CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 29, 2021 06:44 AM UTC
32 Comments
If you live in the 3rd CD, the so-called nonpartisan congressional map sucks! It puts Lauren in the catbird seat and her major opponent outside the district. Expletives don't begin to voice my discuss.
I agree. It's an awful map for southern Colorado, particularly Pueblo. The Congressional Commission was one of the most dysfunctional groups I've ever seen. At times their meetings sounded more like a poorly-run group therapy session rather than a wise group trying to draw lines for Congressional Districts. And they clearly abandoned the constitutional requirement re: achieving competitive districts where possible. I wonder if the Colorado Supreme Court will address that issue.
One of the problems with the way the amendment to the Constitution was worded is that it places competitiveness as the last consideration after maintaining county/city boundaries as much as possible and preserving "communities of interest" as much as possible. That last part is a hum-dinger as communities of interest is not well defined and different people's opinion of what they are often conflict with one another.
Yes, very true. But a casual observer might conclude that this group's priority was to protect incumbents, explicitly not allowed.
Are you describing CD1? Because I thought her name was still with D.
“One of the problems with the way the amendment to the Constitution was worded is that it places competitiveness as the last consideration after maintaining county/city boundaries as much as possible and preserving “communities of interest” as much as possible.”
That is so true. And this fetish we, as a state, have with “communities of interest” is a big part of the problem because (1) it prevents competitive districts, and (2) what is a “community of interest” is in the eye of the beholder and often conflicts with what someone else may perceive to be a community of interest deserving protection.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: If you want to get rid of ideological extremists, you need to break these one-party districts up. If you want competition, you take half of CD 1 and splice it onto half of CD 5. You would end up with a center/left candidate running as the D and a center/right candidate running as the R.
My plan was something on those lines. I split Denver into two along neighborhood boundaries, with the west side in the new CD8 along with western Adams and a bit of Weld. CD1 was safe D and CD8 was a complete toss-up (0.7% D lean using the standard the Commission used). Ultimately I had 2 safe D seats, 2 safe R seats and 4 competitive (within 4%) with 2 leaning D and 2 leaning R.
Another barrier to more competitiveness on the congressional level is the spread of our population in Colorado. You have very R Grand Junction out there surrounded by other R counties, even putting Pueblo in with it only lessens the R lean, but not within 4%.
Then you have VERY D Denver surrounded by dense population suburbs that almost all lean a hard D. Even dividing up Denver will produce at least one strong D district there. Colorado Springs is in the same boat, but for the Rs.
Splicing parts of Denver and the Springs together is not an option because of the dense population in between them. My proposed map did also have a district that was all of Douglas County, and the western Arapahoe suburbs (everything west of Aurora) together. This worked out to a 3% R leaning district.
x100 R&R
Fremont, Park, and Custer counties are going to absolutely go bonkers being lumped in with the Denver suburbs in a district that leans slightly left. You'll hear six shooters being fired in the air in rage for miles around.
Meh, . . .
. . . three Colorado counties where anytime's a good time for a shootinany.
If it weren't the redistricting maps, it'd just be something else there?!
Sparkplug: check out some statistics. Custer County has fewer than 4,800 people. There are more people in my neighborhood on Lakewood Green Mountain than in the entire county.
As for Park County, it has 18,000+ people. A lot of them live in the west edge of the Denver suburbs around Bailey and Harris Park.
County lines are mostly irrelevant. 64 counties is just a jobs program for lazy supervisors and other paid county staff.
Heh. District 7 gets Fremont County, Loren (Ron) Hanks’ turf. Sucks to suddenly be in a purple -blue county, Mr. Hanks. You may want to moderate your message? Your House district 60 appears to stay the same, so you may be safe…
Old HD 60: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_House_of_Representatives_District_60 https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_House_of_Representatives_District_60
New District 60 proposed:
Unless your constituents have gotten tired of your bullshit – threatening other Republicans including the House leader, skipping the first few days of the legislative session, trying to promote an audit of the Colorado election that got you elected, sending random people around to voter’s houses to ask how and for whom they voted, and like that.
It will be enjoyable watching those screwballs in Fremont County being represented by Perlmutter but I wouldn't count on Ron Hanks (or whatever his real name is) moderating his views anytime soon. If anything, he'll probably doubt down on the batshit crazy crap.
Maybe Hanks will be the GOP nominee for CD 7 in 2022.
Come election night, the map is not going to be red, pink, light blue and dark blue but simply beet red and navy blue.
so if Donovan is no longer in the district, who is the strongest challenger? I know you don't have to live in the district to run, but I'm curious if Valdez or Sandoval looks to be the stronger candidate.
Valdez would be a good candidate, but as uneven as they've drawn the new 3rd even with Pueblo, it doesn't matter: Boebert will walk away with it by a huge margin.
It could be that we need to look to a reasonable/moderate Republican to run for CD 3. Tim Foster comes to mind.
And not Josh Penry…… j/k
Ha. Not at all certain he could win a primary, if it is open or closed.
I don't think Mr. Foster would agree to be a legislator. He completely eliminated shared governance at Mesa College. He might like to be governor of Colorado, but I don't believe he could tolerate a position in which he isn't the boss.
Ckonola was advocating for Marina Zimmerman to primary Boebert.
As some of us were screaming at the time, the entire commission was a bad idea because of the equal representation for a state that has become pretty uneven politically, so it was always going to be driven to a 4-4 state when voters are 5-3 at a minimum.
It’s embarrassing, and once again unilateral disarmament by Democrats prizing “fairness” when the other side has zero interest in it in any other states.
At the beginning of September, Democrats had 29.17% of active voter registrations, Republicans had 25.93%, and Unaffiliated were 43.06%. Libertarians were the only other party to crack 1%, with 1.11% of the active voters. A margin of 3.24% doesn't really justify a 5-3 ratio.
If you take all the statewide elections of the past 10 years and average them, I'm betting the result would be closer to a ratio of 4-4 than 5-3.
I wish the re-apportionment process would be to pick a random starting point and build districts census block by census block, seeking to develop a plan with a neutral / unengaged formula for compactness. And as long as I'm dreaming, perhaps the process could be run by out of state mathmeticians, too.
Biden got 46.4% of the popular vote in Texas last year, Trump got 52%. I'm guessing that the Texas is not going to draw its congressional districts so that 18 or 19 of its 40 districts (46.4%) are Democratic leaning or safe districts to reflect the politics of the state.
Having fair and competitive districts is an ideal whose time has not arrived. If federal law mandated it, I'd be very happy. My plug for (most of) the For the People Act. But until that happens, the blue states should not unilaterally disarm. The red states sure as hell are not.
If it were up to me, we'd have six Dem leaning or safe seats, and two GOP seats represented by the Dynamic Duo, Ken Buck and Doug Stillborn.
Instead, we need to hope that New York and Illinois can squeeze a few more blue districts and eliminate a few red districts in the maps they draw.
Well at least MAH has gotta' be pleased that Bo-bie's now able to replace his nightmare-scenario drive of Craig-to-Fort Collins, with the much more lucratively reimbursable drive of Craig-to-Trinidad ??? . . .
comment deleted
Today is Banned Websites Awareness Day
Rant of the Day from Jack Homes at Esquire: "What the F*ck Are These People Talking About?"
Jack Holmes
But he nailed it. Look forward and make the future better or get out of the way.
"If you live in the 3rd CD, the so-called nonpartisan congressional map sucks! It puts Lauren in the catbird seat and her major opponent outside the district. Expletives don't begin to voice my discuss."
You're right. And folks are now stuck with her unless and until she is indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve prison time. Even then, she will probably refuse to step aside.