas. How will one representative bridge that gap? Again, a clash of values and needs. As you can see, there are just some of the many serious differences if the needs and goals of CD2 and CD3. It would be a mistake to blend Summit County into a district that does not have the same needs, goals, or expectations from our elected representatives.

No one seems to have the nerve to say it: I don’t want to be represented by an ignorant qanon, conspiracy theorist, climate denier, Boebert. She doesn’t represent me, or the progressive views of Summit County.

I want to thank the Colorado Redistricting Commission for their thoughtful work in this important task. To include Summit County with counties in the Western Slope makes a lot of sense with their similar concerns and priorities. With regard to the legislative redistricting, I believe that Eagle and Summit counties should be included in the same district because of their similar needs. Thank you for your efforts.

I think most people in Summit County are upset by the prospect of trading the most effective new member of Congress for one whose role is largely performative, however there are many other valid reasons that Summit County should not be part of CD3. Summit County is a tourist driven economy with needs that differ greatly from those of rural ranching communities. We have both different goals for our communities, and different expectations of our legislators. CD3 elected Boebert on her anti government, anti mask, pro gun stances. Summit County residents elected Neguse in recognition of the value of effective government legislation, advocacy, and funding. Restaurants, lodging, and resorts have had a challenging time during covid, and although anti mask sentiment might work in a ranching community where people can distance naturally, that sentiment would kill tourism in Summit County. We can't possibly survive another covid surge with representation that does not consider tourism needs and the safety of the local community. We have a serious affordable housing problem in Summit County, and it needs to be addressed so that locals can maintain their jobs up here and not flee the community. Ranching communities are not facing the same staggering housing prices, issues with second home ownership and short term rentals, and the prospect of losing their entire service economy. Again, the needs of the communities are vastly different. Where CD3 ranchers may need guns and representation that promotes them, just the opposite is true in towns crowded with tourists and resort activity. Again, the needs of the communities do not mesh. As an outdoor tourism destination within commuting distance of Denver, Summit County values protection of public land and wildlife from oil and gas. How will one representative bridge that gap? Again, a clash of values and needs. As you can see, there are just some of the many serious differences if the needs and goals of CD2 and CD3. It would be a mistake to blend Summit County into a district that does not have the same needs, goals, or expectations from our elected representatives.

The Commission's proposed (preliminary) map does a commendable job of preserving the communities that make up current House Districts 53, 52 and 49. I have lived in District 53 for the last 18 years and before that in District 52 for 24 years. Since there is no choice but to assign east and west Fort Collins to separate Districts, College Avenue should remain the line of demarcation between these Districts (soon to be 59 and 60) as the neighborhoods and communities on either side are significantly distinct from one another. The Commission's proposal to add the LaPorte and areas north of the City to District 59 is also consistent with preserving communities of interest as those areas have much more in common with these residents (for instance, they are part of the same school system) than those of current District 49. Thank you for your attention

I do not want to be in Weld County if the eastern part of Boulder County is being divided. We are Democrats and Weld County is mostly Republican. So I do think that eastern Boulder County should be it's own county if there is enough people to be one.

This redistricting reeks of Gerrymandering. We deserve better. We are more physically and culturally aligned with the rest of Boulder county, and have less in common (w.r.t. community concerns) with those living on the western slope. It is a shame that the counties proper are not each considered to be congressional/legislative districts.