Public Comments

I believe that there are eight fairly balanced regions for the CDs in Colo. I have attached a map that shows a possible way to redistrict which seems balanced and also groups southern colorado rural interests, western colorado mountain interests, and easter Colorado farm/ranch interests, for the most part. Each area also includes a population center in order to fill the amount of population needed to make the CD split possible. This map will require city folk to understand country folk and visa versa, especially in the northeast district. Though if we don't do it this way we end up with a map, like we currently have with CD 4 being all of the eastern parts of the state, and is less representative of the southern part of the state and is highly skewed towards one political party. I know political party influence isn't supposed to come into this. For this to happen we do need to need mix rural and city areas a bit. Consider that CD4 currently has a 98% chance of electing a Republican. Nothing wrong with this other than that our state is approximately 33D, 33R, and 33I. I think the CDs should also reflect that. We can say what we want about communities of interest, though those communities are also generally aligned politically. Let's be real and try to give an equal chance to anyone who decides to run in any of the CDs.

I am making comments in favor of the Water Basin Plan, and against the Action 22 Plan and against the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Plan. My zip code of 80209 is in Denver, but I have a long time commitment to my hometown of Pueblo as well as knowledge and expertise based on state wide positions I have had. My name is Frances Koncilja. I grew up in Pueblo, went to college there and graduated from CU Law. I have served as President of the Colorado Bar Association which required me to visit 54 local bar associations around the state. I have served on both the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission as well as several federal district court vacancy committees. I have served on the State Fair Board as well as the Great Outdoors Colorado Board. Most recently I served as a commissioner on the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. All of these experiences have given me a respect as well as understanding of the things unite us as well as divide us, as well as the number of communities outside the Denver area that are struggling. My recent experience on the PUC leads me to believe that the real community of interests around the state are based on short term and long- term mitigation and plans for extreme weather conditions, its effect on agriculture, energy costs, water and recreation. Under the new constitutional amendment, you have an amazing opportunity to create districts that have forward looking needs for congressional support and action and insure that those elected officials carry through on these needs because the districts are competitive, as opposed to safe. Prior redistricting, as well as some the plans submitted to you, has made the 3rd and 4th CDs ever larger, based on the inaccurate statement, that agriculture and only agriculture are the interests of these two districts. This has been counter-productive and, in fact, the incumbents cannot point to much of anything they have done to encourage or protect agriculture. The 4th and some parts of the 3rd continue to lose population and then get into a downward cycle of loss of schools, hospitals, etc and then loss of more population and then the 2 districts get even larger. The interests of citizens currently in the 3rd and 4th CD are primarily –water needs and supplies, short term and long term mitigation and protection from extreme weather events on agriculture, lack of high speed broadband, good paying careers. One can cynically conclude that the 3rd and 4th keep getting larger geographically and the proposals from Action 22 and the Hispanic Chamber recommend they become larger still, is to protect incumbents in other districts—from both parties. The Hispanic Chamber plan attempts to create a community of interest in the larger 4th CD they are recommending based on “renewable energy.” That shows a real lack of understanding of what renewable energy is and is not. Once the wind turbines and or solar panels are installed, there is very little employment from those facilities and to create a congressional district around this concept is just wrong. This is a very stagnant view and requires no federal legislative support. The Water Basin proposal focuses on water needs and supplies of the area. This community of interest needs a representative in Congress who understands water, drought, energy as well as agriculture who can then facilitate federal legislation that can support the current unfunded water plan and also facilitate federal legislation that encourages reasonable energy costs. This would have the added benefit of stimulating the economy in this area and providing good jobs. I would suggest that you consider drawing the 2nd CD in a similar way—from border to border in the northern part of the state. Including some of the agricultural interests in the eastern plains with Fort Collins, home of CSU is the real community of interest—education and technology to support agriculture. Citizens of Boulder are concerned about environmental matters and citizens of Craig Colorado need replacement energy jobs after the coal plants close. These two groups might not agree on certain things, but they have community of interest around clean energy that provides good jobs. Anything you can do to make all of the districts competitive would be very helpful. It is no secret that incumbents in safe districts do not do much outreach to constituents. Separating Colorado Springs from the rest of El Paso and moving parts of the city and county of Denver into more competitive areas of Arapahoe county would also be beneficial for all citizens.

I live in Buena Vista, CO. Our interests as a rural area are not the same as those of urban areas such as Colorado Springs. As such, it doesn’t make sense to be grouped in the same district as Colorado Springs. Both Dems and Republicans in our area agree we don’t receive the attention we need on issues most critical to us, including land use, affordable housing, transportation, wildfire preparedness and protection, water quality and quantity, natural resources management, economic development, homelessness and poverty and sustainability. Many of these issues are also urban issues, however, they take on different and unique characteristics in rural areas of Colorado. I believe strongly that Chaffee County would be better paired with other rural areas during the redistricting process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

We do not want Lakewood in a district with Douglas County. Leave it as is.

As a resident of Lakewood, I believe we should stay in the same district as Arvada and Wheat Ridge. When I travel in and around Arvada, Wheat Ridge, and Lakewood, it almost feels the same. Douglas County is quite a different place. Thanks!

Lakewood should not be part of Douglas county, we feel Wheatridge or Arvada are better choices

I am a Chaffee County/Buena Vista resident. I strongly urge the commission to include Chaffee County in a western Colorado Federal legislative district, currently district 3, for the following reasons: 1) We are a rural mountain community. We are currently included in the same legislative district as Colorado Springs an urban community. 2) Our economy revolves around rural resources making use of public lands (recreation) and rural private and public lands (agriculture and cattle ranching). As such, our interest in public land and water use management are distinct from those in an urban area. 3) While many of the challenges Colorado faces with rapid growth are statewide, solutions to those challenges are best created in local communities. The ways Chaffee County and other mountain communities approach affordable housing, water resource management, environmental impact of growth are distinct from an urban approach. We need a Federal legislative representative who understands our needs and approaches. 4) The impact of Climate Change and the balance communities strike to solve climate problems while supporting local business interests work best when created by communities of shared interest. Thank you for your consideration. Kate Shea

Lakewood should remain as part of Jefferson county along with Arvada. We have worked very hard in this school district to create a culture and identity unique to Jefferson county, with little in common to Douglas county. Please do not redistrict Lakewood out of Jefferson county.

I heard that one idea is to put Lakewood in the same district as Douglas County. That makes little sense as Lakewood is very different from DougCo. Not to mention the geographic distance! We are contiguous to Wheat Ridge and should stay in a district with that and other west side suburbs.

It has been brought to my attention that some suggested including Lakewood in a district with highly-conservative southern suburbs, which is not an acceptable solution. I have lived in Lakewood nearly my entire life, partly due to the diverse neighborhoods and particularly the inclusive Hispanic communities. The needs of constituents in our area aren’t remotely similar to those in wealthier demographics in Southern Jefferson County and Douglas County, and therefore our district should remain aligned with more similar West and Northwest suburban communities of Wheat Ridge and Arvada. We have more high-density housing needs, families who intentionally live here due to light rail and public transportation needs, section 8 housing, food banks, and numerous other services that aren’t as prevalent in Southern suburbs. We need representation in our government by people familiar with our needs, not the upper middle-class Caucasian lawmakers who advocate for private school funding instead of much-needed investment in the public schools.