Public Comments

Please consider not lumping Routt county in with not only the rest of CD#3, and at the state level not including us with Moffat and Rio Blanco. Routt county has shown over the years that it has less in common with Moffat , Rio Blanco, and the rest of the west slope than it does with other Mtn resort communities, and should then be a part of similar counties, in terms of representation. Our third congressional district is currently being represented by a clueless, hyper partisan, high school dropout, who is an embarrassment. So there's that.

The current proposed redistricting in my area of Delta County does not address shared community interests and I am strongly urging the committee to keep Delta County as a whole (not sub-divided) entity. For example, Hotchkiss and Paonia are not in the same proposed district but our North Fork high school combines the communities of Hotchkiss and Paonia. So it is imperative that these communities with obvious shared interests not be broken up. Another concern is that Paonia is being put with areas that are divided by Mountain Passes and long distances and who do not have shared interests to say nothing of the geographic obstacles. Delta County is a mining, agricultural, and ranching area and hence Delta County's interests are best served by keeping it together as one unit. Please serve the interests of rural Colorado by combining rural areas with rural areas and not Mountain resorts or Front Range communities.

Hi, My comment is about the proposed HD-24 and HD-23. We live in the unincorporated part of Morrison, along Highway 285, next to Conifer/Aspen Park. I cannot understand why on earth the new HD-24 and HD-23 were drawn the way they are?!? 1) CRITICAL ISSUE!! Why are the new HD23 & HD24 districts split across the town of Conifer?!?! Everyone who lives up here identifies with the town of Conifer. All of our issues are similar - from growth plans to transportation problems to open space preservation… etc. It makes ZERO sense to have the borders of HD24/HD23 split right in Conifer and along Hwy 285 so that part of the SAME community is in HD23 instead of together in HD24. I can’t even begin to explain how this is so wrong! 2) And, just as bad… why is the new HD24 stretched east all the way over to include Superior and Louisville?!? Those cities have NOTHING in common with mountain towns and those of us who live in the rural foothills and mountains. It seems like someone needed to increase the population count for this district so they randomly added that north-eastern section to the district. The NE section should absolutely be deleted from this district. It’s especially confusing that these cities were added to HD24 while you split the Conifer community into two districts. 3) The same issue exists with HD23. It's drawn such that the suburban areas of Ken Caryl and other suburbs east of C-470 are merged with the rural foothill communities. That makes no sense...just as it makes even less sense to include Superior/Louisville into HD24. 4) Truly, the new HD24 and HD23 make no sense at all. Those of us in the Conifer area share all of the same issues as most of the people you put into HD23. Instead of gluing random population centers to rural areas to make a map, you are supposed to be including people who share commonalities. Clearly, those of us who live in the foothills have very different issues than those who live in cities and suburbs. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: I suggest you change both HD24 and HD23 to make one HD for those of us in the foothills. To do this, you should change the north-eastern corner of HD23 to delete the suburbs - instead put that NE border on the western side of C-470. Then, change the NE section of your proposed HD24 to stop along the north at the Jefferson County line and to the east on the western side of Hwy 93. Finally, after deleting those two chunks, merge what is remaining of HD23 & HD24 together into ONE district. That would put those of us who live in the foothills and have the same issues together so we could finally have representation that thinks of our needs. It’s always been so hard to get any elected person in any role to pay attention to those of us in the foothills (especially the unincorporated sections). They are always paying more attention to the suburban and urban areas where there are more people. We have not had proper representation in so many ways for decades. This is an opportunity to make a district that WILL be focused on a population that has the same communal concerns. Let’s not waste this opportunity! Please, I am begging you, don’t just glue the foothills onto suburban towns/cities that have nothing to do with us! It would be a travesty and would continue to mean we have no true representation. Regards, Cynthia Schmidt

Colorado Redistricting Commissioners: It is your responsibility to ensure fairness and unbiased mapping for Colorado’s Eight Congressional Districts, however ion the preliminary plans do not address this issue, they certainly do not address the issue of South-Central Colorado. All they did was move the San Luis Valley, Huerfano, Custer, and Pueblo Counties from a political base from the Western Slope (with Western Slope Control) to a base of the eastern plains (which we are not ) and Northern Colorado (which we are also not geographical, political, or culturally a part of) with Northern Colorado Control; What about US, South-Central and True Southern Colorado , we have enough population, and this population is confined to a specific geographical area, and yet you will take care of the whims of the rest of the State before you will allow us, True Southern Colorado -South Central Colorado, to exercise our inherent right, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, of being our being represented in Congress, and not part of a bias political scheme to include us in remote areas where the political epicenter for both the current 3rd Congressional District, and the proposed 4th Congressional District is at least two-hundred miles from the LARGEST Population Center in the State of Colorado. Do any of you know that Pueblo is the ninth largest city and county in the State, do any of you realize the largest population center in Colorado is the South-Central counties of El Paso, Pueblo, Fremont, and Teller with 980,000 residents. That is 20,000 people less than ONEMILLION PEOPLE, more than any other population center in Colorado. Please look at the attracted Colorado Population Center PDF document and please note that we did not just shift the facts, this data was complied from the most current information on the population we could find and complied in an manner that was consistent to what those websites told us. Please refer to https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/states/co and to https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cities/colorado. With our extensive knowledge of Colorado and the population make up of Colorado, both in general terms and political terms we were able to compile statistical data the illustrates our position, which is that the population is sufficient to allow South-Central Colorado our own Congressional District. There is one obstacle- El Paso County. El Paso County can benefit being split in half simply by being able to have two voices in congress, and that is their goals to be the strongest political district in the State, let’s give it to them, however they must comply with our request of to allow all of Southern Colorado that is on the Eastern Side of the Continental Divide to form our own destiny, for not be include to portions of the state which are not concerned with South-Central Colorado and through the current and proposed Congressional mapping will always be able to override any action we wish the Congress to take on our behalf. The proposal we are presenting is actually allows Colorado to form three (3) Congressional Districts outside of the Denver Metro Area (DMA) instead tot the current two and the proposed two with El Paso County become a political island, which is VERY DETRIMENTAL to the fair balance of ALL Colorado Congressional Representation and is certainly not what the voters of Colorado mandated you to do when they passed the Referendums ‘y’ and ‘z’ in 2018. Commissions, please look closely at the pdf. document entitled ‘Population Centers of Colorado’ and you will find that nearly one-million people will not be truly represented in congress if you adopt the recommendation of the politicized staff that recommend this preliminary plan. One note on the people who will point to Denver and say “No, the focus should be on DMA and not the rest of the state, please understand that five districts that will encompass in the DMA account for over 3.25 Million people which is sixty-three percent of the State’s population, and however there is not one particular area in which you can present a higher population base than the population of the South-Central Colorado Metro District (El Paso, Pueblo, Teller, and Fremont Counties). We have 980.000 residents, and we only need 725,000 for form our own district, so why does this part of the State always gets the run-a-round when it come to our own Congressional Representation. Any other solution would mean this committee has been compromised and is not accomplishing the task it has been charged with to remap the Colorado Congressional District in a fair and unbiased manner. Thank You and we apricate all the tremendous effort that all of you have given to this effort. Thomas McKenna Drafted on behalf of all citizens of True South Colorado

After you read the attached chapter, entitled "How Math Broke Democracy (and Might Still Save it") I believe you will agree it should be REQUIRED for everyone responsible for developing an impartial redistricting process. (Permission to send this to you given by Dr. J. Ellenberg, MacArthur Prof of Math, Univ Wisconsin, who testified before the WI Redistricting Commission.) Please consider consultation with him. As you will discover, this chapter not only simplifies critically important pros/cons about the various redistricting models across the US, it highlights common misperceptions about them, and demonstrates the real world impact on the distribution of voting percentages for each. I was unaware of Dr. Ellenberg's work on redistricting (and that "Shape" was a NY Times best seller; the rest of the book is unrelated to voting) until I recently purchased his book and chanced upon this chapter. However, I was so impressed with the relevance of his work to your charge, that I would be willing to try to raise funds for his fees to advise you (via zoom or in person) as I doubt anyone else could present this information to your Commissions with such clarity and so succinctly. (I do not intend to offer any verbal testimony myself.) I am a native of Colorado, and hope that our redistricting process will be held up as a model for other states -- just as the success of our mail-in ballot system has been held in high regard for promoting democracy. Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Redistricting Commissioners, I am re submitting my comment regarding redistricting as had an error on the last. I hope it goes through this time. My name is Shirley Bauer and I live in Cedaredge Colorado which is part of Delta County. I have been following the progress of the redistricting commissioners and I do thank you for all the work you are doing. However, after reviewing the proposed redistricting maps regarding Delta County, I do have major concerns. First of all, I see that one of the requirements by law, is to try and "keep communities whole and keep together those communities of shared interests." I believe “keeping counties whole” is part of the requirements by law as well. It doesn’t make sense to me to see Cedaredge and Paonia separated from Orchard City, Eckert, Delta and Hotchkiss. Putting Paonia and Cedaredge with Mesa county is okay, but all the towns in Delta County have the same interests in common. Eckert is only 4 miles from Cedaredge and on the same highway. There are orchards and farming in Paonia, Cedaredge, Hotchkiss and Delta. That way of living is common with Mesa County as well. Another issue that concerns me is dividing the Schools in Delta into different districts. Recently Paonia closed it's High School and now has to go to a combined High School in Hotchkiss. How can you justify separating the community Paonia from Hotchkiss? How can you justify separating Eckert and Orchard City from Cedaredge as the children from those communities go to Cedaredge for School? Please keep these communities all together. Grand Mesa is connected to Cedaredge and Delta by Hwy 65 and Hwy 92. All those that live in Delta County utilize all the recreational opportunities offered on Grand Mesa. Highway 65 goes from Hwy 92 over the top of Grand Mesa and comes out at HWY 70 just a little North of Grand Junction and Palisade. In addition, our county fairgrounds are in Hotchkiss which is used for many activities in Delta County. Besides the recreational use of Grand Mesa, much of the water used in Delta County comes from the Grand Mesa. Water usage is a huge issue in this area. Surface Creek joins all the towns coming down Hwy 65. If you divide this area, you are putting us at risk for less representation for not only water use concerns but ALL of our concerns in this region. Delta is only 14 miles from Cedaredge. Most of our shopping is done in Delta as Grand Junction is further away, but many from this area go to Grand Junction for major shopping as well as entertainment. If you have to combine counties, I think you should put all of Delta County in with Mesa County. Makes more sense as almost a quarter of the working class in Delta, commute to Grand Junction. Please do not split Delta County up any more. I have felt for some time, that the State of Colorado ignores the voices on the Western Slope and by dividing us more, I feel you will be “cancelling” our voices here. I feel the same way about the proposed Senate Redistricting map as well. Regarding part of Garfield county. Why not leave Garfield intact and put Rifle back with Moffat County, Rio Blanco and Routt? That way, putting all of Delta with Mesa should make both districts fairly even. I am not sure why you want to split another county especially when the interests are the same as the other 3 counties. Regarding Congressional redistricting. I think that you have done a pretty good job of keeping District 3 together and that may be okay with the exception of Boulder County. With the proposed map, you are splitting yet another county. Why? The Western Slope Must stay intact in order to make our voices heard. Sincerely, Shirley Bauer Cedaredge CO. 81413 e-mail: msshirleyb@gmail.com Phone. 303-332-4564

The proposed redistricting of the San Luis valley, transferred from district 3 to the 4th district, is clearly a partisan transfer voting citizens. Gerrymandering is a disgusting and unacceptable practice, FIX IT.

Some Notes on the constitutional requirements for Redistricting Colorado After the public hearing in Burlington at which I spoke I was approached by a commission member who, after a pleasant chat, declared that she would 'stick to the constitution'. That's fair comment, legal requirements being what they are. After looking over the constitutional requirements spelled out in Section 44 it seems to me the commission is faced with some contradictions in its attempt to fulfill all of the constitution's demands. What follows is my defense of the idea of a statewide district for electing 8 new Members of the House of Representatives, in light of all of the provisions of this law. First though, I would be remiss if I didn't suggest something that has certainly been on the minds of many of you as you try to draw equal population district lines without interfering with existing political subdivisions- Colorado needs a County Boundary Commission for the 21st century! Please, as part of your work over the next several months, ask the state government to consider how difficult your work is with existing political boundaries that don't conform to our modern ways of living. In the existing congressional district map and in the first proposed map, there are 2 districts that stand out. Each spans over 400 miles of Colorado territory, and it seems to me it would be a stretch of logic and consistency to claim that the ends of these districts represent similar 'communities of interest'. One district in fact stretches from Kansas to New Mexico and similarly, the other stretches from Wyoming to the Four Corners. There is no fixing this problem, it's part of the single member district requirement ( I might change 'requirement' to 'conundrum' but that's just me). In the proposed map, the next longest district from end to end is barely 100 miles, and that's achievable for a congressperson in the course of a day's travel for constituent work. Secondly, the carving up of the 'suburban' areas around Denver may be necessary for population equality purposes but in the course of this dividing up of territory and population, boundaries and subdivisions and 'key communities of interest' of all kinds are split. As an aside, the constitutional language speaks of 'communities of interest' and 'key communities of interest' in different places. Is there some definition of one that is different from the other? The 'racial, ethnic, and language minority groups' that may comprise 'communities of interest' are no doubt presenting a dilemma for your single member district efforts as well, since more than 20% of Coloradans identify as 'Hispanic or Latino' and are dispersed in roughly equal numbers throughout the state. Alas, numbering more than a million statewide but not enough to sway an election in any district. It's a similar story with African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans. Other communities of interest are listed in the constitution as "shared public policy concerns of urban, rural, agricultural, industrial, or trade areas; and shared public policy concerns such as education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, water needs and supplies, and issues of demonstrable regional significance." I would add 'tourism' to the first listing, since it must surely be considered important in places like Vail and Aspen and Colorado Springs, and other areas as well. The military also needs to be added to this listing of public policy areas since there is a straight north-south line that can be drawn from Fort Collins to Fort Carson, with 3 or 4 other equally significant military installations in between. And the second listing of "education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, etc." must be truly thought of as statewide issues of importance, with one not more important to one district than another? Finally, I would like to thank you all for considering these words in the light of someone who may disagree but has no wish to be 'disagreeable'. Pete Healey Colorado Springs, CO. July 18, 2021 phealey3@gmail.com

HD 24... to late to be doing this stuff. I don't know if I attached my proposed revised map or not in my previous comment. If not, here it is. In any case, the mountain and urban communities are too different to be in the same House district!

RE: HD24, taking a better look at your proposed redistricting map, I see that portions of Louisville are also to be included in HD24. I've enclosed a better map illustrating my prior suggestions to provide better and fairer representation for the mountain and urban areas.. Putting the suburban communities of Superior and Louisville into a district with all the mountain communities west of HWY 93 and C470 makes no sense as they have nothing in common and violates all the tenets of the Colorado Constitution that you have cited at the bottom of this comment form. The communities are simply too divergent. Mountain folk and city folk are different.