Public Comments

Please see attached letter in response to the questions posed to me by commissioners at last night's Lakewood hearing.

I am commenting to let the Commission know that as a resident of CO Congressional District 3, I do not approve of the most recent incarnation of the District Map. The Commission was designated to redraw the District line to be a competitive as possible. This most current map practically gives District 3 to the incumbent as a freebie. Please return to the table and rethink this map to reapportion the votes in each District as much as possible to be reflective of the State electorate in general.

As a 20-year resident of Steamboat Springs in Routt County, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed legislative redistricting of Routt County into new district number 57. This change would effectively remove Routt from its current district with Vail and Eagle County, which have similar resort/tourism interests; would instead group Routt in with Moffat, Rio Blanco and part of Garfield County (with the exception of Glenwood Springs, another resort community), which have more rural/agricultural/mining and thus very different interests/economies; and would prohibit our current House Representative, Dylan Roberts – a Steamboat native – from representing us in the future, as he currently resides in Eagle County. Routt County’s economy is made up of a mix of tourism, ranching and agricultural interests – all of which are important and have been well-represented by Rep. Roberts during his time in the House – but the primary economic engine in the county is the resort/tourism community of Steamboat Springs, which in the 20 years I have lived here has grown from a largely seasonal (winter) economy centered solely on skiing to a year-round destination resort offering recreational, cultural and employment opportunities during every season of the year. Grouping Routt in with the dissimilar Moffat, Rio Blanco and Garfield counties would seem to minimize the interests of the Routt/Steamboat community, which could have a detrimental effect on the economic vitality of the entire region and leave Routt without a real representative voice in the state legislature. And given that state law mandates that legislative districts preserve communities of interest to ensure fair and effective representation, to many Routt County residents it makes more sense to keep the current legislative district, which includes Eagle/Vail and Routt/Steamboat, unchanged. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, Commissioner members, Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Lisa Johnson and my wife have been residents of Jeffco for 10 years. I am here tonight because I have concerns regarding the redistricting of Jeffco. I would like you to consider keeping Jefferson county whole as is on the congressional map by keeping Arvada and the surrounding areas in Jefferson county. I am here to makes sure "Community of interest" is upheld in Jeffco. Jeffco shares substantial interests with Arvada and the surrounding areas including but not limited to: they are composed of a reasonably proximate population, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation. When considering the redistricting of Jefferson county, equal population and the voting rights act must be the way we draw our county lines. I strongly disagree with splitting up Arvada into two state senate districts and three house state senate districts. I believe this would only break up a growing, vibrant area of Jefferson County. Currently, Jeffco has approximately 550,000 people and the 2021 Congressional district is composed of approximately 700,000 residents. A way we could make up the approximate 150,000 constituents would be to keep Jeffco whole by keeping *Westminster, Arvada, Broomfield as well as Gilpin in Jeffco. If the committee decides to exclude Arvada from Jeffco it would be breaking up a single school district, a single public health system and a single safety system. Cutting out a large portion of the city of Arvada from Jeffco would be a miscalculation by this commission because the county would lose a large portion of their growing population and would also lose the important minority demographics in Jeffco. I strongly believe that Arvada should remain in the 7th District. As a member of the LGBTQ community, keeping Jefferson county whole is a huge concern of mine. I like to believe that Jefferson county has continued to become safer and friendlier to the families of the gay community. There is an unmistakable contrast between Arvada and the demographics of Northwestern part of Douglas county when discussing the safety and inclusion of LGBTQ members. Not only is the gay community underrepresented in the south but the LGBTQ community faces discrimination in Douglas county. I have personally been discriminated against when shopping in that area by being followed, harassed, I have experienced hateful slurs and a heil Hitler hand sign for simply holding my wife’s hand in public. I want to live in a county where my family and friends feel included and I am not in constant fear of retaliation from the hate I have experienced in that area. I consider the city of Arvada and surrounding areas to be our neighbors and we share the same values, resources, school systems and infrastructure, not to mention that our local businesses rely on their well-built relationships that they have with other businesses within our county. Northwestern Douglas county shares a culture which is more aligned with more rural parts of the state and I do not believe including this area into Jefferson county would be the correct decision. Northwestern Douglas county would be better served by keeping Douglas county, whole and giving that area a chance to grow. The northwestern part of Douglas counties population is vastly smaller at 75,000 residents compared to Arvada which has a population of just over 100,000 residents. It does not seem right to divide our county and bring in new areas that do not share our sense of community. The powerful relationships that have been curated within, the current county lines, is a part of what makes living in foothills of Jefferson county so special. I hope Jeffco continues to move forward together instead of going backwards and dividing us. If it is not too much to ask, I would like this committee to please keep in mind my testimony tonight when redrawing the Jeffco county lines. My hope is that Jefferson county remains a democracy defending institution. Thank you for your time, I request that my testimony be submitted in its entirety to the public record.

As was stated several times at yesterday's hearing, I also support keeping Lakewood as part of Jefferson County and not combining it with Douglas County (which we share little in common). Keep Jefferson County unified. Move the border north, so we're together with Wheat Ridge, Arvada, and Westminster. Thank you. Michael Rees

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data. Description of Draft Alternative My process started by identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort” and “as practicable” language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance” does not mean “no variance will be allowed.” For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver. Contiguity The draft alternative map meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3. Voting Rights Act The preliminary staff analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion. Communities of Interest Staff presented a long list of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence with the Western Slope rather than with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains. The commission also includes Clear Creek County and noncontiguous parts of Boulder County with the Western Slope rather than with the other mountain communities of Metro Denver and the North Front Range. Any other choices they could have made to balance the population (reaching into El Paso, Jefferson, Gilpin, or Larimer Counties) would have similarly broken up communities. A basis for the draft alternative is that excluding the San Luis Valley from the Western Slope/Mountain District 3 results in too much fracturing of these other communities of interest. The Sangre de Cristo range, with only one highway pass, is a more meaningful boundary of a community of interest than are the lines between Fremont and Pueblo Counties, the lines separating Clear Creek from Jefferson and Gilpin Counties, or precinct lines within other Front Range counties. Political Subdivisions Two counties must be broken up in any map that maintains contiguity and equal population (Arapahoe and Denver). The preliminary commission map breaks seven additional counties: Adams, Boulder, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The draft alternative map only breaks three additional counties: Adams, Fremont, and Jefferson. The staff took care to maintain the integrity of cities and towns except where they crossed county lines. Setting aside Denver, which must be split, the largest city in the preliminary commission map that ends up with large populations in more than one district appears to be Commerce City, which is divided nearly in half. In the draft alternative map, the largest city with much population in more than one district appears to be Northglenn, with about 2,000 people (5% of its population) grouped with neighboring Thornton. Compactness The DRA provides a total compactness score for the set of districts, while the commission provides only an individual score for each district. The draft alternative map has a Reock score of .4804; this is higher (better) than all but two of the preliminary commission map districts. It appears that the statewide total Reock score is a simple average of the districts, so the preliminary commission map has a Reock score of .41. The draft alternative map has a Polsby-Popper score of .3477; this is again higher (better) than all but two of the preliminary commission map districts. It appears that the statewide total Polsby-Popper score is a simple average of the districts, so the preliminary commission map has a Polsby-Popper score of .2288. The better compactness score of the draft preliminary map is borne out by inspection. Competitive Districts The commission staff indicated that they placed the lowest priority on this criterion, which also is one that is difficult to establish given changes in political alignments and uncertainty about which election results one uses. The commission staff used the 2018 Attorney General results to determine that the eight districts on its preliminary map would be rated as 55.9D, 26.6D, 9.8R, 23.1R, 20.4R, 12.7D, 2.9R, and 7.3D. That is three safe (>10) D districts, two safe R districts, one lean (5–10) D district, one lean R district, and one toss-up (<5) district. Using the same election results, the draft alternative map districts would be rated as 55.1D, 27.7D, 8.3R, 24.2R, 20.5R, 10.1R, 13.9D, and 13.6D. That is four safe D districts, 3 safe R districts, and 1 lean R district. The draft alternative districts become more competitive if different data are used as the baseline—for example, there are two toss-up districts if the 2018 Governor results are used instead—but no doubt that would also happen with the preliminary commission districts. Summary As a starting point for developing Congressional Districts for Colorado, the draft alternative map is superior to the preliminary commission map. It has better results for contiguity, compactness, and unity of political subdivisions. The draft alternative does not strive for precise population equality, which is not as relevant when using only preliminary data. Commission staff did not provide enough data to easily compare VRA compliance, but the draft alternative appears to meet this requirement at least as well as the preliminary commission map. Communities of interest are a judgment call; reasonable people may disagree over how they should be grouped and when they must be divided. Maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions and compactness both go a long way toward meeting this criterion. The only criterion on which the preliminary commission map appears superior is political competitiveness, which they note as their lowest priority.

Dear Commission: I am a retired attorney in Steamboat Springs, CO. I have lived here for 48 years. During my career, I practiced water law, among many other fields, and represented numerous water agencies. I also served as a Governor-appointed director on the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for 20 years, including twice serving as Chairman, and served a term on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. I also served 13 years as a director on the Colorado River Water Conservation District, including a term as Chairman. I served on the Yampa-White-Green Roundtable for 10 years, from its inception, including all 10 years as the Chairman. I have been a director of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District for 43 years, including service as Chairman. I am acutely aware of the necessity in Western Colorado for the congress persons to be able to represent vigorously the interests of the Rivers of Western Colorado. I have viewed your current draft of the Congressional Districts for Colorado, including District 4 from the Western Slope, AND I LIKE IT AS IS! You have done well, to keep all of Western Colorado in one cohesive district, with additions only of small rural mountainous areas in Clear Creek County (tributary of the South Platte), about 3600 population (out of 330,000 population) in west Boulder County), and small communities in the Upper Arkansas basin. You have moved the San Luis Valley out of District 4, in order to balance the population requirement. Please keep that alignment. I think you have done well to keep the west slope water interests cohesive, and to keep the mountain resort areas all in the same district. Thank you very much. Thomas R. Sharp

Members of the Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission, My name is Erik Clarke; I'm a senior consultant who works in the financial, management, & audit for private sector and public sector clients. I also serve on the Denver Health Foundation Next Generation Board and the Catalyst Society of the Mile High United Way. I've been active in our Colorado community for many years and make it a point to keep informed about the future of our state and political representation. As a resident of Southeast Denver, I reviewed the initial legislative maps with great interest. Both the State Senate maps and the State House maps seem to greatly prioritize geography, which was the intention of Amendments Y and Z, which were passed by Denver voters in 2018; however, the Amendments also prioritized communities of interest in the drawing of district borders. My concern is that Southeastern Denver and Southwestern Denver has been cut into non-Denver majority districts outside of City borders, especially in the Senate maps. It is understandable that district lines will not perfectly align with City borders, but splitting Southern Denver into three non-Denver Senate districts weakens the representation of residents of the City of Denver. We, as a city, have unique interests in the state legislature as the capital city of the State of Colorado and face a unique set of challenges as the largest, urban city and economic powerhouse of the State. Giving Denver residents five, whole Senate districts aligns our interests with communities of interest prioritized in Amendments Y and Z. Thank you for taking my words into account as you draft your first and latter staff maps and thank you for stepping up to serve our state in this challenging role with an incredible task. I hope to see a new set of maps that keep our Denver community whole and reflect our interests as diverse communities and residents of an incredible state and incredible city. Warmest Regards, Erik J. Clarke

Regarding the redistricting of Jefferson county and Douglas county: There was an informational zoom session tonight, for those who could not attend in person. The zoom meeting was audio only- no visuals. Visuals are needed to properly explain what the redistricting of these two counties would look like. Five weeks ago the commission was discussing lumping all of Jeffco in with Douglas Co. It appears now they're just considering cutting Jeffco in half. The question still remains why is this redistricting necessary in the first place? What good will it do these two counties? I can think of no good reason to go through all the trouble of redistricting other than someone on the commission got it in their head to create a super red county.

I was disgusted at the public hearing in Lakewood, Co when Commissioner Bill Leone once again said something about being schizophrenic. That is a mental diagnosis and should not be used in a joking matter. It is incredibly disrespectful to those who actually have that ailment and it is a slip up that has occurred before. I would really like this corrected, as you are representing a state that has a schizophrenic persons who do not need your disrespectful humor.