Public Comments

I live in Arvada and redistricting my neighborhood into District 8 makes no sense except in the art of gerrymandering. Arvada would be separated from the rest of Jeff CO (Golden, Wheat Ridge, Lakewood) and placed with Adams and Weld Counties in Congressional District 8. Issues that are relevant to JeffCo and the City of Arvada are not the same as Broomfield, Weld, and Adams Counties - they have O&G development discussions that are not relevant to our City. Our biggest policy concerns involve sustainable energy, waste, transportation, open space, and growth. JeffCo neighborhoods need to stay together and work together. Since Arvada geographically lies so close to the Foothills, we align with Golden and Littleton not Erie and Platteville. Thanks for listening.

Hi there. When I saw the congressional redistricting map I was dismayed to learn that Nederland would no longer be in district 2. I have lived here for 22 years and my experience with all of my congressmen has been very favorable. Specifically Jared Polis and now Joe Neguse have done an excellent job holding town halls and addressing the needs of our mountain communities. This includes my experience with our fires and the 2013 flood. I live in Nederland and work Nederland at home and in Boulder. I feel that my community interests are more aligned with Boulder County than the Western Slope. Please consider adding the Boulder County Mountain areas back into Congressional District 2

As a county commissioner it would make sense to have Crowley and Otero counties in the eastern district with counties that we work with on a daily basis. Our concerns and challenges mirror each other as compared to the front range counties. Crowley, Otero and Bent counties share services through the 16th Judicial District and Crowley and Otero share Health Departments. To divide our interests by representation makes no sense. We need our representative to share the values of our region.

I live in Arvada, Colorado, which is currently (and appropriately) part of District 7. The proposed re-districting of Arvada into District 8 would be a mistake, given the regional nature of the issues we currently face and will continue to face as we grow. Arvada shares regional transportation networks with communities in District 7 and common community concerns as well. Arvada is a rapidly growing suburban community which surpasses cities like Boulder and Golden in population growth. Our needs are more akin to rapidly growing areas like Wheat Ridge, Lakewood and Golden. We share common transportation arterials with those communities (light rail lines, State Roads 92 and 121). We are all bedroom communities for Denver metro AND we are growing job centers as well. We are tackling our waste issues more progressively with the recent municipalization of our trash/recycling hauling services and the growing use of and demand for composting services. Housing prices are escalating in Arvada, as is the desire for more energy efficient residences. District 8, which includes Weld and Adams counties have entirely different issues and concerns than those historically found in Arvada. Weld and Adams counties are host to oil and gas development - an issue that is NOT important in Arvada. Also, Arvada is seeing more infill and densification of housing development versus the new sprawling housing complexes that are being developed in towns like Firestone, Frederick and Dacono. I would respectfully urge the Redistricting Commission to reconsider placing Arvada in District 8 and place it in District 7, where I believe we would be more likely to have one voice in representation that would more accurately represent our needs (sustainability, smart growth, increased alternative transportation and energy efficiency/renewables)

As a resident of Lakewood, I do not like the new boundaries of Congressional District 7. Lakewood is a very large, older, first-ring suburb of Denver. The new maps draws Lakewood into the same district as large portions of Douglas County, a newer, faster growing suburban area. Lakewood and Castle Rock don't have nearly as much in common as Lakewood and our neighboring western suburbs further north, such as Arvada. Yet, Arvada is in the new District 8. Like Lakewood, Arvada is a large, older, suburban city. Lakewood and Arvada are in the same county and share the same school district. Both cities have newer RTD rail lines that have been built in the last decade. A lot of the local political issues in both cities revolve around redevelopment and revitalization of older suburban areas. By contrast, Castle Rock is in a different county and school district than Lakewood, and the local issues down there revolve more around handling the first wave of suburban growth - a problem Lakewood really hasn't dealt with for several decades now. Lakewood and Arvada should be in the same district - ideally Arvada brought back into the 7th District. Lakewood and Castle Rock do not have enough that unites them as common "communities of interest" to be in the same congressional district.

To support the goals of combining communities of interest, maximizing minority influence, and encouraging competitive elections, I would recommend combining the counties of the San Luis Valley with Southeastern and Eastern Colorado, and the majority of Adams County (including Brighton, Commerce City, Northglenn, Thornton, and Federal Heights). This version of District 5 would be about 38% minority (over 31% Hispanic), only splits one county (Adams County), would combine agricultural communities of Southern and Eastern Colorado and would represent roughly equal parts of Republicans and Democrats (48% and 47%, respectively). Logan and Morgan Counties could be grouped into a similarly competitive district with Larimer and Weld Counties to balance population. See attached images.

I would like to recommend altering the proposed district boundaries for Congressional District 3 to include Mineral County instead of western portions of Boulder County. Mineral County and Creede are very similar in character (small towns isolated from other communities), history (mining), and geography (mountainous) to adjacent Hinsdale County (as opposed to the San Luis Valley). Meanwhile, portions of Boulder County are on the Eastern Slope and encompass communities more closely tied to the Denver Metro Region than the Western Slope. This also reduces the need to split Boulder County into multiple districts.

I have two central concerns regarding the commission's draft map. Firstly, all of the districts are majority white despite the fact that about two fifths of the state's population is constituted by people of color. I think at least one district should be majority-POC in order to comply with the VRA. It is possible to draw such a district by combining the inner northern and eastern suburbs of Denver with the sections of Denver near the airport and on the northeast fringe of the city. As attachment C notes, these sections of Denver are closely intertwined with the inner suburbs given their geographic proximity and demographic similarity. While the commission argues in their memo that the white majority does not prevent minority groups from electing their candidate of choice in this area, their analysis only considers the results of general elections (i.e. whether a democrat or republican is elected). However, it is possible that cracking the concentrations of minority voters in this region (as the proposed map does) will prevent minority voters from electing their candidates of choice in primary elections. Notably, this region is currently divided between districts 1, 6, and 7. Over the past decade, across these three districts, there has only been one major party nominee of color (Casper Stockham) and no candidate of color has been elected in the general. Consolidating a larger share of minority voters into district 6 would ensure that voters of color have the power to nominate candidates of choice for the general election, including candidates of color. Second, I am concerned that this proposal disregards competitiveness. According to Amendment Y, the commission is supposed to try to maximize the number of competitive districts but most of these districts seem to be drawn to protect incumbents of both parties. I agree with others arguing for a map that includes three competitive districts along with two solidly republican districts and three solidly democrat districts. This is a fair split given that Colorado leans somewhat toward the Democrat party. I have drafted a map based on my comments: https://davesredistricting.org/join/9df1a608-6ba9-4bed-ae48-260310fbafb3. This map keeps communities of interest together, splits municipalities as little as possible, and performs better on compactness scores than the commission's draft map. Additionally, district 6 is 58.3% POC including 36.0% Hispanic/Latino (a higher share than in any district in the commission's map). The new district 8 also still has a relatively large share of Hispanic/Latino residents at 28.6% as it is somewhat similar to the district proposed by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Overall the results of the 2018 Attorney General's Race for this map would be as follows: District 1: 73.0D-24.2R District 2: 62.0D-35.0R District 3: 50.3R-46.4D District 4: 61.6R-35.0D District 5: 58.0R-38.1D District 6: 61.0D-35.5R District 7: 48.7D-48.4R District 8: 48.6R-47.7D

My community of interest is recreation - the economic driver that our areas will have in common in the next decades is recreation. That is not reflected in the published maps, which seem to rely on past economic shared interests. In Mesa County, resource extraction and agriculture are declining while recreation is exploding, and with our demographics, that trend seems most likely to accelerate. We have communities built on mountain biking, hiking, hunting, fishing, rafting, festivals, and so on. We have extensive resources of National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, National Forests, Wilderness Study areas, BLM lands, and more. We have that in common with other counties like San Miguel, Ouray, Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, etc. Defining Mesa county as a community of interest involving oil and gas and agriculture, enshrines the power structures of the past, instead of the present and near-term future. It links us with counties that most of us have nothing in common with, though some entrenched interests do. We should be part of communities working on the same goals and addressing the same problems. Our public policy concerns are not propping up last-century's features, but addressing the challenges of today - developing sustainable economies, increasing tourism, funding infrastructure to support those visits, maintaining our environment in ways that continue to attract visitors and residents, and addressing threats posed by climate change, including lack of water in our rivers and reservoirs, extreme heat, and extreme drought conditions. Thank you, Lee Cassin

The commissions and their staff are constitutionally required to create districts that avoid splitting counties or cities. Your proposed splits do not take that into account at all. You need to stop being political and do the right thing. And rarely is the politically astute thing to do the right thing.