Public Comments

Why are the Westminster Shaw Heights neighborhoods in District 30? Shouldn't that district be in District 24? I find it odd that that neighborhood was boxed out for District 30. The majority of District 30 is in Denver and Commerce City, while a small portion of Westminster is located in District 30. Shouldn't the line be anything west of Federal Blvd and north of 72nd be in District 24?

Plain and simple, the proposed redistricting has at it's root political control. The western slope has little in common with Bouder.

Topic: Colorado Congressional Redistricting Concerns First, I would like to say that my guide, ruler, measure for including or not including areas is based on the "primary" guidance of "common community" of location. Example is Mineral county and Washington county. These 2 counties are vastly different in every respect. Hence, they won't and don't relate on needs, goals, businesses, ambitions, etc. The other main guiding concern is the dividing of counties. I strongly disagree with dividing - so absolutely minimizing such and restoring counties as districts is something I believe should be considered a top goal. Let me start with the new 8th district as it directly (potentially) affects me living in the Arvada area. What I see is very strange - and doesn't flow with the Constitutional guidance of "common community". Actually the redistrict process in 2010 severed my neighborhood and city from our county (Jefferson) - and the new proposal doesn't correct that problem but continues to lump Arvada, Westminster portions of Jefferson county with Commerce City and areas east of the Platte River. That is not my or Arvada's or Westminster's' neighborhood (even though Westminster has enlarged itself by pulling in areas east of Broomfield county. The majority of Arvada is solid Jeffco - and should be in the same district with all of Jeffco - a common community, very similar to Boulder and Larimer (plains- suburbs and foothills-mountains). So - fixing the Arvada-Westminster disjointness from the rest of Jeffco by pulling it back into District 7- then allows the new drawing of District 7 to not include much if any of Douglas county, leaving Douglas County in district 4. Next - there is the ridiculous parceling of Ward, Nederland, Jamestown and associated canyons in west Boulder County out of District 2 and into the west slope??? There is nothing closely relating those areas of Boulder county to Meeker, or Steamboat Spg, or Craig or 99% of the western slope. Boulder county stops at the divide and no part of Boulder county should ever be part of Colorado western slope. Talk about alienation - those folks along the peak-to-peak highway would have to drive 'forever' to talk with other members of the District 3 western slope district. Clearly this is a political move that has nothing to do with sentiment of the people of the Boulder county areas mentioned - was a survey ever done asking if they would like to be part of the western slope?!? I know that wasn't done. And there is no way the western slope people are going to allow any votes in their district to be tabulated in the city of Boulder. That ain't happening. The same goes for all of Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties - They are east slope and deserve to continue to be part of the east slope community that they have most of their business and social relationships with. So by leaving all of Boulder county, Gilpin and Clear Creek in District 2 and out of District 3 - then you can divide Pueblo county between District 3 and District 4 as needed to account for population. And keep Saguache, Rio Grande, Mineral, Alamosa and Costillo in District 3. They have nothing in common with the plains of District 4. These are mountain and parks like Grande and Park counties. Also, by leaving all of Boulder County together in district 2, you can pull back the rather lame piece-meal partitioning of sections of Weld County into District 2 and place those in the new District 8, to make up for putting Arvada back into Jeffco District 7. Calm heads over partisan druthers. Keep east slope and west slope to their common environmental communities and minimize significant county divisions (Jeffco deserves to be treated like Boulder and Larimer). These are my reasoned suggestions - which I believe make more sense by keeping western slope and mountain communities together and plains counties together and finally the foothill counties intact - especially Boulder and Jeffco. And especially puts Arvada back into Jeffco (and the Jeffco portion of Westminster) where it belongs - not as part of the Platte river new district 8. Thank you, Michael Kuhn

I’m writing you to please keep Grand County in Congressional District 2. WHY? Because as a Grand County home owner, I know our interest >>>. Tourism, water and forest management as well as business interest are more in line with district 2 than in district 3. District3 is more rural and agricultural in nature. We in Grand county have very different needs and interests then those in District 3 . So please Grand County in district 2. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely Denice Everham Tabernash Colorado

Town of 50 Lundgren Boulevard I PO Box 130 1 Gypsum, CO 1 81637 Gypsum June 25, 2021 Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions 1580 Logan st., Suite 430 Denver, CO 80203 At the conclusion of each decennial Census, the United States goes through the process of redrawing congressional districts to account for population changes that have occurred over the previous ten years. The most virtuous intent of this effort, as embodied in Amendment Y to the Colorado constitution, is that districts should be drawn around communities of interest to certify that voters are afforded the most effective representation possible in the U.S. Congress and to increase the number of competitive districts. While "community of interest" is a subjective concept, in the context of congressional redistricting, its meaning is found in the common bonds, localized circumstances, vexing shared problems, and in the unified characteristics that distinguish a people's representational needs as something unique. The Western Slope of Colorado is just such a place. The Western Slope is perhaps the most clearly recognized community of interest in Colorado and should therefore be kept whole during the 2021 redistricting process. The counties of the Western Slope share interests on matters such as water, federal lands, forestry and wildfires, agriculture, environment, infrastructure, health care and outdoor recreation. The region is united by more than just geography. Our culture, economy, and way of life are uniting bonds. The redistricting process must take these considerations into account and keep the Western Slope in one Congressional District. The Town of Gypsum supports the thrust of Club 20's letter and proposed map to the Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions dated May 5. 2021. which explores many of these uniting bonds in great detail, achieves population proportionality, and makes clear that the Western Slope is far more than a geographical reference. The Western Slope has unique challenges and opportunities, distinct rural, urban and rural resort cultural differences, and an abundance of federal concerns around land and water that clearly define the region as a community of interest. We deserve our own voice, as one united congressional district. The Town of Gypsum urges you to make the Western Slope whole in one congressional district during this redistricting process. Sincerely, Stephen Carver Mayor, Town Of Gypsum

I had not intended to comment on Legislative redistricting, but after seeing the preliminary House District map, I feel I must. The preliminary map drawn by the commission staff is a large deviation from the current map. This is highly disruptive to not only the current Reps. for those districts, but also the people who live in them, and have long identified themselves by their house district if they are politically active. The new map should look somewhat like the old one, with only minor adjustments for population shift. I am proposing such a map. The on-line mapping tool would let me submit a part of the state, so I took a screen shot of my map and am attaching it here. The city boundaries are clear enough, as should be the boundaries between the districts within Denver. For HD3, which is shared between Denver and Arapahoe, the southern boundary is Belleview, with a little going south of that to accommodate the city boundaries of Englewood. This map is similar to the current one, but does more to not split neighborhoods, and is adjusted for population. All of the districts are well within the population deviation, all being with 800 people of the ideal number.

It seems an incredibly tremendous amount of land mass to cover for District 3 and 4 Representatives. I think the high tourist areas along and south of I-70 should be included in District 7. Thank you for doing this important work! I'm especially thankful that Jackson County is removed from representation by Front Range people. We have much more in common with rural, frontier counties in the Northwest portion of the State. Are you familiar with the CO Tourist Office's Regional map? That seems to fit us best, and may help in aligning the rest of the state for you.

I am opposed proposed redistricting that splits the Town of Parker into 2 district and the greater downtown parker area into 3 districts. The goal of your commission is to preserve a "Communities of Interest" and keeping Towns whole. In your preliminary plan it appears that the commission is clearly ignoring preserving our communities interest. I strongly suggest that this plan be revised to preserve the interest of the Parker community.

The current lines split up Parker Colorado! What about Home Rule Municipalities? Please fix this!

Dear members of the Committee: Thank you for giving the public an opportunity to give input to redistricting. I know from experience that redistricting can have a profound effect on representation at the state and national level. It is imperative that like-minded communities are given representation that fits with their political, moral, and ethical values. The state of Colorado is a special place as the Rockies have become a natural buffer between rural and urban areas of the state. Recent happenings across the state from immunizations to voter integrity have revealed that there is a definite split in opinions on many fronts between several counties in Colorado. I recently learned about talks of trying to change the third district, by redrawing districting lines to exclude Pueblo county, replacing it with Boulder, and or Breckenridge, and Vail counties. I do not have to point out the political leanings of said counties, and that this would be a disservice to each of the counties for obvious reasons. Your website states that districts must: “Preserve whole communities of interest and whole political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, and towns.” If that is the case, why would you propose changing the third district, which would diminish representation for Pueblo County? Please tell me how does that benefit the constituents?? I expect that the wishes of the People will be protected and represented by individuals who have their best interests in mind. Sincerely Danielle Jock