Public Comments

Yes lease do NOT add or group us in with Douglas County. That would be a horrible mistake.

When redistricting is done this year by the commission, it must not be gerrymandered. For the area north of Denver, I would think that Boulder and Larimer Counties should be put together, as we have common interests. There might need to be small areas of each county that are put with another district, for populations to be equalized. I had read that there was the possibility of Larimer and Weld counties being merged in a district. In my estimation, that is a bad idea. They may border each other but they have very little in common. Please consider what is best for the state when you do the redistricting. Thank you.

lakewood has more in common with wheat ridge and golden than douglas county and shares NO community interests. lakewood has minimal agricultural interests, a substantially larger minority population. the income and age populations differ also in fact, as the 4th LARGEST CITY in Colorado, lakewood should have its own district. ENOUGH trying to rig elections. the affiliations and prior voting results should not be known. count the PEOPLE and set the boundaries.!!!

Hi, I don't have a map, I'm simply a concerned voter. Since each district should be "competitive" with a "reasonable chance of changing political hands" the alignment of Larimer County with Weld would directly oppose that goal. Approximately 80,000 Republican or Right leaning voters from that redistricting would prevent any chance of a Democratic or Left leaning victory. Furthermore, Larimer County is more aligned it's current districting of Boulder County. We are both primarily concerned with education at all levels, tourism, outdoor recreation, science and technology, whereas Weld County is primarily concerned with farming, ranching, Veterans affairs, wind production and oil and gas. Even the hazards we in Larimer County face are more aligned with Boulder County - we share the concerns of forest fires and related landslides and floods. Weld County is more concerned with prairie fires and tornados. Please reconsider redistricting Larimer County.

Lakewood should not be redistricting into Douglas county. It should remain separate.

I'm writing to comment on the redistricting effort to put Jefferson with Douglas County. I am against silencing the minority voices of Lakewood County with the homogenous county of Douglas. Please dont redistrict jeffco.

Dear Legislative Redistricting Committee Members and staff: Please consider the following proposed competitive Colorado State House of Representatives map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6dfabd8e-b379-48d1-8c4f-ac25a1fd6de0 Also please consider the following proposed competitive Colorado State Senate map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/c3a80e5f-7621-4f09-ac16-85f122adcf11 We understand that competitiveness is considered only after other constitutional criteria are considered. As demonstrated by these maps, it is possible to adhere to criteria required by the constitution, and still draw a large number of competitive seats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Coloradans will benefit if you do so. Having a larger number of competitive districts matters to the health of our state. Forcing Democrats and Republicans to offer ideas and policy principles helps keep partisan politics in check. When one side or the other has a lock on a majority through “safe seats,” our state suffers, and so does our political discourse. Without both parties having a fair shot at competing for a majority of seats in the state House and state Senate, we experience the rampant political divisiveness we have now. For there to be a better way, the number of safe seats for each party must be limited and the number of truly competitive seats maximized in line with the requirements of our constitution. Competitive districts help keep Representatives and Senators more in tune with their districts and more in tune with the direction of our state. A large number of competitive districts help keep elected officials, even those in “safe” districts, more in tune with the average worker and the average small business. Job-creators and employees succeed when there is the connection brought by competition between the parties for ideas and vision, not the political divisiveness we’re currently experiencing. Protecting communities of interest and the boundaries of political subdivisions identified by our state constitution are both accomplished through these maps. The Colorado Department of Local Affairs identifies 272 active Colorado municipalities. In the House map, only 2 municipalities are split that didn’t otherwise require splits because of a population that already demanded multiple districts. One of these splits involved the Town of Basalt, which was split along county lines. In the Senate map, every municipality that could be kept whole is kept whole in this map. The only municipalities that were split were split because of population that already demanded multiple districts. Both maps took great care to minimize county splits while protecting communities of interest. The maps also provide local governments with the representation they deserve by keeping districts whole within a county or municipality where possible and not affected by some other constitutional criterion. Note that in the House map, only one county outside the Metro area (including the Western Slope, southern Colorado and the Eastern Plains) that could be kept whole was split (Montezuma). The maps respect communities and neighborhoods in population centers like Denver, Aurora, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs. These maps were drawn without knowledge of incumbent addresses or considerations. These maps also respect the number of majority Hispanic and majority-minority seats from the current map, though because of population changes the numbers are not identical. Of note while working through the process, it is possible to increase the number of districts where Hispanic voters are a majority or where there is a majority-minority district if such is a priority for the Commission. In the House map: Majority Hispanic seats: Preserves HD 62 as a Voting Rights Act Hispanic majority seat Draws new Greeley/Evans-based Hispanic majority seat (district 50) Draws new north Aurora-based Hispanic majority seat (district 42) Two Hispanic majority seats in Denver (districts 1 and 4) Two Hispanic majority seats fully within Adams County (districts 32 and 34) Minority influence seats: District 46 in Pueblo County District 17 in El Paso District 41 in Aurora District 36 in Aurora District 35 in Adams County District 7 in Denver District 5 in Denver District 8 in Denver In the Senate map: Majority Hispanic seats: District 34 in west Denver District 21 in Adams County Minority influence seats: District 3 in Pueblo County District 11 in El Paso County District 13 in Weld County District 25 based in Adams County District 28 in Aurora District 29 in Aurora District 33 in Denver District 35 in Southern Colorado And most interestingly for our part is the remarkable number of competitive seats that can be created while respecting county and city boundaries and other communities of interest. The tables attached show 17 House districts and 12 Senate districts that, by most any accurate and predictive measure, would be very competitive. Here, the measure is one that has been discussed by the Commission where the average of the 2016 presidential and 2018 AG are +/- 2.5 points from a 47.9 average (competitive max 5.0 point differential between the two candidates with the most votes). Competition is good for Colorado. It forces the parties to discuss ideas and policies and not to simply rely on the partisan divide to elect a majority from safely Democratic or safely Republican seats. Our statewide political discourse improves with a large number of competitive seats. Both of these maps create competitive House and Senate districts throughout the state, even in counties typically viewed as political strongholds for one party or the other. A large number of competitive districts is good for our state and good for the people of Colorado. The constitution requires map drawers to maximize the number of competitive seats once other constitutional criteria have been met. These maps show the opportunity Colorado has to respect local government boundaries and communities of interest, and to create a large number of truly competitive seats in the House and the Senate. Thank you for your service on the commission and for your consideration of our proposals. Rick Enstrom Chairman, Better Jobs Coalition

I wish to express my thanks to Commission Staff for fielding public comments regarding redistricting. My name is Sally Davis and I have lived in Colorado Springs nearly 30 years. During that time, I have seen it grow and diversify. My interest in redistricting arises from an interest in continued good governance within the Greater Colorado Springs Metro area. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, projected rates of population growth show that Colorado Springs by 2050 will overtake a built-out Denver as the state's largest city. It would seem unwise to not allow the voters of that metropolitan area to be heard as a unified voice as they now are in the legislative districts in the Springs. It is essential to keep Manitou Springs, a hub of tourism, art, and nature, as part of the districts in our city as the relationship between Manitou and Colorado Springs is mutually beneficial and integral to both areas. Please do not separate Manitou Springs from Colorado Springs as you seek to redraw House District 18 and Senate District 11.

Honorable Commissioners: Colorado House District 17 is a unique area in terms of ethnic and economic demographics that should be preserved in the interest of this community. Locally, this area of Colorado Springs has been historically underrepresented and underserved. Statewide, this community represents a significant concentration of people of color and economic disadvantage. The Hispanic population in the district is 35.9 percent along with a Black population of 13.0 percent, according to StatisticalAtlas.com. Median household income in the district is $40,300 which is significantly lower than the state median household income of $62,500, also according to StatisticalAtlas.com. Moving the district to the north would significantly shift its demographic balance in terms of this ethnic and economic mix, thus adversely affecting appropriate legislative representation for this unique community. I have been involved as a citizen advocate within the greater District 17 community for more than fifteen years. Having been a resident of this district, I am well aware of the various concerns held by community members. They deserve a voice in the legislature who is representative of their community make up. For these and many other reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to leave House District 17 intact as currently constituted. I appreciate the hard work you do and the challenges that you face reconciling all the districts of our wonderful and diverse state. Thank you, all of you on the Commission, for your willingness to wrestle with all the issues of voter representation for the state of Colorado. Respectfully, Calvin Wulf

John Egan 288 Animas View Drive #52 Durango, Colorado 81301 (970) 946-9461 johnegan48@gmail.com June 16, 2021 ATT: LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION Dear Legislative Redistricting Board Members and Staff: My name is John Egan and I have been a resident of Colorado for over twenty-five years in both Archuleta and La Plata counties. I have served as an Archuleta County Commissioner and a City Councilor for the Town of Pagosa Springs, as well as Chairman of the Southwest Colorado Council of Governments. I currently sit on the Board of Directors for two affordable housing organizations, Housing Solutions of the Southwest and the Archuleta County Housing Authority, and am President of the Board for the Animas View Mobile Home Park in Durango. I am grateful for this opportunity to lend my voice to the question of the redistricting of La Plata and Montezuma counties and appreciate your attention to this matter. ‘All politics is local’ as the old saying goes and this cannot be demonstrated anymore clearly than in the proposed redistricting of the legislative map. The shared interests of Archuleta, Hinsdale, Ouray, Gunnison and La Plata counties, largely tourism oriented, fit together seamlessly in their social, environmental and economic needs while the primarily agricultural needs in Montezuma County are expressly different. To combine La Plata County and Montezuma County in redistricting would set up a legislative compromise in which the interests of the respective counties would be illserved, resulting in a legislative impasse where very little would be accomplished for the benefit of Montezuma and La Plata county or our state. I strongly recommend and respectfully request that La Plata County remain a legislative district with Gunnison, Archuleta, Hinsdale and Ouray counties in order to be better served by its state representative, and that Montezuma County remain separate so that its equally important but demonstrably different needs can be successfully met as well. Changing the legislative map otherwise may create a scenario where neither county is reaching its legislative goals. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, John Egan