Public Comments

Dear Members of the Legislative Commission and Staff, Thank you for the opportunity to submit additional comments regarding legislative district boundaries. I am one of the folks that was directly involved in the development of the new process for redistricting. Throughout those discussions, I advocated for more unaffiliated voter representation on the commissions in addition to increasing the number of competitive districts. I understand that you are still weighing how to define competitiveness, but the language set forth in both measures does provide us with some guidance: "(d) Competitive elections for members of the general assembly provide voters with a meaningful choice among candidates, promote a healthy democracy, help ensure that constituents receive fair and effective representation, and contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions; (e) For years certain political interests opposed competitive districts in Colorado because they are primarily concerned about maintaining their own political power at the expense of fair and effective representation; and" (3), "competitive" means having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district's representative to change at least once between federal decennial censuses. Competitiveness may be measured by factors such as a proposed district's past election results, a proposed district's political party registration data, and evidence-based analyses of proposed districts." Using Dave's Redistricting, it is possible to increase the number of non-metro, competitive state house districts while still meeting the other constitutional requirements. This is good news! I have been an unaffiliated candidate for the state house twice and believe that the constitutional language defining competitiveness shouldn't be limited to changing parties but should increase the potential for unaffiliated candidates to succeed as well. Unaffiliated voters comprise nearly 45% of the electorate but no unaffiliated candidates have ever successfully run for the state house or senate. That is because there are currently so few competitive seats. As you try to sort through mapping ideas that would meet the criteria set forth in the constitution as well as increase the number of competitive districts, I would greatly appreciate your consideration of the attached scenario. Using the 2016 Presidential election performance results and keeping the margin between the two major parties at 5 points or less it is possible to create 8 new non-metro competitive districts. In this scenario, the following districts would be winnable by a candidate from another party OR an unaffiliated candidate: HD59, HD56, HD47, HD17, HD18, HD21, HD11, and HD50. By creating more competitive house districts, the commission would be following the will of the voters when they approved Amendments Y and Z. Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if I can answer any questions. Respectfully, Kathleen Curry (U) https://davesredistricting.org/join/6088c2c0-ecb6-463e-8ce6-9ae299a03df1

The public's ability to submit comments to the independent redistricting commissions as part of the constitutionally mandated legislative redistricting process is most appreciated. These Comments are in regard to the redistricting of House District 59, and, specifically, in response to previous public comments urging that the boundaries of HD 59 be revised to include Montezuma county and to exclude Ouray, Hinsdale, and Gunnison counties. My "Community of Interest" ("CoI") is the San Juan Mountain region of Southwest Colorado. I have resided in the San Juan Mountain region for more than thirty years, having lived and/or worked in La Plata, San Miguel, and Ouray counties, beginning in 1985. The focus of my comments if the CoI criteria set forth in Sections 46 and 48.1of Article V, of the Colo. Constitution. An analysis of the available empirical data indicates that the counties currently comprising HD 59, Archuleta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Ouray, and San Juan counties, share a greater community of interest regarding public policy concerns involving the nature of their economies as well as education, employment, environment, public health, as well as other issues of demonstrable public concern than they do with Montezuma county. Conversely, the available data indicates that Montezuma county shares a CoI regarding various public policy concerns that is greater with the other counties in HD 58, Dolores, San Miguel, and Montrose, The relative proportions of economic activity in La Plata and Montezuma counties involving tourism and recreation are considerably greater in La Plata County, which includes both an internationally known ski resort at Purgatory and the Durango to Silverton narrow gauge railroad, as opposed to Montezuma County, which includes Mesa Verde National Park, but relies far more on agricultural and natural resource development for its economic base. Perhaps, the most salient CoI public policy concern that both La Plata and Gunnison counties share are the economic, social, and cultural impacts in both counties associated with their public higher education institutions, Fort Lewis College in Durango, and Western Colorado University in Gunnison. Both of these public four year colleges generate a significant economic impact, as well as social and cultural impacts in their communities, that do not exist in either Montezuma or Montrose counties. An analysis of the available date indicates that Montezuma and La Plata counties have significantly different public health priorities. The differences are reflected in the very different COVID 19 vaccination rates, which are considerably lower than the statewide average in Montezuma and Montrose counties, and near or somewhat higher than the statewide average in La Plata and Gunnison counties. Similarly, the percentage of the population enrolled in the state's Medicaid program for low income persons, indicates that enrollment rates in Montezuma and Montrose counties exceed the statewide average, while the enrollment rates in La Plata and Gunnision counties somewhat lower than the statewide average. While La Plata and Montezuma counties may share a common boundary, they do not share a significant CoI as defined in section 48 of the Colorado Constitution. With regard to section 48.1, Criteria for determination of legislative districts - definition (2)(a) which provides that legislative districts, as much as reasonably possible, must preserve whole communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as counties and municipalities, and presumes that counties should be wholly contained within a district, it also provides that a division of a county, or municipality, is permitted where, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, a CoI's legislative issues are more essential to the fair and effective representation of the residents of the district. It is my contention that a fair and impartial analysis of the empirical evidence that the Commission receives into the record should support the finding that the counties currently comprising HD 59 share a community of interest that exceeds in both nature and extent the CoI that exists between Montezuma and La Plata counties. I look forward to following the Commission's ongoing legislative redistricting efforts with interest, recognizing the significant time and other constraints associated with the delay in receiving the expected Census data, that the Commission must contend with in complying with its constitutional mandate. Your consideration of the foregoing comments is most appreciated. Commission staff should feel free to contact me regarding these comments.

Dear Commissioners, As the former director of the High Plains Library District, which included 13 libraries in most of Weld County and portions of Boulder and Adams Counties, my comments are directed toward drawing new boundaries for the Colorado General Assembly districts. Considering criteria required to meet redistricting guidelines, I have identified what I believe to be some communities of interest. Several of these go across county boundaries. These groupings come close to the 85,000 population threshold for each House District. They also have much in common with each other; i.e., varied economic base, school districts, health and social services, housing challenges, water issues, transportation issues, to name a few. According to 2018 voting records, several of these potential districts would be considered politically competitive. • East Greeley combined with Evans. This would create a minority-majority district. • West Greeley, Windsor and Severance • Combine Johnstown, Milliken and Berthoud • Carbon Valley area – Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, Fort Lupton • Erie, Longmont and Mead • Nunn, Pierce, Ault, Eaton, points north and east including all of Morgan County • I-76 corridor: Lochbuie, Keenesburg, Hudson As you think through your choices, thank you for considering my comments. Regards, Janine Reid

Dear Commissioners, My name is Allison Gustavson, and I appreciate the opportunity to submit this comment for your consideration. I live in unincorporated Jefferson County. The State Legislature has a great impact on areas like mine where our communities are not Home Rule municipalities. Right now, House District 25 is a mix of unincorporated communities, home rule municipalities and lots of open space. I am concerned about the possibility of the City of Golden being incorporated into our district. Including a large home rule municipality like Golden could lead to this one area having a large-outsized influence over any legislator who represents it and dwarfing the concerns of our smaller municipalities and unincorporated areas. I would encourage you to keep this in mind as you are drawing new lines and ask that you maintain the balance of our communities in HD 25. Sincerely, Allison M. Gustavson

To the Redistricting Commission: Thank you for serving on the Redistricting Commission for the state of Colorado. As residents of Steamboat Springs, we ask that you keep House District 26 as similar as possible. Ideally, Routt County would be kept with communities of interest, specifically other resort communities such as Eagle County. It is imperative that we keep communities of interest together so Coloradans can be properly represented at the state and federal level. Resort communities are facing similar problems around affordability for essential workers and low-wage earners as well as the impact of climate change and environmental issues on our wonderful community. Thank you, Kayleigh Esswein

Dear Commission, I proudly lead the largest electric utility territory in Colorado -- it's one of the 22 electric cooperatives dating back to the 1930s. More than 20 years ago, we started a broadband subsidiary under the same principles of addressing disparities of economic development, education and quality of life. What we know extremely well from over eight decades of experience serving residents in almost a quarter of all counties is that southeastern Colorado has a common community fabric and interdependence likely unmatched in any other region within the state. It's needs and perspectives simply don't align with a more densely populated section of an urban area. I appreciate your task at hand is challenging and thank you for your time commitment, That said, I kindly ask that you ensure we have legislative representation through districting that bonds these citizens of common interest. Respectfully, Jack Johnston Chief Executive Officer Southeast Colorado Power Association / SECOM

Dear Legislative Redistricting Commission staff, Thank you for your work and for considering my thoughts on redistricting unincorporated Jeffco. My family lives in House District 25 in unincorporated Jeffco, specifically in the Dakota Ridge articulation area west of the intersection of Bowles and Simms. I am opposed to any redistricting that would lump our area in with Golden. I am worried that the concerns of the Golden community would overly influence the legislator and thus the needs of our area would be discounted or potentially undervalued. Thank you for considering my thoughts as you consider redistricting unincorporated Jeffco. Sincerely, Tina Gurdikian HD 25

Redistricting is needed to protect the interests of Southwest Colorado and other rural Colorado communities.

Lakewood has very little in common with Douglas County and should stay part of the district with Wheatridge/Arvada in congressional district. This sounds like gerrymandering!

Lakewood should not be part Douglas County!!!!! Nothing in common. During Covid most people in Lakewood wore a mask, in Douglas county they fought it. We aren’t about big houses, big cars and money. We are about community. We are an older community.