Polygon displaying the extent and limit of the municipality of the City of El Paso, Texas.

Incorporated City Limits for the City of El Paso de Robles, California.

Polygons displaying the extent and limits of the eight municipalities within El Paso County, plus El Paso International Airport and military boundaries.

Polygons displaying the zoning designations for the City. In order to classify, regulate and restrict the location of businesses, trades, industries, residences and other land uses in accordance with the objectives of "The Plan for El Paso"; to regulate and restrict the location of buildings erected, reconstructed, altered or enlarged for specified uses; to regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected, reconstructed, altered or enlarged; to regulate and limit the intensity of the use of lot areas; to protect and preserve places and areas of historical and cultural importance and significance; to regulate and determine the area of yards and other open spaces; and to regulate and limit the density of population, all property within the Corporate Limits is divided into zoning districts.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System (MTS). The MTS represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The All Roads shapefile includes all features within the MTS Super Class "Road/Path Features" distinguished where the MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) for the feature in the MTS that begins with "S". This includes all primary, secondary, local neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, vehicular trails (4wd), ramps, service drives, alleys, parking lot roads, private roads for service vehicles (logging, oil fields, ranches, etc.), bike paths or trails, bridle/horse paths, walkways/pedestrian trails, and stairways.

Polygons displaying the boundaries for existing and proposed parks in the city of El Paso. Includes city park, county park, national park, open space, among other designations.

Polygons displaying the boundaries of the twenty-seven Historic Districts within the County of El Paso.

Polygons displaying the boundary of Franklin Mountains State Park.

Polygons displaying the boundaries of each of the eight representative districts.

Polygons displaying the boundaries of El Paso recognized neighborhood associations. To see the Neighborhood Association Recognition Ordinance and for more information visit the Neighborhood Associations & Coalition page on the City of El Paso site.

Polygon displaying the extent and limit of the County of El Paso, Texas.

Polygons displaying the boundaries for the nine school districts within El Paso County.

Polygons displaying the district boundaries for El Paso Fire Department, with district and batallion numbers.

Parcel boundaries for the properties in and around the City of El Paso de Robles as indicated and defined by the San Luis Obispo County Assessors Office.

Polygons displaying the boundary of Ascarate Lake, a county managed lake.

Fifty-three types of surficial geologic deposits and residual materials of Quaternary age are described in a pamphlet and located on a map of the greater Pueblo area, in part of the Front Range, in the Wet and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and on the plains east of Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Deposits formed by landslides, wind, and glaciers, as well as colluvium, residuum, alluvium, and others are described in terms of predominant grain size, mineral or rock composition (e.g., gypsiferous, calcareous, granitic, andesitic), thickness, and other physical characteristics. Origins and ages of the deposits and geologic hazards related to them are noted. Many lines drawn between units on our map were placed by generalizing contacts on published maps. However, in 1997-1999 we mapped new boundaries as well. The map was projected to the UTM projection. This large map area extends from near Salida (on the west edge), eastward about 107 mi (172 km), and from Antero Reservoir and Woodland Park on the north edge to near Colorado City at the south edge (68 mi; 109 km).

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence

Dear Commission: I have attached the GeoJSON data for a revised version of the Congressional map that I originally submitted to the Commission in early July 2021. This revised map takes into account the recently-released granular 2020 US Census results. You can also view this new map on Dave's Redistricting website at:https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::61ea57de-e691-47ad-aa1a-0f4b5eb39eb7I became interested in this process as a mapping and community nerd (rather than a political guru), after becoming aware that the initial preliminary plan cut my home city of Boulder off from the western part of Boulder county. I don't think that is a good idea -- Boulder is so linked to the communities to the west in the foothills up to the Continental Divide, and vice versa. So, I wanted to put my GIS background to work and help the Commission and staff envision alternate configurations of districts which solve that issue.In this new map based on the 2020 Census, I took much greater care to not split municipal boundaries between different districts. All Congressional districts are within +/1 person of the target population. Also, after reviewing a number of the public comments here and ones made during hearings, I put in my best effort to capture several communities of interest in this revised map:1) SLV counties kept whole and associated with district 3 2) Multiple El Paso County military installations all kept together in district 5 3) Continental Divide used as natural boundary for much of the northern Front Range (keeping Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek counties together in district 2 along with all of Larimer Co.)4) Arkansas River valley kept together below Salida (running downslope/east through Pueblo County, etc)5) Northern Douglas County allocated to a southern/western Denver metro district (7th district)6) 7th district is made to be extremely competitive (within 1 point based on the 2016-2020 composite competitiveness score) 7) New 8th district centered solidly in north Denver metro (northern JeffCo, Broomfield, western Adams, far southwestern Weld) 8) Denver City/County kept whole with only minor population-balancing nibblesThank you for your continued work and consideration.Sincerely,Laura J. Westerfield