Reapportionment Maps Are Up

(New idea: Every 10 years we give 10 randomly selected non-human primates from the Denver Zoo a marker and a map of Colorado. First to draw the right number of districts wins and those are the final, indisputable maps. About the same result. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

The commission staff has posted two versions of new state legislative district maps. The commission will meet to discuss the maps on Sept 12, and will vote on Sept 19.

Maps available here.

Go nuts COPols.

About IndyNinja

I support People, not Parties. I support Ideas, not Ideologies. I am an independent voter.

9 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Dan Willis says:

    I am hoping there are more propsals coming that simply have not been uploaded to the website yet.

    When the Commission took public testimony in Denver, every single Denverite who spoke (there were a couple of people who addressed non-Denver issues there) asked the Commission for the same thing: “Don’t split our neighborhoods in the HD map.” It was truly amazing to see everyone from the city say the same thing, Democrats and Republicans alike.

    However, none of the proposed maps honor this wish. The one labelled 001v1 comes the closest, but it notably leaves divided several of the very neighborhoods whose residents were actually there and testified.

    On the SD map, there was only 1 person who testified and that was the GOP County Chair, Danny Stroud. He objected to way Denver’s extra little piece of a SD was added to Arapahoe and thought it should be  added to Jeffco. SD map 001v1 does that, but I doubt Danny would approve of the way they did it. There is a band of what they call SD35 that cuts across Jeffco (after including the mountain couties to its west) and includes the area of Denver west of Sheridan. So Grant Ranch in Denver is in the same district with Gilpin County.

    My opinion of the SD maps is that none are wonderful, but the initially approved map is probably the best for Denver.

    Because Denver’s districts are mostly wholly contained within Denver, it would be very easy for the Commission to adopt the Denver portion of one map and place it in another map if that other map worked better for the rest of the state.

    • Whatever happens, Gilpin Guy and I will have some pretty different districts than the current ones.

      Looks like we get SD-35, which will be competitive (option 1 is more evenly split registration-wise, while option 2 looks like they tried to make the split more even based on overall election results, meaning the district leans R a bit in registration).  Both of these, as Dan notes, include some bits of Denver via a long finger through Jeffco – strange and I don’t really understand why.  Sen. Nicholson should not have much trouble winning this new seat assuming she runs for it.

      On the House side we wind up in HD-26, which either includes Park and North Boulder or Grand and the Boulder foothills down to Eldorado.  Either way the district reads as pretty safe D though not a blowout.  It looks like option 1 retains something resembling the current borders in Boulder, meaning Rep. Levy might be the sitting Rep. in the district.  Option 2 (the one that includes Park County) may include Rep. Gardner instead.  I’m not 100% on either…

      Nothing personally drastic to complain about on these maps, though having Park in my House district seems out of place (compared to Grand), and the odd Senate district shape doesn’t make much sense to me.

  2. I think FINAL HOUSE PLAN MAP 1 is fine, but FINAL HOUSE PLAN MAP 2 is flawed

    Perhaps I’m a homer for HD56, but in an attempt to unite the Roaring Fork Valley, House Map 2 gets it wrong – the Roaring Fork Valley is Glenwood Springs, El Jebel and Basalt, but does NOT include Gypsum or Eagle – Map 2 puts Gypsum and parts of Eagle in with the Roaring Fork Valley and adds Grand onto Summit and Eagle – this is ridiculous

    HD56 and the Roaring Fork Valley are perfectly situated (representatively-wise) presently and Map 1 represents that

    SENATE MAPS 1 and 2 are both terrible

    Who’s idea was it to lump Summit County with Moffat and Rio Blanco?

    Eagle County has much more in common, particularly in terms of its ranching aspects, with Rio Blanco, Moffat, Garfield, Routt and Jackson

    SD8 is an Oil/Gas and Ranching district – the views of Summit County are not going to be heard effectively in either Senate Map

    Secondly – Eagle County is now going to be in the same map as the San Luis Valley? Eagle, again, had more in common with the northern parts of the Western Slope and ultimately, the current SD8 was pretty easy to get around – God help the new Representatives of SD8 and SD5

    I know redistricting is difficult, but there’s that old adage of, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – I also don’t think the population shifts should account for what is currently being presented in Senate Maps 1 and 2 – the Western Slope was represented well and its districts were drawn well in the current maps (2002 to 2012) – I am terribly disappointed

    Love and peace to all!

    Muhammad Miguel Ali Hasan

    Former Candidate for HD56 and SD8 in 2008

    • The realist says:

      Summit County’s Senate District, but I don’t see evidence that they tried to change their disastrous proposal at all.  The proposed alternative was a compact district of seven counties with many communities of interest – Summit, Eagle, Grand, Lake, Park, Chaffee and Clear Creek.  That proposal includes a number of highway corridors of common interest (including I-70) plus commuting corridors of common interest (the counties that commute into Summit and Eagle included in the proposed compact district).  There would have been other commonalities, too, such as mountain resort communities, some ag, water issues, etc.  Also, as it turns out, the alternative would have been very competitive, fairly evenly balanced among Dem, Republican and unaffiliated voters.

      I have to say, only one Summit County person testified at the Summit County public hearing.  That may have had an impact.  Grand County had folks (both Dems and Republicans) who went all over the state to testify.  They were rewarded with one of the House proposals, placing them with Summit and instead of western Boulder County.

      • Boy, I am eating crow right now

        My apologies to the redistricting committee – Realist, if that is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) then I take my words back

        I am both shocked and disappointed – Summit and Eagle are usually much more politically active and the lack of speaking will haunt both counties for the next 10 years (Summit much more than Eagle)

        I highly regret that I didn’t make a point to go to the committee and speak on behalf of Summit, Eagle, and Lake – wow – I just deeply regret that right now

        On the other hand, my top priorities right now are my film career and California – I just can’t beat myself up too much, but I’m going to spend this week in bad regret

        Anyways – thank you Realist

        PS – that Senate District with Summit, Eagle, Clear Creek, etc, sounds terrific – it’s a shame it didn’t go through, but I can’t really blame the Committee after what you told me, Realist

        • Dan Willis says:

          A few dozen people testified in Denver about not splitting our neighborhoods. The only neighborhoods west of Broadway to be put back together were Baker and Jefferson Park on Map 1.

          Baker has a current Rep living there and Jefferson Park has a former one who testified.

          The neighborhoods just west of Colorado Blvd fared a little better. Several people (myself included) testified about those neighborhoods. But the eastern side of the city is stll a mess.

    • dukeco1 says:

      Map 2 puts Gypsum and parts of Eagle in with the Roaring Fork Valley and adds Grand onto Summit and Eagle – this is ridiculous

      People who do this just don’t know(or care, perhaps)how long it takes to get from Eagle to El Jebel?…Fraser to Gypsum?…yikes! Aside from the excellent points you made above, it essentially divides the community because it inhibits participation in community political activities.

      It would be so terribly green of them to consider the amount of travel generated by their decisions. Do you s’pose that ever happens?

  3. Redistricting the State House and Senate maps, for the next 10 years, is a CRUCIAL aspect of Colorado politics

    I hope this diary is promoted

    Thank you IndyNinja for writing!

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.