Public Comments

We do not have any common interests with Congressional district 3, please keep all of Boulder County in District 2.

I live in the town of Nederland which is a mountain community. I like the current district and like and respect Joe Neguse as my representative. He has done an excellent job! Shared interests in my community include environmental impact of projects (local and state wide), traffic in the mountains, conditions of the roads, TAXES, affordable housing, livable wages, and maintaining the balance between our natural, wild mountain neighbors and the invading human species. Clean water is also high on my priority list, and enough water for farmers and residents. Please leave our district as it is- I believe it's fair. Thank you.

I am currently a Delta County School District 50J Vice President and simply put please keep Delta County as a whole and makes no sense to me that we break up Delta County into different districts. Our county is primarily a rural agriculture based community and has been for many years. With that said having representatives and senators that live in resort areas may not fully understand the impact of how our agricultural community functions and support our farmers livelihood. Simple changes to water rights, land usage and educational policies that might occur may make sense to these elected representatives may have a major impact to our county by not fully understanding our demographics by really no fault of their own. So again please, keep Delta County as a "whole" and not chop up our county where some proposed redistricting maps have parts of our county in areas of the state that are not realistic to what our county represents. Thank You for your time and consideration.

Written Comments for the Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission - July 9, 2021 I'm Peter Healey and I live and work in Colorado Springs. I haven't been here long but I have a long-term interest in public affairs and small d democracy. I would like to thank all of you for answering the call to public service and also thank the 1.7 million Coloradans who insisted that this process be conducted. It might be said that you have a chance to lead the nation, or instead tinker around the edges of the status quo and barely be remembered at all. For me the words of a 19th century democratic reformer come to mind when I think of the task ahead of you. Ernest Naville said, "The right to representation belongs to all, the right to govern belongs to the majority". Here in the United States we pretend to not be familar with the ideas or practices of proportional representation, which is what Naville had in mind when he spoke those words. The recent example of Israel's new government has been much in the news lately in what the media and politicans like to call 'the only democracy in the Middle East'.for all Israel has actually been providing an example of the two basic premises that Naville laid out. Their new government is cobbled together from 8 parties with a bare majority of 61 out of 120 members of their unicameral parliament. The new Prime Minister belongs to one of the smallest parties in this government, winning about 5% of the total vote. Never does anyone question whether a system that produces such a governments could possibly be democratic, why would they? Every segment of Israeli society, no matter how small (well the minimum threshold is about 3.25% so...), gets a voice and a vote in their national government, no matter where in the country they live, because the entire country is the 'district'. The question that is on our minds constantly, a question that drove many of those 1.7 million Coloradans to approve of this hearing, is whether we Americans are capable of political renewal, which might in turn help lead us to social and cultural renewal. Israel has embarked on that path and I wish them well, and their electoral system with its inclusive method is a great help. Other examples from the same area of the world are the current governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Imposed by US military occupation and force of arms, these governments were constituted on proportional election grounds, not on the single member district plurality methods currently required of Americans. We can ask why and how the United States government would not seek to replicate our electoral system when we had the exclusive right to do so, but instead chose this method? It is quite common throughout the world, with nearly 100 nations using one or another form of proportional elections for their national government bodies, as it takes different forms depending on local circumstances. We can ask, but the answers would likely make us nervous, and might lead to more questions about why we aren't doing the same thing here. Maybe we would even ask how it is that an American government would repudiate our own political system in such a way? One more basic concept I learned some years ago from my participation in a similar though much smaller effort at changing the way my home county elected its legislators comes to mind. 'As soon as you put pen to paper, you're gerrymandering'. The population of that county was growing and changing, its demographics were affected by its proximity to a large American city just 90 miles to the south. County legislators were chosen from multi-member districts that were gerrymandered sufficiently to ensure a single party's dominance, but that system couldn't last much longer. An effort was begun to bring single member districts to this legislature and to downsize it. This effort won the day but... several election cycles later the 23 legislative seats that remain don't merit the term 'political renewal'. 10 or 11 of these seats regularly go uncontested by one or the other of the major parties, and barely 3 or 4 are what one might consider 'competitive'. If you want a larger and even closer example of this problem you might look to your west and see what an independent redistricting process has brought to California's congressional delegation and state legislature. I saw a statistic while researching these matters that showed only about 56% of California's adult population is registered to vote while nearly 80% of Coloradans are registered. Political renewal hasn't succeeded in California either, after several election cycles with 'independent redistricting'. Of course, their awful 'Top Two' system clouds the issue as well but there is no way that 42 Democrats and 11 Republicans, and no others, are representative of the entire population of that state. A large percentage, perhaps a majority, of the 1.7 million Coloradans who voted in favor of this process (and maybe one or two of the 'Unaffiliated' members of this commission) would like to create an opening for other parties to fairly and freely compete for congressional seats, and here's a proposal that might go some way toward granting that wish. 2.5 million Coloradans went to the polls in 2018 in an off-year election and they elected 7 members of the US House of Representatives. On average, each winner needed almost 250,000 votes to win a seat. With 8 seats instead of 7 in 2022, and with each seat holding about 50,000 more people, winning each of those 8 seats might require nearly 300,000 votes in 2022. My proposal is that Colorado draw no lines at all and for every 12.5% of the total vote each party receives statewide for their list of candidates, they win one seat. Now 12.5% of a turnout of 2.5 million is just over 300,000, so the requirement for election is similar to that imposed on a single district candidate in the current system. And I know that minor parties will be keenly interested in such a daunting but achievable goal. If you draw no lines you stand no risk of being accused of gerrymandering. Nor do you have any risk of being accused of dividing communities. Every seat would suddenly become competitive with the requirements, 300,000 votes give or take, remaining the same for all. As I said, existing minor parties could compete on the same ground with the major parties and stand or fall with their public policy proposals and appeals for support. The true level of support for the major parties might even show itself, without anyone fearing the spoiler effect. It could even produce a situation in which factions of the major parties split off and either set up on their own or join with existing minor parties, something I have long believed is possible and even likely in an election system set up on a proportional basis. There are, of course, plenty of reasons to reject a proposal like this out of hand. "It isn't in our mandate", "There must be laws against such a thing", and "How could something like this ever work?", all come to mind immediately as objections and concerns. Each of them raises an important point. But the discussion and debate must be initiated somewhere, somehow, by someone. Systems matter, and the current system's days are numbered. Peter Healey PO Box 13562 Colorado Springs, CO. 80902 phealey3@gmail.com July 9, 2021

I share similar concerns as those raised by Suzanna Garcia's public comment about racial gerrymandering and competitiveness. Your proposed map essentially "cracks" the Denver metro Hispanic community stretching from Aurora to Berkley and Sherrelwood across 4 congressional districts. I believe this is a racial gerrymander meant to dilute the voting power of Hispanics in the Denver area. I am particularly concerned that Commerce City, which has one of the largest Hispanic populations in our state, is split in two with basically an "arm" shooting off from district 4 and into the eastern half of the city. District 4 is predominantly rural and yet this "arm" essentially pulls in half of Commerce City, which is a highly urban and industrial setting in the Denver metro. Commerce City has nothing in common with rural communities in Southern CO and I cannot see any reasonable justification for this. It is a racial gerrymander that I believe flagrantly violates the Voting Rights Act. Our community is facing serious issues around pollution and environmental racism because of the Suncor refinery. I believe it will basically be impossible for us to get our representative to address this if we are grouped mainly with rural counties up to 250 miles away from Commerce City. I agree with Ms. Garcia that a congressional district should be drawn that consolidates as much of the urban Hispanic community as possible by combining Aurora, northeast Denver, and the inner nothern suburbs including all of Commerce City. In my opinion, this is far more important than keeping the city of Denver whole- especially given that the airport neighborhoods are far more economically and culturally linked to Aurora and Commerce City than they are to downtown Denver. I am also extremely concerned that the map doesn't seem to produce competitive congressional districts. I thought a major purpose of the commission was to produce a competitive map. That was a huge part of the campaign for putting it in place and it was even in the language of the ballot measure we all voted on. It seems to me that there should be at least 3 districts that are competitive, if not more. I have drawn a map using Dave's Redistricting tool. This map is somewhat similar to the commission's map but I have made some adjustments to address the problems with racial gerrymandering and non-competitiveness. I have also restored Western Boulder county to district 2 and Castle Rock to district 4 because I saw in the public comments that these were frequent complaints. Now, district 6 is 37% Hispanic and 59% non-White. Additionally, district 3, 7, and 8 would all be competitive. In the 2018 AG's race, Brauchler would have won district 3 by 4% and district 7 by 2% while Weiser would have won district 8 by 3%. This is much more competitive than your current draft map. Thank you for reading my comment. MAP IS HERE: https://davesredistricting.org/join/f7835dfb-84af-41ec-aaa2-0081298fd57e

Please include all of the City of Aurora in a single district; currently the Preliminary Colorado Congressional District Map doesn't include an eastern portion of the city (see attached, map). Also, please see the attached City of Aurora City Council Resolution R2021-25 in support of municipal integrity. Best Regards Bill Keever City of Aurora

These new lines are purposely drawn in favor of the fascist Republican Party is obvious and disgusting in its nature. Not only does a majority of the state’s population reside in the front range, our votes inevitably will count less towards our representation due to these new lines drawn and the gerrymandering being proposed. Not only does this inaccurately represent the population of Colorado, it accounts for land mass instead of actual population sizes of each area. This is a disgraceful move and only further sews distrust in the voting process. Shame on you for thinking this is acceptable in the 21st century.

This would put us into these districts: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_State_Senate_District_33 https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_House_of_Representatives_District_58 This is rank gerrymandering and disrepresentation. We would have no way to participate in a Dist. 3 location Lauren Bobbert would ignore us completely. Boulder County has long been a democratic area and to throw us into Weld County and Larimer is just to break up the county. I question the people on this committee and fear that we will never recover our representation. Shame. Do we get a say in this? Susie D'Amico                                               

Western Boulder County belongs in district 2. We have very different needs and issues then the Western slope. We are also on the other side of the continental divide, it makes no sense to put us in District 3.

Dear Commissioners: I am writing to raise a specific issue of concern with respect to potentially splitting up Boulder County into multiple congressional districts. The City of Boulder relies upon Barker Meadow Reservoir in Nederland, approximately 10 miles up Boulder Canyon from the city of Boulder, as a primary source of municipal water. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_Meadow_Reservoir The preliminary congressional redistricting plan separates Boulder and Barker Reservoir into different congressional districts. Water issues and related policy are of utmost importance to residents of the Front Range, including the city and county of Boulder. Boulder is functionally dependent upon the western reaches of Boulder County for a sustainable supply of water. Separating Boulder from a critical water supply (within the same county) is unwise from the perspective that the Boulder Creek watershed (from the Divide eastward) constitutes a critically important “community of (common) interest.” As such, having unified representation in Congress would help drive effective advocacy for and management/support of our water resources at the federal level. Thank you for your attention to this issue. George Tran Boulder, CO