Public Comments

Hello Commission Members, I emphatically urge you to reject the partisan maps being pushed by Commissioners Barnett and Kottwitz and support maps drawn by nonpartisan staff. Thank you, -Michael Feran Centennial, CO

Dear Commissioners: I would like to see our Colorado redistricting map to be fair and non partisan. I do not believe the Kottwitz and Barnett suggestions to be non partisan and I hope you will disregard them. Thank you.

The last minute move by these two Republicans is just another clear example of how corrupt the Republican party is. Do not let them move forward. They are destroying (not just trying to destroy) our representative democracy. Stop them cold!! John Riedel, Granby, CO

Please use the final set of legislative maps that were drafted by the nonpartisan, neutral redistricting staff. These maps look fair. I've heard that some people on the right who are trying to push other maps that favor their party. Please don't go for that and instead stick with the maps drafted by the nonpartisan redistricting staff.

As an independent commission, I strongly request transparency on any maps submitted to the commission--make them public, names of those submitting, along with any supporting documents. If this is really an independent group, then transparency needs to be front and center.

Please do not accept the partisan maps that Barnett and Kottwitz are trying to push through.

MMCARRERA October 6, 2021 Mario M. Carrera 10460 Ladera Drive Lone Tree, CO 80124 Carlos Perez, Chairman Colorado Legislative Independent Redistricting Commission 200 East Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Chairman Perez and Members of the Colorado Legislative Independent Redistricting Commission: As an unaffiliated voter and former Chair of the 2011 Redistricting Commission, I feel compelled to reach out to you today. I am not a registered lobbyist for the Commission. I have been following the deliberations and meetings of the Commission, and I commend you for your commitment to drawing maps that will benefit the state of Colorado for the next 10 years. I have been in your place and know the challenge of the task at hand and how difficult it can be to find consensus. I hope that I am able to share some lessons learned from my own personal experience that might guide you in your final days of this endeavor. First, the process that you have undertaken as a result of Amendment Z to obtain public comment is one that was done with intention on your part and should not be forgotten. Having the public be able to share with you how they want to see representation in Colorado be drawn is one of the key provisions in our state constitution--one that didn’t exist when I served on the Commission. While those hearings might feel like a long time ago, please don’t forget what you heard and what you elevated as a result of those hearings. Second, in 2011 and again now in 2021, I urge you to seriously consider the emerging Latino citizen voter population. The statewide growth is clearly demonstrated in the census data and no longer is the Latino population centered in the Denver area. Long gone are the days of redistricting when the members of color on the Commission were only expected to draw the city of Denver and leave the rest of the maps up to others. It is imperative that you recognize those Latino communities of interest across the state. As a Commission, you prioritized the Latino communities and voice in the drawing of every map. Do not forget that commitment that began in public comment and continued with this Commission elevating that priority. Third, while the messaging and pressure will be intense, do not fall prey to comments and attempts to draw maps that have a partisan outcome. Look at those maps and letters of support with skepticism particularly when there is a combination of high Latino percentages based on total population combined with a competitive district. Latinos in Colorado are not a monolith nor are they affiliated with any one party consistently across the state. This is why I was an early supporter of the work CLLARO has undertaken as a nonpartisan organization. Look to Latinos to determine what is best for them and not to outside interests or partisan rhetoric. Latinos are a voting block in Colorado that both parties have an interest in focusing their efforts in the future due to the growing demographic trends. Last, the constitution made it clear that communities of interest are to be prioritized and valued. I caution you against those who have attempted to fabricate communities of interest to justify a given map or who have invented communities of interest that are not about the actual people who make up those communities. Latinos and other racial minorities are long-standing and legitimately recognized communities of interest and are afforded increased protection by the language requiring any map adopted must not dilute the minority vote. Keeping communities of interest together is not where the Commission’s obligation stops; rather ensuring that the Latino community’s vote is valued and counts toward electing a representative of their choice is the second part of the Commission’s responsibility. The Commission is prohibited from creating seats with the express desire to benefit one party, however, the Commission is constitutionally required to prevent the dilution of minority voters in a way that prevents them from electing the candidate of their choice. Simply claiming to have a certain percentage of Latinos or other minority groups in a district is only one metric in the analysis that the constitution requires the Commission to undertake in the protections provided to Latino and other minority voters. I agree with CLLARO’s written comment submitted on September 30, 2021, as it related to the two pronged approach needed to determine effective minority districts in an analysis of two other maps currently under discussion by the Commission. This analysis will protect the Commission from heading down a path that would result in diluting the votes of minority groups and preventing effective minority districts that are preventable at this point in the process. As someone who has served on the previous commission, I wanted to offer some concrete suggestions and a set of maps that may help your discussion. These maps are an attempt to address issues expressed during full public commission meetings in a way that abides by the constitutional requirements and promises made to the voters when Amendment Z was adopted. This proposed Compromise Amendment Plan: 1) Abides by constitutional criteria 2) Does not protect incumbents and 3) Does not dilute the vote of minority communities. In developing this plan, I have worked with CLLARO to incorporate ideas found in staff maps and submissions from different commissioners. CLLARO is a non-partisan 501(c)3 organization that has worked to elevate the voices of communities of color in this process and is not advocating for the interests of any political party or candidate(s) so starting with their maps as a baseline makes the most sense in my opinion. In closing, I want to thank you for your service and commitment to the redistricting process. Know that no good deed goes unpunished and even the best of intentions can be legally challenged or rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. This is why I am submitting this compromise as an alternative to the Third Staff Map--to demonstrate that there is a way to draw additional competitive seats in Colorado after all the higher prioritized constitutional criteria have been met and does so without sacrificing the efficacy of the minority vote. Sincerely, Mario M. Carrera

I'm writing regarding the proposed redistricting in Longmont—putting everyone east of Pace into the district with Erie, Frederick, Firestone, etc., mostly in Weld County, for the state-level districts. I live east of Pace, and I know I'm not the only one over here who is SO tired of being lumped in with these other communities and not being considered part of Longmont. Years ago, we were forced to have a new zip code, same as the one in Firestone, and it made all of our insurance rates go up, and sometimes we can't get certain things delivered because the companies think we're not in the city limits. Plus, we've suffered through YEARS of being in US House District 4 instead of in HD2 with everyone else in our town, and now they're FINALLY working on a redistricting plan that would put us back into HD2. So we thought we were going to be back with the rest of Longmont... but then this plan would AGAIN cut us off and put us with Weld County. Just because we're on the edge of Boulder County doesn't mean we're not part of Boulder County. We live in Longmont and in Boulder County, and we'd like to be treated as such. A majority of the people in these other towns have different priorities than we do, so NO, we don't feel our voices will be heard. It's very frustrating. Thanks for listening.

Good Day. I would like to provide comment on the redistricting that specifically includes Garfield County. I have resided on the western slope for 44 years having moved from Denver in 1977. I have been in the Glenwood Springs area for 38 years. We have seen the eastern end of Garfield County migrate from being a ranching/farming community to a recreational economy over the years. The western side of Garfield county continues to be economically based in mining, farming and ranching. There is a vast difference in the life style and values from one side of the county to the other. We strongly feel that western Garfield should be grouped with other western counties with similar economies and demographics while eastern Garfield should be grouped with counties such as Pitkin, Routt, Summit and Eagle.

Wheatridge has been HD 24 for a Ling time as well as Arvada being HD27 please allow those communities to keep those numbers. It will help decrease the confusion at election time.