Public Comments

I have recently looked at the redistricting map for rural Colorado and would ask that it be approved as is. I would like to give a huge Thank you to the commissioners for helping the SLV get representation.

Boulder County is a “Plains” county, with Plains issues, it belongs in the new District 8 with Broomfield and the I-25 corridor! While this latest iteration isn’t as bad as you first map (where you tried to steal all of Northwest Colorado), it still smacks of gerrymandering. It reminds me of when they snuck safe Diana Degette voters into the current 6th Congressional District. Boulder is only 17+ miles from I-25 along State Highway 7 and 170+ miles to Steamboat Springs, please make it stay where it belongs!! Bob Weaver

Please support competitive districts for rural and western Colorado and approve the Schuster map. We deserve representation West of the Divide too. Two competitive districts West of the Divide make sense in that it allows communities of interest, which vary from mountain communities, farm and ranch communities, university towns, small cities and tourist recreation dependent communities to have more likelihood of appropriate and responsive representation. Lumping all voters in this vast region into a single non-competitive district denies and conflates these many types of often disparate interests.

Eagle should remain in CD3.

I ask you please to put Loveland back into CD2 where we are with other communities of interest west of I 25. We do not belong in CD4 with rural communities.

Thank you for listening to public comments and putting forth the September 23rd third staff plan map. Rural Colorado deserves a voice at the table and this map delivers that by ensuring two rural districts. The map appears to includes connectinggeographic areas, has equal populations as required by the Constitution, preserves communities of interests, ensures Congressional districts are well represented and not dominated by Denver, includes compact districts, and maximizes the number of politically competitive districts. I appreciate your dedication and hard work.

Do not split eagle county and district part with a metro area. Keep eagle county while. Western slope rural resort areas are unique and need a representative voice not one blended with an urban I25 corridor community.

I would like to offer a perspective the definition of communities of interest. I believe the biggest challenge facing our democracy is political "siloing." Geographic self-sorting has led to urban areas dominated by left-wing liberals and rural areas becoming increasingly conservative. Digital platforms' ability to target content on an individual basis, and users' ability to craft an extremely homogeneous ideological community online, have exacerbated this sorting. This absolutely terrifies me, as if we are not forced to have a common conversation, we can never arrive at solutions to shared problems. What does this have to do with redistricting? I know that you have a constitutional mandate that lays out criteria, and none of those criteria refer directly to "siloing" or "filter bubbles." However, I would urge the Commission to consider the siloing issue when defining communities of interest. In my opinion, the Commission should embrace a local, idiosyncratic definition of communities of interest, focused on unique identities rather than broad cultural characteristics. I would love to see the Commission work hard to preserve communities of interest along the lines of "the Hispanic neighborhoods in the western part of _____ city," or "members of the ____ farming cooperative" (those are just examples). However, I do not believe that we can afford to define "communities of interest" on the basis of broad sociopolitical or geographic identities like "urban," "rural," "mountain," "plain," "agricultural," or "culturally diverse." This is not to say that communities of interest must be ideologically diverse; both of the placeholder examples I mentioned favorably above would probably have a strong ideological slant (you can probably guess which is which). However, a community of interest should be defined by something more unique than merely a current, generalized geographic or economic circumstance (particularly when those shared geographic and economic circumstances map so closely onto our political divisions). I am also not asking you to prioritize competitiveness over communities of interest. While a more localized definition of communities of interest may lead to more competitive maps, my purpose is not to favor competition over community. It is rather to caution against defining community in such a way as to further entrench existing sociopolitical identities. Thank you for all of your hard work on this issue!

Colorado State Redistricting Commission Second hearing September 25, 2021 Based on the newest map I am happy to conclude that you have listened to our concerns. It gives me a lot of satisfaction to know that you folks are listening to the citizens of Colorado. My name is John Spezia. I have lived in Steamboat Springs since 1973, 48 years. Today, Steamboat Springs has a Climate Action Plan, we are protecting our natural resources to attract visitors, we have an economy that primarily relies on year round tourism, we have a different set of economic drivers that include skiing, biking, hiking and water sports and lastly we will have little to no extraction economy in the very near future. We have many common interests similar to Eagle, Grand and Summit counties that would be best represented if we were part of the same State House and Senate district in Colorado. The new map does need to achieve fairness in voting and representation by; 1- Combining rural and urban centers within a district to force the representative to listen to all sides when making decisions and running for office. 2-Combing areas in the districts to insure common interests. 3- To be contiguous so there are similar common needs of the district shared by all. 4-The maps look to the future as extraction economies fade and are replaced by tourist and environmental economies. 5-Issues like affordable housing, transportation, protecting the environment, climates action and tourist friendly community are common traits that should be in the new district. CONCLUSIONS: House; Placing us in District 26 meets all these needs and common interests with Eagle and Summit Counties Senate: It would be better to include part of Routt counties into District 5 with Eagle and Summit based on common needs. Thank you for your time and consideration, John Spezia Box 772255 Steamboat Springs, Colorado,80477

Dear Redistricting Committee, This has been a quite frustrating period of time, trying to have you see the need for Eagle County to remain in district 3. It is imperative to best outcome, as a ski and resort community, on the western slope, to remain in tandem with other mountain resort communities of similar life styles and value. Boulder and most other towns in district 2 are completely out of focus when it comes to our needs and priorities. Our ability to attract and sustain visitors is based on a lifestyle perception and an aesthetic presentation that is in no way congruent with other communities in district 2. For the preservation of our many attributes as an attractive destination resort in summer and winter, I must demand you look at this challenge you are putting upon us if you don't allow all of Eagle County to be in district 3. Thank you, Barbara DeLuca