Public Comments

As a Larimer county resident I think keeping us in the same congressional district as Boulder county is best because of our similar cultures regarding tourism, outdoor activities, higher education and tech centered businesses. Weld county is not a good fit for Larimer despite having some good beers. Thank you, Michael Beck-Gifford 2048 Huntington Circle Fort Collins, CO 80526 970.227.6585

As an unaffiliated voter who chaired Colorado’s Legislative Reapportionment Commission in 2011, I have a keen interest in Colorado’s new citizen-driven commissions charged with redrawing our political boundaries. Their work is complicated by delays in the data needed to draw the maps and new rules intended to bring fairness to what is inherently a political process. And it will only become more politically charged with the announcement Monday that official census numbers mean Colorado’s commission will have to work an eighth congressional district into the map. With that in mind, I’d like to offer hard-earned advice based on my experience a decade ago when — for the first time — we introduced ”competitiveness” to the mix. Unless commission members slow down and take a deeper look at how different years and even different races might influence that term, they risk delivering unfair maps and undermining a key goal of Amendments Y and Z. The promise of competitive districts is that they can make elected officials accountable to a larger number of voters. Case in point: former GOP congressman Mike Coffman, who saw the reliably Republican 6th Congressional District redrawn to become more competitive in 2011. As a result, he moderated many of his positions – including support for English-only ballots — committed to constituent outreach, and held the seat through three more elections (including 2016, when Hillary Clinton won the district by 9 points). In 2011, competitiveness was a novel idea, and we had to chart a course on defining it. Ultimately, a competitive seat was viewed as one where parties were within 10 percentage points of each other in the 2010 statewide treasurer’s race. Thanks to Y and Z, competitiveness is now defined in the constitution as “having a reasonable potential for the party affiliation of the district’s representative to change at least once between federal decennial censuses.” But it is left up to the commissions — and to public comment — to come up with the measures used in determining competitiveness (though Y and Z do suggest “past election results, a proposed district’s political party registration data, and evidence-based analyses of proposed districts.”) Given the delayed release of final census data, the biggest issue facing the commissions is how to draw preliminary maps that could help them to meet constitutional deadlines so that Colorado’s 2022 elections can proceed with as little disruption as possible. But some commissioners seem more eager to get into the weeds of measuring “competitiveness.” They need to slow down, as Y and Z set out five criteria that must be met before anything else. Districts must first: achieve population equality; be composed of contiguous geographic areas; comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; preserve whole communities of interest and political subdivisions “as much as reasonably practicable;” and be “as compact as is reasonably possible.” Only after maps have been through those steps, is competitiveness considered. And though there is no broadly agreed-upon formula to measure competitiveness, I would offer 5 common-sense guidelines: 1. Picking only results of a “wave” election year distorts the picture of the districts. Why? Because it assumes a high-water mark is a benchmark for support of one party, but not the other. 2. Top-of-the-ticket races (president, governor, senator) are not good for this exercise because they tend to be swayed by name ID and campaign spending. 3. A “fair” measure of competitiveness would be to balance down-ticket races over multiple election years. 4. When in doubt, consult the constitution. Amendments Y and Z tell us that competitive districts have a reasonable chance of flipping sides within 10 years. 5. Drawing competitive districts throughout Colorado is an impossibility — hence its being a desired-but-not-required outcome — given self-selection of where we live. As Mario Nicolais, who served as a Republican on our 2011 commission, recently wrote: “People tend to live in places with other like-minded people. For example, Republicans are often found in disproportionate numbers in rural communities. Democrats tend to congregate in urban centers. Neither statement is universally true, but both are disproportionately accurate.” Looking for a solution? The commission can find its competitiveness measures in down-ticket statewide races from both 2014 and 2018 when the same offices were on the ballot and most saw control switch parties between Republican and Democratic wave years. An average of those cycles between races for attorney general, secretary of state, and treasurer would demonstrate how a district showed the potential for changing hands as Amendments Y and Z envisioned. That may not be perfect, but it’s certainly fairer than what’s been discussed to date. Mario M. Carrera was chairman of the 2011 legislative reapportionment commission, an 11-member commission appointed to redraw Colorado’s legislative districts.

Please see attachment for comments

Dear Commissioners, Please do not place Grand County in the district with the Western Slope. Thanks, Cynthia Eberhard Tabernash resident (submitted by email 5/5/2021)

Please let our Grand County, CO stay in CD 2 (U.S. Congressional District 2), with Joe Neguse as our U.S. Congressman, and don't force Grand County to join CD 3 that has Lauren Boebert as its U.S. Congressperson. Why should we (Grand County) remain a part of CD 2? Because Grand County internally, has a lot in common with the varied politics of counties that make up CD 2. According to Wikipedia: "The district [CD 2] is located in the north-central part of the state and encompasses the northwestern suburbs of Denver including Boulder, Broomfield and much of western Jefferson County. The district [CD 2] also includes the mountain towns of Vail, Grand Lake and Idaho Springs. Redistricting in 2011 has moved Larimer County, including the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, to the 2nd [Congressional District] from the 4th [Congressional] district[5] for the 2012 election." However, our 3 Grand County Commissioners want to move Grand County into CD 3, but there is much less varied politics in CD 3 compared with the large amount of varied politics that is found within CD 2. Thank you for your consideration of my husband Dave Hazelrigg's and my (Carol Sidofsky's) desire to let Grand County remain within CD 2, since our county (Grand County) has much more in common with CD 2's counties that have varied politics compared with CD 3's less politically varied counties. Sincerely, Carol Sidofsky and Dave Hazelrigg (submitted by email 5/5/2021)

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining the redistricting process?

I feel strongly that Larimer County should not be redistricted with Weld County. Congressional District 2 is flourishing the way it is and should change as little as possible. Larimer County is focused on outdoor activities, the environment and education. In comparison, Weld county is focused on the oil and gas industry as well as agriculture. There are very different mind sets between the two counties, and it would be a huge mistake to try to combine them. It would make more sense to combine Boulder and Larimer County. Boulder County and Larimer County share many of the same cultural and revenue generating sectors. They both have a strong tourism industry, they both have strong educational sectors in CSU and CU, with all the attendant research and high tech spin offs. Boulder County and Larimer County share an interest in aeronautical development and innovation. They also both share in the Bioscience and the Clean Energy industry. Finally, they share the same health system, UCH. Apart from industry, they have a shared interest in fighting forest fires adjacent to their main areas of population. They both offer to their residents many opportunities for outdoor recreation. In comparison Weld County is heavily invested in the oil and gas industries and agriculture. Weld County’s economy is also dependent on feedlots and slaughterhouses. Larimer and Boulder Counties have a high level of high tech, pharmaceutical and educational employment jobs, compared to Weld County. Weld County does not have a substantial tourism industry or a large educational sector. Weld County’s population centers are far removed from the perils of forest fires and Weld County does not offer the same types of outdoor recreation. The health system in Weld County is mainly run by Banner Health, which has an entirely different approach to UCH. Districts should be of equal size and as compact as possible. Each District is supposed to be of equal size and will be approximately 722,000 people. Larimer and Weld would be about 722,000, but so would Larimer and Boulder. However, Districts should also be as compact as possible, I25 is a dividing line between east and west, whereas Larimer and Boulder are contiguous with no intervening geographical dividing line. Thank you for your time.

I live in Grand County and do not want to see us removed from the 2nd Congressional District. Partisan advantage should not be the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines. Although compact/geographic considerations may be considered, I believe we still belong to the historical, demographic, political, and other neutral criteria which make us an acceptable part of the other counties in the 2nd Congressional District, and we should remain in the 2nd Congressional District!

I am a resident of Fort Collins in Larimer County. I feel that Larimer County and Boulder County should remain as part of District 2. Both counties have much in common as far as interests, health facilities, educational opportunities, environmental concerns, and sources of revenue from tourism. Both Larimer and Boulder are in close proximity to the foothills and share the common interest of maintaining good environmental practices related to drought remediation and prevention of fires. Both have universities (CU and CSU) which attract a diverse population. The fact that I-25 runs to east primarily of both counties contributes to the geographical unity. Weld County is east of I-25 and the economic and environmental issues are totally different from those of Larimer. Thank you.

I think that keeping Boulder County and Larimer Counties together as one congressional district is of major importance for the citizens of those Counties and for the state of Colorado. Boulder County and Larimer County share many of the same cultural and revenue generating sectors. They are both “mountain communities” which means their people share interests in outdoor activities and tourism. The two Counties also share forest fire concerns and battles. Both counties depend on mountain water supplies. In both Counties, employment in education and related research and technology are of major importance. Obviously, the counties’ major Universities, Colorado State and the University of Colorado, have a major impact, both locally and state-wide. These two counties also share the same health system, University of Colorado Health. The population of the two Counties, approximately 722,000 people, meets the criteria for a congressional district. Districts should also be as compact as possible, which describes Larimer and Boulder Counties because they are contiguous with no intervening geographical dividing line.