Public Comments

The First Staff Plan Map is a non-starter for rural Colorado and ignores agriculture and rural Colorado's unique community of interest by combining it with suburban and urban areas. The map fails to recognize the differences between eastern and western parts of the state. map needs to recognize rural Colorado as a distinct community of interest with the same public policy concerns as urban and suburban areas but based on agriculture, employment, and water needs and supplies. Rural areas raise urban people's food and a lot of other items they use, but rural areas are left out on the map. The commissioners need to revert back to the preliminary congressional map and improve it. I'm a Colorado land owner and ag industry producer. I appreciate you listening to my concerns.

The Commissions most recent map for Fort Collins shows HD52 and HD53 divided east and west along College Ave (US 287). This division perpetuates the not-competitiveness of earlier years. These two districts should be divided north and south to create more competitive districts. A north-south division also recognizes the north side of Fort Collins and the south side are distinctly different communities of interest. The CSU community of singles and the north side housing demographic has many more one and two person household with fewer K-12 students than does the south side of town. The district divisions should acknowledge these differences. Also, competitiveness is improved with a north-south division. The last time a Republican won in HD53 configured with a generally east-west division was in 1986. This new map does nothing to increase competitiveness. I suggest a division generally along Prospect Ave or Drake Rd (depending on the numbers) recognizes the differing communities of interest and creates two districts with increased competitiveness.

It is my understanding that you have temporarily put Broomfield back together. Thank you and please keep us whole. All districts should make sense and should keep communities whole. Thank you.

It’s my understanding that Broomfield has been put back together again. If true, and I hope it is, many many thanks to you all🙏🏼

To: Redistricting Committee Members State of Colorado Date: 10.1.2021 From: Ken Charles; Manager Town of Dolores RE: The Separation of Town of Dolores from Cortez and other municipal entities in Montezuma County Committee Members The Town of Dolores is seeking strong re-consideration from the Redistricting members current proposal in separating the Town of Dolores from the City of Cortez and Town of Mancos in the redistricting process. Our comments are in response to the Second Map Version for State House Districts. In the first iteration, the town was set to be included in the 59th District with most of Montezuma County. The Second map version cuts the town out of most of Montezuma County and puts the Town of Dolores in the 58th State House District. As the 3rd largest municipality in Montezuma County, we are requesting that the town of Dolores and the Dolores School District be placed in the 59th House District with the City of Cortez, the Town of Mancos, most of Montezuma County, and our sovereign neighbors, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Dolores is a Community of Interest • The Town of Dolores sits within close proximity to both the Dolores River watershed basin and McPhee Reservoir. As two of the more vital geographic water features in this location, the Town of Dolores needs the redistricting committee to consider the importance of contiguous representation of the Dolores River drainage and McPhee Reservoir. The redistricting committee can accomplish this by ensuring the entirety of each water system and the municipalities impacted or affected by them remain in the same House District. We are contesting the separation of the Town of Dolores to House District 58 and are requesting that the Town of Dolores needs to be placed back into House District 59. All the afore mentioned municipalities are affected by and strongly influence the upper Dolores River basin and the water storage and economic aspects of McPhee Reservoir. This continuity in House District representation around these two geographically significant areas is critical due to increasing complexity around water management in the West. As a reminder to the committee, this is now being exemplified with the recent proposal of the Dolores River as an NRA (National Recreation Area). • Cortez, Mancos, Montezuma County and Dolores share most, if not all, the “Shared public policy concerns” cited in the redistricting legislation such as education employment, environment, public health, transportation water needs and supplies. Maintaining the integrity of the Dolores School District and the Town of Dolores to enable continuity with other educational and municipal entities in House District 59 is a priority for this area. • The Town of Dolores is suggesting a revision of the staff map that includes relocating Lewis, Yellow Jacket and Pleasant View along with the northwest corner of Montezuma County into House District 58. This would place the Town of Dolores School District and all the areas to the north and east of Dolores in House District 59. For resolution, we support the maps Doug Roth from the Montezuma County Commissioners office has presented as the final redistricting lines for the 59th House District. Please strongly consider this as a final alternative. Thank you for your hard work on this complex redistricting legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have questions or require any further information. With much appreciation Ken Charles; Town of Dolores 970 759 0016 manager@townofdolores.com

Do not split Broomfield. We are one community with shared interests and needs. Keep us together!

Dear Commissioners, My name is Michael Neil and I am a resident of the University neighborhood on the south end of HD 2 (as well as SD 32) in Denver County. Thank you very much for your diligence and inexhaustible patience with this enormous and crucial task. Taking as many public comments as you have and integrating them into so many districts is incredibly hard. Many pieces of the latest staff maps make a great deal of sense, and it is with some regret that most of my comments will likely be critiques of yet-to-be fixed aspects of the map. Within the Denver portion of the latest staff maps, I must fervently complain about significant and unnecessary crossing of county boundaries. While it is true that some districts (like HD 1 and 9), do currently cross county boundaries, only 9 does so significantly, with HD 1 picking up a couple of hundred people at most. Under the staff maps, HD 2 would grab not only the entirety of Glendale but a portion of the current HD 9's section of Arapahoe County. This addition not only disturbs the youth and university-centric nature of HD 2, but does so completely unnecessarily (a far better case could, but needn't necessarily, be made that the north Denver neighborhoods of Globeville, Elyria, and Swansea have more in common with Commerce City in Adams County in CD-8 rather than CD 1, than that southwestern Arapahoe County should attach to HD 2).. Instead, HD-2 should be somewhat narrowed on the east and extended north as far towards Capitol Hill as possible (as seen here: https://districtr.org/plan/57372) for two reasons. Many University of Denver graduates settle in Capitol Hill, and the inclusion of both areas would preserve HD2's history as home to much of Denver's LGBT community, as well as recognizing it as the foundational unit of the districts of two pioneering LGBT state representatives, Speaker Mark Ferrandino and State Representative Jennifer Veiga. Were it possible, I would draw it far enough north and west to encompass the Auraria campus and capture all of Denver's major educational institutions, I would have done so, but the population simply would become too large. Again, I sincerely thank you for your effort and for taking my comments. Michael Neil Precinct Organizer, Democratic Party precinct 244.

Wellington E. Webb 2329 N. Gaylord Street Denver, CO 80205 Carlos Perez, Chair Colorado Independent Legislative Redistricting Commission 200 E Colfax Ave Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Perez: This letter will be the second and last time I will be addressing the Legislative Commission. As you reach the end of your service, I would like to share some lessons from my three decades of experience in redistricting. I am not a registered lobbyist, and I am not advocating for a particular map or a particular means by which you should develop maps. I am an advocate for how history will write about what you have done here. First, I would like to credit the way your staff has worked tirelessly to implement changes to the map that follow public comments and the constitution. Back in July, I implored all of you to ensure that your staff draws a map that represents all of the interests of Colorado and not just some. That you find a map that a supermajority of you support that follows the Constitution and passes muster with the Colorado Supreme Court. In the end, it’s not a staff map, it’s the commission’s map, and you will be held accountable for it by the people of this state for the way it represents our communities. Next, I feel it’s vital for you to understand the historical weight of your actions over the remaining days of your tenure. You will take steps and say things that will shine for decades to come and guide other states who choose to take a path similar to Y&Z. Other actions and statements will not age as well. Ultimately, history will judge whether you followed the constitution. Here’s what I think that means in light of the discussions I have heard so far during your sessions. First, do not fall into the trap of using your personal experiences to replace the voice of the communities. While you come from various parts of the state to ensure geographic diversity, that is not the same as being elected by the people in those communities. You were not chosen because you were experts in the geography where you reside. Time could quickly transform your parochialism into self-service. Next, don’t let politically fashionable notions pull you away from the clear Constitutional guidelines voters approved. You, and every other political pundit, might have thoughts about what the voters meant when they voted yes on Amendments Y&Z, but that takes a back seat to the constitutional text that governs your work. To be completely clear, I am talking about the commission’s over-emphasis on competitiveness and the tone taken toward the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No amount of public testimony or commissioner opinion can lift the competitiveness criteria above its constitutionally prescribed ordering behind other criteria, period. In fact, history will look at an overemphasis on competitiveness to be driven more by partisanship than a constitutional duty to ensure that districts are drawn to meet constituents’ needs and concerns. It seems to me that members of the Commission view the protections of minority group voting rights, both in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and independent protections that are now part of the Colorado Constitution, as a nuisance to be tolerated. Colorado’s protections of minority group voting and electoral influence are a cornerstone of Amendment Z, not some procedural hurdle, a legal hoop to jump through, or something to be tiptoed around. I would hope that in the waning days of your decision-making, you will embrace these protections in a way that honors centuries of sacrifice that culminated in the movement to stop the systematic disenfranchisement of people of color in this country and this state. I understand your attorney has advised retreating to executive sessions for all of your conversations about the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps that represents cautious lawyering, but it doesn’t breed confidence on the part of minority voters that Amendment Z will really put an end to backroom decisions. At a time when the Census has shown rapid growth of minority populations in our state, you are obligated to address these protections - and your commitment to them - in clear, unequivocal terms and do so with the light of day shining on your debates. When you put these two approaches to the constitution together, you can understand my concern. On the one hand, commissioners seem to be implying legal protections for communities of color are something to be hidden, when, on the other hand, any neutral observer of the Commission’s process could only conclude that commissioners use competitiveness (which is often code for innovative ways to minimize the voice of people of color) as their overriding concern. That almost singular concern can only be diffused by your rhetoric and your actions. This might not be what you want to hear right now, but I don’t make the rules. I’m just telling you how the rules of history work. You’ve done great work so far, and I know you are stressed and tired, but you committed to do better. I am hopeful that you will. Yours truly, Wellington E. Webb This Is My Country Song by the Impressions, released in 1968

When I voted against gerrymandering, I envisioned truly independent lines with no consideration given to Republicans or Democrats but rather to the voice of the people. One way to accomplish this is by keeping communities of interest together. Broomfield is one such community. Do not divide Broomfield. Please redraw!

This is not what I had in mind when it came to end gerrymandering. You people are still splitting up neighbors, cities and counties. Why would you put Broomfield into two different Senators districts? Why because you are still dividing our votes. You should not divide communities. Why would you divide Boulder? You put part of Boulder in a district with the Western Slope. You are dividing thoughts and watering down their ideas with the West. This is what we wanted to end. This needs to be scrapped and try again.