The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20020885.tiff COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE Rep. Doug Dean,Chairman Co Sen. Ken Chlouber Sen.Stan Matsunaka,Vice Chairman ' .; Sen.Mark Hillman Sen.John Andrews — . Sen.Doug Linkhart Rep. Dan Grossman \' o Sen.Marilyn Musgrave Rep. Lola Spradley Sen. Ed Perlmutter * Sen. Bill Thiebaut , * Sen.Terry Phillips s 1828 • Rep.Rob Fairbank STAFF Rep.Keith King Charles S.Brown, Director Rep.Bill Sinclair Daniel Chapman,Assistant Director, Rep.Joe Stengel Administration LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Rep.Abel Tapia Deborah Godshall,Assistant Director, Rep.Jennifer Veiga Research ROOM 029 STATE CAPITOL DENVER, COLORADO 80203-1784 E-mail: Ics.ga@state.co.us 303-866-3521 FAX: 303-866-3855 TDD: 303-866-3472 March 28, 2002 Enclosed is the final report of the Colorado Reapportionment Commission. Maps of each House and Senate district and their accompanying statistical reports are included in the report, as well as several additional attachments that relate to the work of the Commission. Please note that all of the maps and reports are also available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/reap/reapp_index.htm. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Susan Liddle, Research Staff Colorado Legislative Council co4r7 a qeidty ' � C'e e;,x? PA 2002-0885 FINAL REPORT OF THE COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION March, 2002 COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION Rosemary E. Rodriguez, Kathleen Murphy Beatty Chairman - .c r Dan Grossman —�A'- Mark Hillman Jay Fetcher, F �- .•.<. C Vice-Chairman a Sandy Hume * Daniel E. Muse Becky Lennahan, ** e:4✓• Mark Paschall Staff Director 187` Bill Thiebaut Jeffrey M.Wells Heather M. Witwer 1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 1020 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 E-mail: Icsseap@state.co.us 303-866-6466 FAX: 303-866-6434 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commission and staff wish to acknowledge the contributions of the many individuals and groups that participated in the 2001-02 meetings of the Commission and provided testimony at the public hearings around the state. They provided invaluable assistance in familiarizing the Commission with the diverse characteristics and interests of the regions, counties, cities, and communities of interest in Colorado. Special thanks should go to the office of the Secretary of State and the county clerks and recorders who must now assume the job of implementing the new plan. Special commendation goes to the lawyers and staff at Holme, Roberts & Owen who so ably advised the Commission throughout the process and represented it before the Colorado Supreme Court: Dan Dunn, Manuel Martinez, Rich Rodriguez, Tim Reynolds, Rich Wilkins, and Dyan Davidson. Acknowledgment is made of the assistance of Scott Nachtrieb of the Legislative Council staff, who provided the expertise to build the data base and took on many of the technical responsibilities that had been performed by private vendors in previous reapportionments. His skill and knowledge resulted in significant financial savings to the state,and his ready availability for trouble-shooting helped the staff on countless occasions. Acknowledgment is also made of the help provided by Don Walker of the Legislative Council staff, whose job it was to post numerous plans to the Commission website on extremely short notice. The assistance of the following legislative staff is gratefully recognized: Charlie Brown and Doug Brown, who permitted their staffs to participate in this project; Jerry Schierkolk and the staff at the Legislative Print Shop;Tracy Walsh and Ingrid Willis of the Legislative Council accounting staff;Kevin Smith and the Legislative Information Services staff; and Jim Hill and the congressional redistricting staff. Finally, a very special vote of thanks to the Commission staff: Jeremiah Barry, David Beaujon, Brad Denning, Jill Glaspey, Susan Liddle, Colette Peters, and Ryan Richard. Becky Lennahan Staff Director -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Table of Contents °1 Proceedings of the Commission 1 Introduction 1 The Commission's Task 1 Start-up Legislation and Budget 1 Composition of the Commission 2 Commission Meetings - Legal Criteria -Public Hearings 3 Court Proceedings 6 Website 7 Technical Matters 8 Senate Final Plan Senate-1 Sequencing of Senate Elections Senate-38 Senate Reports Senate-39 House Final Plan House-1 House Reports House-77 Attachments Attachment A - Colorado Constitutional Provisions Attachment B - 1992 Senate and House Districts with Census 2000 Populations Attachment C - 1980, 1990, and 2000 Populations by County Attachment D - Senate Bill 00-119 Attachment E - Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended Attachment F -In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, January 28, 2002 Attachment G -In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, February 22, 2002 Attachment H - Colorado Redistricting Cases Since 1972 Attachment I - Transmittal letter to Secretary of State dated February 22, 2002 Attachment J - Commission Resolution concerning the City and County of Broomfield Attachment K - Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census -iii- PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION Introduction The Colorado Reapportionment Commission convenes once every 10 years after the decennial federal census. Its job is to redraw the boundaries of legislative districts for the state Senate and House of Representatives in compliance with the "one person, one vote" principle. The Commission's composition, its schedule, and many of the legal criteria it must apply are found in article V, sections 46 through 48 of the Colorado Constitution, which the voters originally approved in 1974 and amended in 2000. See Attachment A. The purpose of this report is to disseminate information about the new plan for Senate and House districts as widely as possible and to provide a record of the Commission's proceedings during Colorado's third experience with a commission system of reapportionment. The Commission's Task The Commission was charged with dividing the state into 35 Senate districts having an ideal population of 122,893 each and 65 House districts having an ideal population of 66,173 each. Between 1990 and 2000, Colorado's population increased from 3,294,394 to 4,301,261, or 30.56%. Individual legislative districts grew at different rates, however. See Attachment B. Some of the most dramatic growth occurred in Douglas and Elbert Counties, while a few rural counties actually lost population. See Attachment C. District lines had to change significantly in order to achieve compliance with equal population requirements. Start-up Legislation and Budget Senate Bill 00-119, enacted in the 2000 regular session of the General Assembly, laid the groundwork for the 2001-02 reapportionment process. See Attachment D. That bill made initial appropriations that were used primarily for computer hardware and software and for the Commission's start-up costs. Laptop computers and mapping software were made available to each Commissioner. The remainder of the Commission's funding was appropriated by Senate Bill 01-202, enacted in the 2001 session. The Commission's budget for FY 2000-01 was $184,708 and for FY 2001-02 was $602,792. — 1 — Composition of the Commission Eleven members were appointed to the Commission by designated appointing authorities in accordance with article V, section 48 (1) (a) to (1) (c) of the Colorado Constitution. The legislative branch appointed four members; the executive branch appointed three members; and the judicial branch named four members. The Commission was comprised of six registered Democrats and five registered Republicans. The members of the Commission and their respective appointing authorities were as follows: Member Appointing Authority Rosemary E. Rodriguez (D) Chief Justice of the Chairman Colorado Supreme Court John R. Fetcher, Jr. (D) Chief Justice of the Vice-Chairman Colorado Supreme Court Kathleen M. Beatty(D) Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court Rep. Daniel Grossman (D) House Minority Leader Sen. Mark D. Hillman (R) Designated by Senate Minority Leader John Andrews Richard P. Hume' (R) Governor Daniel E. Muse (D) Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court Rep. Mark S. Paschall (R) Designated by Speaker of the House Doug Dean Sen. William Thiebaut, Jr. (D) Senate Majority Leader Jeffrey M. Wells (R) Governor Heather M. Witwer (R) Governor 1. Mr. Hume was appointed to replace Larry E. Trujillo, Sr. in September,2001. — 2— Commission Meetings - Legal Criteria - Public Hearin The first meeting of the Commission took place on May 11, 2001. The Commission held fourteen meetings within the 113-day time frame allowed by the Colorado Constitution between the first Commission meeting and the publication of the Preliminary Plan. The first three meetings were conducted to familiarize the members with census geography, the U.S. Census Bureau's method of reporting population data, the demographics and economic communities of the state, federal Voting Rights Act provisions, the political data base, and other issues related to the reapportionment process. The Commission received presentations on the legal criteria dictated by federal statutes and the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions for drawing and assessing plans. The criteria are as follows: * Districts must satisfy the equal population requirements of the 14`h Amendment and the right-to-vote provisions of the 15`h Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. * Reapportionment plans must not deny to members of a racial, color, or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973. As applied, this requirement meant that minorities should neither be unnecessarily "packed" into a single district nor unnecessarily "fractured" among two or more districts. See Attachment E. * Districts must be as nearly equal in population as possible, with no more than a 5 deviation between the largest and the smallest. Colo. Const., art. V, sec. 46. * Except as necessary to achieve equal population, counties are to be kept whole, and the number of municipalities that are split is to be minimized. Colo. Const., art. V, sec. 47 (2). * Each district must be as compact as possible, and the aggregate linear distance around all districts must be as short as possible. Districts must consist of contiguous territory. Colo. Const., art. V, sec. 47 (1). * Communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, must be preserved within a single district wherever possible. Colo. Const., art. V, sec. 47 (3). In formulating both the Senate and the House districts, major consideration was given to racial and ethnic data. The U.S. Census Bureau's method of reporting racial and ethnic data can cause confusion. Total population is broken down into Hispanics and non- Hispanics. Under the Census Bureau's categories, "Hispanic" is not a race but an ethnicity. — 3 — "Hispanic", therefore, can include White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, and people of any other race who identify themselves as Hispanic. "Non-Hispanics" are further broken down into non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and so forth. The 2000 census was the first time people were authorized to check more than one race category, which raised issues about how to compare minority populations from the 1990 census with current minority counts, and how to determine compliance with the civil rights laws, such as section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. To provide a standard counting method, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget published a "Guidance" dated March 9, 2000, which suggests that, when someone has identified themselves as "White" and one other race, the person be allocated to the minority race for civil rights purposes. If someone has checked two or more minority races, the person can first be allocated to one minority group, then to the other, to analyze any discriminatory pattern. The Department of Justice, in its January 18, 2001 "Guidance Concerning Redistricting and Retrogression Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c," incorporates the OMB Guidance. Although Colorado is not subject to section 5, this method of reporting data has the advantage of being a standard one. The Reapportionment Commission used the method set forth in the Department of Justice ("DOJ") Guidance in reporting racial and ethnic information. In the reports on the racial and ethnic composition of house and senate districts, therefore, "White" includes only single-race, non-Hispanic whites, and "DOJ Black" includes non-Hispanic Blacks who checked only the "Black" category, plus dual- race, non-Hispanic persons who checked "Black" and "White". Black Hispanics are counted not as Black but as Hispanics, and the "DOJ Asian", "DOJ Indian", and "DOJ Hawaiian" categories are treated similarly. The "DOJ Other" category includes those non- Hispanics checking only the "Some Other Race" box, non-Hispanic persons who checked more than one minority race and dual-race, non-Hispanic persons who checked "Some Other Race" and "White." Thus, in the reports that follow the Senate and House plans, the sum of Hispanics plus all of the race categories will be 100% of the population. The Commission began the task of reapportioning the House and Senate seats by dividing the state into eight geographic regions: the Western Slope; Denver; Boulder and Adams Counties; Jefferson, Gilpin, Clear Creek and Park Counties; Arapahoe, Douglas and Elbert Counties; El Paso and Teller Counties; Larimer and Weld Counties; Pueblo County and counties in the San Luis Valley and the Eastern Plains. Plans for each region were submitted by members of the Commission, interested groups, and, early in the process, the staff. During the period leading to adoption of the Preliminary Plan, the Commission and its staff prepared over 500 proposed plans. The Commission posted its Preliminary Senate Plan on the Commission website on August 30, 2001, and its Preliminary House Plan on August 31, 2001. Paper copies were —4— made available to the general public on September 4, 2001, and were distributed to members of the state legislature, county clerks and recorders, county commissioners, the press, and other interested parties. All publications were within the 113-day period required by article V, section 48 (1) (e) of the Colorado Constitution. The Reapportionment Commission convened its first public hearing approximately one week after publication of the Preliminary Plan. Regional hearings were held in twenty- two locations around the state with each hearing attended by at least two Commission members. Hearings located the farthest from Denver were scheduled before metro Denver area hearings so that legislator/commissioners could attend the special session of the General Assembly on growth issues and congressional redistricting. The hearing sites and the dates on which hearings took place are listed below: Alamosa September 6 Durango September 7 Lamar September 11 Steamboat Springs September 11 Vail September 11 Burlington September 12 Glenwood Springs September 12 Delta September 12 Sterling September 13 Salida September 13 Trinidad September 17 Pueblo September 21 Littleton September 24 Golden September 24 Colorado Springs September 25 Boulder October 1 Denver October 2 Brighton October 3 Castle Rock October 3 Greeley October 4 Ft. Collins October 9 Broomfield October 10 - 5 - Following completion of the public hearings, the Commission met on four occasions to discuss comments which it had received and to formulate the Final Plan. The House portion of the Final Plan was adopted on November 19, 2001, by a vote of 10-1, and the Senate portion of the Final Plan was adopted on November 27, 2001, by a vote of 6-5. Though it did not constitute part of the Final Plan, the Commission authorized the submission of a Senate minority report to the Supreme Court for consideration. The Final Plan renumbered some of the House and Senate districts in an effort to keep consecutive numbers in the same county or region, insofar as possible. Court Proceedings The Final Plan was submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court on December 7, 2001. The Commission filed its Legal Memorandum and Explanatory Materials in Support of Final Plan on December 17, 2001. Statements of support for various aspects of the Final Plan were filed by Jennie Sanchez, Adeline Sanchez, and Debra Casanova; the Colorado AFL-CIO; Metro Citizens for Fair Reapportionment; Timothy D. Knaus, Chairman of the Colorado State Democratic Party; Dan Grossman, Colorado House Minority; Blacks for Fair Reapportionment; and the Colorado State Senate Leadership. Objections to the Final Plan were required to be filed by December 27, 2001. Objections were received from the following entities and individuals: • Citizens for Constitutional Maps (Arapahoe County) • Betty Chronic, et al., (Boulder County) • Town of Collbran • Colorado Hispanic Bar Association (HD 63 & 65) • Douglas/Elbert County Citizens for Fair State Representation • Elbert/Douglas County Livestock Association • Susan Fey(HD 60 & 62) • Beth Gallegos (SD 23-26) • Garfield County Commissioners • Don Lee • Mesa County Commissioners • Mesa County School District 51 • Minority Commission Members • Steve Olstad, et al., (Broomfield) • Town of Palisade • Mark Sessions, et al. (El Paso County) • Jack Taylor, et al. (SD 7 & 8, HD 56-61) — 6— The Commission filed its Response to Objections on January 3, 2002, and a 2'/2- hour oral argument took place on January 7, 2002. The Supreme Court rendered its initial decision on January 28, 2002. It held that the Final Plan was not "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2)" of article V of the Colorado Constitution and was not accompanied by an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population criterion. The decision specifically pointed to the Senate plan for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, Mesa, and Pueblo Counties and to the cities of Boulder and Pueblo, since these areas were not allocated the number of whole districts to which they were entitled. The plan was remanded to the Commission, with directions to resubmit it by February 15, 2002. See Attachment F. The Commission held three meetings to consider revised plans. It adopted a new plan for the Senate and technical amendments to the House plan. The Revised Final Plan was submitted to the Court on February 12, 2002. The Court set a February 19 deadline for filing objections to the resubmitted plan, and a February 20 deadline for the Commission's response to objections. Two Senate and two House objections were received. The Supreme Court issued its second decision on February 22, 2002. It upheld the Revised Final Plan, finding that the Commission followed the procedures and applied the criteria of federal and Colorado law. See Attachment G.2 The Revised Final Plan was transmitted in accordance with article V, section 48 (1) (e) of the Colorado Constitution to the Secretary of State later on February 22, 2002, in the form of an electronic file on a compact disk. See Attachment I. Copies of the original CD for each county were later provided to the Secretary of State, along with paper maps of each house and senate district. Website Throughout the reapportionment process, the Commission created and maintained a comprehensive website at www.state.co.us/gov_dir/reap/reapp_index.htm. The website contained information about the reapportionment process, the federal and state constitutional and statutory criteria, and the process by which the Commission formulated both the Preliminary and Final Plans. The website also allowed a person to read answers to common questions about the reapportionment process and review Commission hearing summaries. During each stage of the Commission's deliberations, a person could view maps presented to or adopted by the Commission. The Colorado Supreme Court's decisions were also posted on the website. 2. Citations to earlier Colorado redistricting cases arc found at Attachment H. —7 — Technical Matters The software used by the Commission was called "Maptitude for Redistricting," a product of the Caliper Corporation. It is a specialized version of Maptitude, Caliper's all- purpose geographic information system (GIS) software. It enabled users to assign census geography to districts while viewing the district under construction and running totals of population, racial and ethnic data, and political data on the screen. The software accommodated the importation of plans drawn on other systems, and the exportation of plans drawn using the Commission system to other interested parties. It also had broad thematic mapping capability. The Commission's data base consisted of the Census Bureau's TIGER map ("TIGER" is an acronym for the "Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing" system), the 2000 census population data (the P.L. 94-171 data), and voter registration information and election returns from the 1998 and 2000 general elections. Since population data was associated with census blocks as shown on the TIGER map, the Commission had to rely on census geography in order to demonstrate compliance with federal and state equal population requirements. This meant using a map that was at least two years old and that did not reflect annexations and new development occurring after the map was finalized. It also meant that current precincts could not always be reflected on the map, since the Census Bureau requires that block boundaries be "visible features" and precinct boundaries are not always visible features. The Commission's task was complicated by the creation of the City and County of Broomfield on November 15, 2001. The boundary of the new city and county was larger than that of the city as shown on the TIGER map, but smaller than the maximum boundary authorized by the constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November, 1998. When the boundary became final, it actually split several census blocks. The Commission adopted as much of the actual, official boundary of Broomfield as it could in its Revised Final Plan, and it passed the Resolution found at Attachment J to assist county clerks and recorders in the affected area. The Commission recognized that when county clerks and recorders redrew precinct boundaries following the 2001-02 round of reapportionment, they might encounter tiny areas with insignificant populations that would have to be in separate precincts, because of the requirement that no precinct include more than one house, senate, or congressional district. See section 2-2-506 (1) (a), C.R.S. Accordingly, the Commission directed the staff to adjust house and senate boundaries to eliminate these "sliver" areas insofar as possible, so long as no adjustment moved more than 75 people (after the first Final Plan) or 125 people (after the Revised Final Plan). The staff used the computer system to overlay the Revised House Final Plan, the Revised Senate Final Plan, and the congressional plan approved by the Denver District Court on January 25, 2002, and eliminated approximately 55 "slivers." — 8 — Users of this Final Report should note that the maps appearing herein include district boundaries that have been manually labeled in order to make the maps as readable and helpful as possible. However, since the labeling process is not completely error-free, it is important to note that the official version of the plan is the electronic file transmitted to the Secretary of State. See Attachment I. If there is a conflict between a boundary shown on the electronic file and the boundary label shown on the maps in this report, the electronic file controls. In order to preserve information on municipal populations as shown by the 2000 census, a table of municipal populations is found at Attachment K. — 9— C O E ._ t E o o o U °3 iiilli7iiiiiiiiiiiiii 1 illi' ;; cI 11 \iii ! OI' ;�II o.m m il -. .' `c O cr, 22 22 \ U�Oa 3 }mss s; ;`s ; N 0 ` \\ z � ' �: "- Q � \ �.� iii \; T ; ;; sx a2 W ;;LL e � o co 11,111 I's IZi} A, y l T{, CC Y] \ S ;•:1 m II IIIIII "Siii II 1101 No 9 a -- N X • C CO n e d N U- Senate - 1 SENATE FINAL PLAN - Metro Area / -----aiviz N/ 44v- ..„,...-.4„, M'WWVWV✓YLVr4� 'VN,`.2l�JWWLMIM✓L+M/+,Yt/tMM✓NMR7M,eM/y WINNNLN.•iVL2Nnyy✓NM//+/✓NNWYVWN/t Taii ;_ter S yN/NVW, :.%/ •• ••!Y"Y{�. Wi.2NM2N✓s/+M/YN/VLNh�� ` uy j / K1 ,�Shf�%Yy5f�%Y45 ; �v�nvwv✓.�vv vwvvvytHtlit rNf!/!H•• [s(lsu. - ✓nnnroro+.vvw,n ewe, vvve .................... evuuxaennnewvwvvwvrnyvvvv+nr ,a�roxxx n nnnnnricv✓�r wwrn�✓ww .........., vrvvv✓nom ;'?Yv ?:;�%:�i %} ;y,: �iuua�nnnntiwvvw�nni✓vw,ny inn�nn�n2'wvwvwvw✓S''`'✓' ,,, ti ::•ii:L-Y; SSSS; SSS• SS S,';:S; ;iSS;; iS S;;S svvvvvvvv✓rvvvvvvvo,n February 2002 1600 Broadway, Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80202 Colorado Me path X:1Canmissontayouts'nal astncts BW1Senate Metro Arse Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_didstateleg.html Senate- 2 Senate District 1 _ _ '://///7 /a✓L :1' Y .�•' v✓V i N 1/t• u N N ✓12 , lV V 'tMN / ✓i/' 'Y N.M.VLVL'+/N N, ▪./%' 5W/./�'✓✓✓LV.2 h'eM.'WYt VN, 'Nl 2 ✓e'✓,?i ZI%t 1CV VXMN itlA[!M✓e✓/tiy/t. tVt.h21N� . rt N� rtR/•2✓N.R r1YN 'Nh'wV N.VVV4A N/• ri ©9 .,•✓t M,2VN✓L 2 'f/1 L 22 �yVpy�Y{itipp T � �t 22^r 'N.Ry✓:/y.M.MA"N/t 2 ,, r•-•-•r•,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,y-44 z,:,:-/✓t—,,,, JVN N 22/7✓✓+✓"N ✓✓e 1NRld �.�.✓ 2�i2 H, 2K 2 lF .""�? NVY` tYN Wl✓ M 2 y�✓V/•N M /WN/tRi.KV.1 K▪Mrt N.1/h r� i N✓ ./e^^r'L2YVenti 'WVLYU:/✓L 1 i 2 AW✓t L' u tNW WL I.,�/ � L./c21 M1 W,W 222 ✓L h'LL�L -✓'./y'iY tMYi R/W K✓✓'✓c✓t1/. /A ' /i 4/' .R V /ch Lt 2 V /1/✓'. Vt 2• L NY' v2VV S,4 bN✓ 1/v2 ✓^rt 222 ▪ V /•, 4 ' /! a.N 22V L ✓L t r.Y✓L'L12R,V uM WAL '2,V VWOYu YVL Y"N,YV N i L V V1/' vbeyq ✓✓✓o ✓2R /tV✓4' 'VrVt 2.Y4W22K/'4/4 u V /e✓N t Wv .h/Lrt ✓N. Vt h Y lt" 2/✓4hM My�yp w 2 /WV xa ✓` K ✓' N5 v. ' ^^.55 '✓wl i✓viKl N✓Y: '/N W'✓v2 . Wt"V�u "vv"I '✓cA✓LLM,t ,' �2%V t 2N/t✓tn• NL .✓4,/VVW'A7 u • . " 1 '✓f 4, tan, ✓V44 ,41,4 N✓/''i22K� vVL ih n NVc N/2!,k 'anV7 Y✓/ M,^w ✓W 22 an- /✓✓2,12 ✓, 1 M./Ve Mxn.M, R/t VL Nt.x2✓ 'N; YNiY v R t/,,,W,/u✓▪NA,/w AM / L 2/ v2, '▪Vt'w LpG3 w .R.Vw✓N x ✓c2 LO Rhgralle V /✓N/' MI1tlL n/N2 i �WLLy✓' V✓IE ✓L✓c K K/L A'✓c avi '✓nYLM✓.A✓tnA N/V, L/✓LVZ, V N. : • 'y Kn/i ✓t Vr✓R2 V'✓ Lt. i✓4.W...nth NtNVLN' V: V Y O {/ 2 ▪ NVt N/N,NRN✓t MNN✓✓W K V N,1, N MA tnLYV✓t L l ,V Ann Vv 2. 'NNt A' LYt/L L K✓' V✓'' ✓Z 2L22t l'VVt.,aan.c Y,Y ▪ Y„7/AVL LI..t L - /w+'2/4 44Rn/✓+n.2 Vt 24",n2✓:/w +N✓t241N42 '4 ',i/7/4 .' ✓xn✓x't4/7 2La,N/cn.2^✓Vt7..21..W 7,4 1.,4yy2VN^A21Nt2N v' "Vtu'2 27 �: hoe. .tVin.'✓LL"N.'NNtv2t'42R,An..."✓tY7MaNWY"t/VvWtn, / ✓4/'Wi. al, ww'W✓W4MANVw"✓WWu2Ytnrtt WNNw"W""✓W✓NINNK 2.2 Nt22L'✓N/c'✓e'W!/LRn,Y✓L a'Wxh'K'NNi4 44,44 t'N,YMa4 V. WLYt�LVWNA KN Mh'NAn ,✓Vy.VV., WN,,,,, / v 2h%✓Lu v`Vniw u 4/ i,tnn`:v,/. /�Lyl', V'^iv,. ./aa/A' ,4't'VV,2W✓i24,144"s✓✓'✓/Vv ^✓•,M/VL^MV✓t/✓VbtanaV 2:mNWvVV VV�iAp/,�:p✓yyy'zyy//L✓L ,V M L✓e ' �t ✓ M'w'W'Vt/Vw2MN .• 1/4N+Vann WYFOW4'.'Le 44 /,�q,V fNtAl1D00,x^.-WtMM/W.2Y ✓4,2✓N.^K^NN442''4, n 'Vtt/ -7224,2, 4' 'h .,V VN:N.'N/W)n/N,VNm2t /2447,2+A/✓VwVLLi2NNV4✓:n:^t/✓N/N,ti ✓b.7'9NWW'WVW✓VVVN.: "Vt. 2WYtnNiMVLu2ctM/✓Nn,'W..,,,. t, WMM/aMMM< ':. L•• t YW.N VVLV✓LVLVc0.'✓wK/✓t,YLV .:]u1/\. n�2N4^.A2ANiL2V2Yt2V✓tNeMM2a. MA F',./I, ^ I 2t 4[y4.]ya'.r, N✓I,iNVVVYi'K VK2t/tMM/VVc ✓WVN�.M,.•N✓t YVYN/L /r 2VMt r'42N✓VVYVV✓ WW u2iNVVLN'4NN:-27/7 ,tin,. u22N✓t!✓✓Nh MM2M/t .✓✓'ANNA yYV Y✓t'u2'WWK282/4' Vt"A/,222'2/2' VLV✓wtNYVNn/Ni '.A W!M 2224222VVLY✓V✓r N..,V2Vx^./V✓u M1nuM,'✓NA2n/✓w2,L%+, ^u'✓vAMn✓in MVrt-RK/WYN,MAN/t• ^ ^✓t'V i�m/L^✓7/2MYCM 2,✓ N VVVK2n^,Wtn,/4,1/ /Y ,./VCWA,NV 4 24, 2LYe 2V • ✓MV✓/u✓wVi'NNan'Y✓N✓,nNLYt/N.,l2W✓14WV.4' 2✓VN/N, nNNiW CW/rte,.. i22 i /„ff • wKf '44.14,1.2,A4/1,V,Ytt✓W z22,W,2t 444! �C l,W. •% n''WVY'7,4/2"', '/MAAAn✓Yrt2w'wve'LYWuin' ✓e'Kn✓V✓W�� I 'V✓42/4 I.q el�. /2,1/442 W ✓un 8/N2'N,21'VVW.. - n /✓N/vYi'N,Vt' ✓fNe'u K/'✓ {/I I •.a. .,V✓'W222LR .iV'an.2VV4 V VNN,'bav N/✓Y V , '✓42tAh 22YW^✓:VvVta , .,. 2N/VNnn 22'VV 2iM.rt ✓Vu2nhVN • 2N.A ✓[2 2VLVY L `� �^: Y Lf. 10 R�t., y WK2 N Zvi :.✓iryh^,41/2/(. u x • 'YLt 2V.tI 2 VVYWV✓inhN/L RNAN✓N, VIitiV u"W 1^wN,wVIA,A4NA:YL2rt✓. N/✓✓K2VNzviiv 212✓VM4222Ve.444nAN2 NN..V A"7.4,7 `qW/�✓ 'tA.2n,4/per/,24. Vv,,ven 2/bt'.ilzt2gi2 �bLVitl,.,1 vrv84Jl,L /4 2,4 i7,21lst/✓2 N /fin .. vVVYth R/w /4An4WVV✓✓Vi/i2aVC,VVV tzv✓✓ 22VWWVVZWY.a'4 VW,LW;,+M, w2✓,4✓W z2ANc",2,v✓✓t^i✓wW42z2iNt2✓in2n�.2�'w ,N/VWiN'WNN✓L YCYWNM� yLw✓M2Vr/' t'n' t/N/4Y �✓✓42'NnN '.,'.•.':'. 'WraVen✓`+w✓LWN.r/c. y▪Vcyy2nn Vtr'CMn UN• w W'Nr'N.^✓W ,•, �, yy� nyyyN.W.A 2vmW2 W NN,Mm/N.Mil..WA ✓V.2.14 tMYc%MM.▪ N✓N/42✓4^.2 W,24444"✓✓e/WYVY✓WV tM,2VWWW,MNY'u rillit ^uYv 2/L'^MNVc./42Y4h N,V42c2Wt2 / 12,1/12aflA▪A.n:2w..14. VW,.2VVi / 2LVu V tNM n.2t M/VYLVy.tVW4Y.2L.aK/L vz/ W2 uVNr"WV 2NLLV4-:41 hLY✓cYW22,L2 MV.VLR/aM2 NiNAn2 uLY V,K/u✓1/t^✓t2,t'YW,. v✓LtN✓✓w'NNww Riwi^ntutol. VI.2VN2t R.w AK,WM2L'VwYy2^✓L'✓VLV '� / �•1 / NNnArz22A22YV/ NN_ 2cM1rtN.M•W✓t'N.'LVNi RLN t4/1.1.2V14.1.21.444,1.4/41/4^.4.1.4.4, / // / !!! / / 7 Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommissionLLayouts\Finai Districts BWISD 7 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html Senate- 3 C O ":.r "„,)�:. ;`Sa ',S., "�r?cal ?„ .,a„,""�:), a..,,`-a`;.�:,,1,�,"S'""'..;..ra \ E t , •,,,,, "-KK.A:"r.,--, a""," -.-4a;SS? \ O1 aa S;,:;a.+ ''SS�:. $,: ,aA,rS n '.r�S� „r \ N S.". �, ' S ,. e.: $;" SS . ra„ _,:;„ "N- `:SS \ O co 7.,';-2 '7',':..-/2:7,, :,s',:.:,,a.S *.S � "niS ",.„..,, s�":1i'S-S`'S Cry \ y{ S S}' ,sS "tf<` 'e'' �" Y C;:r;rr'a4ii:',.:s:S:,SS:� tx4;t Ii N O m ;c)," to ss ,z-z.S- ,: ..NS „ Ns SS..S"', S'�a: .., a' N:1S a °�111 O UO v.0.t0 C t .. .�'_r ,S. S +aS`CS"car^"2 ,+�'S re";.SSS" t,2 r" S 4'`+S %Ss SS?CS'SS'':,%er,37k ;Z' ,:.; 4: Me:,Z.1" \ $"$5'}$ .W4t .._s'S_'' N"' SaS N S.�� .,.",.gar \_ >. "r� = S,aSSSSrC .4"S'% S+c''ei `.. `f•ar?;ft' W,% SSS:?KSr ,'t Np , r5aS,. S, S,;;Y4S sN. S aSNKN $,S, c $,. N'„Pof a' c�+$K " ","Caa , q,," aS .+ Sa S CNsi r \ r t ac N"t. Na L S �, as SS NCy CD wv a \ \ ' ' fists t \\. N CI S. \ \ C \\\ Oas a e o = t Senate-4 Senate District 3 777/7/7/// , - tt✓a2. /Ci2NYa L.%�M1"/'-"'✓a rf 4 , ,; . : , , �; , • ,�� ,, , -' - ',: :;;• .;;; :�;�; / ,.,•viii •;.;; :�`;';;% Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80202 file path X ICommtssionLLayoutstFtnal Dtstncts BIMSD 3 Phone(303)866-6466 www state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg html Senate- 5 � aS�S �c�c5' aaa aaaS' aa .,,-,.. ,• ,%,-.5, r ?'Z�ar�Nr$ W o a 2 DNS c�� > 2a Ya� NfS`{�{ y E a2 S�� a � S 2 Sg � r ` N � r� 2 E r aY�aS ?� A2"-'c-,4'2,,e- aa$ p ay a aYaZaYs ru SaS a S c c d r � � SsaY a�Sias s aSt aacr { a O ., pgp�' tt;• pp U m 2a).h 9 • C? � Pa �c'1C TV \ n sY cr s1 3 \\� O �aS 5% ,•:,•*,, ILd th p '" � ( f P rY yt m 3� as O a�g+ `S$5 Ya <? , cc O U? a Y z a` C 7 � A s2 SN aid C N (� SAd ,a ??p S rSp S aaCr t0 d 1 S 2 • ea�D = v co E C O ro U1 sP-O 4. � � IV mco mN. vi Co t �C$C CCN ae SC ddd �C[ctp C T o 1ft,aa S5? ` gYN2aS SSA �T >. O.1 E. ass" � S � � "� N , N v si # S $ Y coo X;1 1a. aS'SC $� a�'2 `St � `S$ C Y 7 a a a3� r�`a s jSjF � s�S+?�: = O li Senate- 6 Senate District 5 SPY W',/v>iLN.^vM1'rtli..itn-VLVN/�^i:/�.ah"n.'h h^✓e^✓iZnR:tniyi^h 'JVVNivL✓V{tn� .('Yta �'t I -�' .,,., -' .1' 0 . ,, N - • i RNc12,,,,,i,1-7,;„,,,,,,,,O„L„=,-v,- ✓VitNe/� .Vt 1 L'W ./✓v .h-A,..✓,..„ -V • shim. N."vt✓vWNNVtM/✓V✓'R VYN,N✓N2L7,-.Z Nv�04' Al" t,2, /N try LY4l,yarytn.VV. 'tnivV✓vL'Nr Vv y2'LiM ry2 N2V -'N.t IA '✓r>,A&'2. ♦ ^r -'N- ✓✓V,,Nti,17 , :RNi2YVt N Vt-AVLYAZt,r,tWlNVLtNt. w,..„,.. M VIAAI' LW VL 2M/42L u2YVVVe VVVYMA-Vt,v.NYY. / p Vt Yt •- l'VN.YCY^MMRAV.. 4tlAl' L✓2Nt'N/4M.M/./�VtM. NN/` RMMNY RMtNt WLV/�Vc✓i NN n/Vt V✓VI✓N/42tNn,VL2Vu ✓'✓-' ' Yhv✓t/YWM1 'vtN2n 'PP2LY✓'✓WtA'An ✓Nnn.tc4M,_-a LV VtA V'WN Y✓V R 'VN V✓ lR V LVLVN✓t✓✓VL'WVv NV✓Y_ /4'V"WY t'vV✓2i2/L,t tIt - Y /WN/'44-Vol it/eftWn:A4C,,IliVtr Ab4 /4 Z 'tt'V.h/LM ot ✓,.'✓Wi✓etn li✓t V✓./ N/N/.M✓Wi.. / V 9111aV b • / ' DeIta1 ' Corr + 3P118r LfS7�” a Crests Butte Buesta 0 • Gunnison Chaffee ._ - .,;;,,;.;:: Basal' / 14Corthese a o4 05 Sagaeche 88D M1 t ',� Lae,City 0 � Saguache Hinsdale creedev... j 05 r Liolores • — - Mineral e „;z.... .. "` Monte VIMAlamosa Rio Grande Aljosa 0 tats Costilla • 0 • Cone os • Saniuis ,. Antinito Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway, Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:lCommasioniLayoutstFinal Districts BIMSD 5 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_d it/stateleg.html Senate-7 i • t d ink v �, 4 .N • i y E r a 0 E m • U in m an d v `' V C C N Di coco O N O cp fn O on'oci � o ♦ �m0 rje O r •• ��Oc, O o o V v al Nm N N m ° 0 3333 U� °d3 TI a m V i ca N :,t, m C U y CTr c CO elcci ii 0all . r Q tl. ' a R /-:', 1@:'''-':''':''':',,''';::,: P91:::•;m5.-:::-': '-'1%:';',' :-.,,5;/;cO,::::::: ::,l''':-:a::::::ii,::',::•; ;;:::;::::::s::sti:::k,i,,,4Q::.?,: :;g:; : , N w c, Y co h O E N iN P. O E O N o U N X £ 2 a_ m n LL Senate- 8 't-o m ..":0 %,1t , O .:..'$�S 2 C m ▪ S:Sa Y O E r $�.,�,:,n c; = N E 0 d C U m I1= C N 7) I < r ar$"•a>tt t O N fc0 mA aao O• ,,•,;C:a N N m m O 2; ter'$:re+ moo N GS • ...,›,,,,-,,,s 1 O . . O oO C cc l O O N L st rsssrsss a I v oa ie s<'“-` tts""a 0 FS' 0 O D = fF 3ss� sss»p a> S'S er z 'O, Y lb *164 U .is p0,, .._ ?s .. : . . . S e dr CO res s ,, 0 S1?(isa$ aa' rr 40 N Cr2s.+r`� c S `S'S ,. /L\ $rYSC..-eS r+ r ? ,YC_� s rz rfr� Sc , ;4'',W,-.. a Sr r,';5S� CpN 2rS§ Wsrs N ,,SS sr Z-$ t$ e,,,o, n r,?4',. $., O CO ;.Srr:'$5$'$5a " ,.,(2. $5a., S,S,,,,,,Sec2 1.2) S: Sst:S;.S3 y rt,';s"�S$ $ c a . O N y O O N o U GIs k 2 ti a o N 01 Senate- 9 C m pia C T • U do " m 3 O ttte rt s'cN$s $ S2 � S2, C = 9 c d cc Et d N Sa •r Ce aS R O= 1- > Esser s� s$s `srs '�s a (� - "� :g w o m SS ?� S$ ' }!NSA' $ $' 1?�S$ O @ To S $$�eY�}2 aSrN?'S�SS?SC$$t ee22S2ae SS N C cc')3 X0..0 c $r2 $ ei =$2r z ea Se22X?e2 �`CYCz`�>Cc FSe ' G a m o a C 2 a tt CS SS' 1'-C S $,> S-. S N O O M '-' , cSN CC' t 2 O/ ? Ca .O N CS: a S r �? Sc 2 2crS2Sc c Ce m m N m SSSa < z$ r cS >Y Sr�SN < ScirgS S' o c c o 1J 'S" raSz U D IM cSr $" F�Sc�' cSc $rcc ,t0 r ; ,$CS.r " Y $ C$ , � NSCSC'" � Sr Sa•}' S? 2S S? acSY.yS^ �j2t� $5Y �e �Z r} �2>� GI e— S N5NS S SeS sc. N2 2$ c�'? cC a}'CSr�'$ 2 t S }c��,?S}P �� SSSSr r� r °"�S"'SS Y SS?" �? F S �>Sg$$r >>aySCC?N N $'r � re 1C$ %F SSS S2�'e 2 } C 2SS> S2C r �22S $i 2 $�Sr�2 $� $5$??> C�Sa? .",NZ. CNSS��.NS'S c' ttSS2� Yi$2 e $c�'C tSe� $ 2S`� YSCSi �c S2'$�. u 2 2 SS e S? N -� $ r ,-Ss$ 2"$ S r aa5 t�$ k, r 2y2 ? SS' Y. aC c �. $Y SC$'� r Y r?S2SF'? $$ 2e eCNC �p < N�'s C YNF 7}S Y 5" 5S$ �Se$" cSS}SSF rYS}'rS �> $Z �SS' C$5r. 1; C ?SSrS iS �"">F" S" r }? r S 2.NScS:t S2 2� S } � Sr$� S1? $ SeF ig$ '2? rS2? ZS jrcS $ S $ sE �C�$t Y S $ ? S `c+" �> F $' c.t , S�S>C rc�s ?S ?Ca2� SSsi '`S> S SYC $. �$i 2"+... S r$� e$ '''? a S'ee A ye S� s CrCr F2S'N�s�` r ei22cc cc 22 r, r c 2 2 $" F2 It t "s " Ft FF' e NNgs2s ' 2 � �s�s� �� $s 2g� r � ��c � 2 r�F � �s2" s�� r r t t d � $ }. Op $ SSS F2 $$l3�C$$'p Se $ ' z rc ? r. 2S2 222 S ? ScC 2 SS S.c cS e }1 S��' �F�C �FSy }'? �S �?aS�SS � ? 2YS S�'cSS' ts cS�S S�S�� ° frufl $iP!JMfl$flflIhiUq $ $ 2SS' 2 e S ;'d �a` ttk iIlimUli $ a,S $ears t�` <� V'•L l< i 3S$?QCCs ��$`ri$ s $s �2C� s I$$ e t $2 .S?s$,'" $ ? S ?`S .SCti $ #}' $' .ggs?the 2$e 2$I tr` Sf c� grf2I`� ? 22cC jc2 `S ` r c�$?S 2 cS`Fir r: 2 $ S�S C2&l$� 2S r 2 PiT1PII!PPLN1HPVUNaJ S• zSY `S eq$1 p _ #s � s 2 ; s'. 2$1SN,> # Fa �€ $# N $ s ^ .e� S s $ S $ $>$ s ' $ 2 ra S.?•I $ $S r $ rgs" YSe r �' �� A2 5N c ;. S SSsc S ? $ pt s�$z 's $ s$ e # rye $� �"$ r $ $ eess�$ > ' 2 $" so $ Y � �' $ � i #; � Nei $ �r� $e , $ es s ` $ re 1 , 5.,% ss g " = 0;,4s ` 2s t (6s33F g #� s� . Ss � s 2 Y cS �2r�Sa,�3 $�s $$ ?� s $ s,2 rq$ F$�� F 2�$ ��S �e ��$r$e �$ aSF�ersec; .� sc)$ F$�+ $ s $ k s� , S�2> SS j2S'$,, s" S$52 e' t r Aa 4iI. r+ $S 1552 Asa-r �C�S�S$ 2c�2}�NF Z I"a S.• ,S S $=?`' SS dC SF' 2rS' e '2S'2?CS2eS(cC $2S$2%2 $5> $ ass'F��ess �c c rSC SS 's ,�SS S $ ,S 2 2.• }'..">,2,CC S "S " 2 S 2aSSr ? F,$jj2?? Sr,,Fr. re ,S'S C $$$}$}23 "$ $ r ? S ?$ cC2^ �.r S;^$ CcS $ S r." r ci) S ? eSS??� N 2 > F' �� (}� J'�s'f$C ' S Y$ eS $z"� cCeSSe2S' jcsY$ a$ Y$2$F$e$ $5e 2� C2 4 ,, t $y'C $ 2cW CN 2e 2 "p CS2 2 ,$5 C S.., rC$ Nc $ N" Se`<: ASS ." tS ? ?c}2"$ -$",��' S S�$ " S�r2r' S r�^' r. } F <�rc�?`'�t S` 2S cS� S ct,4,1 $� ,1 s2 begs SF2? F� sr Sa' r 2 2 ' r r2"'" • ,, S' l $ c $ 2 Z`S 7 2 t " 22 'S2 F' �'$ S2a YS}2S�'a S, Sg cY}cc� S,' $'FSr r r, r j ? Sc�? 22, SSS� �e 2 Y" S,S$N S$eYCC2 � rYS��$ S`'•2$5 ItiS.`; 2'�S S�2'2"$$e'er S`� �,SS >>$t2r $ $ 2?' ? b F 'a �r'N c 2S; a 2. ? rcS a"S S $ F"s 5$ $2 2 ��t $5��$ S SC$?�cS�cC e2s?S� 2r � S }222_ c SS}�S�" > SAcc2C Sys S 1I\ ��]a$` F�S� S{"S� ($ MY' 2$j2 SSS S��Y}�"2$r2F�,$12$ S �y�{� cs$ 2 aS <S2 r�` ?2S {a e S2 A C{C2cSt>? ? r l p2F d, it i l cS'? p �r $ SY �\ SS,S,"$ $s$ S � 2' ?r S FS SeS'' $ S' rrS S S S yS cS psr05 SN S� a '' S"i a}"$2 F SS j ' Nr cS =�S q4 �2 '? r ?20 S SS2 " so o r SAS $C 4,g 04 b a $ e3 $$5 s$s i$2 S S s $ 2( e" 4 $ "Iii te2. A hr S"?" eS. $ 2 �,y>�}�S"� P a 2S $ S eS $ 2�� rg$ d$ 2 S2c�� cS2S a�S tS? SrS cca ?? 2 $$ s�F' $ � iF s's r$�2S 2ts , FFcSSF' a? C rSF,S2C 2seFIM c 22 3$ 2233 �.�i r�s2y $2 .e ` $ SsS s sS $ " $ sN" s$" 2 3s$ ��2 $ sS W!IHWdI # $e ,$ #"32 s , z � 2 r 2S �_ �� $ co $ Cra? l? s$ S." �y > lS " $l e $> S s " Fa c 'c" r SYFS S, SSaVSrc5 >S' SrS 4' F $ ass stFF a $5$5 '$ $ ss2 #s3$ $SSSsgrS°?SseS2 � 2$ .' r $ 2r $O 0 $ yr}2 r $.52 2 2eN Cki C�2 i2" }rgS � �2r$ S $aFrSS $ cca sC t$ S s iSC.�>2CS+$cS�$��2F}�S`S��1�� ?�Sy��cSSS��$ c dSF`c � S'� �S$ � � S S">S$"r2 ?$5 F�s F2, ��F�F � `'r$$ 2 ' $ es reeiC F $ c ^'s$r. e t�s,S1r 'S�t S(? $ hk Fe $}' "��'s,,"$Y * r �$ Sc ?'0 m W;1 S `C $ }P^'+ 2+ 2 c�2 Nc '�> C'2^'dr 2 S �`2` 2 cCC r $ ir, r, $ 2 �$cC � $ S }" r$r rN . $ S "c S " S C S S $' c F r }YSS, dark S" , 2rS } cF s5 2` SNrF?S g "SS$5 `$tt� � ' ��'> $js �S y' 3e a�"SS2$>2Ssc?S a � s 33`"�Z'? $F�"' sz ,r_ � siS �$+`s�s`^ S e ec 2?� 2Y 22? $ ? " "e `� ? " $` 2r rS' 22$ ?$" $$5`SCC $ 2e2 ?$ YSc $: O ca $a$ s Yc $�YSYC s 5 sY $ #s " "3 F #sp r ' �2> �22$ 2e < ss - r } $y$3 ee 2 Sa$ r �,2F , $ rF S rYSS�SS++ 2 $ YS? -"$ sSS�Sa`r'�Sr $S 'm 2cC�$NS � `'$ S ?' ``'2 `CSSNF e$$5NS Z r3s SF'" S ZSr c f i`er, rd}S�'$25 � '$ 2SS2�?c`' '' rSe2 �2 c "$ 2e" $ 3s rzS2F $F $" 2Fr$ FF $ 2Feg "F2 ;$$ a$ 2$5 .g : . r kSSe5 5S N$1 2 Sys $ F F 1 $ 2 $ �$. �s 'e er $ Y a p $# r se t$ � e ��>e1,' S rCs$F '2,? ` s$ cC r? $ S' S r SS� rcce $ "r ..S' o r e" r33 2 r ? S$ 2 r $ "$ 2?$SSeS�e�s3e $2 S $$ zIle2 $ 2y3rS3 3s3es�y$3 S3 S s �S fz ? w 3S ?S�}FSS $ S'2?SS$ ar S S ys S $ S S y$> sy � S 2 3 s C}gg sC S�ySg $$ $ O C 2?� c tc4RA e'>,.d4 2 Yi 2 2 � Si�2? 2$ • 2? .f2�22sF2 e?r<'2 2 `r 2 � si 22 Y, 2 si 2 N E U m X 5 a c LL Senate- 10 C O LI OhilVERRMOHAWKRD HERRINOD, • I , 11111 \.' � ... �`'S$ »zS,SSSS',SSraS:.?S. S,a"rt -.r^ - , a'ar,a, aY,}„S, S.," c 2.', S C SSS , r..}SrSa SCj c,$>Scd ". s„Sc... }aSS cS 2Sa S« > .. S S?S"?'S.. }`•"" a ',.is:I. S" ,SSS S ,a.a�',i$ie'a.-tc.,,a .+,} «..rr«a .a-"'�HSxv SC-aa'�: ".SSS.: .;', 'S,,,S44.„"nSSS�Sa"S.SS�SS:4.',�;$ S<<,Ssa::�or"S$5Sr. .>-' „ .a-2a•x"2 ca.aa..tC}ar«"a ".,`,,(, ,.,"acr""?,.2r a aS S`S, a $•=`C c� ?�".1 S,=,.". "' ..C. Ja«a, : c CS".rr«.n O cS," S"SSSa a r"""" SS«:"rZ%.:S','..,„.Sa "r"SS�.,," "?.;> o ;,r S;r",.SS,.SSS.'.:S>:��..-rS.',S,:YS :.:aSS;, ..iS�i� =S.c'+;:S :a:::S.., U .".",:S;."•:S"�aSSSa„;;= ".s"SYS r:SS' Ti . Sa a="."s"..".,N .,.,C.S+ ; te. S . -,,,aSS' ' $ a;.;S, ;. O , c,.,,a - .S�,,.}"""`-t"aS,',=",..",.-2_'S'"S;S.:' To O ,. ,S.SiSaSwS:,S".".,«.,, r.dan SSSSS«-r - r r,SS:; �r"..S",«aS .a-= • ««"S. «�«}�a$'S� p,.r>a'oc S>S 2,.c ""tees".a" ,. ":"%tir- -" % a '"-a..a"d?r+ ' S SaS"-Se S.>t e Sea«. S$ aa,,S "i,",, , SSS"S,,,"«eS., "a"a } 2 t•aa" , S � ��rS t aaS• 2r2SrS?^", m ,;. % SaS+,S-SS•—,4 c,S t"r=,SS S$rSSS."aS'S..SS? r " ":""asst" 2 -.,,S�;-_""«,2Sa"Sa„r a'si',a}�a;SSSSS'S " , o_ " ;,;;• - S@S Sa2S a%S' rr"r 'C '''' r Sar.,4/5 e ?t7.' ,4;,'S SjSSSC.,;:,",-,"• O - St.:' '2 $ - 5,,,,t' ,$" $ Z`.aa"aaae t" a,.a,"`" $' gS,aSSa ,e, ,.,<., ,'2 aa," r 'a bx,4^'"a>a�+aS" S«aae, e" aaS S ,SSSr a"$, -"2 er "SlS ,SN...sa taa22 "r}ca S'„a' N o a " " $ Sae rS ,S " 'dS ..S"'' tS "aaa....a. ,$5t-"2"� r SSt� 2 2"aet"Sts $5we�"c,S?`"ta$55",S." ,..- " cS$$ 'a"S$" e-SS"a."r S", "a�•«"a" c a arS";.SS "aSSS> $'."$-«s: 9 �-S' , «`ra sr? a%"=S..i..SaS«-pC a St`a,a�? f0 X S;aaaS"r�S"eSs"aSS.SSSSS'$rS:°,":,;'SS`. 'Z" ?" " ',"SS" � 7 c ??'s;;;-"tS,$^„t'� , r'c''; ,-_r,.a,}«.-S.2'" "r"t;-",>::' N .r", ra-t-•••= " eSS�-e.r.',N••",�•l'r 2:"".. S> •2 qq r« c'�'" �c"""2mac'-?SrC"c" ..S"-,"+..?Ne N E - -tJSrS«"aS`$." "S"sSeSSaS�SS;,Sa «S"a"-SSs. rS«:aza","a."•-,"�a".."a Li-S � Senate - 11 c? aCa A,,,,,, „,„;,7,-,;.;.,,-;g$41104,,%2(4'4$,%.';', Sri t $$Na ra 'S2r?Na �S ,\J�S'a d2�a$PdNa?ia aera �`N$t�2a? � �:Zaa22s,c$'r S' z� �I \ C aS >� <{'N' S'?� r$� e Say $a 'r sa r2 ac $ a lac a rctaa ` a a ar 2a o ra c 2 e a� c2,rc r".' :*..e".''r e a r�rra ar a r aa $ r $ $ ai a e $ ;4 r a S s e`A ays r Nr$ r a a as ass 2t,"0"). �s aar a pa Sac$%5 N$ su s sss,4$ s Feat a 5 ?� S'S e a .� r SSaN Z JS a, ,-.' a $5 L t as , 2 $� a S t d r4 S Jaa t S 2 a tS 2 aa` S oc ee >\ E 2 P Na Ac a' ar$55-,=$t',5 ,, rasa i .?e , t5 Ze 2 P t SS$r $ e 2 ° S ?e acet� $ < rat C �? ct r Na$ c N 2S E N ra S ?aN S Ar2 e� �+. a r.:':,,, r .rCa ° aSa a O :4•'''s'",';'' '-: t.. c a Sa > cS ♦ ) 2 i ra t 1 S a$ a a� .co $ ` r a ra $ r a a i SS r ,$a 2 , �� J 'a Sa� U ,' a2a } a .S 'S C ? S a ,' raa “--1,, ,-.',t.., a S :0 ? a ? 2?fir � a �J cS � aS� "fir a S�2r) ra ..cta r< r N r. a Z �2za�+ ', c e>a? N,a $ ? rN'N a •c 2 a rSNct gt2Caa S' Crac'S r\ ? ,) Z ;Itii lEt J p .is C >.24 U > $ po -Fa t4 0. al CO - iiW 01 al c as a 17 Cf) 55 za ?�2? a r$ as $ S " C 1 \ '� � a<3$as `sS 15.$ss'SN � $ s o r g � 2p 2 $ ?c��aar "a,cS S Tic C� 2 `�$ $ a2 ',$r $$a aa� $;12 ? Sad o . .:Z r <s s.sees a44srC as r .t5$ sa KQEy,� �\`• �rw�— ,... yS•� $ A$2sa��e 2'S'$a?pd ?Sa rS� i $gc'c a�?� iS'rd$ y'r2 �s aaN� c S'pSC ay�a s,2 a sqg� $$ � $ $sazs2�� Nr o \\ a$ aA ? S$$2 SdS', � 2�eS Nct a� 2�� a. • w. C$$ 2$ $ 54,52$ C`' $? $ � c+ ,; , 5 S=> (gg a` S }� S TI5e1 .$ aN s5?Sad Ys � �` r..S $� $ S a r S >g3 a ° e� e�a �� a sc�$ tJS?a $ra .:e o co Y,, e irk! !j' o'pr t Senate- 12 % ;LS., sS222 $ = a S $\ O_ rS a aSrga ?$$ c a N • 8 A at 'a Eth c d i e'"5;:a it ', ; O �. CV ; r 2"a S' C N ik.\\ , rJ j, c "ste r2AN ��r 2S c N c0�, 6 W' I•; ac t "S a S \ : .: ' O OO m $ C 30g m y aCS Sr r rS., N 0 m 4 c Na S Ca$aec $ 'OO m U a!0 a$rc 2 $;t c t 28 O > C N s 3taa", 2. UCDDa N CIRCL ' �y c$ S L n .. ', n Sac S Y se m ? a ONION BLVFI ee 6 A ec ''�i , "CS S •,,,,,7,;', ...:::Al ;2 rga $r S r r" c 2�aS , aS'c S�a a Z c SS. rr ar Srz � . , ?c :, 4 ..g: -.'<a? as 2',2,r r t v� > 'CT ;'; arP K J? S S Sr-;r cc, n c 2 �� S " as {�. $ rtS Sdr atr� 2 eS�C � : .�� ra $5a) c't�0 r S. ,SNr C 2 $e 2 SSp S )r rr Nra S S2 ap',, .� $ $ a ? aCS a$ rS S �2 at" Ad � c a e, • " .9 ct,c at 2 a$a �$ " acs * r" StSSS / ,AS‘. a $55 S at ra as " S r a r cc r ,, WS a a aa'a t.. a, a a a a .S a a " Z $ ',M z$�C'S`'2 ' `1.` Rai cC�t? $gzi�S taa ,e $ c t a S C$c 2 ' '4 '.091.45 ;;;',.,W z 2' 2 c r a t a2c C' r� c� Si SC $ c `.+ SN S '4 91. r3aaC ;r"S2 �aac r • $ e�a$r $rs $ Za S S $ t e a"�"Z .2 $rS C ,1Sr2a$S$a S 2'+. S S� Ss $ S S2$ 2SN.ra S $:,=,,a C ° eS , "0/�� A.5 '2 cS $ aaS a?aa.x C ifSp a e e.. -z- - is $ 2 Fr t 2 2 z t 2 r a�' ar�a eSS�S.SSSC cS c` �}� aat a r 2 $$aSa S a ar 2 $ 2s S as raSScCS to S� e .a cS ., a�((0,E2.a $ St S e a SC'" ,i4W ;�S� o rC SSS ata >ee t ? 'S$i•a " $ ,if a"S rS S a S$r a $" rr r 2 r a rr .S$$N" a r 21A $?;$ C ?? 1S�SS cStS at $a - taa a N t e i 2 r S 22 $ rt S as aSS S $' Sa $ Al e22a r 22 S C�r 2 r trr �,�rCc NSS SCCrSt � r$'S'�r� era ar2c rraa r ar :Sr"$ //� ."+a.aN ?a a aY. , $ ac 22 ? �?NSaraN r -C SS 2 C S Sa r. V/J �$ a ' ..?=''''.”- r a r a r rr a ?r a a z " tr .er ar " a S, t o 2 S 2 r r "fie a a r S a a 22C2S �S C c� r 2 C rtr Scar S at C� $ aS S'SC � 2 rS., } rt SS e S ta � S $ a 5 $ 5 t ) > $ 22 r S r a S 2 $ ScS2S� j p `� aS r 0','". 5Y:4 a Na N 2 r $ $a r33 $' Nc e a a tCt Sra a ? c 't,''''-' at` C2ar� tr2 > g r a r S� r�S Sr? a tCr r�` , 2 r S"a Sag t a ) a$r t $ r�c 2 zS2 S� taS$rd o$$ aC "atta ", a ? .4. a ada2S2 2SS2 S5 $ . @ $Cr* a , Zart $ $ " �� i e $�, t $yt a a rat�s �'2�' z � g sa $ �2 ?cat r �raN�` C "SS $ ? a rSe r cC CC + r r .CS aC 2 S " " ar .+S} Sc S `rrSr SSrr r g a$5� ` $ as S" ard'a a�' �r '4 r SSS S Sa as ? a S $5e`ScaS$ SrSS t S"p "? S ' "? c $ Capt t-" t�S2 2c a $ 25 ct ar 2 a� r C+$ dac�S� c� � � Sr$ a� � a�I cCeay p S 335$ d�e$<arN Sa $�2 r rS �. p�a �$rr^; aS $ c.,.,',/:c ,,.. ,Sr a$' rS �.?$" ",ae Sa$ S - St t- aSCt4� " .- a $ " P p a spS' ac2a a aS 2 ah a oat ? r$c+ p"2 c>" $C a �a>a ;;u, $r crt _ a$5cCc c 4 S'cS S S' S?SaStS: . 2S""c� ';' C�z?`oq SS a s ��b Sa , } 2 r� 2 S ar Za c. '"rc'aa$ C A t o r;aA r<aa $r"aM, P a Sr?a 2 < ? tS er C. $ r $"F a 2$$ arS a r a$5a $ ec a r o 2$55$ ac r c .! r 2 it .4 N aSi S qtr a s " 2 c �a a $.a a ? Cac pct yr r'r Z $ `$e r , S � S aSe$S"� 'S$ttt " CRC aC r"r r;fl$ a $°t rSa°S�t o t?S aS�.. S2 a 2 2 $a Saa S t aS a r c$ $ rS >aa S ''' _z o $ S S2a.c 'Ct•' SSar '4 C.<S lrai rc c $ a S �cd tcct to 22'5 r 2dr.2 a a$r?�2 $ 2 rast a t $r 2 2 a as "r a a" , , ie 22,',41:=;,a`' r �`$r5 a 5'c� �Se"2" a� t$r,''s %,,, , ,,,,, ,2� S r"S a‘a a H , a $a$5'" Sa, 2 C 22$5" 4 C c SaN ata � a �S" rA te$r ? " rt$ S$ " r crc a rN $ar rS�.,/,,,,,,,,e` "$ $5ara a aaC' tS,&' t ° 2 S $., at a .a.a a1 aS a a$5 > atta S? ?2 t5a2 a to Spa a r a r 5 �2� �e�aSap" ,S2rc� rz�E2 $ $ �ra�SaaSaN� SaSys�'a as$ SrSSrS "zS'Se Pa Pa $5 $ $a {C2r 2 $ cd C aNSr a 2 S2$ 222 S a a $ to ?Sra c a c aS a SSa cS ay ar r rr5 r 2S+Sa2 2St� a� Pa Sr S St '3 $ S I. Sc`'$$j r� ",� 'aa"a} a S2 2 ? a "r Stra . ${St r Se O m � S$$t�y�$ ��ta $t as $" $ Sa C�� r ��}c a E i.,tt aa$ � �at a t t 2 $ �Cttc 2 `` "e a rc 2a 2$ara Z 2 $ ar Sgg a t -p N E $ r2 S2 ra S"a� $ S $ar C<?i�5 22 2 '$ a$ $ o tt,$rt S"t "C$a 'CaaS 2S ;0 t t $ " SS a $ " S' $5 t S$ U Cg $ �1 t 2 $ 2$ 22'SC? S" cC `'$+S" $� at SSS�?$ t$, $5are a a"r `. SrCcCSC" a?$ 2CCa as k r � S z $2 $�' �' aS � $� 5 r 2 2S ar r a�c 7 t 'r $ ra r t ale tr r $ i a�Se art c S 2 0n''''.,&:-7 ,g 'aS � CSSS a N $rS2r?SS r �Ctr r$ra �C qr'S ae A'ta e$r �S$5rr$a , S'rS2ac$CeS�c$_ c n r t. $ 2a $ Str a Cr r e ra a N z e $ rra r a aa.S S z a aar a to " a $ <,aiSa to "$ 2� 2 '� = $$5-saaa$$ar$$2$ $2,"r.aarpr $raa?$� t a $.rr"a�S ? 2'oa�r�sa.ad,Pa$.5ta. a LL Senate- 13 Senate District 12 E /s3s/ 'rte ,� za to ^� rido PO p H � , 1 1�✓ re EN a] 83 'VLShN. ' 85 M1✓metmA LLo .%WYNM✓L 'h2'✓WW y.�. v Y yg�• ✓✓✓b WNWWWVzoi N 1 • 19�., ✓�Yiav ✓wrtnN✓vv..�v✓u'vW 3' i ✓WNN/LM.2I` N✓EM NWVNM/N/e.Yt WL✓w RD .roYL+M•+/N.MYe VeNL'✓V'W1Jjf y5f�jvVY,L'W/+.wtnMyy,N✓LwcNfN.NNMY✓N1LE/:/YVN'✓W vVW'WWVWW. • YNWVN +Mh.4/✓wYY �( YN,w%'V:r w'.wir;;..vN,WwVv wwWvvWYK.'NM/W,,,,, ,•/✓'N/N,,a,„]M..y y$�I1i N2MMMhNL2t✓/1/3”1 LL2LNNANvi/Ww,N.Ni✓e 4/ ✓vYN2N/✓Nl✓Yan✓1/✓i2'✓vvLVWc^✓,1,1., h/✓vvw, NWeMNLYNI✓WNM/VWN/✓NM/WVCN/./�NWvtM.. N wVvvuLV.h✓Wiw„+w+h✓�vw.n.v2wwW^WVW - I�l vVYN.'LN/vvvYlMN.nMMrt^✓I.NWN/•/WtARM/iMnWy.vvve^ R/bN42/4'•/✓LtMNNhN✓t.'1M/o.N/N�22t%vLV`Ni:2^✓3Nt wi+.'`'�w'�`wv�ww�i�Wv`x/✓rau✓./.MzwYw'�'/.v✓�ny✓vww .Ntnna7Nn2 N✓✓!:2rm,vv LtiRN✓N'W».wvww WV✓r2h ✓t/v(/e.VwvWLnn�yyNyeNviNi2N✓2MvWtM.rt/vi.�yrh.vwt2t �minn" ✓w✓' +t n'h✓+'vn:vt�/✓`w'v/1/M4n`Mv m/WVro'w' ,,,✓'Mvt'/` 't ww NaM/✓W✓NiMYtRM/•/yw1 'i%VtNt WWNNNNvvW:2✓R/,n/NMNM/W:2VNNNh.VVNi....44 4/vz ✓1• 444:Vt WW": r NMMMI✓Www' 'NNL^✓v+2 ,41.I. �.^/V/tm!✓WN.1/iv✓V✓vc'WLWVW/I.'yW,,,t,..1 Mral'✓CNt,,,,,,..?„,,,,,,34/t4:1441MMM/LN ZY✓v✓vi/✓ynTh'yyt/tMM.vyrtRh2MWIZ/WW<4 ✓✓V✓N/W l ,Ne^✓v✓,,,,,N✓tA.1.VNANN/LNN.✓N✓•M'v✓N/N/e vvvvv.vNNVM. ✓NR/� ' V3.,r✓L'vt/L'NMNMR/N✓iNWveV4/444 I2WMNMhnLw r✓✓✓✓✓w+n/W wvwen.vv✓wv+.vw�w✓wWwWv✓v✓v✓✓.vWWv✓✓✓✓ ✓'N/vL!^+L'WW":".3✓W✓cn✓wwWW w"tr ,✓rM7.w✓tn.M1NWWw+MhR2 NM 2vLNNWIM/r2NL�M/✓✓VULN/ba/✓.MMrV✓iM/•M/N✓i.VMNN2 ✓✓LwWNVNN✓LV✓W✓tv4'N.M2N 'W Ann V vN v,n ,,„ 'N ',5:M2 vN/t NV✓v✓N.✓WW€44.:W M/vVL✓ywLt2aM W ✓,1 /vWN iM.WWrM/•M/vN.'✓V✓t„Ann w ✓c .NRh/✓f , .. vW✓✓L aww'�W/�✓v,�.n.✓w✓•/✓.w.w+wvvtiwWi✓..v✓v✓w uM.M.v✓W✓/✓v✓✓ W VVIWVV 'tMN✓V✓ina:Tr INNL l2YVVN/✓M. Vc'✓oNW j ✓fA/lMM/u'vG2/WNNLM.wwRh Wvl2 rt/+M/N/tY LL2 />N✓•/ Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver, CO 80202 file path XICommissiontLayoutslFinal Districts CDIo]ISD 12 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_d 10ov_dir/stateleg.html Senate - 14 rSac'aC a r SraF ?<<Sar�? ?SNC` SS` (-7.-'' c �, SSF ca ?� )?2ai S?`ra$rS� ? $�,dsa �S c, r$dasC NF r ?$ , a 2 ?S cC ? $ cC r ay S a) pp�y2 2 , c $ r$ ' O ,a acS?S cr?aa 2C`SC.2 S Ca > Sc� d $ �2 Zr�r2?S? , S�' ?CC $a 4 �'�CCCN2r`S�?$5r2 ad? cSc ere-g .,c;; N SC2 r 2 C Cc Ne [ N C N r dd 2a S �S S•S S > .�} r S 2 r A SN a 2 N a, S N N2 C d $5pc+a$5pS'. N C' C2d'C S' )' d c-a ,T,' d r $,$(2- r as .r�yn-I aSg SCS2aN '3 L j'2c eNdC.,-, ,Pr�N`cl eSc�aSNS-'4? Z,Sse�� S `S,t ''' e�reSSS ` ,'P a�AC�crSSS'2' 2S� dct�r 2S� `sc4),Mk'''g R'7: E y : dr SaI cN,r:S !teas? s rCC?C? '-'''A'1. 4 ,',4 Cr°CCr r2d r S rc? r@@ cNa r a$ 2 N� ?a r� S a?CNS O aC2 S2» $ acC a aaar adal� ra Peat S Sc aNC > > rS SS N eaaT.� S r Sr, O-. 4 r `,) `1C4 2 rN r2 d 2N5 ` agar $ c,',4 a ads` S `' Sr2c $ dd" F� s$azc F'. S e2t U O m aC a aC� Ae d - r N \e'" ? 2.- 2�' d a a S a N rN 5,- C. aN S ,,N 2NC 2 � $ Ca '? rN 'N S NNeCS ', CS'aJS",aaar s c S,y $Sd S 0.,-,NO N �� NaSS N?ct 2 eS �r$5�aS S C ZCCaDe(��CedPr S�,�SCa SacSCrS ��r 2C`S cC eW � dC Cp$F eN�22 C C2arS�: (k),2 � ra aaS2Sa d rd (4 c N,S,C ,2 4' C$ 2 2 4 ad s $ a �2C22;19,,,•••, .•,,4„:.24,-s- S S a Ss ry ?? aS SS � a a,S �r'tr..SaS �2 d V 2a ddS .^y �2SS� a� d r �eS `C�2d r,2 N SSd rCr $Fa Sgr,;5 \aa *,,,,S rC,% � ",'.FNaCC ',.4 t sFeSNa ?a rc 2s F' e C}Ce `�a,?`S.r(aCC'��aCdaS$ C O N O O e3 �dO rs? , $k d �2 a ae raS � 4ec' -'2caa S y, >ca2C2 se2d2 a�>$ �ass a c,:.4• `A F, ai -az 3Sz $ S?,S S a dF z F$ r 44 $ 2e c a 2 C N dC ' m m O o 2 '' ' '< ' '.- - �*S CcS 2r e '' a c+ Naa$5 S 'a'.:-,s'' ''''“',,• a \�S S�` `f yc. ? C 2 r O .. e$ec`CC S'FS C's:jliW, aF,':h earc'r� 22CCr a. eS e'\NCa . 2 i cpCSS�4$ 4 F r,CC 2 S$ 2a i eSa..� 8'm0O ai >d 2c 2 as >a a 2 a �+ FCA C,Nd2 d �Ndd >� yaS a agSr ,,4m,,t. .,?.,..cC� a S ? . O O V�`-' C c C C a C2 dNa C ? a 2 C �'a �' N�+ etc.1 2C FF SAS , da, d -O N ;CA S CCc c�2SS $5d .;( 2S 4 .' 2�2 ,4 S`S s'$`%5 r SSa$a(N( 2SP$ r d 2a ? ?/-' 1 i'2$� aC ,?:V Ciro t`m m m N S 2 -CPS Sa 2C $5 .es ? 2SSaS Sr�Cd 2 d % > CO hm �aN 'Nar �Sd � "SCss� cSi s.'a2 2 22` �Sa$`c��2 S��a o� e c ar$aa3 1 �S 4pN s 5i2� ��a�W,4 sae 2� � O o a s�s 4 S 2SS Spk=r,S - st,e SSS'a ., :t `'S� S4 ! ii :Pk rS' ZC, ,i+, pS ddSFa a -',toppSC� � NSN^AC � @dS�a m/.--,:',-, -:::,:iir:2- i@@S rg p rS a .Sccrr��p2r��` '� ajSSi$,w };FCFcC $cCc S222S?i,p, . F2,-,,$&,,,, ,,,-:„0,4,/,,,,,..t. 4 S,S?CPs�Cd22� ,,,, .CNCY T��pya544c� :,4,a �a`t aFr S `'SCy?"aa2 a} 2 c a `�S CcS "ap$5552i Si�2 t: t',4, S2tCeS SFrFd ? Std S? S 2 a 2e S2S , r2 N a 2 a S re $' s2r ,z&.# g'ft14#) 2e ,,t ,.,,.;,4 ,41.5.$ F V ?it sic !. }. ? r)e S e d $ d a 4. '' dd 2dd d 2 Sa aaa 5t, c',+�2rr,? e C CO 2 22�dt �� 2N �� :\ e ?2c Zc rd > &a $ 4, 2 dd e@�d S2S?S S rrSS @2C c1'• �� F4'?. Sae aeS a 2 $ (C$ 2,-a $'tS@ sS S.aSa? 4,$'g' ,�a gey }I cS t 1 add N2s � ?�' 4 2 _ '5 N^' c�,t^? .? :.•: $2 C caCi 2csL4,H x.12 e..,'ia4S, 2C,),::Cg $ 2 2 , CS s;d _U S >rSNS S Ca SN es aNNSc'd� 2 $ A NS ..'`2 SC .2 dNNC2 cC2 c'cC2..2 C .:2,:: : r?2 $ aS W a c� a c t 9 yy .G1'. C r pp m g or co c it 0 LL Senate -15 Senate District 14 v//////////7 • ►•amen;• i„ ri4 / A/ • „ A N“ „ % A„ „ Februa 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission rY1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X ICommtssioniLayoutstFinal Distracts CoIonSD 14 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.0 I Senate-16 1 .ahi e <� s15 `1,41/4 \•NT O�O �\ `AN'\-•.. • `' ",•:';• TM 11111 .1,4 - ff-\\ —a.t e ',-,` \. \ —CI)gyp g N In r \z U �` 1 V/ fit'\ (15 C N m Y i sut NS,SS S$;:SSaSS' :S a5r$;:r.-J.—= ' : Te S4a. ,",, r to T ..,,: -N . O ''N...Z.”(Y-..S;•^',„j'rrnwc..,.. ?:N`S:?,„A'rNr nx a. c'ZM .>x J..T \V Na jrr x Nx ..•..r a �v S: ct : Sr S;v :'S ` Y ; "SSS" S'S'. c NjS\SSS:i S::`S: rS � , :e'''Zic ,N:' N :S•:?5S:'rS.aaS SaSSS ;.S:: " x:. ...E' ,". C Zt ,�s tsar . ;"'' $' Q �a kN:;?xS:S::SrS„"•': ;.".`.:'�� y xT;;Z: ,.S`'SSS?':a,."Nx,.SN:'?`".S.:':.::'" "iSS:x:'?:: $r V c ,U SSS''' : S�aS": R 0 L m '1a,.:.iS e\'.- "` �evet e'N�.�S`.-f "�`rr,>N Ne...e x..?rNN..SrSr`xrv'�t..,x .......,.A..rr s 2SaSeN..Naa�"�>-,,-4,5-,e$ra,,.M1 ---'”--,----S.aa "arva".;.>:...>,>..N•. , tS ,);.``-5 �.rd"sS,'SSS' °'SS: $i"Sr't N:. •'e/S.x• ::4 .'r ^„44„,4,:..:4.4i47..44/44:,„4,2)...”:4:,:" r S.S=S-a?Sa,7(5'.4S .>$'.?: v'>,''S%%SSS:S-CS z$ , :-S��, iy/'-,“,-..,-----s-,—.;-,-,,,-,.." ": 'St".>SSSrSxSS.". �. a SSe dYNS:"- S$ 'S i" :Sa T ,ac aSr..�.'�..,"+S ,. n . .'`$'.1. 'x.,N...a... y aS `" ,,S4'; .. NS,rvS,S'^' ,,,, r-d •,?; ..S::: xNaNSNr-. a. e,)4",5-04....,t% $ :.,,Na;.,.:..x„S " S-aaS $'N, .. ,, z r.,,,,,,=S,.x.S:S.".r..$.+r' �.,,v„SS?a:;.", �x xN Sal .. raps+ '>'a>[NCT '; �N r ar fix.. ,. ..Ndoa ..x ?..+..e n a,x cg SS'4 'S'c;2NpSSSt�,44 SS a«ST e.).,ea$' S:S.>rraS$."'S'...rv'.S..:T: ?s'' ..' ^..)eCeSS':�,-c•-•SSiSrS • N "I•ry , Za ePrNaa SVssr..S.-''S"? N r ("V Sx> x ""c'N.,rar, x ,S O �$ r :a ,vS'T a rv,>",t °NS .", ": t e4Z 'S " t ZP'::. f,7:.,:),:"a,'•.4= O S�S�'S. NS rS $ S2Sr `� S S$'S•. '',5. ...i .'.?,?.,,S ��" SS:;S. -ary NS'"a..S"aS:".':': :;.: {: c'.•'S: N SS :S ,, rS,>,,-SS S S S S2 ,aS S•r, :SS':NN.,,,,e,t,5 N ?a rx' E :SraaD .. .. c^„.. , r,. N} N=Sa"SNS.".se-, N''....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5- „,,,, ,,,,,,r:`,5-c.c.,,,,,,,,, r CSS' :rSS",T `r�a ,„,,,.- ''" ' C4 'r S r•-,', r`$55r '-SS"S' S.SS?a SNS cSt ;SN raa ..2SS., ;.„..„,‘„„•,,,,„,,,„x„,„,,..,„,,,,,,,,,,S2- ' 03 .,$NS: , c e Nr...'. ?,'•v',SS.r`' 3 •;. ,.N, a .,„ ^: _S≥S;~" '?. J k ar- :•:SrN c, eax,•rSarSS:".",$:; rt...- ;x"Nr2 ;SS,,a,>,..,-,>, ,a:aarS,>N:;. .;:SN ,,e,,, i- S 'St.,'"S,.S"SaSSSre..c,.S -r .s�...N,ax rr. •.''S: „ Sa :'S:'S"SS" ;"S:` x,.apr aS S. `^~ n •a• .S$::N'..S .,> xa,.^2 NSrS-`_� xrS.,;.STS:SS eC^,M c. r:.arS'xaa.;':.::.rr °a S$:�..,'.rr �S :S SS�a, •_':arse';;,;'., s '' `';,., �.�.;:,'$5 U- re Senate - 17 o $ NS ra a a NSA a, 2? \. A♦ Sa 'm a � * r.? a NS ?r z V E a ♦ ♦��- 7 - m D iM L 2.$.ia —43 e \ Cea? C c- SS ♦�; '',� `?a$�2 t F �'C ,. �•1. E N " a aS .�a , r rN U a _ea'Sar ir as , .,,e ra�a$�\�\1`, C 0 N SS S`S rS ' SS S $`SS ��..d�♦�`�.\, \\\: \ ` m 0 :a r n N S ew% q @._eR Q rj w eo °oi dr m Opp mL " U 0 a J C 1 O : \, O li `gy m c m m ♦ SP •_ a is m N e ag l"" Y • w CO c U 0 v d Al • Co I 0 �,;: Q C 53 aa co y��-r-t� S`S"r`SSSa'SSr�' C C ,w� 3 ♦V ES �u Sea $d3 t0 '• Y� ScS4 S a J gI. a S ,. Q r `S W d rr a' aa to c t� SS .4,-,4 Z co (A "tr ae,c " �a sS 'S r��}'S" .ara3 S "zzSSaar ders is ' c z:ass S2e`da°aa2a� ?rat 2e'e 2') rr ry S S a� aas r ? Sa 5, ScSSS? aSa ? a,,S Sad'a , r a"ds�arr'ct NcS sd�S<aa ca'S aS'S`c�2?aEKdS' a`�j�S a ' 2r Sala SP '4a' SCNS'SStr5<' �S'G 2S's aC5lS �.'''?a?s r .t. .A rrS 2C cSr a r reS c.-, rt a < Nrcrd? ?S' a S aS - N r a,S?S ,t, $e a a S,';'>5M. r S<� � a Y NSF" r��$�"'? A r2�es '? -� i �4��SS raN ar.<7',A �': 2 ,4S ,«� a�r"� Sr r2a "cSc�SS aSaJ'raSs Sio >S "}ar s ; .,g.-.4<<-5<<<„rc a "2� "} aS 2 �N$'Si SSa ?� 4 aS? �,S'?'SSNrrSr �d' e $ � 2 a`S «Z1'e SsS a a da dSa a SSS eN.<'., az2"'44:;%', ,<< SrcS� taSr 44; g`eePSagSr$2l'S aS�a� ase'<44+ as "Ltp'k - °o az A ar r r cSar A S ?S r S r t Saar > z cS ?;� � N a a"Slot a�ad "d2aNS a g as 2 Aaa ? O 2 ,,,A):-.'=q;`,5 ,=.? a4(,,,,,%:,,'„k0,-,;5:4a ''44 Nraa ra r'' S' ( $4d"aa ra`' Src C dS S' w ar a S r2a r rr C a a r S ar aS r ra S pay a ,S S? Sd , Cs r. ? ` aaa .s$r. S d ScS4%2 ,, pr2�A Sa Ica a2'$a g ','<-,a r S S ga;a a g.t.m›S SS+a Sad N Sr, -ea c aS "'t .Bas Nra s -?, S c c NS a ''''''.2..t2 ?a r2( p V i-:ae a .arc rtS AS.+ 4 a{W,d 'acS S; y , .,' '''s4'',.4 " >? S ' C a as ? S S -Se a rya Nfi :,.,5.s,;,- -„ , ,,,,,,aa Q ,� a cc@ ? Sc � ,a ar c C a r d a 2 as S errs a rcaN a a aSr ?? , ar. t ,, aS S S, C C S C r 2 d r ecS r . , ,, r.S 2r ara >aC rS CS 5 a " ,, 'm r eraa 2 a a S -e-0, a a S S a r d s,,..77,7 '..;,,Z:.-a$,,,,,4,7. 7,, „.' cS ac Sd a � ,� dC ,S-3z4,,d Sd a a" K"a,",a aaa aSa>N Sr rr ra .? a S' a C' ; e S Aga a as - a r$c a N aSa..,.,sa�' -a r,= a a S$aea a@ >a >a aSS ,, , c Nra a ? cS ra a c d ac?P a a C a a a a,.• d :r re?crd a r a.'e”',.St C .rcS a�.S �SN Sr r�r SS .S NHS �5" > ? a N .S a SS'a S .+ �?' � S S a S r S2? aN + ? S S". 2 �' _ S ' S a a S $$r S rra� 2p. r S'N$r aaa r2SSa .? ?S r SaS+ SS r cSr2(aa$ .. E-i' car' �. aS S S?W a? a '541 r$a' �q r 2 y!,t e*, ca,?SNrra d� Saab .�S'SSSS? , 4 g S3'i,. �a� 2 Sa�j S C r N e CdNN a �ca a aS r?S $$ �' aa ? p a $ ?a$<ar�a 5$5 ,'+ a` p d$$r ap,p„. ,s'a„ S$ a.a aa,S,S 2c�p" $ S? N ,-, 4N SZ'S '' �' a C c2ScS q S 2.ligz z t,T 'd asv.. ((NS� } a {SaaS rrpcc�rq (V� S 2 r.$aa'r dSCS$' SrsSa,SiaSS?,a'? rS eS ? r 2 �'S S d a}'Sr ?r rScSSr 'S� SS ,�2arS cS}' 0 r N N d N p as da S's S S ,Sa�sS $5a > agaa sl' a . :. a'? near s ? ° S S a d p E ≥ a?' " a O Sa1 SS , ar?Sa%d r.4U t g 1 `' 2' $ ,aSN N aa E ?SgF Sa s$ cS S'" S' S S N ir aSg$<C�$$� '$a d 2rS c�c?',�{? �' Fd NS'S� r'�ecS„"�'c�`rS"a,- , ' ��ra ?a"S r? ea'a ? N E aN SSS sa�2a�4.7'e Sae r S ac3Z ct Sa rSa`S . f �j M,( z as Saari ix g? r e a daN a N Z+ eo , S r.,?.chaS'fNrcSS`SSs'd< � `a A a 45)4-h S' as d 7`S's'a2- cl..t a "Sa ' .t.. p,-, a ? r (0 . .S.p+ S, $S d c ., d cd S S' "�a dS?S$CS''S i aSScSr '?'etl ra SSS d S2 k ,,aaa ra Ea 2Saa S a ,Sia 4r aaa aaa3a d at er< c.R . a�d.+J2ra rd 2 ?, �a ` air d0a`a a Nd L rd aaa �N? r Sa a FNs2 r �s 2 Nr r S' z d vrc2 c ac�C rN?$ $5 rS "r S as aSSaca . a , tl'4s3a ar"$`S(ti $:,a rS aS 'rS sa d ,ta� s ) ?? 'Sa SC a ' a $ `� N 2<,,,,s ,, „0, .�S N m arada'aa" ...?25?daatid.,>?Sa aaaAaa+dh-? ad-a..d�a.. ]aaaaaas��??da>a?aS a.+ad"A"a+?a ??P a� aa = ?.?.aaa P++ 2a LL 55 Senate- 18 Senate District 17 La ./ -L L l - 2 h x ‘,:,:,‘,1.<1,4,1-;, Ty„,,„,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,;, ._, / N• NVtVt/ LW•N �1V'rtMi✓ ' RhVtnr ,,,„ N .. ✓c✓ ..„,„,,:, ..::„: RV 2 N/cY 2R^v LM4 „, „ ..„‘„,,,,,,,,(,(„„„„ , „„ „ „...(.77„,..„„...„:„.4 „, .„,,,,..,,,„2...„,,T.,„:„.., t.2WS M ✓l• w 'Si�N,• )y2 N ✓V ttYLy Mb ,,, „ „ „ „ , „„„, , / j� jI ✓' Mrtrt.N/..x R RhM uwh�e '�'v /Lis �•c Y' L L V 'V✓hR uM:YN, N'th ,M // �,AI�Ii rI .� / RM✓. VM R MI Lc. ✓t i Y� 'N Y LVJ../cNMY M1 3Q, Ya Yt ^Jc^Lyt YN,N,,t L✓N tiY Y c2✓v. '[ , ;`";'/";,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-..,1,444,r, M.V / I I N N/t'✓✓t AM/N NV • i / 2 ;M µii RYt•._M h 2� ;` •N''''A.1.2;"" WL2 tom.^✓ h_R'N. rv2.LR N ''‘Al.... ?V 22 M Ly 4'''. ✓cax 'vs v1,4 Y✓c ;V2✓c Mh2 h,V Y.Nt N N1� /.� NVV 2M1 ti;.-in LY✓L' z/v4 16 p • vwv" z„,,,,,,'-',/,,,.„„ v'C'✓<MYN.'✓t/✓N,2cNe•N.^✓�l N� i^r)4,„,„„4",N,I).„..NNVRVW+i Vzt u nM ✓, u J M/t rt t„ rzaWt2 „yvh n. NWNCL wy ✓Vrv✓N,V✓Wt YV„.✓N 14/WV ICI ucy, �� / 4,,,n, �y,•,,iv v/„ i• w✓'n,n. ,ruin Y Y4 'K✓N/2ld Vc Via �VVVi LYL l.Na l`NL2 2/N%S4"V tNWYWW ry �VLM1M/„it ,/+,t2VviY✓INWa^vVV.[M/mac✓ • l� R M rr'YYMI��I,I� 2„, ra , s6 L7✓t` iNt pWider ` 2. J% • Lrv✓vwaLi14.4 /W▪ w✓e is tvot %i NIJWtM/LnyynetYW Vlt/L,/� AtAA417.4 an v wry W,/VCNV✓LYVU2Vc ..•:=v 2N.YM f'f� ,NW.NVWNaY R�2Y j' v J 2MN M V/Y /+NV✓N/WK'122 NNV NM'e/WWL ` NNLV YLN/e/ 'n' h'N: ' .YN, ✓WWhnN✓.rt^r„Vcrv��p'✓}'V{yM�a� ^.�/c^✓'VVWVWNVt. „„.v y uperiOr Wu w ld :o"lormwdo".”. ayy. /✓a✓V' SY s✓v�.,nn/v✓N.vsN,N ww^✓N 2NNNLVIN 2'WYv,/WC,h^.,,hN,Ve.YeYN/cti,h'N,N:✓":1 NnNN,Y,2'WtN,/.v t lNi ^2„NVc ,,Februa 2��2 Reapportionment Commission February 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X teommissionit.ayoutslFinal Districts BWWSD 77 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.u s/gov_d i r/stateleg.html Senate - 19 Senate District 18 - LW L.ULv...Y'N. 2. Vt.Vci y2. NRN ., 22a NL L'N Nx Vt /t Wt 2/e L' irlit :::',":::::,"''''‘,',.."1 ',7::,...,:',:,."../;;;;".;;"-% :::./.,#.:,‘,.:,;,:,'"V.,•:.: ::::-VS":'',,,:,;,...',': �. RN i LM 9.,,,,,......,/4,0"5.1.r.,„1".„.„VLV 2bL Lr Y 2 2'L 2 n.VtV h 2W 2 M 2 L L 1 Ya lnR ve vv� 2 / ✓tN42M l'2 W 22x v"...9:',Z4,41,444/..ve+iYV .✓at tS'S zti '. rAY M N Y / I art-2✓ ro ✓a 1 .: / / .rt va'Wx✓✓ '' V t 16 8t ;Yaa i z.w wvwWxjawnlvn.v✓,i✓a2tnr✓ ='L vM 2 N' LNL ,,,,n,-z."1-4.4',.„,,,,t 2 RNt 'NiV L NMnRM2N'✓' Rh VNi Y u•ai2ti„'' ♦ �, 2'W✓C 2Y �M1M1N2MyJ ✓LLir'VLM:Vt WA/. EA. Mb MxM1 M ' . ✓f/Ihn 44A^-4'."'""/.2'2hry.R/t/./� ✓ . W L RM t'N.2 2 M L ., 2 Nn. NWv 2 W.VIV,Vt.Boulder I{ , .. . R , a. 21.21'.17.4.44,1:V1-4n:1h:I":217:LitiVAVIIV;;Irlii::11 N+t/c✓N2h'N/LVc' ' NLLt •W i 2 4,„z;„4,„z;„ t Vt2 vxY•M V, xNt2a z ✓w Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X9 CommissiontLayoutslFinal D.,.,..ts... . . Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.htm I Senate-20 1 1 ••;..:-.•,,,,,,,,..„-..,,,,,,,,-.2-,:„.: Senate District 19 ,,,, n V tY v Vvrvh c'La R iv ✓L2 t..T v :YVL ✓L ✓C LL�W hlr M1hhYhY N ✓t L LL ~ L N 'L'Vt. ./� M 'N. W2Y t R2✓i'trt M.Y'2 WNeR t tY 1 2Y i N/e 3� � • M. `RiW/t ,. '. NL' 1 /�, V l' . ...l th � M1'N R2'✓N✓ 2Yt M,'N.✓./�. 2 tirvyG i Y 2 W NM N i LL'rv2 W 2h VL 2 2Y W3 L2✓'rt1 'l V.iE i 22 S /L �y atN y, "N. w IN N 2 F e0. ff��,�� ✓+Nc 'yL r N WL W M /✓tY Y H NI t' /L LR L. y NS/N./'2t N 2 rv2 '✓iN L ✓L 2 lh N 22R-Nii1 � � �` L2 W VW 'rrt.M1Y /iY n o rtNLMY Nn 3 3 MNi ., weatmtnster X22 tN v✓c2 Y.: L � yn. 2vrtwv'+. ,/titu rt � ' 1 *) ✓Le�R 16 L a Jefferson fi Asvaaa _� Q ...., 9„ 31� 31 A Cis we LI =te rw I,-;-", N 2in YVLN. ,�i ✓�'n4.-4,.”^v, n ^2'�irt:M;vL '✓ wvry/+,2v u w vNrt vLVLrorvi✓ wwvo,,,,,„,„,,,,,,---,;-.4---,,--VY ',,,,,, vY 'NW ✓L t22 2N✓LYYLIYLYVLYL' 2NN,'N ------,-----,---- Yf.%r2^✓Ni^✓IMMM .h✓vv ✓✓'.^✓' WN✓c rLY M1 ytW M 2 2 Wrv/N/✓Ve 2 2'vL 21 --..L2Ml., ,v,LYNl✓Lc,,,,, LN;,.. , .1,,,,,,,,,,,--,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.„,„ 2,r--- ^r'vNi'L Nrv/tMaya LL NN/rN, 'WY MM✓'3 2✓� ,,,,, M.ya.NN LVY N W 1 YN,V .i, NLN IWNM/tN✓vL/LVY✓ .t M/LVc N/t/rR L V h.W 'W VchM V iMMM LLt^✓,,,,,, ,,,,,R✓YVL ✓c2.r2VLhNw f✓wVLVNrNh^YyW W 'N1 2 ✓ V 'LLVrh/w22'rVtrt.yL'N.✓vi^ AMY 'VN/N✓N2L"'t/Y'V✓N�i^✓L^./✓uNNNM rtM.M.RM.2L'N/„M.✓r.rt2V LR22ZruYtM.2✓✓.wV Vt/v/ert2YN✓LLV VVVL' R/1/Y February 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission fY 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommissiontLayoutslFinal Districts BW%SD 19 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html Senate -21 IA' N N L M R \ \ E N m N 0 ea t- ara?ta',r a1s ,,a ,, a c,wiz ? "'ee�LL\ es _ '$rrC� as C 2S rr ,\''aSSs .., . . O 20 M p� P • SS ?d �. II m O m w : S�' S 'r r g , e c e . rr e`S i ��.Y.L�..iL r a a C c .',.;,-;,-4;"h it.-.5 i ag� , t r S ,, a ',"4 as zSc4 S • c t2. eC r S h 2 CPaASS eS`s ege. c'� ` }a? SS rS S y a S t N r�..++ a aSSSSc $5 r4S cC aS hi cS r �? ,- , ,s`PS P `' c rCSS d �? r a� @; at« cc Se 2 a S2 et_ Sr „ V ?a2 t; �, r ) ` S� tbrse rSraS ej cS . ..5'2e2 `' '‘'' % C''' S-4gC.r'; ? aS t' SSSa �S iE1PlJN6 , c c` • "?C a (7s j.$ <>,:, ..,rrSr as t a .. ,'?4 r rS . ,,s SS S'.`5 Sr rS. 3 �cS $r Oe Z tr2 s 2 t } a �` a b ccqi:;'4q$` c rr as 5 .''.5.=51,',,77Z;'.- 4, 5: e t }SSS22Ste$�..: ? N es e 4.,gt'S.S2,, ,, ra 2,745 S 2a ,sp4srscc C2S,SS2t �--r a4• 2. E ?� e r a: 0 e`e r i a; + a �r2 $rS S C a S� a} SJa g a a r 2r` • 2 r 1 a S . C ?Sc r• ? S2 2S ar SSr t ` Saae Aa a` L �� ' @SaS c'd a Sae .4-,g '4,, m,4,S� e S �S� as,' As,, , a , ,p,, a a a c'e cia*2 rr2 .: ',; i Ste 4, ga �4 "1,„„ 3 . �S2ac Sc 2y' e2` a r ?aCr a2 a? S S pq}g eSSa�ScrcS�Csr1rS `@zSC'� S'S tst .>Car`r �Srar2 /�� e} r` g gg W Q. "'el ,: .),s2.?Za `2si ,c.0 2rS c .,e S,, ,,,, o, ,,,,.!:c"a r S'� " a: 2��2aSS.�,Sa }� 'v�ca a �$ r SS SS S2 hF1' a 4 etS }S S' a a r U, Sc c' ,`,r�Sa..�S. t:Sgl cSadS a2 .' a $ �y C/�� cage{ `,5, 52S S�sas S c r COW ad t - is$2c,.aarr `: aS,t ` �s ara a , {tS 4Mwsc�cS c sdSr r2S a $ > r$ Sad�a2a a r SS2S r a d ae r :AT4, r'S$ ` S aS�?c�2 a 2 aea S i SSZ }'tt S $,S. a ar e $ tSSSS ,q4 S�� c; ASSAa((r 2� ar rear r2`S�r�,� S � a� r? �d,�2 AZj 2t Sa, ' aD 5 S 2, S a ' ?S2r4?jr$�r`'a aSS .it �t%=4 e.SS,c,,S r S 2 S ? S s t?' S z`4 °$`S'ec .2 v t sac , .� .a�r�S Sa a aS'SSCe2 `'S5a aa2S�a Naa�c ��S`c'�C eS S� , Q . d�' cSS rAS'a S S'�a�'S t: S S � pp C, pp .; C 2e 2S2 t2 $Sr ?�d '»aaaSaS2 r�' c 2S`?4.s''5a S�S `S Ii$(4"�c cAt.,S c a ae e S a$ "`Sr� 5r 2t: `.4k.' 2`'r rah c t ( S '.$44sS'" 2' ��2e2cr S 22 g�g iE :EE �c'eC aSeta?�SAe�a t�`'c }�a2aS�Sa ��Ce , �a S rS sr r $ 2 SgS ?� P ri, Sr2 � r arr Sa ," azS S2zr___F- . m .S dS k,o'a 2 P ,,, a . S$e4�aa to @' m n ra ?r , s r e a arra 211 n�gaSSSaS'�,�2 aS ac 2 r 3�2a e: SrS�C ¢rae `m "E `s,S-'4 avail et a HSSSS r- �� a S g .S 'S •• r� 'S(r, �,`.. r` �", pS`'c "c r fit','"5 . SS cS c_ o a m m e O in E N o co k 3 t a a m Senate -22 ac a s N,'' ° °y4 ' S ra + � r�-:...4--- ,4,'''', o CSc aS?°S :� ? l6 E Z to C_C " N a \ r ? a OJ r Crt S , C � S a 2a rz ca :n Sv do $r$ $� sc �Nc ? r E� ..� S $ a5 s � a `°a� RAJ c':c 2- �, acs c �., C 2 C A O m a 0 C : Sa Z <.4,,,,,,,,,,,,,'rrC �ac� > , �a a "C ? S C Sa�Sa..` O.-a O t0 Tii c a" ' a a c 'ee r .e ; �a a e , e m o 2. SCAS " r S �a �aar i C N { a C S N 3°J O ',/,4 e a 2,- r Ss ?Sc cca a cj CO U to O N V4 a t$r ?$a° as P< ?.a r a� �� ,r 2 N as $ Srz S e S t`0mmmm rSS C S a Sa , as `� �'>aa as U O Cl- CI ' aS NS a i a°$4�S a aS arr " s c , sSa a sca to SSc � aS ,;::,,N{,/,‘,';',;.•;;:,.:‘, Ca - 't as zS� r a '� a�N NS �r cCr S �y Na aaS(CC as tS > �Cf��` J �NCNaC cli-tj�sCaS 1 �s�Art r�az�� mar ,� � � > rKr :� � V S `s 4 '' agcsas �' c *' �'." ‘7%; %gar C .: zr s aittst ''2", -,',-, :',:,,, :IlcS, ?5 St�2Saa`' }' �C \\ S 4: a.` 2S SS AecCd 0 ',4;,1si ,a ar Ne Spa @ a l \v S.. aaatr'vS P? dz, , , \`\a` ^�jcSSCazr �+�� a� .r S� as me 'a' \ 55 r dC'SC? S .�.a NS�S.; SSN 'M'L S ? �SSc A$ 5�S ,a,`C S*?S SSaS' ,'�r. S2� r CSS' ' 2 a aS'SC Na > Cc Ssc ' y2 ��.Ssd, ?.a �c ?� aAa cCasa ? r 2 a Spa .- r C. a "� 2 r�� , N �a �' ar etr, a rCp aw o (;0 -„.`".4V(-74 s A SC S ° �y �2SS S`,er er N N L' ?S?S a,1g�gS S? ' "S' a$ ,:.W; ',4-44t';, r " aSa y g d d• 2 S��.2 2$P 2e 2r S �e2� Y2�25`�raa`]S� .a"e 2Caaac 'ZSN�aa., z' � N2ce $5 � �. e ? �a -,., ? �a s�a'S �3'N�^'1 g e o a iSioctAA aa ?a`"�Sp y� a < r .: a•» N S � S Np`aS>arS' $ N 01 aCSa2� $, a. a N t? 4. po a$`SS a: •$FNSpa Ss 2`cy'CS � c o. "?: N E U_ re 03 0. t rq w a n LL Senate-23 Senate District 22 ,, p qg� L/' ry✓� R' t I • GT L2� N✓V✓' jam . Morn/ , .,,,,„,,...„,.;:,,,,,,.„.44. ) Clear Creek 18 7% N ' - / W✓✓V[ NV N. �/W NivY V i lath N / /� 'vlt/e N rh /Lt Vv t Lit anbisso '''..::-:*''',:,:::::://:' II/ LRh /✓NN N R V L t r.+Ni N2 Nh -t,i,, WYt nNLNNV'N'2!✓✓(-'- ti L .t2RhAAlvtial . h ✓.,LihhM .a...t. �� MLLNI✓tR V Nrt Tti L ih ZtiVWv .✓NN YVV WL Mf Park .,:I . February 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommissionLLayoutstFina/Districts BWISD 22 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_d it/stateleg.html Senate-24 Senate District 23 Greeley -. /'/�// 2 +2 M✓LRrt L2W v vt,nv vvL 2 YL Mn yu1NV a t w i 2 Lvrx� nti L 'dye^ x 2iV2n -✓W�2 'NVL . /' M1✓ 2 V12✓W y♦ v .may / Lit L 2Y 221 V cnec2V. 7.M1 Y W 32 ,n I/ RMM1 h2 M V/iN R �2 � t 2 1 3 L2 1 LVhn V2 /✓ /Ni . 2✓L V-44.L/gin 2 N R 3.t V✓L V - /+N' 3 i ♦I% � ?�� ✓f x Lt✓' L 2t L t 2 N rrn... • n Lt V ▪ U 'y. N. 2 ✓t.V N✓t.. /t. V VV Inn 2 R_ N_ ✓L _ R N 2,n,, N 2 1 2 ✓`L M WV L L 1... V t. tNNN W V✓12(21✓ 2 V It N 3^VLhcnen.2 21 2 v 2 A L2 h i �2 R,N 2 V. L 2i N 1.2nn ✓ ✓• M 22 M N. ✓ N/ Ventn. /t / .2 2,2/t /tA /tL 41"V/t RR/N. V'▪ ✓/N VV,'An vt'ct✓ Y 1 Ac ninV4-2' tM12 t /t /.en 2.2.nyn inn2. ✓i ✓c 3 n 2..nncnnW V /t'N hN h 2 L L .-✓y t ✓ L AMa.1.41.Len Act ✓' L M V 2 V 2N N.:nM/ "W /Wi NN /t 2 LN 2 22N 1 2 ✓'-M1 M1 tL Vt - ✓ 22 22V' ✓,Y,212 ✓ M 22 t �{� -RYv 2 tV V V VN 1✓ - L ✓ t Vt "t/' LVV j/� ��%/� ®� WVl✓.tNM 2, ✓t L2 V V.l h l LM2 N/� 2 .F/./✓.l 1 ✓t 2 N c./c2.4 NV N2 nnn i LNY hM L LYc 4, NY ? N %/ i// / %, W2W 2N 221 ✓t..2 RWVN N2 WR�VL hVNLyW✓LNt 2M. NVY 2 222 1Rna � j 7i n /.. 2 ,,22,,e2422,2 ✓3 %wt. 'N✓t 2xV ✓' L Y✓ / /c L0. / 2 t 22Y - 2 //I l42.✓ Wv vv r✓v 2Y ,p 21 Y✓v 1,2 f/ j/� � ., on2a .n 2/ wM1 w x -vL vo v 2 ,' �,/�� /i% - $ ATE '{y(/ Nz L- 'r v.▪ '�,n .w- °M.�L2 ✓r., av v✓L1 r Lxv.t R Lv 'tip~ 2VC NS? i ML. tN LR w//<- Vhh VN/tl ✓ ML/t NV"et' fA YCWN22Y Na M1 2 'VtV M✓42./V' Ni✓ Nt ln/' .2V NV i R NL/ N N i//cV V y VShMI W NhY ./N 1/a2/Ni � 2V Y M M hLt✓+i ✓ Nt/v ML 'LVL ✓`✓' y�y{�{yp,{Iy W✓M.Y YW V 2R 'Vcn/oR NLL ‘4,,,,,,,222222.,,,z.▪ ?2„,2W/N. Rh R W 2 '22,2222/NCM'',,121/z.2222,2,0 .2 2 ./. 2.2 tn..", V / _W Y:^h Ye LN N✓ h ?R^w 22 2 ✓VV' '� 1{ Nike,Nv✓' LLM.✓1'N NM 2 YN/ihc Ana. ✓ ▪ ah W✓cNV✓ N.W Vt n✓v VVVV .� -VVtt '✓ ILn .S'W'rr f a V▪�/Vt vi t2ihRNN N ( t2 '{Y9{i'Y�(tY'i4 2 2VV V Vc Yc.✓�✓t th 2R V Snitte hR✓t L- N2 ✓tVW1L,W M 1 2h2NV✓tt -V L ✓ I/ 2l' 2 x W2 vnn v✓ ✓ .Ra hh . �2 'bay l�'✓• " S 9. LI'�'2 v Vu ✓ _ ,L n. VR ✓, La. V L i .t VIC'44 LLV[1- i 2 'WYe.2 ` i2 VWYN' i2 "II V/VW tYCW � 2 N L ✓t�✓V✓ V2 2. 22 nny t J L21/✓L NV N. VL VLV 1` /aN/tNi ""nN N 2 N✓ A✓Wt2 /� /✓2U L /t h /i,e^h • • • Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80202 file path X:IEomnassionLLayoutslFina:Districts BWISD 23 Phone(303)866-6466 wwvv.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html Senate -25 Senate District 24 - Y w. wRrtRn. ✓a„","Ki%'---"i ,,,,°n`;„..-; .. . I R /Y VNvrN ✓' V 'yr NR 2V'i LR LL Wr; VL/✓' / �/ ✓' ha2�/a f„N NN,R Ve ✓✓�r. y. Vt- 'VV+/L 2 NVy Ne2VY'Venvi, N0Y<rLVMi/eNa.vvLM1 LLN✓L*h2 r Wv i Y_L2 V /a ti r L V .NCTNAYE% 2R/N h i/W2 VN R'3 v<Y ; e Mi/NrL/Y ",/,--- < Yt .. ,`, ... •,:;:. L f 2 VN V N'ih 'L 'N. a2 V✓i V ,,,,,,,,,,,,,--,-,,,,,4„.,,,,,,,Y vrv- R N NIVVV =4, --- /� W/✓Y'VW1M, VLN, 24NN/vU✓ ><>/•;•;<•:-...• . .. .`.`%/% N/e LR/i L1V LNYRi. ,,.. ,,, / � viva .nvav�.'wn ti✓. �' %/ 2 Y: tR,'' 4,,NLVVN./', 2Vv. /% VI; VJY Ve VG R,i/YM/e (. '.M,N VWL1MiL✓LVe^✓Ve/W R/yrin YaMNi l'NnR a/Van.W rye,. R/We V✓ vain,t NR2N 4urw LL' 'H/N MyN�44„„,,,,,,,,,WVLNVVL ✓a21 �am6' t2 hvvLiN ✓1 t/bycv ,NM vy / R�/yl4NWCNLN4 NR M1 ... VvvLMN ✓LV 24R/✓LV✓N` rsn .r'WaNLt ✓wWv WVRn VLW�/a YWWVLR/12M1V W 2YLWlh _M ✓lNl/✓Y_M VIN✓N/LLNN.rN/' V(NNNL� 'WVtM. , I NVL'vv�Lv/Vbt tAh rN• NZY% rn , j N V , VVN/ al'NM:,,,,,, ✓VVY Arf.NyeYLVM V✓LV RrM ,, WN. r Nrt ✓t/✓N V✓VL .yi Jy VWV yV ,yy�t� RrtM vt 'N V< 2Vc NiMMNV N/WVtM NV✓t1ry'ryA aNWa NVcr✓Y ,WV/Ih/NM VY NVMNaN wN/✓N/WNNv VL2 ✓ VUN✓t^N rN„ WLN _ "N`+n.i'aM•✓'�',va:vwv„vYv° ^rwwvY,Kv,.R.w ' f�v NrtN"'v""X av v✓ v/c444 Marv..Rr✓.;veve✓w.nnrt•+n�tt. '''''''' N'vbt 'tnn4"nv'N v :;vtn-r--v'-vy.21.--/e.•:✓v, nr--y,M•LR/av ^✓aNvrtvaNa•w=nr wv`,r1c ------ WVey/�Nv✓a•:.L^,n•:n--- (• 'ar, --4,-A•+wV✓wvv cr-1, v,NvyNv✓wyN LNw,•w-Zrzca•wW 'ic,,—,Luv WWWLVLVL 4- a.Y,,,a, aNWYVVYV 1py R/LL 'M1^r ----v—^ N�i,,,,, ,,ir RrvWWe. F 11� 'INNrtRNV uvVeMNLwt_.2vM�i •„,,,,,,,---->m RNNVva•V�/WN/N/ar,/✓✓✓M/wwLwV 'W NVaN RNeMrWL`N YN4lLL^..'w12V1 ./'VVVf/,NLV✓aRYv ^WvvyNYvverwvo-v„�" vwy, t 'wvwuv ✓ vcvyrvyavaNaN Wvi vynN. ^.yrt vwaNLvayNW vv— Ml % Ya'iNN�vw NVLvyN✓a xL'vr`yi i,nvvvi 'nvu'My lit•,.vwva•ynn WaNvy/L ^✓ .2 NMNy/(•Vy2LVVMNfrryV, NrWLVw/„ .MM/N/N,WLMM/WLYViNiM/, MN/,.i. W✓,/WWwwy NNN ern .`N!•{L'N/„M/NNVu''W'✓N/a ilfraWfar= ,ryR��'i1 �' -VVN W'✓a4 WW 'W i VNh- wi2LVVLN.2 , v.. . .. awn w Nvan vyaNi vLvuwv✓✓L ' • vwvyhWWvw � j . n fedenit -�� ;�. CD Colorado Reapportionme Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020nt Denver, CO 80202 file path X1CommissioniLayoutslFinal Districts Colo,iSD 24 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html Senate-26 E!IIIIiOiIIIIJiiiIIOIIJiIii1iI E I 22C _as s..�s "$ $SS $�s U " s� 4� ei`22 s O Srr a$ CC @CC S' m Ezoiti cn cm ;,,*1:‘,,,N ,Is' s C #.'+,#`$,0 as�` mz ix cif. o m• gi41:Pt, ti4Fx o 441 iftipliiiii ,:,::::.::::: -,....x, c. 14LtU41 il e"$ ".1 till sgsttdll• \ \\\ \ \ \`� [ Senate-27 \\ • 2 Eit 1 -•\ • ij C �o Ili i; eg 45 m ill rom0iy2 55 El yQG U—Od 1.5 .:::".,4%::#,';';.:'i'.:',j-,:-.:4 '',,":1';,1;,',',.4: :::, :,:::4: ::::',,:i;; ;"4::::,:k,,k,.,:::::: :::,ill ss p, 0 g e I � N f zs V .L 0 `^ a- vJ a 8 : c .y v b N �\ ii CO y N O \ cei O S a 8 mA. senate-28 s s �s "s �� s " ��s s #� ��# , s �s s "t ,1$1%$ s s s U # s o L fr.+ .92 � r CS d d e, O N `R �S EA . v tcYin ¢S1:45,,,,4..,,,4%,z„,:“ ... ~ $ as p ' ,N o , ? , S C • O.O 0 co N co 8 :44O. viw # # # 8,8E W ac ' HP! CO MitdPidipmthi is ti w .w•44 qoe lro,t4A$5, CNIillril011$490Phhelg t COtgi$$$Illitrilett$V,Sle+e, ,,,$ „,,,,r „ , ,,„ ,„„,,,s,, , hoot iteW m 4+1451 i CD CO a; ■ CD cn Iptlipl iil D 1 1.+1,i'll ols $shilt$$ Wqt §$114 oph P50 ',:l TN 1500 Niml$ .. N le IN:i. //, ,.. „ , — • v. ��. -' '" bfi• x . LL Senate-29 Li ;111%111115$$ it 4 �� I ci 52 set; CO a3 joi fl'i5 kt1545tiail^4p sii s tli a' �§f te,, r1t, t 0 t it .5,....._ =I__ ttliie, .0., - t 4irt 1 iitt Isq$ `t $I$1 ,. ,,'2klilgit ,.$e'$e'EpO% c4ifil Ilitillir CO li;i ti v �xek.ir% ti Eii mo agyi1 457 Alf � 4 , is I N 3g4 � k4f v� Yi 1 NMI 1111 �Ud1. C N N N a 5,14 F _ 111 II' 1 p Idi Illh 1 qkjb 1 oi. 1; \ 4P s ss i r Sa i Y # Y 11111$05J4� _s2 =sfin BLVD s 2 # s# S �[SjI� a11113S; 1r�S,Sj 1j$III11;4;4 Ir; e$ajpSS�ii $ ali �S ;{�a?•�S "`a�(S$l ss ,2�jJ11r �S('rC$ p ae• S2(] C";Jh ; N(�Y 2]pyta C 1Ctl C ; C2C$ C C CC( ; �l�a('�a$2„ 3 ,:�,,,:,] A t` ?��[CC;rr CSpg N N S A PC ia SS ,�$(S`` S$(]?' SkiS $?, $j ,p3� Cad('2tltltli �..i.•'� .a � �pC}+ dC 22 �$ Z� T �1a> r ��? d> a � � � �y'$Y ?�� S�d�SPP2� 2 � �.�.': • /T AAAa; PS= ; eeerS�' ? i 'es$aC$ >2 Y PPa i $a�a; op;x1 ;S�}' ; ;�$` $2� `LI/ ��($1`' c� N �(+' SN ,�{(yl� �(])l� aA �}1N2C2' 2?iN .25S3 A�e�p} .C �� eS ,rSS$�2`{ C A f �i �2 a NA S la di Jay � ) NAiiiiiiii �2 � i',`•i`.•:iN \ ? Sb ? 1 lS Sa� SS A ? lip.*.:q II iiii ll lillniiii di r 11 P I-(7), h e hl h e gg ge. g qi e e,,q Q i Oil I Pi i II N pl 1111 Ilb ?i c 1 ph � !;::':,:4•11 I Ntill! i '::::0 ':':tip::': a? r # a410 s it , e t ,, , ,,,,``,, 110 r s S s 02 itI N 41 ; 11Sr 01041111 $ .1;riE 1 std hi a l a N I SSs2 il is ill s hipilS a �aS 1pill iiiiii; 1' Ill "dill 11141111111101r111111 PI I i # 'Ili ; rill P lir ' ;I lir s 0 ii11111. a\ 1 ' I e$2$; i 3 11 00 ray li ; 1e:.:;::.,..,, :,: N $j s zf i a # Li if �$Id y x $$54 s >.ri ;II ii iiiii 1 I ; pily3' i li i JAI ! it I its :: I I Senate- 31 S �.V: W iiii ct ell r" li^ ? ?a � 2 SSA' `•I� C fD R s .S � � A � i - 3'; p co 0�A. m .„_, ,, , : „„„„,„:„,,,,,,,,:::.:„„,,,„ ,,,. .EO „.„..., „„,,„,: „.„..:::,,,„:,,,,„,,:,,,,,:, -6-8 a if J :SS ,: C n cat, i si iiiiiiiii i, ill, :,::: ::-,,ftw: :,,-,-ft,o',,,,%:: ::: ',Q,,, ,;,, „,, ,,,„,,,,,,::, i1$ CO i l'ill''' h 11:,,NIN,:ij:„5;fteigytoguit.---,i,::,i-- cn Ti 1 I I ' r ,i , iiiii 1 --t4,,,,-metiatim.:qi,i.s."-,,i0,1,!c,:,,, W ill ,iNfp://,::-*::.:v w:):',1:, :":::;n4m; ;,'s.,Vi‘g 4 c` i. isP '? �e'iiiii�C, 2 C�' $C N il2l 22 is 1 Fi �ilil 1 Ikli ,•::::::s /Aif:',,sak:Ms/;::- ::--i":,::O; ]':':;'::; .,;m-N--a0; ::, ,,.. !! 10Si'� r .!:\> '''''''''''''''": li ? I,Illi ill''''' '''-la r ill' II lip !",:;:zm,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ; 1 ,,,,,,,,,, :,::::,,,,::: I , i ,, $ $ , , 1,,,.. ,t,,:.„:„.„,:„,,,„„:::: , s -:::.:,';:;' ";1;:-:;:: 0 i i ii A$ Ill .,$faix ,i$,,,, , ,,,,, 0, „..) $ 1 1 isl> *.'..:#:-.-:z: ::',,::::::::::::,:;,::*:,:f,:;;;:;:z* *; ;:,;::-;:;:::,*;:,:,;:h.s:,:::;:9:":;:,;:i**;,:*::::;::; sus ? gs� $$5s2S$$$$rg$aS2;;;:;:;;::-*,::;::.: 11 ii 1 i 1 ii.ii, il,ii CS 't,tli ,,er i rifi tF illi s zitil`• \ 888. �`??SS rill $ iii SSA '`„qri ` ` ( I ( [ e Senate- 32 Senate District 31 �✓% ww✓�ww.M.vwv . 4 L N eDW AVE 40 4% • ilial Adams VatWalatt vwvaM»,ve Avr 3 gVWV w ': % / • r�AM1nlnnnro. ....�/ la:,.. ✓vwvwwraWVVVI'VVVVVvvVVVVWAIAryvvvan. 4/N7 wvwwwvwrow •✓ev✓✓w,. vwi v .LNVNMwa vwrww.nnrt. C4 yvi. VVI TAM; ?. ' My vwv✓eww✓Hmti Vt .✓✓✓oea��n ,✓ayM ✓w 44 a 44'4>a ttaVV✓✓inn aMnnnnn s , "Sr IttetliVVi444,„.„4.44,avvi4 vvwwvv✓.a4.w.vve+ni✓.2 .w;;::`,:v: vv�uw:; Val VI Denver vt•+nnrvvLVVVVVVV z+nnnu Wain r wwtiM roV"4444 wnn„nnti,t w w vNy wWYNNVM yam. .www,nv�^^^' vven. vim+ s wttnAt,=ue. ,,W vv�nnnn,Nn� anmv✓✓.rwvwvwo- .., ovwlwHnnM✓we February 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,suite 7020 Denver.Co 80202 file path XleommissionLLayoutsWFinal Districts BWiSD 31 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html Senate- 33 a liii! 5 e' $ scl'it§1 tt ,i$0 $ ,-,5%$ :` • ,:, , , lr ", .., -, , , ,, N4—• M f• , ' U cn co r": •'t :r N N L pe q y N r. O 4EE N N kY 2 S LLle Senate-34 �\ U coa 00 zcoat :I1dt o U�$ O t0 o m \ c ./...:„?....,,,:: :,,,.::,...,.„::::....:„.,..,:::.t.,:::',...•::::::::,:::::::::;:::-:,::::::-:..-.,,,,,./..„,„., N O \ el 4-1 --C. '%;L-1';'::".:;>:Z:".•:;t '' ? ' -7% % ?✓2?''% :},is ::•' lill f. ti „ 4-1 CI co cD ea �j it en Senate- 35 Senate District 34 w w lip vww WMDAWi we "ewer wytemet,v in.Wilit444,44,,,,AnnA, yin MM1tM1Rhh.IMMM/1/cW��WV4NVWU ,,:::::,::::,;;;;;:::;:zi.i::::;:‘,11:::1;i9:i!iii MMM MMMM2 I. inn/Ali"'Nl innA44 /1/t IMAievvvy MM. K """"""'^"' fIf IffN/Hfs `ww .,vwn MilYr+ � „lel,W, /�1fff%fNiff/fffffN vw✓ dy 24✓V1,4444,/4 14,1/4, InInntyv,t, 31 `wwV44vNN1.4444444 .I,.w rinttirynThlilti let/twin,RM,YWt'WV NWWWW NWU NvvvvMNYw imntzAtvy wM Ala Ni N vvvy t WVLNhNYW Ant new LS V Art. t .✓wwvwwwLw � etevtMMNN.V✓✓✓Y f�}��yy�ry[ JVJ TVJ.I 44,v1A44,4444„"In 444.44 ,M4'4AA, arrvzninol.44441444,vvv.„ Ina X /VNMN)MNNNtwonnt wwwa �,,,,,, WVWV42 /LYV4MMM/WW, , WNW Nw AVE NVWWWW4 M.Myy ,/�u�vu inn iainnnwynny VW, ievineywns VIAttlotig NIA2VI2µMMMNN/N�/L4^VUlal,WINVLN/NN,,MMMM1NNN,NMA wNM1 =;:*.:;,;,,,,,,,,,„ ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, N/VNNYeNY1MMM/WNNY,. - M, February 2002 1600 Broaddway Suiotee O20�mmisaion Denver,c0 so202 ril path X ICommiaalonlLayoutalFinal Dm$cts BWISD 34 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.ua/govdir/atateleg,html Senate- 36 Senate District 35 214124441.444142/1444.14 4"42 1.1 24244444.4141414.4..24 1.4.4214.2442241•22 444,444441.1414 2.24424441.4442.1214. 2244.41,44141,1441.424/214VV1244 VI. V14424424v1<41/124.24441.44,14 241/2244144214244.41,41.4 44 1,22114 1/144.41.4142224.2144.4.44.14. 4144.44.41.444444.441.21.44.44.4 Eh W.22.21.4.42.42.414 41 44.4.24 2 1.4 1.441/v142.1.442444444141.4 lel Li 44,44.144 24 4.2 4224444 2444.44 V,WV,.t 7.42,Van N.224412,24 24.1.2414.2.4.421.441,144241"t4 WM. 1441.44•12,144421.44,2441/W14.441442441414•14,22441.4.44.24 14/11414,2242.4 441422 1.2244.441/214• 2224124424444441222142V.2222 12144 21.444,2222444442444222.2214212444424222,144221 41.41./V22121,V2241.41,22/14.44 41.441.44 V14.414424244.24.444414.V1441.42144441.W141/24W4 421 244 e4,221.4•VVV141 22,2212,42222,t222 221 t4.1.4 44 241/24.44442422 22 2441,1/44.1.42241 14.4214 WO 214.4.41,224.444421.41 444,14,22/t41.44.4 1..t4421.414,214,41424141,4 44242 2,2142 21,4242 V22 2244.414.44414.14 Vt.4Vt 214242 4444,214244.1444.44•1/2424/11.4 221 221 214/112 VVV1.2214444.1/VVV244., 24 t th 22214441.441 la 221/1 424.41.44.444244 2421 I"VI 2444414/2424.22 4,2244.2414.41.44 1,4241.24442444242N14.444414.4eV21424.44244 1,2421.1442Vt4 14.1.41/V21.21.4.4424V122 42444211.41442144141.42424.414 2422 V2244241 2 ttlfV1•224/V•441.1.414.44222.44414.44 4444.444 V141,14.41.41.4A44 24424.44/..224 OA 4,24 1 14 2442444 VW 1.44441.4411.42424 4424442441.21.2 VW 21,4441,2422144 1414444,244 2▪1.41444/14424244.4.244424124.1414. 141.4-44122144421.4.44422,V121.24 224.2.2422222.224,24412244.2 v222442.1444 21124121'V214.44,221,VVO,444 in 212.444442 2:2 212211,144.422412221 VIA 1.4.4.44141422441/v1.244.2 211424 44 41,422.2414 4,444241•1141.44 44 41144 21.4 141424.4 Vt44 2444/V•41.2 14.4444/22, 24 2VV24.4 14,244/VI 421.4 22 22144•L'v1,2, 7,24,244.4414 4224 4.2444,12444421.44441 244 224 244/1 214 2442.4.4444/24/V1444 ...4/V14424441.221,24141,244.24444.24/1 2444 1.41.424.4421.441.4424 1.42442414 >A 4424 2.21.24.14442414 244,144,14.4222441A 221,24,VL4t421.1414244421.41.4 14 VI, 1,224414,4,..1 244/42.1.41.1.4.114 4,424.22.414 14144•41414444442,221,424442444 4.44244.41.441.144442244 St 21/1444/1441.2441.4444.44,2442 ...24,224 1441.4424.4 21441.444 44421A 1.4.241.14.4144 1/14^V2244.421444.4 (244424 444442414444/2 1411 21,V14,21441,244/1,21 22444/22.4 24 2441.2444,4 24 14.4/V21 2242144n 4,1412.14.442222/21441412. 2224 44 224 21144,14^4 24,4444/12424/2144/22,2221444.444 142124'2 4/V24144,44144.42421 14.44.142241.42.441,24144.4.44 2140.4.22 2144,144/21444.244 1.42214 VIA/21 1.4442441,244.44444.444.41.44.4444 4.1,14.2.144221 v1.22,44,2144.422.244 21 2221441421422,222112122442,212 4442214.2e221421224,2 22 44 t/LIARAA 44222221222422,224 2241.22V4142242442,22WV,421 la uVVi4.414.21.2.4442VVW2144.2421/1 222.212214,442,444241,142,44,444241. 224.214.424 4141 244441424.• 421,1414 14 24.142424/“44.4441•114,244 t 2414 424 44,2 1.44444.414.21.44 2144.44414.444,12414 2 V21,4444/V1 414/1214424 1421444441.4 1.4.4.2241•14,222 424224 44 WIV12.1.444/14 2 124.44.4442 1.4/1/2244 4/1/1/4444144144.44.424.241.414242441 1.44.4444.241,14144A44'14442/14/1444 ,2, .t444/244.4244 24 221/2444 v22.1422 2.,21,1444/4,422.4222241.41221,221 144,444144/24.44.24444 21/v1.4.1.24224 4141,42444.44 1.2• 1.114,2141.444V21.4.1414 22441,22.VI. 42/044.1.4.41421. 1.4 441.444414 14A 224,2414.41422,242424144141,424 1444244/V241.44441,24.4444.4.4.42 42144 14 21.4.4.444 VI 4 14424144 14.44.1442144221144/V44414?A 44 4444414.4.41442/42 1141,2442121/2244414424,21 241,21,14/2144,V2444.44.1.44.414.1•Wt 424.422•124/14 41 214.47.4.41•1/22V2442244/44/444.4 1 VI 1/1fl 2/244 1.4•144.14.21.44 14.24,W.4.4214.4.1444,4221 1/224244424414 44.224/1/1•Wel 144224 244 22Vv• 1244 14,214212,144144,14442,44422V4.21, ..,„ 2414/21444.4412.441,241/ 1444 1.444444/14.4 1.VINIMARIt 142442222 24224 2.2144421 12 22,421214,2 2444221 14▪ 244,1/4 •j o SEQUENCING OF SENATE ELECTIONS - RESUBMITTED PLAN The following Senate districts shall elect senators in the thllowing years, and every !bur years thereafter: 2002 2004 1 4 2 8 3 10 5 12 6 14 7 17 9 18 11 19 13 21 15 23 16 25 20 26 22 27 24 28 30 29 32 31 34 33 35 Senate- 38 Plan: (C'OPY)FINAL_SENATE_PLAN Plan Type Senate • Administrator: Scott User: ' Population Summary Report Monday February I I, 2002 4:34 PM DISTRICT POPULATION DEVIATION To DEVN. 01 121,975 -918 -0.75 02 125,876 2,983 2.43 03 124,657 1,764 1.44 04 120,871 -2,022 -1.65 05 119,884 -3,009 -2.45 06 123,839 946 0.77 07 120,741 -2,152 -1.75 08 121,401 -1,492 -1.21 09 125,387 2,494 2.03 10 123,787 894 0.73 11 120,879 -2,014 -1.64 12 121,667 -1,226 -1.00 13 125,880 2,987 2.43 14 125,572 2,679 2.18 15 125,922 3,029 2.46 16 119,907 -2,986 -2.43 17 122,279 -614 -0.50 18 119,901 -2,992 -2.43 19 121,949 -944 -0.77 20 120,059 -2,834 -2.31 21 120,587 -2,306 -1.88 22 120,235 -2,658 -2.16 23 125,688 2,795 2.27 24 125,873 2,980 2.42 25 125,901 3,008 2.45 26 119,835 -3,058 -2.49 27 119,868 -3,025 -2.46 28 120,286 -2,607 -2.12 29 121,154 -1,739 -1.42 • 30 122,994 101 0.08 31 123,195 302 0.25 32 125,610 2,717 2.21 33 125,892 2,999 2.44 34 125,845 2,952 2.40 35 125,865 2,972 2.42 Total Population: 4,301,261 Ideal District Population 122,893 Summary Population Range: 119,835 to 125,922 Senate- 39 I Jams. jwrr i-rn-nn oT:nnt r. an IN_ -nuimmnira'or.,cons • Type: Senate User: Ratio Range: 1.05 Absolute Range: -3.05K to 3.029 Absolute Overall Range: 6.087.00 Relative Range: -.2A9'ro to 2.46% Relative Overall Range: 4.95% Absolute Mean Deviation: 2.205 k6 Relative Mean Deviation: 1.79% Standard Deviation: 2,420.73 Senate-40 C y 1"a e e e e e e e e e e ° E - c u — > — a r, c P e M d cc « e Cr- a aa., e r. a O : r : G a P F '° ° N e°- r- : r e c 'e° c e° al e e - 1,1 u V ° e c x V C Is E el , c v d '� c ', 6 '* 'c -er- c v t G F O. C c c _ c c c c c c o c e a' m °G° c � �, oc �o C ° e ac c c c c c ° n. N " c. d = q c c c c - C ' v on e c c c c c c c c c C O C C c 0 O 0 7 • v . e' , e c e al a a e a P e e M e F e' ea d e N h Iv`- — ' "c 'G v, .o '� r n. ao n G' — v. 'G m /y- C C C — C c O c d ri r4 r' r4 v r1 — r' N C G O ea 7 . C O a a, ° ° e ° ° e ° a et 0 r o N e a e el e v c. e' P e r.r .1-,, d e d e or 00 e N e �D Q - O C M aa at c. fl c.- le 4 a v G C N O. Y N r' N N O C O C O C G e .O R C n Z C O C `n a el 2 e e e e e e t co 'f. d o N Y, o' a e. a e- - o d d o c r- r. a 00 a .O a .1 e' • VI 'L m N C v vl C c-; N y n a1 .vp �i d N r P „ v, N ep C O d_ r• el ^l N e O O O G v r. l� v, - - P l+ O - - F4 a s a 9 a V P e N e v - e oc e e v, 0 Cr' e N e v e .O C `c e c. e F.- C ° fl 2 — P 12.1 nl N Si, a0 N L % P a O C .G •., 7 d 1., d O G d, d p P a P 'a e; a."' n m 0.: O c N I'1 d g 0 N fl - O - �' P rl a eN.l - O rl N ee; G °O V H_ G Z {a4 p.0 L U ea e ote r a n a v. e - e p O e e p e e o 0. Q - N d_ r, — d Ca v. v r G P' Y' p� .C ,d/, rri r d r c r N n �e a OO r v v O P a r O so O a g wl a rI"I w P IIC r r . P O G a I Z z . 0.I W V, • e m s m s m r a 1[ P .O at. °O m d r m 2 es C • In in Q N_ N N C - �1 N el N C N 01 PI Ca 141-4 « g6 w h a 1- o c 2 g o c o o $ G N n d_ 'v F 1`n y, e C C F C OS m 0 Senate-41 a E 3 N 6 C o J 0 a , e rr e °C e° e i i e° .. e e g e •- it, 6 el r•: r c c r' ii u ri �, el r! u r. w '°. z rr, ec `4l �-0 3 — ee •C L�� P r n r1 f a d % r c,' r cr. i % C `3 P P C �'' P c y c r c a- • .e u Lr. e- e° cc c- a r e Cr o° r O CC e° 1 c Co.e .e ,e C a a v. 1 v. T %1 y » r �.� C T V d ° — °i C p e Oa C C C C C C C C _ •_ C C C c — — a F C /y G te z VI CC O C C C C rt C c c c c c c c c c c c e c c C a G Z % c e° v e` e — e y. e° y. a .-, b' tr. e` •c e° — e-• o e N n .e—C C — r• ri v 7 > re! ri N ; rl 1 • ; ' N P N N N O L ; a a Z O C. 0 a. et G N e C C C . C .e ,e e e b n € m g e m e a g 4. e g t2 ` > Co 0 > ta — - O _ O C P O _ — _ N C _ C r —1 O N N — r 6 p C . m C C A VC QO > I m a >, Z C; °,to Col 1 ri e - e e y •y m v. C C v P r' —1 rl C: °C > O - v W r C — C ;G N b N _ N - rNI o C O C S 3 z 0 9 Y vN,elect.' ° .- rc o e „ C C C ci n e r e' P e Y. e` o s� r a• e Cm Im Z P " a tr. r. T 2 `f —• P O N r_ r r. •O m ° - VD N O P > _ > `D r N N C' O• P • c _• of • ,N/. _C. a P - - rl rw N ♦ M - P N _ P y W C U I-, v, a gri 41. vc e e m ' a e — O r e c, pe — e° cc 'e e `sett eco N a - - P a 0 „ C >y C °M° $• rl C O 8, ,0 N Or b b v •O m p % °P° V w' z Z < o w a wi E < V r- 8 - p P P r y ,. pwc 1 P P p N N A % P °° °L° °P rl P - O O O_ rl - N N N ! N re rr _ _ p a 4 wILL w y w2 u _ •o r 0 P, O - N rn V - re N N N N N re N .-4 in C C Hwt a a o Senate-42 5 N• ri .e ,s e; 1 , . E d v e M ee n e - e a e - < a or- — —- c - x C. C r C C .4 L •r q: _ r' I- 'C Y 4. a e c e + a e° a rl cc ` E aim Cr. 2 .G CI ee a P 5 a p e[1 v. — P — — - m E A _ = d C ii: a. c 7 L — e` a r e C e° e r e — C — a O G , — H a r 7 a == — C —1 C' C C C C a a v. . ..1 O C Z 4 ee Y r e v ee r e r e. N v, v' v! a V. `C Gt el rl In y K M v'• w A rl 1 rl ' O c C C W Z C C. C a a s e e e v, Q ? = P .c v. 4, r� ri c - - m h - m ^ e T C ,e _ C e _ — _ o a Y g c E Z C • c It 6 u ` V f. c e` c. e O e �e N o` v e a. r u ea c. yr rt e ? M y r n ad a. P O ✓. M m r _ rf i rl 0 N ri _ a r G G1 'p' g - — C 3 4 c e ^ - '.Ln• n 'r°• ' w „ c o at, V+1 Vi oc, .c. 0:1u c ry e.1 ry 1 — r h c = El. W 6 u m i.- e a De o e 1 e — ' v e = e` z pe b P aL. M r .• a G n .cc M — P . Ccl _ a v, r 1 r, E i z r, E Q V a 'E i v a 6' Q Q N i• a O- Cr. O ,C V R o 'C a a 11 t . 14y 1 N N — yFi,' . I e x e .. W 0 k y a n 0 C in en r, in 1 Q C a a H Senate-43 E s c nan Name: It UPY IrINAl. SLNAI Ii PLAN Plan Type: Senate Date: 2/11/2002 Time: 4:45:35PM • Administrator:Scott Measures of Compactness 2/11/2002 DISTRICT Roeck Schwarizbcrg Perimeter F:hrenburg • 01 0.44 1.53 791.48 02 0.35 1.65 795.63 03 0.48 1.33 139.38 04 0.43 1.83 468.32 05 0.42 1.51 751.87 06 0.44 1.42 532.89 07 11.38 1.41 310.84 08 0.58 1.36 663.69 09 10.6; 1.33 53.98 10 0.65 1.31 175.61 I1 0.28 2.56 64.14 12 0.31 2.17 163.26 13 0.53 1.39 289.22 14 0.55 2.07 63.25 15 0.52 1.50 290.53 16 0.52 1.60 406.53 17 0.30 1.80 66.22 18 0.28 2.07 88.73 19 0.54 1.70 39.54 20 0.47 1.71 45.57 21 0.52 1.83 41.71 22 0.31 1.61 126.96 23 0.46 1.71 160.48 24 0.33 1.55 37.08 25 0.30 1.88 228.40 26 0.56 1.88 42.37 27 0.20 1.77 17027 28 0.33 1.97 33.15 29 0.39 1.55 25.35 30 0.27 1.79 77.59 31 0.26 1.95 38.94 32 0.22 2.91 53.85 33 0.18 2.25 76.28 34 0.37 1.53 22.69 35 0.48 2.21 39.25 Sum N/A N/A 7,375.05 Min 0.18 1.31 N/A Max 0.65 2.91 N/A Mean 0.41 1.76 N/A Std. Dev. 0.13 0.36 N/A Senate-44 Plan: (('OPV)FINAL SENATE PLAN Plan Type Senate Administrator Scott User: Plan Components Report Monday, February I I.2002 5:06 PM Population District 01 Cheyenne County 2,231 Elbert County 19,872 Kiowa County 1,622 Kit Carson County 8,011 Lincoln County 6,087 Logan County 20,504 Morgan County 27,171 Phillips Count) 4,480 Prowers County 14,483 Sedgwick County 2.747 Washington County 4,926 Yuma County 9,841 District 01 Subtotal 121,975 District 02 Baca County 4,517 Bent County 5,998 Crowley County 5,518 Custer County 3,503 Fremont County 46,145 Huerfano County 7,862 Las Animas County 15,207 Otero County 20,311 Pueblo County(part) 16.815 District 02 Subtotal 125,876 District 03 Pueblo County(pan) 124,657 District 03 Subtotal 124,657 District 04 Douglas County(pan) 52,772 El Paso County(pan) 25,209 Lake County 7,812 Park County 14,523 Senate-45 Plan: (COPYWINAL SENATE I'I.AN Administrator:Scott Type: Senate User: Population District 04(continued) Teller Count) 20.555 District 04 Subtotal 120,871 District 05 Alamosa Count) 14.966 Chaffee Count) 16.242 Conejos Count) 8,4110 Costilla Count) 3.663 Delta Count) 27,834 Gunnison County 13.956 Hinsdale Count) 790 Mineral Count) 831 Pitk in County 14.872 Rio Grande Count) 12,413 Saguache Count) 5.917 District 05 Subtotal 119,884 District 06 Archuleta Count 9.898 Dolores County 1.844 La Plata County 43.941 Montezuma Count) 23,830 Montrose County 33,432 Ouray County 3,742 San Juan Count) 558 San Miguel Count) 6.594 District 06 Subtotal 123,839 District 07 Garfield Count) Ipanl 4,486 Mesa Coun n- 116.255 District 07 Subtotal 120,741 District 08 Eagle Count) 41.659 Garfield Count) (pan) 39,305 Jackson County 1.577 Moffat Count) 13,184 Rio Blanco County 5,986 Routt County 19.690 District 08 Subtotal 121,401 District 09 Senate-46 Plan: (COPY)FINAI. SENATE PLAN Administrator:Scan Type: Senate User: Population District 09(continued) El Paso County (pan) 125.387 District 09 Subtotal 125,387 District 10 El Paso County (pan) 123.787 District 10 Subtotal 123,787 District 11 El Paso County(pan) 120,879 District II Subtotal 120,879 District 12 E1 Paso County(pan) 121.667 District 12 Subtotal 121,667 District 13 Weld County(pan) 125,88( • District 13 Subtotal 125,880 District 14 Lorimer County(pan) 125,572 District 14 Subtotal 125,572 District 15 Lorimer County(part) 125,922 District 15 Subtotal 125,922 District 16 Boulder County(part) 27,583 Clear Creek County 9,322 Gilpin County 4,757 Grand County 12,442 Jefferson County(part) 42,255 Summit County 23,548 District 16 Subtotal 119,907 District 17 Boulder County(part) 122.279 District 17 Subtotal 122,279 District 18 Boulder County(pan) 119,901 District 18 Subtotal 119,901 District 19 Jefferson County(part) 121,949 District 19 Subtotal 121,949 District 20 Jefferson County(part) 120.059 District 20 Subtotal 120,059 District 21 Jefferson County(pan) 120,587 District 21 Subtotal 120.587 Senate-47 Plan: (C'OPY)FINAI. SENATE PLAN Administrator Scott Type: Senate User: Population District 22 ieffenon Count) (part) 120,235 District 22 Subtotal 120,235 District 23 A dams Count) (pant 47.380 Boulder Count' (part l 21.525 Jefferson County (pan) 1,727 Weld County(pan) 55,056 District 23 Subtotal 125,688 District 24 Adams County (pan) 125.873 District 24 Subtotal 125,873 District 25 Adams County(pan) 125.901 District 25 Subtotal 125,901 District 26 Arapahoe Count)(pan) 119,595 Jefferson Count) (part) 240 District 26 Subtotal 119,835 District 27 Arapahoe Counn (part) 119,868 District 27 Subtotal 119,868 District 28 Arapahoe County(pan) 120.286 Denver County(part) 0 District 28 Subtotal 120,286 District 29 Arapahoe Count) (pan) 121,154 District 29 Subtotal 121,154 District 30 Douglas Count) (pan) 122.994 District 30 Subtotal 122,994 District 31 Adams Count).Ipart) 64,703 Denver County (part) 58.492 District 31 Subtotal 123,195 District 32 Denver Count) (pan) 125,606 Jefferson Counn(part) 4 District 32 Subtotal 125,610 District 33 Adams Count) Ipan) 0 Denver County(part) 125,892 Senate-48 Plan: (COPY)FINAL SINAI PLAN_ Administrator:Scott Type: Senate User: Population District 33 Subtotal 125,892 District 34 Denver Count) (pant 125,845 District 34 Subtotal 125,845 District 35 • Arapahoe County(part) 7.064 Denver County (pant 118.801 District 35 Subtotal 125,865 State totals 4301.261 Senate-49 Plan Name: IC'OPY)FINAI.. SENATE PLAN Plan'Iype: Senate • Administrator: Scott Political Subdivisions Split Between Districts Monday February I I, 201)2 4:39 PM Number of subdivisions not split_ County 52 Number of suhdivisiiuts.split into more than one district: County I I County Cases%%here a Count) is split among 2 Districts: 5 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: I • Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 3 Cases where a County is split among 6 Districts: I Cases where a County is split among 8 Districts: I Number of times a County has been split into more than one district:32 Total of County splits: 43 • u.c,...znu....:::.u.v:..e.o,..,.. ..,.,a._.......�nrv.o..:......,ua.u:.,n...,.......u....mw..w.e.uw.=....vc.1.n....,m..,a,.s�eus:ars... County District Split Counties : Adams 23 Adams 24 Adams 25 Adams 31 • Adams 33 Arapahoe 26 Arapahoe 27 Arapahoe 28 Arapahoe 29 Arapahoe 35 Boulder 16 Boulder 17 Boulder 18 Boulder 23 Denver 28 Denver 31 Denver 32 Denver 33 Denver 34 Denver 35 Douglas 04 • Douglas 30 El Paso 04 El Paso 09 El Paso 10 • El Paso I 1 • El Paso 12 Garfield 07 Garfield 08 Senate-50 Plan Type: Senate User: Count' District ,Split( (C0ntlnnedl: Jefferson 16 Jefferson 19 Jefferson 20 Jefferson 21 Jefferson 22 Jefferson 23 Jefferson 26 Jefferson 32 Lorimer 14 larime.r 15 Pueblo 02 Pueblo 03 Weld 13 Weld 23 • • Senate- 51 • H E — n • '- we >.se 1- •• co Q L .C o 0Jla ei E E OO C ° c C. J V. ` C, C a T c` 9 Jr : ✓, C -I, e c a N e P e A C. - Y r - C T - v. 1 a 1 T - C C 2 - C r C- y P •L - + V cr. ri C S P S C y T C O• C " 2 r. r 1 ' en e7•. r u , K nt P v O d• C - T - v. r Y ? - r 1 1` f P T eC N P n — d d ,-.7, z c ° G T c c CJr T rJ ct d• x -_ C C ,z r a ^{ C c r C. tc - el !t fe r. C Cr v' 6 m s. P Y n a r4 J 0. U C C P. NI C C T C 00 C 0 O ,� v0 m r- re: d C.47 C IX 7 .PC. C K T1 t- P v. 00 C n C C C N en N v. K• Or N C P v, C en fl — ri (a C., v. 7 c c d, e c. cs c c G n P c e e Le Q •-c y v r. •e. e d r_- •C C e' 0. v! N Co 0 ee a 1.� a P w K. T - n O fl P c ni •C T C or C - a P p - V M Z - .L G °C' •C T - . t-. C. C W z c n N Vi A C - fl' ej v N T N d N d - n - M - -en •O .4. d N v N v O W a m z CC ' P aG K c C PCo .O N e N a W e .; Ci Y c Y •C ri C C v' P T rJ N, 2 v. r O C to •r Ov d P n vri a c. n a. C r. . P. M ^ v ri c. .. N v .C . rn r t. Y C. O. C Y. �+ a C. - d n C d ; - - Y. c' c d T - T fJ fl •+� N rl r.• n rl N N N G se, z C E Cr A ca ed Z ,. y .r e. Q C a. •C a- ^ e- M; C e G e c0 e- N ee a 'C e: v. a n e r e 00 e en e ce N O. - P 1 Cr 1.4 „ wt v, ate.. at Li C. f ce n `i r v d d G Jr;a n r .r n tm d cc. 'c ry v O .o m n ri .o C y Q Cal (•(. - N - 0 rl en n - O - n _ n. d s N J v v N n - n 'C v - n C C Qz la - N 1CC A I W , c c C w C n C v C P e- c a c C v. o N e n, a n C •n C P e - e P e ` Q d O - f• M C Y .C - CC P P n - N 0. v! d P N - N 'a 47 ee c n c � re N d . - en et cc N C 'C C rr! n Y - it. N mil 00 •O P. N N it Z' 0.• •1 _ Y P rJ 'G Y N . QC C QC:. or pi n d: to r d rz , N r •0 a n n r- .p cc C 1 C re r p: r. — v. N .p tri '0 N OO 0 fl — N J 1 N J N N N n O v o La c & A a 4 O a c e G P e O e- O C — C c e P - 0 eF d O O e m e` N e V N \ C en v V .p m C N —e d r1 Vi .. C T N tvr, — 00 P „ n n - R, en a C C G en a, N d P to ri d d .G — cc d eC „ d a'. C N N N. P •S ' % P h d O 7 — Pf` NJ en f^! N a N+. Vl N n M � N ry N tr., N P M N n — re. •kt d en n N n NC rN•1 N N Q• ry N N n fl n to I N N N n N >> O L• E E E 0, O C N K rl C O c e — — e e P C n e c. a e N C VI n n N el r.: ri V. P „ P O O a d c w — P ^ f• N .C cc P co p C 00 d w n .P — .p C C — 4 .4 „ n v. % n_ corm Y v N d P P' 'O O N U Q •. n n C n c r1 ri •LJ C. v rl Y h C. G T 05 NC. V C •C 0. n _C o — N - en Cv a — 00 met N 0 N C N d h N P N — N ee N N N 0 N O v. "V., CC a a. ee : v. e: P e O eP O e r` ee d e: e n eo n ern Ca'p e N e 'n e- Ll W v O $ n 7 O o ea. d S. m < 0 r d r•! O n e° 4 •O O r m JO1• Y. cc. 1 C. — e0 O C O N Mi C 1 •C n v O r- •. P — ce c=. ce r d t; r y C G n v N n — N Zr' rC•1 n h ell td•1 v n d V• tvr. v lV n n d N n n n ten v y d H O 0 C G O O O CC O C O — N n d .n �'. U C y V a C E Senate-52 C eni lv E rer 0. • 7 it, C en R 0 r. I- .0 w a & E bL ,i,`. 0 ea — e ` C. C r c ,c ? ` cc e o ? te C E G m u • CC 'C =r a Y r i a..- ° -rc C — -t , _ l cc Y. O c'' '" _ .. x v el S S 1 C T -t T S 1 P ? y v r Cr, : •1 ', v C -, c C L r L _ v rl 0 J S f CC. d ••�. -C r I .p C E-1 L _ v. re:— v. f 1 S ? . v1. ?. T S v. C• ? S Y V, r 9 - GC GC z h F • Z C c c e C - r c 1 c ,p S a w, e rn c . IiY C, K n .C S T 4 ,C •t cc, ri T a — 1 - T N 1 T 1 CI CC C P C V C — C• T Q O _ Y C L CC iGL c //i��, fJ vi N v. ?+i ' fl s re".; r. fl c N d fl T C v, — v, —I n C T — v. N V, S l� c N n ' Z C 6 cc Z • 0 ee .c a .G ° C z.9 c c c c c rl : P e — : L a S N C L r P se, z S roe., r CC ^ T v, � ? fl r c S C ri ri Z. - C c N c —. 1 •C r CC C esa. .c S a 'ill er 1' J r e. c e - d a r. C. v. T T - ` ' h ' e• — a •ri .Tc f ry , ry n 1 fr.; — `r ry r°Qi �' N E O W I fa h g evs L e d e` c a ee r- re m e N V F 0. �' N N— N N a a a 'S a ' Cv: v a .L a T ^ a - 'C CC e a w L n G a Gf. v, ai V n. a C: a «C. P. L - ,r. v. _ 1 v v, d. 0 • m • c • y a WI d. - d CC 0 C• T T r 9 6 rq 4C Y , v. N v , M , .C d N ri or-et fa o a W N W Ct C NI oe z a1 z v' N' Q. a V. e� a. e� _ a >e T. a L e O e Z C e° CO 4 W ? E' n `! T' v. ' f l a P C Jn. a vi N — M .L ce al 7. in r- v d v c d T v. fl v, f, ,.. O Yi T v. — T — d L Q .Lc N ,"r, • y ^ N en r4 i O u N U z c t? m LLTo a O n V e N r. .C e v r C r, C er N r v. el r-- e; _ e T CC a a P - a cc N d P a v x v P N C ¢ 4.C y '� r j N ^ v, en — •O C N d O — a CC' en N Y v'vi • n N• O N N n N ' 'C rd•1 el n el, el N r , el en N n `C N' VNl ,•1 N M N n r.r. n On ca enO I N y L e r-- e C' e r. e r4 e .C eC a e rl C v. Co e v, C , e P a — e so e nC' — p d p .O .C OC n P W .C 1 M n J r m tt .C N — N N d •`%; .C• Nw n N N $ — P .p U R dC• Nw CN N N '•1 n en N N el n el a O' N N 'V ^i n N n N N CO N eV N N n — — d •C ee sP ea: e m en gee ea-. ri it c. C C pe .. e N en e a co' ee C' e OI r •O a S. N m cc C r P n 11 — CN, r cc c y .O r eo n N N v n a r P Nee v EL N CC) ld•1 n re: en - Co ,Ni. N n fJ n een ' N n N N - N ldin 0 n Y n n — N P ^J d IN d d V_ h l�l •2 N co P C N en d 'C N CC Q, 0 {_vIIs N N N N N N N N N N n ,Q 2 C ycrP s C Senate-53 ,;j C r. N E e. a . It t.r.", m e C .C m is. L12 Y L E eo c ° rr e q : I., -. q : cc co CRS L cc - m 'c - `«r C i C c P w. r a r w z P O y C c L I ,� € c e c- fa — `� rlV :I : :I : ; 7. YPCO gU f+l q c n rr-i - y c C C N n r C 4: Z C e m Z. E. n e v. P P e0e c €. n d -f m o t, N ri i r. r N r r CC n p N m oe a ^ r E WO e t C ZI m e e e c c Gp a f ,O C r Y e, O N G P m bJ ,p m — pr C RLI (o — N ca P O • O °•• G y Q W co — `D V v'IN N r CC `D ir:N N CO C 0. F r v z I.' N y C C I W F C c.c., ,. p € c� Q U O r - G n O I"''' K - O C.co Z CC ro m C. N 72.m P ^ 4 Y {i , n r- a r n rv. V 00 Q V Y U m E` c as so E a e ,g e n e — Cr. a NC U N n N M P ,fin r�.� N IN'f N it Q, O I P w 1 wa-; O NO NePOOa Pb N rr.: 4. r Yf n N N O r ti n a n n n N N n n m Y. IN J CH." CC r: p yT ny C e• a0 to N & R Y �i N ,O ^ O m Y r Grp E' Ng -G N r a0 n m' - r — ' �V e C N Cl NCl n P V. d P V) U nni n n en C In c to V so Senate-54 Y C I O cU b N ._Ru �o th'1 vim m O > C • -- O m L Ur a m a) in • \\ . .. , 5 k , : ::•,:: :::,„,,, „ .• es O 2 I I Oi 04 O I W 2 g House- 1 u_ HOUSE FINAL PLAN - Metro Area '4aSi r ,/%/27/7 ,, ,,-/,;% ' ,s , r ; 7/>'%//,/ 4j%0'//// ''2i // //// 477::<;;:;:".2%,„/,/�'r//%//i/ / .. // /�/ ,ri / /�// i/ �/ / 'F 39 ,,,,?„..,:://,,2,/,,./K4/2/02/2,,,,;;;;;;;;,/,� _ LQ /. - /,Y / //' , ,,,,,,,,?4,1/44,,,,,, rr r / rr r / i / / ,iri: / r / / r r. / r. / ,„‹://,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,),,,,,,,,,,,' r / / v r r /- / ,r / / r 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 as Perk XK�Districts a11House Meta Nee Phoner,CO 80202 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.usigov didetateleg.html House-2 Sop co i•. S f Ida@�1�{$y$q \!• I as �' ' • iii L TO y 3 ':- mio 8 ogi -• �� aaa Ij . 3 •1:" ci all • •• Sa • w •• • • • m Ps 0. • • • • • • • Y4 C) MOMMKW • 10 ^+ • glr W W \ \ sw W yo Ay CO 10 IS Ay B. N N k • RI It. ,„„.„, \ \ a) LL House-3 E3 F!� �q 9'83 cii S DOWNING ST I e � cim v ≤ 3 AIM ST � o � r. p I¢ cv 6 Jae E. u. • House District 3 OB 11.• Dome zr a.. SMWOMMS Sharklart IfSoI : gin. N .... ......... xuagit�nuamew ----ice ..,,.,,,. ., OMUAMOIMI February 2002 1i6o0Broadway, u me�Commiseion Denver,CD 80202 ele path X1 Commbabnl ayouftWkwl Dealt aW WD 3 Phone(303)866 6486 www.state.co.uslgov_dir/stateleg.html House- 5 House District zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz House District 5 Adams AN- FillntiedR p • 09 }.f` •••sramsaxaa••••ZZ e+rxlaia Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 INs path XiCommisslonlayoutslFinel Districts BW WD 5 Phone(303)888-8486 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House-7 G m E v W 0 PJ g. Out a • CW -:!,::::::;:::,.,: ::: : ::,:::.•,,t,..:;:::: ....;.,..;,„ o QUEBEC ST ,: \ \ : ..< ‘,./i! l W• T Y r r� �r:% 1 H NL. p CI 'tonal sr e S COLORADO BLVD 0 m i DETROIT ST > ., m 0 h.. ,, . i „, , „, ,. ? S DOWNING sr1 co EMERSON ST C , N k 111111113d 4 L l \ \ „„, House- 8 I;' d On i �v: • �\ \��r,,, \\.1'\ ',......° .�:r. e •i , „, Irr N d a • to „ i IJ ,: 8 c c�\Q \\� fto '.. ° = o 141 11 01 O E House-9 House District 8 ' , ,� .. „ ,., ,,. EISHD AVE 3 (tt',\ lsvr v<.(N. G.tit<,(<..\., Ca r ..., . . . '(o' ... A.,, ,, .. Art A , •••••.. ,:. % IIKYY 0.l:•:!\` <.!' \\ ! t'Nt !.e->('1. •'-'4',>`y;At)(,tt. • ..,(!((!( . !: S,, ITN•. .<.(<:e: !,.(<"<'11 .'a.,1. :"�.\ .„tl::ll' Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 ma path X'tCommasonUayoutstFsal Districts BWIHD 8 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.00.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House - 10 House District 9 0 06JA ve :„.:11,:::„.71, 'h •• :nRR inn Rh n nynnnyinnln Rai Ar;Jni „LAF„ nn nrirann 4L R yr;Jinn( nF n 49 F liiM n 5 S gym : ireansu ' nR 1 5 ry F , itk IFNEM.e:., R,n 0 pF. 39 c6itry Brni wail+ . � R + Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,Co 80202 lib path X.:CommisslonLLayoutsiFinal DiSMals BWIHD 9 Phone(303)8664466 www.state.e.o.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 11 House District 10 ( Yl l \ \\\ 't T ! \!! i A !•:• '! fir• (\ ( < :ii.:::: ,( l RYY-'K' ! 't<:,::-:,-: \ l T. ! \!. FM. _ Lr_rrvil .... • .. "( .. ., ( `... .Y (�y.,0. , ! {., z(:'..yL.$\,111 t`l .K,t. • wow ws wkna I. e .." .,.'li 'c:c:zcc, c : ccccc s . .. . . : /7/7/7low .... ..... . , ,/// % ii fliWinsni / ��/%/iii ooiii iiii% February 2002 Colorado 6600 miay Reapportionmente 1020 Commission Denver,CO 80202 file path xlCommissioniLayoutslFinarDistricts awwo 10 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 12 House District 11 • , ,,,, : � , O J ■ Mont • l.i.:,ii.;;k:-:, ::; :;:..-:`:::.;•"::: M`if"-.:;:la:: :;:.:; :,,..A:::,::: ;_:,;•.,:z ):::: ,,,,:_:,;1 SIN.. • • ilgay „-11 3 February 2002 160010 Broadway' y,st a 1020ent Commission Denver,Co 80202 me path x mmiasbnLLayoulsWheal ornmcts BWWDi 1 Phone(303)866-8486 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 13 House District 12 ;.. .,.�;;: 4. ............... Longmont �J tamalaa , ,,•, ..... ....... K :::::: •;C:.'.�?:�1 :V.�1��.'.�:��;;:' ::,'�tl.• ?':�'.,1 :;'}x'.'11; . � r lit Ar weld V 6p V. CO i / f / O sr�ntnei 1 L _ February 2002 16000 Broa ray Suiitte 1020commission Denver,CO 80202 Mle path X:ICommisalonlLayoutslFlnal Districts BW.HD 12 Phone(303)866.6466 ovuvw.state.do.usIgov_didstateleg.html House- 14 House District 13 • ,••, • • • f ,tdir c Wel 13. '' j • edit. . , ti •• .y�. -il • • 1 ; Jefferson n��/�•••y ED Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 Hk path X ICommissbn'ayoulslFinalOlsbbls BWJID 13 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 15 E E _ U c O r 0I a \\ 11111 ? L • O .. �4 2 as c °•s Q W O '•t 1. 8 E O1 6 ti g co x , 1 oni= , N LL $ House- 16 g; WICII Ott O > ornoto woom ogEll C.) R House District 16 rive • .Wd2EOCK m f S z z .,,,•.. ERAiTEAVE . ...:.......... a ;: LC;,.,a :„C ,,::,27:;:,t,C1;:IC ;,.„(.,., Colorado Reapportlonment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suns 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path x1Canntssbnuayoelal�mal lamas awwo�e Phone(303)866-6488 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 18 House District 17 Colorado Svnnps •••twa,.714-- tmakill.'m RD Q'S< Teller • Fountain • ( !\! •r: \ ..�� , \‘'‘> \\ \• ! le e r f. Fremont sgiassasioniii- February 2002 i 0 Broadway,y,suite Reapportionment Commission Denver,CO 80202 file path XKanmwsalonlLeyoutav=m&mswds awwD 17 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.uslgov_dir/stateleg.html House- 19 ° - • °• to axS4 ar $ Um ,,,, CO "' a .. ;O� ... r... r •Fif i. = o m t , Ng N u. • House-20 House District 19:::::::::::::: ::4:', '14,:'elk?'±-1I)::1:::'±::4::::::: ! RD a ' `' EI Paso '" .: ; � 5 Colorado SpA m r L Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommissbnV.ayoutst Thsl Dlstricfs BWWD 19 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.to.us/gov_diilstateleg.html House-21 E •N O E � E S' o o (lft�iCd `Yd • o �q Ti Ihil' i � �� CI)o ii� IIII 3 R iO 1-5 O ci N W s :;; re 3 :;.; ; 1+n u. 2 a u. wy a House-22 House District 21 isu ./ ,‘.:4:“.....Z:4',:...“....:C. , .., . • t 9 moth .Puewe J Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommisslon%tayoutsWlnal Dlsmcts BWIHD 21 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House-23. s littili ' l -c 81861 �a�i Al EeEl ; ''\ Z.:: ,.. CIN ' . ... ,\\:\1/4 .,. , ,,",:,,,,,,,,,, %,,\*,,,,,\\\\T\\\H\c,,...4 41, o 0 N kts. H.\\\\\:,.;k: N N . CD ' \ , ‘N "::*::t\\\* \ X. ..s..-IN '' \ i ,.:,,' ''," ' 1 I —3'F 3 9 u F \\ o o m ;, . ...iS; . •:;1 : ;1 ;;litm M ':; ; ; E Mow el a9 aonnsaaM _2� `L i.is' ,_"" N J : .gy: -' .:;, " •Sal 5+110.. \ \\\ ;, \ �.,,\ • \... \\\NE „....s.-4 3 \ • O a s. a O R 4 calN Ii House-25 C rm E i E to lid!: m gliii N •• • • • •o , ., •; - err „ . . ....� ",".,., ..,,, XtlIi1NYgELb N m .<2.. ,\`\ g .%.::::,..,:::::-,..-v : , 1 C4 I • House- 26 House District 25 �� J 1 /4, En ''' :: Jefferson , / * .. Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 file path X:ICommissionleyoulsWFinal DlsMdW s BWD 25 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/govdir/stateleg.html House-27 C . O E 'BHEIBDAN 1141' U oR 1 lim1m o$co TX BLVD V R 8 d ; 3 co 4 U co C CD CD O xCa m • 0 N E co 9 0 0 I LL g House-a c 0 il m> ! O I; � N „µ. •F ,I tdp •fir N : U ++ : ,, • •":*_;:>::-,-:-- :,::::::::::;,:::;:-•.:*::::;:;,%::*5::::-;%::::: 5*-.:::%tft:: :-•:-:-,:-.:,_<2.,::=5.:<::>::::-.4., :i-:-, •:,:- • W` v., CI F. � N Fri O 3 yg •• m p Q m 11 'j E 0 V O E N k 7 ® 1:,;,,,,,;:, :::. ,,,,,,.:.:;,;,:;,,;,,, ,,,, <4.1k:-.$-::::?%;:-::_,-,zi:<::•:;;;;->ez,- ,zt.>"' O .:::,,, ,::_ ,-...,,• .,:,,,,- ftt...., • House-29 g 1ja 2 S r '@R� iC • r W �� . � .�.� ,„,,;;;1,1;,„11111,'1,:,, 1;""I1 f ; t,, ,,,,f,i;,f(t t',;(;(L.'.. m Osr ;;;;; ;! i ` ;;;;'i'„: ;;,, ,,, ;; ,;,;;,;;;;;s :;i ;;,1 ` ,..',.::::.;., :":t; U m „ii„,;::;;,,,;;;,,;:,;c,,;i1,;,;;;;;l;; i ,, ;;;;;;;::;"s;:,;,,:: ,,; 1, 3 S a ; • •Fio at • 2 98YAYs st ,. 1 El• zI L LL House- 30 7 1 T ♦ \` \ o E N \\ \ W L E O TD c C4 en CD O re Coen(cogs Q v m ��gg ;�: min CD O O C•" .•. •'••""""•" •" - ••"••"•••••";•;;::;;;::; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;,;,, i•:• ..-,,,,,./..,;.;.,•W w t'' ;thK, .L ;I: rii ;C • "�,, O O" CD O O E •.;. O 2 O m co: :•,". 4 q. .12 , is S v: N .Ni..,' S / �;; ii V.✓ House- 31 'E td6#iF CbktY�114811ii :rr..:.:..::::..:.r.r,.rr:.;,;r;:r;;•:r:,r:,r,r,:r,•r.,r,r,:r.:.r,,::..:::�:,:.:r::;:;:::..;...� r.;,`r hJ lo— • rr,.:r::rr:r:r,.rrr,:.::r.r:.,..:.,:r:r • : A+ ` : rr.r rerer L'il2 rrrr,r,. CUM RD . ; �s • ;; ;:� za • Lit I g \� �� \�\\ „ us a House- 32 p i Fq 4_ cii_oc„ � ° `� � _ 4 ��bt • i „„ .:-- . ' " -„ ..\\\\ l�, E 61 2 € C O ✓ m 0 1kb co ui, 1__ • Dill y: ., 1.x...11 cl- N M " .,. "' 'A i . ._ • ;. W y • we DI 4c n GA 0CM:10103 cf. W U. 0 IA House-34 \\ o V eE L o - m17 o p 'O 6 N a o ... " `:is C?:(• "` �\\\! K Opo .. ,; Q co :. ''co .:... SHE BLVD - t 'L- ■ c :fit:;:: .CD e 1: 0co N10TINST o. CD 0 • . .. . ..:..:. :.. 1 z 1 2 s House- 35 House District 34 1 El 37 0 ,...„.....„.„.......„....„.......„......„...„„„,„,,...„...,....,.......„„...,...,......,..„,..../.,.......„.„...........„.......,„ „.„.„,,,,.....„„ ,.„..„......„ ,. ... ,... ,.. ., .,,,....,.,.. .. ..... . ... ,. . ..... ... . .. .„„...„ ..,.. „ .„,....., :::, ...............„....„.....„,...................„................ .„...........„,...„...y.„.......„........,......,....•.................. ,.........„„....... w++aawn: ••.... _,.........•.......•„..._•................„ „,........ .„........,...•..„......•„.......„..,.....„,...........„ „..„.„„„ I116, .,,,{� :.w�wrxeva-? ,. .. ,..:. . . . ' r►diramx.,... , _ Thornton 32• .........„,...„...„.„......,./.....,.:.......,...-.-..El......;•7..........;.:,..z...,,.•,..A;;,5•:-:::.:::•-....:YJ(JA#%S , •, � %//ice., %,�iiaii ��/. //ii Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,Co 80202 Me path A Comm'sslonlLayoutsiFinal Districts 8141ND 34 Phone(303)866.6466 vaww.state.co,us/gov_dir/stateleg,html House- 36 House District 35 - - ''''' -- %. '-,' 'flitroliFir: , •% ' ,, .--- , -:: ',,, ;‘:: ,,,tisitili;hi;ui :/:: ,,,,‘, ,,,,::‘,::::„ 1 N - - / , :-..::‘ ,-,::::, r / 0 Lr .- „„ „ - /111 -;•%./':-:- '-".'-';'-':;:' ''.---">,-;;*::;,' .3:' ,,,#':',:',:':,":7„,:-/-,',#::: :;'-•,<-•,:f T i ti � House District 36 Aurora M • Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 February 2002 Denver,CO 80202 Phone(303)866-6466 House - 38 o _ w x r o :\. ;'. 'r`' j J it [qF[q 1 :>‘ {°.. is .. i \\ O c m 91 ' ,,,, .'?';.'I: `% ` a �'' mow ; \ \ l'7 liii! r �,';‘,>:,,•.. ‘ 1 :,....., {It ,.::::::-.;;i:::::5::::;;;;,!,:::::;:‘,.',:;.::,:,- 4),C4 a 022. .csi /i,A, \ ::::::::::;e.c.:::: ;.':. ✓ L• , i .,:".:;, ;;:; .L •;;r: N s CI • N :G' 1, ,z 4.. F1 h 1 o \• iii ` ?i i" }2Y✓`y� .... SF{F.. N ! ✓! O B ✓ 2 s Um a '-'Vp':: ..y.,f‘ \' Zr ,.•."..';*," . 1 Y � S}SSSfsFs4� ` - "i-F ev✓'.'r° •' 'C: fit; ' XI m a House-39 o FF N A m • Q • fiji Ts sNAVANA ST8SGENEVAST S DAYTON 8T'';•XSS ' Si' ;5;}`; S DAYTON ST a 'N2 Q co cer; $BOSTON 0 U 3 � co . ci�aa L. C _ • i `s QUEBEC,/,‘::::;•:;,4X:/4-.C\... ins?s: i. ' G sgi` '•s : 'r....1'Ili''''', ::::: s• `. " i '"ss :tea co ic•� a W • :W co W N li '...‘f::;:.•>,45;.:::::,::::.;: pENIgYLVANN ST;; ppZ � i 2•SDE�AwiiieEsrs ;�; : ;is `;i%f:' i ;:;i ; ;; ?; �s': W: p O`; !...."4:-OZ-.::: ::::''',t..—; C �;2 W p m ' co m PO 3 e 0 1 i , y I i%'rr:•,%:::: r O N • '`i l N C ,,,, ,IIB NYOWi18 S�: Ii House-40 �; LN \ '5.-::::::-.::-'. 2 if ... cv, 4_, Cr) r— _ . ,:t2:......... . .. .... ... ,_ .,:,_ ........... ::::,....?::::-...!:. CD cli r) a inp ..1:---;:,::::. W co C {a0 p FSRc al yip � y �p�y 8 T MKP"d��p!` pkp 4`R` JR1�. MM \RMMq Ci. p ,Q111Ps��Z Sf t IS $DAYTON CRRRW wvM MI .�lA. y ��RTa \VR'Lk .AuR `. 5 4��wuMc va., k Ma.eRR. I.gl!CRk M! CR R k .1 µ'� '\w`M �1 Iv�as 'vuxRMa s.vv.a anxa Fa`x R u R �. � F pp1. \ Mug. wM �aFwr.a w \\. �'�t1R�,�LIR \h 1.a.1.�` M Lea♦yw�Alvye crV.e 'RiH:f' pp�- A p` CM cU�1.Y\ HCk,HA Ml'w�tnR� C �p !0 ' py; Rua al -.4; �RRaaR:`n�R"uiYRmal_.�A�noRo* 2, cc u�yi. ID S ' I.�MTCa�\P \xR4�pMR\I. FK'a\ c�ce< k skcHM u�usar'w.s �.vs vw. d MN` p \xusucu skl.uu V. n rv . a � G RII'�'ICCNbHVF vH� \ House-41 House District 40 • P : J a3 v • �l r • • delhan d6 Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 Phone(303)866-6466 House-42 to • U El \ C NCO O C ..5;:tw::;:‘.4.5::: ,,,::::.".,..::sa..::::...:(,..t:.....;;;,...:: : :::::..-t,.,1:,,,K. � �N N O a 'N ii .°01 m>ail %Q ;9 r.Z, til O s;:>;>, :icvi>;.ii••: ;.:;e .c, c::,„r•;, q4 • 44, 44,444 4 54444 �L :'4444444 r :.:, i-5::::`i=: gis % :: :t-% - :-t �/� `.b•.`.W`l.`..:`.`.•-`.`.`.•�'.`.\.`-,...cf•-fa,:c i.`. .•.`.`.i ',`YSySSy4Sy5 ,•;; ,444444444441 444 44 4,4‘,444‘;`,1,,,,44‘44t,,,, 5 4 44 ';x 444444 5 4 4444x44444., 44 4 4 44sy,,s4 444 wv`. s44ys4444444S44444, x44444.,.,44.,4.,444444 S 4 S 444 4.,�. •� 4 44444 4 54, 44444444444444 445 4 4 g444444yS44444,,,pot 45.. 4 44 4 44,4,,,,L,4444,,„,,4444,0,40,, 4 Y 44 6444 444444 '`8 4 4.,4444444444444 454445 44 S 4 4 4 4 S 4� �%W 4 4 4S 5 S 4. 4444 . 445.,44444444444445`,4455 .;:. 45,,444445444444444,44444 Y v4 ,4. 4 SS. 5 ,, 44 .45444444 ‘,11i104`.., 'Yh4 44444,44444.,45444444 44 \� , 4444 Y444444s44444444444S4444444.. i Li ID � .4e44 4 ,ti;;; K,'%Q 44444 444 44 4�4 ,v4YSY4v44 4 4S 4Y 4 4 4 4Y S 4 4444444444 �',�,b .4h 444444 4444 4 4 CO Y 444444 44 4444444444 44444 S4 4444 2 y Y 4 4 ,4 444444444444444 544 44444 44454444,1444 4444444444 .4444..444.,444444444 4444,,444444.,444 44444444444444444 ,, 4.5 4446444 4S S 4 4 4 4,5•5 4 S S 4444 4•44 44444444 444445444 44 .4 44 4' r4 4 4 4 S.4444S44� 444 S4 4 4 Y444S 4��Y, 4 4 ., 4 4 YS 445454444 444444„444444444x44444444S444544444y4y444444444y4y44 "'444444444,444544,44444444444, 444444444444444454454.,44 4 444444444,54455544544444445544445444444445444445454544 4 4 44 44 454„4 544444444454S44444S4444444444444444S444 •),W 'et 64444yv44v44S4 444444444444 .,44554444 WAY.444444444.,4444'4444y444444444Y44S44tt,, 4 ,.8�h� �.tt 444444Y44� 544444 444 4 SS 4 4444 4444 44, 4 4444444 444 4444 54 .5 S '.!4 4 44 4 4 4 4 44 S 444444 444 4 . ' '•X44 Y 4 4 444 4 ,�y� 4 Y 4444 S5; ;' :� :' 4 hS44S444 544444 �;•; •'�ccc: c?civ?;:��:•;;:;;; ;: ::::;;cc. OR' 4 '4 ', 554545444.,444, , 4444445444454444 "' 4 y444444444454444 4Y,,,4,�n �,y 4444,,4444444x4 44445444444444 44544 5 4.4 ' 45 Y 4 Y 444 454444444444444 4 4,,,114,44.4.V$1,40,44:440/0,44,4,444t,114 44444444 444544.,444 444444444 4 444444y44Y444,,4yS4S44S4 44444,,444444 4 4 444 4 4 444.,444444 444444444444444 � �+ 444`�44444 S5444S444444y54YS44544 44 4 4 .,!4'4444 44 444ri4454444444444444v4S4,,444 �!4444S�i54M 444446444.,44.,444.,44 4 4 444 5 44 , 444444454444444 x44444444444 .,4.,4444444 •„ !4SY444444444Y444444444454S0444S4S45444 ••• hY44y4444444s4444ks 444Y4s45444 444444 ., 44 444444x444444444444S444444S4454h444 !4�,,5444444yss4444,.tom44444s44y4y44 r 5•i45s4'i4•''� ''�'�`"2' '• •�2�"� '�"';''�, i, ,:,454444444 44s4444444ss44vv444454yy4f •,..4651,,•;4•144 ,:;.,; 454Y44Y4444444444S444y44444S444ii4 a p ; i ;;;;c ; ' 5,4444444444Y444444454444Y4444444 4 O la 4444, ',444444444444444444444 4444444544444 ., ,444444,.:: ;'',44444444454444,454444444444444444444 ..... ,4444.,4 .. ,454444444444454 4,444444454S4S4445444 �` �,��;��, �. ,444444 � 446Y454444Sy44444s444Y4544444.,4444444 coI 44454.,54-.. , 1444 t;e4,Y,4�:-. 52,";{ ';;�$•;;:,; :} 444455445444444S4444Y44by444444v44 44 ', i 444444444445 444444444444 ". ,,, ,;' ,,:,.'r:;;1 c tic::5555::- £•'' r44445 •,, rS44444 r44' ti44b4b}y4;;;; ;i. 4444444444444 r--4.4S4S444444SY4S4S4S4 444444444444 n--.,44y444444',4S44444S4 . 444.4. 44,444 44.5.1/2',....x.... 44x4454444444 4�4444444S4444444444444 ' ;•; 1444 rir 44444h4,i, ';,;: 545,,44'444S44y44,46Y4,YY44y44444444.4 Y4SY44^v444Y44y,4S444S444444444S44444 g 44444 n4S X44444464 h ';,;',;;%;555'''':; "' ,44544444. 44S444Y4446S44444444S44444444 '`44S4b4444444, y44S ;; ;};; ,45445444 S4MS ,444444x4444S444444444y,,5 ..1,O4,1•4O/...-z.;:;,,, 44444 r4 L r44444,54 4444.,44445444S444464544S44444 44S4444tS444yS4,oc ibv44444444 ,4x44,y4Y4455444444444444444444444,4444545454 44.,4445,446444 4 n44 44444444444•4444444444444454-44444b444444444yYSY44y44S444S4 444444444,4,,44 Y 4 ,ri, ; 44S,t' ,4444444y,4444444a„444 4444446444444444,4Y4Y44444444 444444544444,44 4,4, 4 4 ,'44444 444,4 4,44444,4 544 4444444x.4444y.,Y44444444 44454 4,4444Yn444444444444444, • 4444., ,044 4444444y4S44,y4 „ry44444444S44Sy4.y4444y4S444 4SY44ri4S4444.,,4 41 444! ,4,444444,4„ 4,0 5 Lp,,p, 4454„44y446444444454444xY444445S4 44W44Y4ny44,4 4 444- 44 .4 W,p444 4 4 444444,4444444444444444444444YSS,4444YY4444 4444 4,444444,4 44 44 , ,444 ,044, 4 S rn44 444444x44,44h44444Y54444444444444S444 4444444444444 4444 544 4 444 ' 4"4,4444 444444"4 44444444444444444 44444 o 444444444444444,44, x4444.,4444444,44 44444444444444444444444§444 N 44S444Y4444444xS4S '4,4444 0 44446yri444,', 44,Yti,4,4444YSS44644,454,4,44444444S4 44444444,,4 S 4,444444x"44 4"44"444 44 44 4 4`144"4 Y"4444444 44444444444YeS544,Y,4S44b44444 44444444 i 4,4,4444454,4.,444444464,444.444x4,4, 4 ,4.,454444444444"444444,44.,444 h4444y444S444444 444 4444 44444 4444444,4 444 4 444:""4444444'4444444L.'j 44444444" 2 ,'4444 44 4444 4 444 444 51.,,4"444444 44444444 4444444��444444,4 44454":. 4„444 4444444+44 I '"44'4'''''''44'4'4 5444444444444 444444 .4.4,444444,EI444444§444444,444444x4tit,444444444 iy :i5644h444 ' 4 ,454Sh4,44b4S4S44Fb66Mh4464b x.,hS46b45644S5M1S44SSbSbS544-h6SbS444 yh656566N4 House-43 C A ' L U I S,., 0 coo Ci{{i{iDODD ..,• pNN l ::" „„ XOOO N a T$ • CHAIMERS RD 0.6 -8 : 11111 N U N O " if NOlVlds 3 ;si: • F Csi • i, d Cl • ,. l6 )( 7; ; ; < 2 House-44 C E -c E cg . o v a I >I E ZN op EL a O :.,g3 N 7 O U hi!i Y r;‘r e4 � M 1� M 94' rrr,r,rrr ;a; U :;a,:;ii:c: : :iisi:ii ;iiias:iii;ii; „r,.,, r r ,rrr,r,rr,rrrrrr,r.,r,,,• ': -�,,,... N illillillilll ` �Y x} c) a I r,r,,,,,,r r Y y r.rr,r.,rr ,r.rrr,.,.r,e , r,...,,,,.,rr...r„ ..', ✓ Q I Q i\el ` rere Mp _W. �yY Y 1 YLYI � 1, e er rev�r,re�� ✓J r{ 1 re/�, rrr,errrrrrerrevrrrre,rrrv, , i m . Tt� { n ti •:Yy ° w' 25 S yr t m y ii '>v yY,Y • rrr,rr.rr ,rrrr,.rrr, , ';r,rr„r,,, , . rrrrrr,rr, r„ r,,,„r,,, r. c rr rr,r. ,r,r,r, �: o' s �rc. a yr m N y• N } ca Y k 2 8 House -45 \ v,.;•,,, I 0E. To \ \ \\\N. \\\''-\\H\ -L- b. C N �s E ni rti �mp _m y _§. O w , Yy , el i .a to a,,,;,,, ,,,,,;,,, u) ',mow iS -49 d iti E E§ l0 It o LL House-46 • House District 45 Jefferson .... Pt aa�aW. ;`; • • • • —• , ,,,,,, ,.s . , . . _ , .. / • ,lKax40reklarR ' ... F - .. . . . .,• m Falls GisWI / , „. , ,. „, „, , „,„„ Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,suite 1020 Denver,CO 80202 MM path X.1Commbatontayouts1PMal Districts BW WD 45 Phone(303)866-64138 www,state.co,us/gov_dir/atateleg,html House-47 House District 46 L ,. 41 1171 i c s r { 45 -„ fir :4 oa tis . c: r ,/ :ii 62 zs/ Colorado Reapportionment Commission February 2002 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 No path X:CommtasiontayoutslFinet Districts aW WD 46 Denw3r,CO 80202 Phona(303)868 8486 www.state.co.us/govdir/stateleg.htrnl House- 48 o to co 76 4flfl CD y. o � { �it 8i • House District 48 1l111G • • , ,,,,,, STATE XWYM2 •••CaIaRYROACe[„;• ;•,,•., ;,• %?::%r`v?;Z:%;'•• ;"„ g :::-.1::E! .,..,,.., „ ,,, I0. r � .. it • .. ., „�...,�,,...•,,,, ',',',10.„ �,.. . • / r ,,, ..,,, , COUNTY Rana FJ Weld Q; ;, :::: „.. .... Lupton N 1 ,, �,.., ,,. February 2002 16000oroada�3�110020Commission Denver,CO 80202 me path X1Commissiontayouts%Flnal Districts BWWD 48 Phone.(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 50 itqH o `al .:, is .�r y 792 lirillc I i.','...0 a, 1141 �\ \`\`\\\\\ _ \1. '\ it icos—c.llikl;11\ V , ,. -....\ ... ,.i., .. „.. :.: ._ •:\ 0 \ ,J. O O � House-51 House District 50 I L tiff ‘:.:,,,-: :::,,,,,,, :,:-::-:‘ ‘:: :', :::: -:, 1 _ 2 �, Jy11a � 7sT -Siis, ? :,,,,T-7.:' :-:,,: ,::, .. . ,,, ,,,,...:„‘ ,„ „, : , L<,.:Val February 2002 , Bey S� ent 1020 Commission Denver,CO 80202 file path x tcommassbnLayoutaFinal Districts BLWID 60 Phone(303)866-6166 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.htmI House- 52 co r int, . , ..O m0 to e .,,, 1;!;! retoco0 a- ; C N HI ILI (4%-eddem W dS 9 i. Doak, 0 -I MI al h co It co g . I s i :\ s House-53 House District 52 • • q: • House District 53 //// " :,„ , „ , , •, • „„ „ I ECganY ROAD Mt / i1 February 2002 1600 BroOa�ppSruite 1020 t Denver,Denver,CO 80202 life path X%CommissionlLayoutsWFinal Drs6ictsBW WD 53 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House- 55 C LID a p cN I I I 1141 ( y a::,:,: fi i I 8co �`r�, .010 p`' 1 �✓ � y�Q r >.{ ;{ 1r ✓ `✓�� `.••,;`:••••' ,;` ,,� ter• .e,: ': ✓ n w. • ,, i••,,,,,,,,,;, ...,.),-.>•,- Ny,,,,,• :,•••,:.•••,••,,, -��.'„ ✓,, .y., W,y' '' ' Ali 2 y. }. r',' .`r '•: yr:,r; .{', v, v^, ✓', .:‘,1.:":;, .:y::�, ✓. .. . o _ a s I S as x lL a House- 56 C 0 LI12 0 Z N N O O a ".A s e m � m i $ x U1 a it I e r,er 7 . y}v A y j r ✓. YJ J: ',a.„. 1 , Ss.�' yVY IYY •)✓ ,Y! Ii ry jtiti .'•'..‘;• �•r. ` \ I. .YS�YY , 7Vr7 y.S •, ,. rV t✓7•< <,•r., `I ,� ti >'7 7 7 1 r 7lr ✓v.; vY <,-.:,- ' I --`•✓,y 'Y i N• ..., y ,,,,,,,, 47,., ; ' y , 9g J A ✓ �. J •, ‘,: ! IJJ, • ✓ 1� .......ei .,e,rr,rr,r„e,,, ✓ " S y V;.�` YYr "C-<:',1-,R . '0 r ri` r "J YJ�': „r,,,. .... y Av Q l I �." A Vr, yV Y ••••:".S11..' N: Sf J �N:�.✓,� , �x.i:Yy ;. .. � YJ. ✓7 .✓ V.TY 7Jy�y N. 7-y•iy ✓ $ C y „ ......--:,,r ✓!Y.r�J1 , Y yY Y � 7 ✓7Y./<'. ''‘'';.::‘< �,rylYi7Y✓ v.• .✓'X.✓ Yr , ..J ; , rv .!y!`✓.r✓,,. 1 . . ✓Y >'f t .� F' �• ,...••''r, yrY ✓ , ✓ rr yJ.Y, y, v N JJ/✓. lv y, r:' .---• ,...r N 'r✓t••...✓ } Y ✓ 7 ;• ..,•,..„,>.:". ✓�V JYy t. /y�; . YYr.,r_J 7 f� : •, �.,a✓mss �.•.✓yI✓'� Y; ! ; 7 �y. V `7Cf ••, •G✓y7 ✓�i✓J �-y:>tJ v r Jy J y ✓ r. ✓:,, V.J. 2 t .Y:J ! v.-,:;,-.4, z 7 , `. 1.!✓✓✓ , ,1✓J V; ✓ 13'. .: ::.r ✓'. Vb✓}✓JIJ,JJ\. u- 7 House- 57 , N 1,,,, i E r co la $mac co • 00 O m • U To O sag m o ��a\_ }_\t. \2. o• va 11 • of to { Z • G.. . 3 • ✓ • ✓ ,•„,l . ✓ I� O4 e • c:, "\.,:: :y:`: J [ Vii. r : N 3 t r'I. gy �' "7:: •.. .JCA�;J J:JJ a: ` J J J it :w �..r.- 1 ,3535' { }} y . House- 58 - In ' ll l tv L x l ." r,, i tl L , V: x L i O x ';'„'''U Lx VL' l : � Q 1[ R i t L Ll i? xx Gi T`1 L v Ricl xi L� y F '„'„-,z ii l t{. Ga'! LR LLL G ALL i i .A Lt aV •� _ y� L < La. li�ljS{, Il' L.i Vt 2 . L yy l ;'‘'',(4i; i i. • t• ct✓[Yf( �i• Y L 3 a L}a L r JI i l� vc O �+ 1.2 ? x y lv^ 20 x i CN ''i L -;-,' R a la tt :L L LY t O fj • LC S L L : x - ly ai t✓GL ii C N ��I r LLLLLL x < O > i W ;{ {� y Na <.ix t 4 L L l v �4 �}b i , x L `�t �rf00y ,, i a' 'i WY a�N IS r ' i 9$9$9$ t L x °4 4 4"< . q 1 t � hhill : 4@ " 2 h4 4 444y�,ti�i44hL4 4444�i m <�x 54 �5y§t;y4 4"44h4"4454"�",4i Itr `-:" ^;;tiiir yyqqf� y�.y h ,, 44444§"ys4"s444h§h ...... :,r.: m ,yyyyyy9lI..�1q11.�y yyyyyy��yy'((,�44,v.iy ft,44V4V4441I.�ti414 .v�,:;.. :rer:: !.:.��: lyy.Y1y14yY5 -�.Iy3Y,44Y.if5�l!i4G 4 4 ' 9 4"4"4 4444.444444' ' "4' 5 9 O �4�i�i44444-544444�5&'�- 4 �4y, 4 bb�.4h4� 544'4y� >,�1 ,5 > 4 44h4j��f44�y 4 f4 4�'44�f L,' i4 4 y44 y `m 4h�r 444'f. •Ih� 45[�44f7 g 4 -- ♦ 14�"f"{y"ii y4"4444'"x444 499f�i'i44° �'i N3 X444 444h44hS444 h 4 l 4 4444444444 44 2 ��44u�4shh s44h 444 4h 3 E y H, titiy"ytiytiyywtiysyy�� € C{A) r::r„ ' 4� �4E�Y�Y� V8Y3 4N. y �v y N A 4' YYY W � I 9 N y' LO O a •� N w .4-, E i 0 8 i Co 1 , I �, ID CD e 0. 3 O .- • m • x a m k r:r48 a 8 House-59 C . . E i 0.4 II' CD CO 10>i , • O Z gy-10 • I xp8�aI 1i;issiiuir.i.i. .i.i..; s CO _ u. I ci,o a 5 rp : ,Y" N cc; W I Li) :': 0 +40 U s , : N f• O I L • N. to ?,W,, ,;,",,,,,.,,,I„0;;t,„;; , '0 Ct i,,;J„C„;,;,,, ' 9 1' ,IS 3 , , �.. m O; 1 O m a I r E : S N ZX c co 5 ', 2 $ m LL House-60 House District 58 • • .�M Peons •r r•t .t •..4' '..iF� XMGhkM4 rr re/' tir ♦l .,,. v v' r r. .: < t r' <r, Delp r. •x.11: .< tiv.<t.v•• • �.,',< R 'rw1 . • , •v 're; 'c., � r,.. Montrose Montrose ;[3 Nucla R Ouray Nitwits � ..t..`, e Ridgway Norwood San Miguel Ouray •;;'‘- t ;-;:-z • Telluride '✓— • stlytron• Dolores - ;•r Rico SanJutsn •`` Dow Creels Miner Dolores C6 a Cortez M BayseW 1 ArFhlaleta.:is `. a January 10, 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Ms path X:tCommlesion%ayouts1Finai Districts BMW)58 Denver,CO 80202 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/govdir/stateieg.html House -61 C �O_p _ N 2 O 2' U o a io E• thUpoi s Hill CIanti UI = CO I 4-0 a) s 0 ` ^ 3 `A {! ( I � ',:��= y.°, a p i/ �/ �'•J J �' �jj(I� LO %in�� A ,A ,✓ .:✓�. ".:✓ ? 'pl fir ✓ ,.,,i , J 0 co M I . N. y, y O6 :‘,..„'./..‘/...,`✓. ;\J j�SI 2 i � 'V y� •":-"•"-": ',:„>::', AJ bV V A. % a• ):;,' .1-.,:::::.•4.1b ✓ ..J Jyy A .� V.. ✓ •4•,../.. J,.... :: i. Csl"IL. gy J ✓ !ri I ! J -'. ..%." 1:•:%•., ' ,"•2,;‘ ";',.. ,�,."l ✓ ✓ .z".•-• ✓ i ':::;•%:' '27N :::%",:;:;,;:::: y.✓ ✓J�< ...,.. "Ji' • � Jv ✓ Ali . > : ..l,r. n'r:. , . , House-62 C gO G fb L E go SCietit I C j� I FiQ licit St 1\1\1.4 m Rg g `o s8m gym i din I C - 9 0 O co N a) C 1.1 Q 0 2 to 0,,. % \ ca t. AS TlIcIN SW 03 GRASS CANYON RD L 0 4-0 'L W E N 0 ® i i y a G) U = m I m a I CO 6 ' l0 k . a 8 LE a House-63 C O_ I 2 E E _g hi : 1I n �, 8O Intl i i a 1 U is t ( • 2 b I . i a b C 1 o d 1 —4.141 N 8 E¢ Z W k a n g if House-64 House District 60 House Districts 21 and 60 - Fremont County 4 ' 6 Fremont 00401,4040, 21 i5 • / ! January 10, 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Mkt path X IComMalon%ayoutalFtnal atlas awwD 21 a 60 Denver,CO 80202 Phone&(303)866-6466 www.state.co.usFgovdir/stateleg.html House-66 • House District 61 fiia7w K•lttrt!� ::iilt3Blan ,, ,,,, . .. .,:1 c:. . :G0IAS ,, , �::::.:.:.: .. ... .. . Garfel ,l 000 CSaak Precinct Boundary , ,Re ii,• Ny„tni,ys�', Vat A a M • Mordrose � • San Miguel. M I —I.I,: CaMar Dolores .Sa11:.(tliGt;. - 2/.e ,,:. 1 Mineral p • 62Rlo Grande es Mamo .. Montazu '�,a. January 10, 2002 Colorado Reapportionment Commission 1600 Broadway,Suite 1020 Ne path X:ICommissiontLayoutsFFinal Districts BWWD 61 Denver,CO 80202 Phone(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html House-67 ■ f \ k # \ $0 2 « it °� \ #%�2 & : i $? ■ \ \ 2!\F# ) %2)§ \ ))�! | T."' - ',\ 0CD fe ,%: z.-; w @ `PO A m \ O » 0 f Uto ; �_ 2 • D � go w . ' A :\ \ k A f O iiit Z e6 \/ \ y % \ \ \ k \ t \ z O »Z'd | / f » . . ::,....5.:.s,.. ....:, | :J | KE # J a ; "\\ � f House-68 C O 8 ti e IfA. 111111115, cm m9 co o N TN., m O 6 o M W. .. .. _ to 2 0 0o. m Cg C U a 0 a-+ t , C ve o E , 2 0� \ LL N FREM0NT CO RD 123 .,. (6 •",, , *iv, sithir ,sa;: . ti \ � \\NI ,,, , , ,,,,, , , • z,\ \ ;r D aa o _ o I a y g 2 5 ..\\. . House-69 C •F ic Ev • SioRQ sigh \ \\ C 8 nn NCO U 5 o it 3 ft co • 0 a I a 9 r A N C fiLe 1 • lir g I ,�yaft w {y N 8 N k Jo a U. House- 70 H E E I il U gh mo 0 co c m '3I or > co cr) a>'oWo m °° 8 aal Q U g m immm4n O s bo N a i F = li^ ki`i•I (..) a % % : AVE 6 CO CU CNI a. t in Ne M 4. • NN 3 8 n Z 2 xi\ x li 3 km 1 House- 71 sp co tth O To oilo co I . ...... io c.c.)... R W OM s moo 01 .."--) li co I N tl f C.)CNI CO 0 CO N 21- CD 1.2 al to N I House District 63 65 -ice .;• :„.,,N'9r n . y q .• = iii/ ��%�% / 7 EI Paso Cheye ne•,• ;z ;3 t; } �FYFrns IR 19 a Pueblo Kio a i� 47 February 2002 ,C Rea-yBnNMMNar owonm02t0Commiesion Denv600er,CO 80202 file path)(AC"m!sstonuayou�sWna�ObbkYs BW WD&9 Phone.(303)866-6466 www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.htrnl House- 73 s _ N , .. 03 .,g .E- -C ' § I C.) 4-' _ .,-o a , COI CO 4)O L. :S?::::::';:•:.:,:;:- -.. ..Lk . -, .. E; 8 15,i N-_.• . \..- l!iii .. i-. . i . 1 al iif ..z. .. ., I 112#. 1 . lj, _.-,‘-‘'' ; Ae::;< -a% ::::.,:....7::;.... N 8 Aglit\\\2 .-..1:::::,::-,,r: ; -..: k-, x•o i:::•:::::-„5::: :>,:':::: -.<::_i‘ <, - -4\N II N - NIP\ \ \\.. \\ , , _ :‘, ....; . N ‘ \\ Z 1 I .....)....x_ .CI:Pt' So_ \I 11 I& N :\ \ t's-N -` \ 1 i< --' ‘ S -1 a u- a \•:,:\ \ •. \- 11., \ , House- 74 C N L E r E U 2 Co _ c mm Er ` 0 OI a' N J ligo Os • m U im4 c g 4-0 O U c Cu a) _ § 1 7 C Co 4% N e CO CJ U) 8 "4„, � \ n o 2 CJ a $ E 2 s m a House-75 C 0 I a U Y a V sm. m �o r T ap i •3 4- 0 of o a COTi h m '$ • — �$ •$ .• , 0 .......0 0 '0m c ,1 :::. Y CI Qe �C LL >; ;; • 77 : !: :'d •I co t . • Q1 a Li") J C CD 2 Cl) �.... s:S y .. yX4 CD r:..: LNG to m , m _� :.; 4 e O12 Q T nn ''y A r IYEtl AlNf100 S = Fr.': ,, ,• M C House- 76 Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_0207 • Plan Type House Administrator Scott User: Population Summary Report Monday February 11,2002 4:09 PM DISTRICT OPULATION DEVIATION% DEVN. 01 65,589 -584 -0.88 02 64,539 -1,634 -2.47 03 67,606 1,433 2.17 04 66,323 150 0.23 05 65,159 -1,014 -1.53 06 67,513 1,340 2.02 07 66,940 767 1.16 08 66,322 149 0.23 09 65,450 -723 -1.09 10 66,980 807 1.22 11 67,411 1,238 1.87 12 67,397 1,224 1.85 13 67,474 1,301 1.97 14 64,590 -1,583 -2.39 15 66,154 -19 -0.03 16 65,234 -939 -1.42 17 65,003 -1,170 -1.77 18 67,733 1,560 2.36 19 65,434 -739 -1.12 20 65,224 -949 -1.43 21 64,637 -1,536 -2.32 22 64,836 -1,337 -2.02 23 64,893 -1,280 -1.93 24 67,037 864 1.31 25 65,180 -993 -1.50 26 65,111 -1,062 -1.60 27 66,753 580 0.88 , 28 64,954 -1,219 -1.84 29 66,321 148 0.22 30 67,769 1,596 2.41 31 65,509 -664 -1.00 32 65,978 -195 -0.29 33 66,859 686 1.04 34 66,387 214 0.32 35 67,194 1,021 1.54 36 66,547 374 0.57 37 66,501 328 0.50 38 67,677 1,504 2.27 39 66,816 643 0.97 40 67,242 1,069 1.62 House-77 Type: House User: DISTRICT OPULATION DEVIATION%DEVN. 41 66,033 -140 -0.21 42 66,462 289 0.44 43 65,069 -1,104 -1.67 44 65,206 -967 -1.46 45 66,046 -127 -0.19 46 64,661 -1,512 -2.28 47 64,588 -1,585 -2.40 48 65,476 -697 -1.05 49 64,615 -1,558 -2.35 50 67,749 1,576 2.38 51 64,692 -1,481 -2.24 52 67,127 954 1.44 53 65,172 -1,001 -1.51 54 66,725 552 0.83 55 66,261 88 0.13 56 65,601 -572 -0.86 57 67,587 1,414 2.14 58 67,220 1,047 1.58 59 67,722 1,549 2.34 60 65,045 -1,128 -1.70 61 66,119 -54 -0.08 62 67,457 1,284 1.94 63 67,543 1,370 2.07 64 67,622 1,449 2.19 65 65,187 -986 -[49 Total Population: 4,301,261 Ideal District Populatic 66,173 Summary Population Range: 64,539 to 67,769 Ratio Range: 1.05 Absolute Range: -1,634 to 1,5% Absolute Overall Range: 3,230.00 Relative Range: -2.47% to 2.41% Relative Overall Range: 4.88% Absolute Mean Deviation: 940.31 Relative Mean Deviation: 1.42% Standard Deviation: 1,066.37 House-78 e E d N C .o e� o W Y. Co e m e <G o e W O m e o e e O • ; a O V e • e . Q P •°n O, 0 CC b Y. W r n P d. W O ci' N M m m P j' • T a N P Q G r, , 1 T .. P� h .C P °J Y Wet Q r Q �, q Q �. Q '' Vi Y� co Yi cc err r Q N Q G W V ° L L U {i. t;V C C C a Cc e e e e we cc e nl N .O C. N ° 2 c ° , °' - CL T F,..., Q �, T p b 1 f, — T P 'a O: V m YI fJ 1 M Y. Y i'. 0:1 ism IlI. Z v e C h : o e o. e rt. e me e Q °° me v e N e r e o e ro `° i P 'C P cq b P v. P r o a N — N eC = o c c c O .7:. - c - 0 0 0 0 - o c c o 0 o c • c c 0 O o 0 0 7 0 G I z ` e P G fl a fl e r ep o ° M e` N e O o P e N e - e N e r a • Q P n N P - r g: g Oc, M e W - 4--, - P - N b W . N Q N ni - Cl /1 N Cl N Q Y1 N N N N Q C 0 • W 0 C e 0. w OO W r n O e tee e O o `D o W we a we we me L1-1 W ,-p O e - o me 7 e • a Z - n m o n m g n „ m SP e r a r v, a C F - -- c O G C G G C C _ E > m v • 0 0 Z W CA a u 'V u t - a ch ea e m e , a co as.- Y, e < e r e m e Q e e — e e Lj.rn^d YI m _ 1_ vt N _ r .^ G Q Y' P " Y °° c '^ `C g °E Q o °' m U N viG N N r O O j N Q O C 2 z 0 9 AC • olo _ C CO 9 Wco, e' .c a o ° eY e' o e n e e _ e r e $ e ap r ems° L L `D T Or Q Q N Q P N or Z O W b N T Nt g N N `O N. V 1 M• b Pa L N N n en' b P n N M N O .L - r e0 r — - r ri Q V NI N N - Q �p 0 e. 4.4 Eh 0 — t) 3 or ? n 'v co. = 'co co �" h w b c ^ S. N ; g M a W' Q a = ,r., a W $ - a N1 P N •� N Q IP+1 n r — N h O Q b • 'i' N rrf W N N N r r%. m N Q Q r re.'' nW m N r b P N Po J Z. O N U • dCPI C Z a 01 Q N P - O T N O O - r Q p QV('AJ W N �e�pnp v, P r1 Q P Q M Q N L {i+I �p b V .p �p .O b b b b c c c 1 O VI to a ?5 x a u - N 0 rn o c o 0 0 0 - - - - 'O Y C C a_ a a House-79 ep-I 6 O °o°°° m ` °' ° n, `. e' en '� - C NC -e - v° o ep e m e e. • in a b h P C K C M . r, K ? N O: r O•• Or i r e P N bVl 0 d O P in P d r e °0 K O [ 'f r P L L at a. q4a y d o. b o° ro e _ o` r p. R E 00 s r c b c °I n r b w n . w f n e = r v m °, en ° m n co t m a C F a O C• _• K O d br N v „ N c c c c c o o c �: 2 Z e N 'C = ° n t ° - e r P e - e — e o e d S N n v N in _ N °C °n °0 M d ,O r - „ r ° .. O O O O O O p C C; O 0 0 O O O O Z Z en ° `O e a N „ e N ° N e O e O e - e b e ,D a 'O O b e fl m - 1pc.{ - r' m b d N N e n r- O a n t r_ O r NO g rl K - N N N rIl N ;•.,:,. .- _ N n - N N C e _q z 1 e e e. ed Q P N ° - a O _ O o N e N o P e K e n e r N e o e e P.' - N 8 - - b g b M O VPj P P co en— P P — d P C 7 O b O _ d O b '/� or d 0 r� G o 0 i. O 0 V tfi ? " a u w y tr. b e O e N e N e °0 e\rim n e „ e N e p eOct b e - e e o` e y an d a - - r • O „ d n _ P P °p - P b ^ r N N C P d „ A "f b „ - d b 00 N N - _ 0 d N d r d O A O - O O O a G z 0 0 m U _ ° ° b - P P W O v N C n b „ - r O ° N ° N ° VNl ay W - 0 n T en o d P _ n • b al d in P ,rr. W 00 n - b N N b cc"' d ei en N CO io d b O N N — - 1 e K C W 0° N — •`• N „ 00 in— '^ r O .e _ .r W p L ea e e c", e r e d e O a O e P o` °a e o a e 00 e r e o j° ea 3 0 vi N P m = c a „O y ° Nr N in 0 c y „ ben Q in r r VNj d r d 1� ro VK1 m in VNj 6 r r b rri vNi O' N b pNp Z P O Op „ P C r Cu v: C `C zZ O Q d C en d N r b n r o _ n Q n r on N 'q pnro ear °J — „p pd y a. fail at b b b b b b b b b b b b q b C A y y O a V x xle c) y - b r P omen .9 F - N N N N N N N N N •y C e u L w tC y V a a 5 House-80 . E d ° to o °C e P e K e P_ e r e ry n e N e° e n C ,p .« 6 C CC C r ,o '_ P '? z 2 G n b n a P °< ' L M. N N �. R • P • v 'D C a w q n e4 n `G O P V O b 0 L N d r- n b n N n c n r n r, er r O ;7 R p a r O O 1 N r' e • r W_ O L L d R n e „ e r o c o P .. •E m S n Q ,N r n n 0 R a a V z a T N C. ,L b R p r cc N C Y. CI F a C c c a a - - - in C Z Z N. e m e R C e e - e \ ,c a e P C C a tN C O e R G t` - N ' G ,G ° N n f. P °. C ' P e. 'f' C 1 - - p C _P C N_ - ,C R_ - P N C C G C C C a C a a G a a C 0 0 x Z N n C „ e Y N e P e hl e r e e e d e P ,C R e Y a P e •-> C v • N O• - P cr. rl m v. G r Y N am- N '� O `Gry _.; a O OV N - R d , n N N N R YJ n Y ,O N e C C O ,W Z a 0 Co Y ° e at _ — ° Np e` R e - e n e e ry e e R e r e ,8 e r �e • a a - `O C P O Fri O `�D O 'Pn o M 0 ,NO C ? O b O a P O a pp a• ,O U 7 j P] .e a U °1„ ' S e e P a •„ ee R a e w e « ..1 P R m _ Y - m - .0 pe co °e P e m e ee - e y •L m C_ w' O _ r r. r • - N r O G in O r N• N Z-1 A _ _ n • Q _ a a n n N V 00 N W il.O 8 C S 3 z 0 9 a e e ge U s p .. a Oo e O e O e n e P e e N oe N e n e N e N e M e y O, V V O „ r « N N N ,G - °p q O b v « - tY , h n O V N p N L x. n ei N O r e r N Pa Q b O. m O ,D - tT N R • N y N - N r"n °� e' N V C` V b n r P P p u u) n - • C = _ Z w e• L F - e R a N e N e n e - a ca u 'j, n „ ,O P p h °° ° M ° N O r- Qe el e pn e N e `C oe a R' V G 8 O° m O. a �: P r ry O ,r0 r M W a V ' V M P N n m eNn y' „ r 'G .0 y a, cr, n p O N r.'L' ro e r n irk of < ,rp n in V '� Q, 'C a N °° N °° V b en p CO 7 „ N V) N Ci E Z - P P p 9 Z - N r c. Ol W n r— a co - y o r w N en N ,n b r ,O N en d w 1 6 1 $ W 5 CA m a C o d v x x N renenen en en en en en 'O t, en enen en a - v e e iIn et et N 6 6 S House-81 ry y — ve - a C n `` - >` .i• `e a 'o° e m •o° ^ e •p e e e e • nn v 0. P re en g r1 v N, T M O `1 co g t0- O ,' CA T. etaa. m. vj N m r N `e { V1 0 T o T ro. '.f , T r T r- O O T T en a V r- vi •O n P N N .'t „ m• r r r r '. n T ,� r a c C w k. d - a c� f` ^i T Cr' d e e - ea 1 N e - o a e P e n e m •O` C co- C m c0 N - Ed Y, r, T c n a - - - 2 i a 0 c c c c c' T 0' 0 T n r+ 6 n a T r c d c c d c o o d 2 7 e e a v a c, e P e N e v e me n e P ew v, e P e n e n e` C T T r a b C o b P h 'a —co T r- 2 - C C G O G G ,. G 0 0 G O 0 0 O C O 0 0 O O 3 0 O 2 z Z N e N e r O e P e vi e n e z e n e P e N o m e T e Q P 0 r ' r IT- T .G T m — a T V'. A 2. M M h ero .; o r• e - '� —ni •O co P r n O - N v1 h P G O C G - — N N O O O 0 0 W Z 0 a 0 0. G o it Z. - „ n t_ C b e P ` „ ` N a a „ e` O e� O e y e` •p e )-a co_ ' 0 0 O - P - O at h - .i•-•,' 0 0 0 O m `� b en N cc O a 0 S o 0 1 E z h , 4 y a u .t. e 'L z v1 e T e P e N e`` - e n e v. e y e h e pN eo a e en e N o m o h , Cl P <, h P T 2 _ n h N N M N M b p, P O `G Q 0 M a - V ;D N TO A y ' - — G N N V O G O O C — O O O ten o 0 O 0 S O 9 ea Vno e N e a e cc. e — e e e ` W - E - a t-9 b .p m e, O o O O P e r e N e P e I. m 0] A, eg O r^ p N rl b •O N to V p r• C• N N r N P b yOj T r- O P L N� r or N e N O• b N n m h O h h — P — W ,n — C = L_ W•1 e. 0 co e` C P a O o` „ a in ^ a Pr o m e o m e P e e N a r- e m e ro CL •i „ m n g b P •On vl •O h h in P n co h Pm in b N h N N N h ON h c m m m r p Z C❑ N h O 1,1 U 0 C aiv. z ry o •mac r v •o n IN N IN n e e Q 4 w © wo a w m ((•..� T T T T T or Tin N (in-.4N e in M t () L O. t. m a cc F. E a o House-82 el G' O N C — e P e r.i e P •Co C 7 e r ° r e a. ° p G 1 n. d C 0 N a tr.ei n - W P V h op d r O Y f0 v' n '�' n. e r K N vi n - C (Q '00 rl N. I- L a u Li t C%I DO L rl n v; rni ^ ri a �� e. v, n c j r cc I r e- V. ° .V e. nl v. y r-Cr °K a °w n Co e ° Q 'j —. C C C G C C G C C C C G O G C C O �' O 0 z • �O Z Q e o P `°e C .•' C P e M1 O C N en .7, n O '1 Ni Yi fn.' V' W n O .9 P. n V 0 '° a O C C G C C a O G C O _W 7 0. 0 a a Z or 0 n n m N o r v, m a e. o c rni° v °\ n te M N r a - w V C a e iiv h a V - .i. . '4 r- e Co e b e r-. e R e` 1 e e e N e n e P N •! Gl N n N N n `C O ON r; - P - c - vl m Tr A a a O - O - a O c S O = 2 z e 9 _ e o e r e - e - L 4. /_ $ m g v. °O •v n n P• e - Pi h ? m 00° ' Q7 6 + o o r - e r n n a n e = en r.,' rJ Vl — v. N r. Z W e. L x 'O C P e v e - C e s C C C Cco rrl P O GO N N M. W N r O N t Gi _. c' g v' VM v' w v. m it., m N O N r e vi r O {p O r N n r o N U a z N N p e r- n r O ,n00 N r- O - P v. eoe N • RI a 'o m ;d .c a o C. n L O e O w x x d • N N P VD M C C i e 03 03 a a House-83 nan Name: IIUUNt_ FINAL_ 0207 ' ' Plan Type: I louse Date: 2/I 1/02 Time: 5:02:41 PM Administrator:Scott Measures of Compactness 2/11/02 DISTRICT Roerk Schwartzberg Perimeter Ehrenburg 01 0.41 2.48 36.82 02 0.55 1.52 16.63 03 0.48 1.58 25.14 04 0.32 1.61 17.48 05 0.47 1.60 20.65 06 0.40 1.83 24.13 07 0.19 2.23 70.56 08 0.57 1.43 16.33 09 0.42 2.25 28.07 10 0.41 1.49 40.33 11 0.17 2.38 58.86 12 0.21 2.38 64.06 13 0.36 1.73 225.63 14 0.35 1.87 31.70 15 0.47 1.27 39.02 16 0.58 1.46 22.43 17 0.32 1.63 73.80 18 0.25 2.16 45.65 19 0.55 1.28 166.54 20 0.49 1.37 89.91 21 0.25 2.45 204.89 22 0.41 2.37 45.92 23 0.34 1.87 40.93 24 0.47 1.57 26.28 25 0.25 1.82 175.53 26 0.38 1.48 23.74 27 0.52 1.57 24.53 28 0.48 1.36 23.61 29 0.36 2.06 40.01 30 0.41 2.03 136.52 31 0.53 1.48 39.63 32 0.31 1.83 67.72 33 0.34 2.72 82.72 34 0.31 1.75 23.97 35 0.41 1.60 26.02 36 0.53 1.40 23.86 37 0.48 1.50 21.52 38 0.24 2.78 54.33 39 0.41 1.87 46.34 40 0.48 1.37 244.28 41 0.39 1.82 23.54 42 0.54 1.27 14.64 43 0.43 1.32 23.84 44 0.35 2.20 125.50 45 0.38 1.76 235.79 46 0.34 1.87 39.51 47 0.38 1.86 306.45 48 0.43 2.00 168.97 House- 84 Plan Type: House _--- User: - DISTRICT Roeck Schwartzberg Pcrimeler Ehrenburg 49 . 0.50 1.64 314.21 50 0.37 1.77 35.82 51 0.52 1.43 54.39 52 0.43 1.82 44.83 53 0.31 1.95 32.99 54 0.46 1.65 306.56 55 0.32 1.58 , 232.39 56 0.51 1.42 297.01 • 57 0.50 1.40 657.90 58 0.30 1.67 561.57 • 59 0.32 1.68 417.44 60 0.49 1.81 598.18 61 0.25 1.98 647.38 62 0.43 1.72 585.83 63 0.55 1.39 625.74 64 0.44 1.32 547.66 65 0.31 1.73 501.12 Sum N/A N/A 9,885,35 Min 0.17 1.27 N/A Max 0.58 2.78 N/A Mean 0.40 1.76 N/A Std.Dev. 0.10 0.36 N/A House-85 Plan: IIOUSIt I'INAI. 0207 Plan Type Ilnuse Administrate Scott User: Plan Components Rept Monday.I ebruary 11,2002 4:54 PM Population District 01 Arapahoe Count) (part) 6,452 Denver County(pan) 59,133 Jefferson County(part) 4 District(II Subtotal 65,589 District 02 . Denver County(pan) 64,539 District 02 Subtotal 64,539 District 03... :, Arapahoe County(part) 27,285 Denver County(part) 40,321 District 03 Subtotal 67,606 District 04 Denver County(part) 66.323 District 04 Subtotal 66,323 DisbiitOs "' Denver County(part) 65,159 District 05 Subtotal 65,159 District 06 , Arapahoe County(part) 4,547 Denver County(pan) 62,966 District 06 Subtotal 67,513 Dshict_07 Adams County(part) 0 Denver County(part) 66,940 District 07 Subtotal 66,940 District 08 ' . ,. Denver County(part) 66,322 District 08 Subtotal 66,322 District 0? r Arapahoe County(part) 2,517 Denver County(part) 62,933 District 09 Subtotal 65,450 District 10 Boulder County(part) 66,980 District 10 Subtotal 66,980 District 11 House-86 Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_0207 Administrator Scott Type: House User: Population District 11(continued) lIoul der(c unt\(part) _ 67,411 District 11 Subtotal 67,411 District 12' Boulder C'ounty(p.w) 67,397 District 12 Subtotal 67,397 -- District 13 Boulder Count)(part) 53,395 Clear Creek Count 9,322 Gilpin County 4,757 District 13 Subtotal 67,474 District 14 El Paso County(pan) 64,590 District 14 Subtotal 64,590 Disb'ict 15 El Paso County(part) 66,154 District 15 Subtotal 66,154 District 16 El Paso County(pan) 65,234 District 16 Subtotal 65,234 Dishkt17 El Paso County(pan) 65,003 District 17 Subtotal 65,003 District ip ; El Paso County(pan) 67,733 District 18 Subtotal 67,733 District 19 El Paso County(pan) 65,434 District 19 Subtotal 65,434 DISSk t2a,x _ , n El Paso County(pan) 65,224 District 20 Subtotal 65,224 Distrkt21 . . n' El Paso County(pan) 57,557 Fremont County(pan) 7,080 District 21 Subtotal 64,637 DlsIakt22 -�._ . 4a i av,t _ Jefferson County(part) 64,836 District 22 Subtotal 64,836 Disbkt233; ` . Jefferson County(pan) 64,893 District 23 Subtotal 64,893 Dlsbkt24 Jefferson County(part) 67,037 House-87 Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_0207 AdrhinistratorScott Type: House User: Population District 24 Subtotal 67,037 District 25 Jefferson County(part) 65,180 District 25 Subtotal 65,180 District 26 Jefferson County(part) 65,111 District 26 Subtotal 65,111 District 27 Jefferson County(part) 66,753 District 27 Subtotal 66,753 District 28 Jefferson County(part) 64,954 District 28 Subtotal 64,954 District 29 '4''. Jefferson County(part) 66,321 District 29 Subtotal - 66,321 District 30 Adams County(part) 67,769 District 30 Subtotal 67,769 District3l _ ,r •: ._, Adams County(part) 65,509 District 31 Subtotal 65,509 Distrkt32 , ._. . . .nn r' 5t.f,d: Adams County(pan) 65,978 District 32 Subtotal 65,978 District 33 . ., ?"u. Adams County(part) 2R,884 Boulder County(part) 36,105 Jefferson County(part) 1,727 Weld County(part) 143 District 33 Subtotal 66,859 Disbitt.34„„`4• w:. ., i.,:3- .4'4 iq}x Adams County(part) 66,387 District 34 Subtotal 66,387 District 35 , • � '. ` Adams County(part) 67,194 District 35 Subtotal 67,194 Disbk t 36;ti t ' "` Arapahoe County(part) 66,547 District 36 Subtotal 66,547 Dist ICI.37 ` .. Arapahoe County(part) 66,501 District 37 Subtotal 66,501 Disbict38 House-88 • Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_0207 AdministratorScott Type: House User: Population DisMet38(continued) Arapahoe County(part) 67,437 Jefferson County(part) 240 District 38 Subtotal 67,677 Strlct39 r',` :, Arapahoe County(part) _ 66,816 District 39 Subtotal 66,816 Dlatrtct4O6 Arapahoe County(part) 47,370 El hen County 19,872 District 40 Subtotal 67,242 Dis4iCt41 J :,a.: Arapahoe County(part) 66,033 Denver County(part) 0 District 41 Subtotal 66,033 D9iiki; v\ x* r ��ww,'S.gw.'v�5° uv �,ra sdk�+. gc Ms:. ..-� ?Jl'�S1(?Ai�.viv.k4..,�afiv��. r`n1�;h'1�!L�n �s�.y'4` ;a�'�.'4Yxi� �x3x�<<.:. 'i�_.rr .:i':. Arapahoe County(part) 66,462 District 42 Subtotal 66,462 Douglas County(part) 65,069 District 43 Subtotal 65,069 lnt ya e x3 § Douglas County(part) 65,206 District 44 Subtotal 65,206 PA_ •x"el'?: ?: e w Via. 7. 4a S S�Sk6Cii inFC Tfi aaiu Douglas County(part) 45,491 Teller County 20,555 District 45 Subtotal 66,046 DistrCt eff as its i Tr en a " star i w 7 >a. qt ,. T"M1 .ti Pueblo County(part) 64,661 District 46 Subtotal 64,661 Fremont County(part) 14,874 Pueblo County(part) 49,714 District 47 Subtotal 64,588 Weld County(part) 65,476 District ic 48 Subtotal 65,476 to ira .6.( n 7 � s iil ,�y.ait .. r "&tt)4 l cta'i7- .I} r i- n& 'n �'.,�.7°.SFa� o.Yiw6.�ds£'s'�:�.. ..,, ;.�'.....v3R��i::>, YY'artc.+�C;'.�''�' ri.".,�5w'n9. �d:'p�ii¢L.i .kTatb."�.l.s:,v`��'�'F' Larimer County(part) 54,503 Weld County(part) 10,112 District 49 Subtotal 64,615 g INsh�wf�. rµ 'c' v t 'iK �y.� a''" ,yr� �.5S i ."�4'2 _.'u�'ffia ' .�`'.( ..�'3_ � l 'Ct l�N .71rf'J�k.s.4W�.r.,w.,N��gu�.*'+.. `n'•, 1*� House-89 Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_0207 AdministratorScott Type: House User: Population District 50(continued) WeldCounty(part) _ 67,749 District 50 Subtotal 67,749 District 51 Larimer County(pan) 64,692 District 51 Subtotal 64,692 District 52 Larimer County(pan) 67,127 District 52 Subtotal 67,127 Dish kt 53 Larimer County(pan) 65,172 District 53 Subtotal 65,172 Dlstrict54 .3 y _ Delta County(part) 16,731 Mesa County(pan) 49,994 District 54 Subtotal 66,725 Mesa County(part) 66,261 District 55 Subtotal 66,261 Eagle County(part) 34,241 Lake Canty 7,812 Summit County 23,548 District 56 Subtotal 65,601 Garfield County(part) 14,708 Grand County 12,442 Jackson County 1,577 Moffat County 13,184 Rio Blanco County 5,986 Routt County 19,690 District 57 Subtotal 67,587 Delta County(part) 11,103 Dolores County 1,844 Montezuma County(part) 10,505 Montrose County 33,432 Ouray County 3,742 San Miguel County 6,594 District 58 Subtotal 67,220 Archuleta County 9,898 House- 90 Plan: HOUSE_FINAL_O207 AdministratorScott Type: House User:. Population District 59(continued), La Plata County 43,941 Montezuma County(part) 13,325 San Juan County 558 District 59 subtotal 67,722 Distrct 60 "::. ≥ Chaffee County 16,242 Custer County 3,503 Fremont County(part) 24,191 Park County 14,523 Pueblo County(part) 5,271 Saguache County(pan) 1,315 District 60 Subtotal 65,045 Eagle County(pan) 7,418 Garfield County(part) 29,083 Gunnison County • 13,956 Hinsdale Ccunty 790 Pitkin County 14,872 District61 Subtotal 66,119 p ^ "`�". r .� y IS 7t'r^c rr S< hs_'• srT ° d.:T .nr its * 2 ff . .:: ° DlfUlr_t„6t *.. � ..,,, a..:"xr:'� .s.,'`. ,� .{- .Y�w'2'A�r .."�i .,_> 3.w� '�,.r .��.T7 "S'2v' $fi Alamosa County 14,966 Conejos County 8,400 Costilla County 3,663 Huerfano County(part) 756 Mineral County 831 Pueblo County(pan) 21,826 Rio Grande County 12,413 Saguache County(part) 4,602 District�62 Subtotal 67,457 n � :�x#Fg.1t 'i.,+^•mgc v�.. �viv < r F'i .,'e ar yr4r7 rt y g sr><: .t.,.l.34M"r. r L,>,�.. . �.'�fn•.. _ s ,.. as .,,' a �.a� t<wtaz<1@'_ Adams County(part) 2,136 Cheyenne County 2,231 Crowley County 5,518 Kiowa County 1,622 Kit Carson County 8,011 Lincoln County 6,087 Morgan County 27,171 Washington County 4,926 House-91 Plan; kou FlNAL_iY2tl�/ type: ittfti3e Disltiett og Yuma County ,8d1 District 63 Strot©tai 67; DibOkt64 Baca County d,317 Bent County A' '4k Huerfano'County kpatt) 1066 Las Animas Coutily 13;307 Otero Cotmty 3`0 i I Prowess Courtly 14,dti . Distilct 64 5ubtot B j � CCaw n Wa i n Logan County 1I3, 6 Phillips County d,4 Sedgwick County 2,747 Weld county t 3 (4 State tota'hs , it;iiii Plan Name: HOUSE-.FINAL_0207 • Plan Type: House Administrator: Scott Political Subdivisions Split Between Disi Monday February I I,2002 4:16 PM Number of subdivisions not split: County 45 Number of subdivisions split into more than one district: County 18 County Cases where a County is split among 2 Districts: 7 Cases where a County is split among 3 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 4 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 5 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among 8 Districts: 2 Cases where a County is split among to Districts: I Cases where a County is split among 11 Districts: 2 Number of times a County has been split into more than one district: 68 Tota/of County splits: 86 County District Spit Counties : Adams 07 Adams 30 Adams 31 Adams 32 Adams 33 Adams 34 Adams 35 Adams 63 Arapahoe 01 3 03 Arapahoe 06 Arapahoe 09 Arapahoe 36 Arapahoe 37 Arapahoe 38 Arapahoe 39 Arapahoe 40 Arapahoe 41 42 Arapahoe Boulder 10 Boulder 11 12 Boulder Boulder 13 Boulder 33 Delta. 54 Delta 58 Denver 01 I House-93 L SOUL ; • Pt e'° SI r,; AVM bititiy Silk Caktit es lit i Kklfedj: Denv'eF 141 IYeneF ifanver batik Denver ben'vet 44 Eveiiver 19 NMI- birkei Do tglak TJoagtas a} Dougla 44 Nte 010 14 Et Paso gi it tio hi mesa y El rasa 0 x; ft i 43 ai 141 riiii feria 1i *Sidi Jeiadi1 )ei'itiisot 1imititi 4 Jeflon 11 Jef 28 Jetteisoe 27 3'eriei3on te11'erstin ieffeiiiithi a Lanier Lariiiibr iltiiitia ii Latimer Pi Mesa mesa Montezuma mot. 44 Pue610 ta Pueblb $aguache 111 SittOdlie iStit Wild 4>i Wedlig l Plan Name: HOUSE FINAL 0207 Administrator: Scott Plan Type: House User: County District Split Counties (continued): Weld Weld 50 65 House-95 Page 3 a �� w41 it r v u. /{W i Q C e P 0 0 eee w cc, e ,4 e C X N t N X - pX 0 p �! O. 5 n tl rp 1D it P ^� N _ N N T C''' N P A O W N P O N P P h r n4 r C N tl a' r r n N W .p eJ n W y ? At r 0 n O A r4 ry rj Q P m P X oe X n X 'v e r P to U a :a in p—, n '�0 Q r N tl or_ Tt oe too X m i o 2 p— X — X e X r gee; .0.. O v. err co }� r- r �Cp ' p ;y r6V jj M• 'a n N Y n .n.pp aor U Cal 0.' U N teoe 0 9 09 e " e T X o X n e n X P X r X fl X N X O s eY X — P A. n N N N . *DA n ua°. 8+ § a * S * .^n r - §, 9E t `c D m P G = e .o r v $ `I # c P $ rf r m r r b a $ R vi • .r.. 4 : " el o �+' zz n oe g m 6 C O eel en) X r iU A A A $ P 2 S b w n ro p de p P X r CO 2 Cr- X — On X P Or- C N V r F n ♦ V. T V M m n M r‘42 Y Cr0 NN Ovs, N ! n n ..f N O T Y N �1 N O rAl < N N N P' el M1 * N tl on 4 I in d el o .Np 4 I r- 2 C ry X 'o X n (Xp otl,� X — a4 N X �q CO .��p r�it P a b O '4 • M .A I+ N x N !+ x .A N P♦ O X X y O X Y X A P N n b h `Ol r r ee b +f, - Q. eer • r P A `O r0. IV Y A O I 0 e0 'D 49 N O b �" ... v., X Yi P-zero N RA ;el. ry CZ I I oo pX O X N X N X O X 4 X O X ro X pe X P X M X N X 1 y V W ! O N P 70 N T ^ F. P T in y < 7,-; - — O X P X in X W N 'p n g a b ^ N fy g ry (�` n `� < P Z. O r N ep r O T N N O N .T.. V' tPl. a t 'P P_ T - CO A. N N P M ee 0 4 T ♦ N a ! Y O A M f m n Yi U g ' ' ` a.O X O X P X N q� X O X O X a0 X .O XO X M X P X T tea X Z O 3 y� (Npy 1y ligp T T V n V et rp' to. �P�pp . ry P p^O Pp fV 3 f— y' s C N N z3. .1.5 m 0 a Ni_ T P T Yi T O T e. ... PI P 1/1 _T T M in O •-• .6 tl T M r O. O �S O N p. ®®O fV T a T T A o. V X o X 'p X o X n X — X O �' g 'm^ ,rM,,- 9 r h P o in n a n n eo X .Mi n it °� c X r X .n X o JE ,p a I N c .� T .�i _ r N_�' n n .Ti. '° ': P ^! N oo '" .ri 'K r ao g '° � r. o T n .^ n ." _ T .^ e1 m d .T.. n n r ad ie N n x 0 a w T n co* X T X O N T A N e o X n p r X ^ X r X ^. X iy I. OO P e n r F) r n T n P �Wy $ $ O fpfyy. „Aga ry g I N ,17; V it; O N _ N M _ N PP ry NI ,-.7; N N n V e. O O O O O .S 9 O O O— e'. tl M 11 House-94 4 O N • N E -� a N. i ?•'h a e 0 .i A d IL ci E onw P .O X M O - e .O X O X N X 0 n X r X .O X P X `O X - X N W • D X .o X C F e U N $ P a d m- N e C Z. r $ V iz N P , O p 0 V 'O N a0 h „ 0 5 N N N N 0 P O a N r _ O '$ < n N .O N: O r a r m m e� n en `C eery r M O 4° O V tt a. o * a X o X. P X r X e X P 0 . X P X e X n X 00 $ P X kc X n h n a N - v. a s vo. .a n en a — a oo n co n — a en a nP m - n re; m ed a C' N er a $ co N. et $ e m en' - r`7 n r r o �p m „ n — o me a - _ �p O P a .D O N •d $ e N 4 W U C co yF Fy 0 e X -C X N Om X P X m X N X a X N X — X e X a X r X N. X P X w m m $ O — ^i — Co Co Ni e r * a m y N M P N — N r a O 4 - . m �p n * n N n N el .O y 0 N OD o „ N m e R m n r ^l ri en a a ^el n r. a. - . en pNp N .e a S. N e ac n r N O n _ e _ V1 n N (4 O n N e V n N r N C 0 m z • z .o X o X n X e X r gagX ry X o X n X N X m X N O P N P m 5 a $ r — ry �` n K . m s m $ n m m eel. r e = n 9+ r �, _ N .o o ery 'i n a n ri o N ^l a r. M e r . a' 0. .e m r _ :e _ N e o e _ r, ry a e 8 at ° El V a ca La 0n X ,c X r X ee X N X N X P X N 0 P X r X — X N X e, X X o X H FP. r- N N .O O •O n O .G a N_ P N O .p &. N •� r n a $ It p Q N 1" m N n r e • P y N V P N ~ N 1.+ • OO r a a. b. P H b n r e n• a •e0 n Q e N e 02 O' 5 'd n e e to e N n Y r N a n a a O 0 a M O co O a A as CD V SNI w z W CI WI W X N X m X - X el X m X m t r X P 0 , X _ X m ♦ X r y X r X o p X V n P r N V e$ P N r W .7. N r n „ $ P a •.. P N m m p b `O M p pC r a, n ^' h $ $ n o f $ -� r $ b n vl ,,; p �` m a .7 •o e N e a r n o 3 AO x _ .O N N in .O .p _ N `O N O c) U e e• a n e ., e . gm $ P X e X N X - X P' X e On X P gas N X X .a X V 7. a k. e m r r m re: a a c a c pp.. L.- r P a N - P n .a a r.r N N 0o 0 r n • N N N $ N e m en n m P 00 a, O N .n cot, m ei el e '1 .o n en a e ? n n n• eJ n n `? en N - o en n a n - n N n - ea en - n en_ eel -. n - n _' n _- M - n - n — en 7. 4 e em Or- X — X .o v .,. X m X r * CO .* n X - X pr X o X m X N X to it P `. e$ O a V P 3 n P' O .e+. 5 Fe! g. r. N `O N V D: em0 V AZ rye a cz n a U! 0 a N N .e.. N N 00 N.N N' - P• a O N _- N en .en - N N ren N N P N •-_ N •� en 0 9yy rie P X m ae' a X — X. °. X o X M X N X m X n X - X 'R X ? X X ? X 41 °' ee — - N $. .0 vi n v ♦ p pp. • - $ 'ry P .p n n y .O W {Y. O n y' n 'Y P n n V m, O V in U n r M ee z; r N S •P4, P O E.; V b p m .•f 00 Ii ^ ri e4 en •N al a ri O en N N QO e n n. — V. N N N V. — e n n — re n — T Q 0 - eery m N x •O r -cc a O - N n Nin CV .- N N N N N N N N N N a 5 a G$ C a0 House-97 s . E — O. In V e lW C R'r A m X "o e n e N * .., X r: t° X r X t 8 PA! 0 ,p 02 A se 0 n a v. w v d n W g : ,Z` v. e � .�i v7 n �n �' n n ,o � �� ..i � d � v ed N * .- X Y, 0 m X ,4 X H * N P T r T * X N Se N I r '�i a n. iR ,o d w r �S°i � �" r3 a � *°ii �, !d ; �V Mt � :04, ryryC`` it.., n X rq i� � 4 ��Y,`e,j YC y�L d! "�' ?t 9j� �xy it: n l��' ig�, e eg R $ t eS / t it o s - X y * i- * a it e l e e 0 it N t O t , * it �i W p 1�j et a `(mad ��p4}j. N a e" D- + y�(. 0` N N{ h 'r' •n M a 9 t _ ? N p 1 O Y `9 N 'O � r Q t. r„ 'E 'K ry X w X n i! X o X 'r! X 4. * 4 X - - .#t * h ix /b, 1 g - - c 11. N C m. it to it r-. X r. X ri yit pprya * .mp �X h .it( n * n ie igi to n X .,, 17r'�yj 1.et. K ry it * 00 g s ' 0 0 ..4 * 1� -a r 'i O h ,rip .ri e a t a ,Ii, 'G 1"- g r: 0 ® r x fV 8 cd a S r g X r X n K „t X co X h .* ee X r X P X os X o X o.. X n X bp X Yes * Q i 9 r g g ro n O N a '4' N 4 o fin+ 2 .t 4, n 4 N4i' ,; i m ri '. g °° pp s ^n e3 g _ .rw v' n r 4> A ** g g n g a .'Si Z. n a * * 4 M b n O. 12 - X ry X N X r X - X �. X 4 X n X P, X o X P. X r X .. X. en X g ry X r • i' "w ie 7 X Xp-p oXo ;r.. , pm-: qX 'i X A X Np X a fX ,+a X q X -i o N ,t N * g k M N ^ ; t O F R W Y f h d r Y h ^ ~ T 2 r r P P k S, g P n 0 n q ,o .gyp n ry ii, * �j p. (, T g ..1 N ..1 N N e.l N 4 N 4 O .� 4 ..1 N ♦ .V �. N 413- ;;; e.l n n n n f 1 b a I '�' A Y 0. 77p Mouse-98 s 'e E -+ a a.co'.^ W a 0 r a w w it I to W W C r e m a p, e n e ._ e o 07 * N e P e I° e r e .° e .O s o e n e O F a y P N Y• p •7 m N Om p P W d ei N. m e N r Ni W N M el o O - — Ni m U — P Y d OC m. Ni m P N 6 Y 0 „m In e^.t q n N V N O n r a r - N r p p p Y N p .O Y `O n `O n e p n V n O M o. n U w C °` r go e tp gm goo i O. ' o e r n e .O e r gin e e - e r e c' P P - .p N - on m NN en - N N O•_ N a P r ryy N n p m P N N U• O p Zt N N e-• r p r - O e P e P el. .G N ' P y' -: b in pi 8 m N .m el y1 ce e0 Y P O •O N `O •D N A O N P _ p N .O •O N - m - .O. S V b W 0 C W • C to Z O e e me - e r e - e N e m e r e N a •O e r t ry to a p ry. e n et W U O .N. N O CO P N O - V ,en p „ o, r d e'e, P 0 n r yyN N In nV r P ^m m 3 W h .O N Vi O Y N d m In ni O Y 7 Y p O 0 p 7 'M - Y o n - t2 d A m y C m z O C - e .-O e N .e O e° N ee w e` n e - e P e o e ,n a .° * n e ry X 0 e F U or,m (V A. a C in .NO .y O b amo n ot N P ,Pn 7 rcri P — g ^ en rv. g •O O n — eOn i. r n CS O eel •^n 4, aa, i- y V 7 Y 7 Q •On vi nn in o f F emn r C Y v7i e 7 9 C 0 , m Y }g �. F r C e — e n e ,-4 e r 0 Y 07 e Y 00 a C a .O * el e n X — e m a .O _V O) g Or, — N P O P N Nm — a0 n r n_ m hml .p N m .np P N 3 P CO C on U a0 _ n `o. a N 07 N p c' Y P W • r .O O N en P V n ; N g Y a OI ix _ G c p r "en o: n .e Y eo o a o= e r eN.. r' n P } n as n m 3 r4 en., a A4 al kzi W of X ,n e m e - e .° e - e ,n e •n e — e r e` o gm e r a N, a t Y e ,e", ] U m O N O .O p, ^ m a0 C e0., r- a ar0 m r N p dO N .D — d N & h e'i pN re CI O m_ 7 0 .O m n i+f — Y tY e en .Pp .O „ en N ? e V n P `O in X : en 4 .O qi .O m N • $ v1 N N_ O N .O V d a O c.) U C e TO W a r e e e r e n e - e r e N e ,n a e cp. e m e n e o e .° e u m •O - m - n N N 'n N N 0 < m r r O •p .p P O N r r g O P m a a _ a `O O p. d m r .O P.' .O r N m r .O A N - ,C o •° N O h ,o m e n en e N 7 .c ^ ^ N ^ = e". r '° ,ri � an d .d m e O U - N _ n - n - n In n n n •O n _ n _ n N . - m o; en P n -, n p+ 8 - Z, ea 4 — On! e Y 00 e — e y,n e Y e P e m e m e cr. et o e h e co e n e Cr, 15 O .O co n m a n e g• N H ro • ry ..6 n 0 n . t't or. v � •�$. r ≥ .no v; ,^ii et en . 5 O N e vs n O_ N O N O N P N N_ N —_ N N _ ry N N N N on N N N O — n if .q e n e o e � e en e o. e a e ? e0 e _ e a e .' e o: e ? e o e 0' To v ,n P r — o ,n h P, N C - r U N n1. p g r p y p m �' .6 ,9 -n m Y .0.— Y f^� r p. Grp in e. P y b .Np M1 .p Ono P: C; N a °^. m emy O 9, -; n Q p - n m- Y n - n P V m 0' = n p O Y P eer; c'' y C N N rti xMI Y N a Y ,n 7 r h C S pW E House-99 . Rte t 4. iiigt 7 ; :.;;;?. : i v x m c aiii - 1 f. ; 0. 0 it g lig I 4 itI A '1 P al 2 � t s sCiA'l * ' t - vl v° is n *K * ' a Ix # jt i q A _ P i&44 / $ v. : 91 ; 1 ; ?t Ins ! i ! 9n ! Ii � �,J�� I PS.l01J!1e (";!AST Attachment A Constitution of the State of Colorado Article V Section 46. Senatorial and representative districts The state shall be divided into as many senatorial and representative districts as there are members of the senate and house of representatives respectively, each district in each house having a population as nearly equal as may be, as required by the constitution of the United States, but in no event shall there be more than five percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district in each house. As amended by the People, November 5, 1974 -Effective upon proclamation of the Governor,December 20, 1974. Section 47. Composition of districts. (I)Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (2)Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as prescribed by law. (3)Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. As amended by the People,November 5, 1974 -Effective upon proclamation of the Governor,December 20, 1974. Section 48. Revision and alteration of djstricts- reapportionment commission. (1)(a)After each federal census of the United States, the senatorial districts and representative districts shall be established, revised, or altered, and the members of the senate and the house of representatives apportioned among them, by a Colorado reapportionment commission consisting of eleven members, to be appointed and having the qualifications as prescribed in this section. Of such members,four shall be appointed by the legislative department, three by the executive department, and four by the judicial department of the state. Attachment A Attachment A (b)The four legislative members shall be the speaker of the house of representatives, the minority leader of the house of representatives, and the majority and minority leaders of the senate, or the designee of any such officer to serve in his or her stead, which acceptance of service or designation shall be made no later than April 15 of the yet following that in which the federal census is taken. The three executive members shall be appointed by the governor between April 15 and April 25 of such year, and the four rr judicial uscistbta s shall be appointed by the chief justice of the Colorado supttnMe comet between April 25 and May 5 of such year. (c)Commission members shall be qualified electors of the state of Colorado. 14o more than four commission members shall be members of the general assembly. No mote than six connrtission members shall be affiliated with the same political party. No more than four commission members shall be residents of the same congressional district, and each congressional district shall have at least one resident as a commission member. At least one commission member shall reside west of the cOntherantil divide. (d)Any vacancy created by the death or resignation of a member, or otherwise, shaft be filled by the respective appointing authority. Members of the commission shall boll office until their teeppeationtment and redistricting plan is implemented. No later titan May 13 oft year oft heir apps t,the governor alb Wily**the commission and appoint a temporary chairman who shall preside until the commission elects its Onnt officers. (e)Within one hundred thirteen days after the commission has been convened or the necessary census data ate available,whichever is later,the commission shall publish a preliminary plan for reapportionment of the members of the general assembly and shall hold public hearings thereon in several places throughout the state within forty-five days after the date of such publication. No later than one hundred twenty--three days prior to the date established in statute for precinct caucuses in the second year following the year in which the census was taken or, if the election laws do not provide for precinct caucuses, no later than one hundred twenty-three days prior to the date established in statue for the event commencing the candidate selection process in such year,the commission shall finalize its plan and submit the same to the Colorado supreme court for review and determination-as to compliance with sections 46 and 47 of this article. Such review and determination staid take precedence over other matters befointhe start. The supreme coon shaft adopt rules for such proceedings and for the production and presentation of supportive evidence for such plan. Any legal arguments or evidence Concerning slosh phut shall be submitted to the supreme court pursuant to the sthedule established by the court;except for precinct caucuses m the second year Mowing the year in whittt the terms was taken or, if the election laws do not provide for pietist caucuses, no later than ninety days prior to the date established in statute for the event commencing the candidate erection process in such year. The supreme coutYihad either approve the plan or return the plan and the court's reasons for disapproval to the tsion. If the plan is returned,the commission shall revise and modify it to Attachment A Attachment A conform to the court's requirements and resubmit the plan to the court within the time period specified by the court. The supreme court shall approve a plan for the redrawing of the districts of the members of the general assembly by a date that will allow sufficient time for such plan to be filed with the secretary of state no later than fifty-five days prior to the date established in statute for precinct caucuses in the second year following the year in which the census was taken or, if the election laws do not provide for precinct caucuses, no later than fifty-five days prior to the date established in statute fo the event commencing the candidate selection process in such year. The court shall order that such plan be filed with the secretary of state no later than such date. The commission shall keep a public record of all the proceedings of the commission and shall be responsible for the publication and distribution of copies of each plan. (f) The general assembly shall appropriate sufficient funds for the compensation and payment of the expenses of the commission members and any staff employed by it. The commission shall have access to statistical information compiled by the state or its political subdivisions and necessary for its reapportionment duties. As amended by the People,November 5, 1974 -Effective upon proclamation of the Governor,December 20, 1974. Attachment A Attachment B 02 0 eNe e n e r a` NNe ne �p enetp e o ne eNOprae a e0) e ewe r NOtnr rNNNwSN r �r to O) n N NnN " 8 t') NNgS7OMNZmNte N � NNO VNth N O CO r Sn OM n nt? CO r .4... nt0 V N V p rail- Of th P) a LO tp t7 in r 0 i0f 4- CO N W 0;0 O.tA.a t'f a a co NCO 9 nnr, ton0) Rf ,,,... ct- onoi. onmi. nn. mr.. ar,`iir- rnn- 0)p- 0, - u0wo . r r r 0 a P tin n eg esee; * Reg e2ae � ecoepe $ * Se et2pe � e � e2e0a' arpe 25ii SC A: RNn V 2"*= 01- a Cps gm 8N N " 8 n al O)* Sege e5 N to P- to V nrtn "' a58 O Ss M cotD tO� (0 cif- tD SR M fO to N CO r . t0 V cc. = O o ci o ci C C ci C O r r ,r 0 0 O C o O O O O Z M ege ese ; eoese5,.. eQtn) e �°p° er) eoeu) Cep@egiet") aes o er. ese Aa W 4- C6 n o ppr _ co N MN to � 0 r'Or _ 0 '3 O Or 0 1 " O N N O a O O = i n O O O G O C O O 6066 C 6006 O G O Z = ct$ ese ; eNs es tneNene °aese saer. $ mer. er. eme o O Wr3 tS) °r °) o °° 2 °otot° t71 ° Pa $ 644S81q,S°to', I4tN 4F4- MSrt°. eo6oa 6 2: -- 8 Orr r O 0 O O O v m v to of tnrrN r CINr Orr 01 a Oa V t'1Nr r OO. $ 01 'Q) co tetnn ereto rn42o epel{ er. o pd eh.2E me r. e.me oe * Qesesetne N °O 0 9 0 Cp V u) to °O n.C? N °0 1. °0 CD �9 f0 CO 1. CO to 0 4' N.N CO g C CO N gst ^ N '7 c) ma r to o0 ARN 'Q fVNCO 4SMMOt0 v) thgt- r 0YN I-- °D r. r,r M g N °D O . r O N r r �- t'O O r r. .-O r O r r r �- r r r O r O r r r O t- O a O r r m 0 — z C V n . N 0 o E § t.; l6 '4 ��jC, yo,) patpoathe N ��Qp a t-4- .i.e � tve� 'a- eta' r. oprnetneee � ope ae aevtap'ttae N .era * 2N o OO3 V fOag t2l fl N 8(02 X812 MOOtOIY6-0084r o W 88 4. +) O) °O O) m Zm0 ofl) NNCA O C G ONfNO)n N- Nom' Orr 0 ororr O O j r r `V 2 'O iSS ,r. `etoae # V.,agiO ej CIe etpnen sneer e (pepp env aae} tp t' .—S men e �oe Ct f0 _In, N°D tN0 V 'C r-7 en- pmOW 01N CD.O 7N W O ..O- tn.<f Ahfh trnM CcOOQCD '4f tr soin Naar M NOinia C.N r,OOf0 °5614.-: '7 NOfr- 1-V t OOf I- N Of i. ^ °Or- 000 C, iwj r n NNr V V r rr rrrr rrfV P i = g c Oe e0) Oe Ne Oe a COe a vetoeNeme e o e erne o {{yy t(}r N �Cpp oo N V r r ��pp IA ty t� '643 {p g r N O)n. 20543 1 y4 a y a O n V M �< AffJ.F O°D OD N. :.NCO te) c,'t,. r �.aa o• aO °D W C, ZS p�'C°pp p tp �p tp�� Cp pp tp to tpp� p (p Cp tp a ae i7 Oml a` 2ppN O) A g N.12-t2 V' MC 2 A to R t+) M O t7 O) °0 µ,c7 M A o O).2 tO tS tn0 03 3 2 ? W ' rr 1 V CON. 9r0). tn.to NOtONN r.. ' tt� O) t0 O10 V f0 V O °O r t+!J '7O) '7to �. N r r r fV r ' r r r r ' r t c r O) r to N N O) r N La? N N O V' t0 t'7 Eg O N N °p N t') to N a N O n CO n N O) n 0) - °O O) It N (°')) N CO N to n N N 0 U) top pr N 0) M N C') (0 M Tr N 0 4- "It N N CO CO CO 0 4- 0 C') r r . r r r r r r r r aIf N C') C N O n CO 0) 0 r N t') a U) CD N- CO O) N E• b.a O Attachment B ` rtr ti i R- CO Rig &l gkvr A, Mai$ r fig. 0 a ill CgtgOliteflitIPAP.:24811414 § "Ig O 6; 4:6 O O O a O O O N r C .- r r O o ci o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 ` z — z x c a? ill Pig g y�O�}f Z - trf f37 M N' ' tS t lotto (* N * &SSN .- 4* i a ci all c2 ox Z A ,v & ma -r re� , e 4-7, r a r� ti W .- M.- N" N. `eh 4.- 0 p_ r x 9 ..•FOgE'df tt iD . wgr YAN 8F titi* ti t M W icliviriIp V M r . is . 00 ' 1r +7g . 1pti Or' e r r r R 6 i1 h C fro r § g E r. a l co z A O h t{ IA r 1n C off N N N A O tg! t'-' r M V- O- N p fir.. etc r r r d N N N N N N N M P9 N M M VF Q Attachment B W G were \ ° ° \ e° \ \ \ \ \° \° \ \ o o e o g fOe o e a` Q{p� (e�p (epe0e�` 1(�� ° N ° ap pNpo e A o N o yOo Aop (0p� a N (d�� Oo fO ap^ M � ` r rr ,- 6r N. RA`.S lYfOr23ONv5i1Onq O aNONO � MOOI : O �fJNONDNOff+12 tNO rf0 Ot� AN ApO AOa) C� p 7 RNVA V I.. 1 CD V. tO A. ^h � CO V[OC G) V � fOnvAma �a N- nAhO001Li cOO v't'iir: tnCn a CL 7 A e °D \ Ae° tO \ aeN5 o5 \ A \ ° eg � a O \ N \ M \° \ wa a° Set"' a° \' x/ 080 Ne a Mo f45 t0 e2 0 O ��p} 't fob o � o �jo Mo 1020 Crle 8j oo s .tr 0 si.� CD 'M t0 fn COA a 45 N. �'N rr (O OOD V fON ff? W AMtO'A ra. t0 c! O� N MYf Ol `f $,. _ M O 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r O O O 0 r r r 0 r 0 0 a z c ° e © ea m epp .p � A ° A NaAeppeNeNer � aeOaeOe epefceic at G Me a t0 co 1n T f0 f0 <.CD 4_ 2n <f co A N O) co 't 0 O 1. f0 O V co N N r O N r r3/4 5 f j O CD O fV A Or A_ a O r O r r C O O O CO N 7 r 0044: r fV M _ N O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a O Z = -2 c _ ° ° a ° ° N .e ° ° a a ° ° a co ae a a.4M o r a` 000 o CO o ra` r ra` a AAD ..) o a t0 elC No 4-. tie C •g W GAD 0,O frf) O mpOONra N- .p cpM Co CD M pQ a r CO CO NmN app V CMI ID O V N Ch 0 • 8 cc(02.. CD 9D N .-CD Cc). N 0) O CD MO f NOIf NN CD. rNr O) W = ar OOr Nr r rr N t+l rN rr 'Nv N r CM of Ul fV MrfV a C7 N coCM NN rNr Nr CO 7 Z ,- a 00 a. op fy ' o oft) a �p a �p o �o o o o U) O A P2 a` g2 g!i ap: Ali g_ r g col". ae 2g °p C1O) 7,:i e .V g. �M0 g N.CD r g pM a NON 1 °a N h °D OD. CM 8 CO Mr. A N 1... rN l'9O f0 wA or O CO A M.fO< A q2 fc 1� M f0 A O f0 N Of .- O) N t0 OD OD 0 . A N'. 41) S V r -r r r O C Co O - O O a O r Orr O rr. 2 t1O1 Z V O c O O .c N a yp� ppp dap ate. ppp� o Ip�� a• pp ya`��Mp pN a� N gy� Mpgo mr e� f0 ae el oe CD �ap� tep .. oM o N ° A a` pp ° 'Oo fA ° pA opNI O S M 4 ° V O O O 9D (O t0 q t0 fP ..- C :r •N.A I. V` pp M O N O. 0) CO1c17 N f0 '- Lk 4 K N. tla • • A kT EO N A O el OCAN r .2 S _ tp`' r r N r r N V Ch(G x"01 r r 10 Of r C -r f0 fh CO O CO M C7 f0 Of r r O N. r fV; c Z r r r i IS V 0 mm p� Cp 7 C oN 5 o aet0ScoSMae 50) 50) 5 5O. \ \ \ a \° ° o NNa ya.M N.. 0 r e et e pr� QO n22 �Ny �p �y �°fOO a app epp No C °�}} f� eta �NO a� CAp ° a Cp o = pcc 8. tOM Pr98fO S.r22 Prz*. ON CO CO 83:2N9Z g `2 NfO1O1f12.9r4 N 6 NOS f) O) to.n a N a r t0 W a i d h co b co N CO CO 0 CO to tm'Of h co 47 es in h 0)N al V f0 O in CO NA n r r co ID rr. r N r r r r N r r r = ist�r ae {re. ipOe �tpp tQ. ij Cry inectppaea etne Aye pm 'a �tpp yo� o re tCppa tMp ep� Cp fop to op Ae Mp Bo Z 2'.{�0�.�}} CAD V'NN O� CO CA C4 pO IOC N 0p N. 401N-dap 1�has 2 tO 2 A M gNOND.MT ON pM t2; nCO 24a, � MM • N•V;'.X 1P.N.: ra Y 4 co t3 cl 2 Co r N8 vM ZN It.:47 '1: F57.5'128 ArB8 r bm N Pi c ANN e25e U) s° ty C ° e°N ggi gN ° OS gCO � gal SA ` 5 o ° Mt'. CO.pp }Q� ° O ° r ° C�D ° ae � �ln � °p�t.� a`.r o r epoN ° .OM� eo. r o rpopr a tf o l� o a` y e il fp. ? ON), d.O)0 O -! C t Ai N C9 N A 0 CO fn A 4r M r O tO'CO r .Oj CD Z.:5 N O r N i ONO A N. I . Tr O '(.CQ co ri 4 . ! op � M'CO . NwNi r. A oaf N .- N O .- r� ! n ri co r r r- n IC i i i C r 1§ r O 1COp r f0 O N N UU)) 0 o0) v fn t0 tp f0 ap W N N C09 el, rt.- a ,oD co.0 CD /- O t f0 t0 M A t0 t0 r A r a I co a V r N CO t 4O f0 A CO O) O r N COa U) (O A f0 COO N r r r r r r a N N V Attachment B oer e ever . 0 ewe` r o o e` e o tl` ° E44101I ' ll RN a Z ` , 3E a Wae o m3tNo o e o ecie o ae q (ems `E a r, op lfR oo4 COQ 4 poo �Z 222 2 'Q 2t1 a ' MRp� �.f0 n � � N � � � � 9r0 l"i Mi t0 � V; � �� m V7 n � � � N W O�1, � �t if '1 V ' O O O O C O Cf O O C O C C C O C O p r p a n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O p 0 xs z Ngggir7Fig , gir § gia4fwlE 4g 4 -01rr! rtY 01 e+.r rr4f 4'3 ff P7 1fV rcY * NC7 . r N f&! r rRN V' v1 O 3 r 0 e em 172 § 4i Vi ;Ig ° g4iM $ I«+ 01 tit er st q Ek e r 1 r r '. O 0 0 O 0 6' O r r r r r O O 0 O 0 Yll r�' Cr r .3 z 1 4 IL 0 - r r O r 0 O r Orr rr r r rr r rN4(6 r r r r Mi $ l ` id c8� e i ti All 4 N p M - e� Cfi N i V' F,. 'r -44414 v« g : +�E sp cloa S I A N 4i N Z � _Mmnn .so f412 4 Ri 2 .2 Jre � � e nn . 4+J N. P. . keR 4m4 a52 - 4,R7444 op:4-4AV: et rag •� f� ' „Arc aJ NO - 9Q^. r ' M .N00 03"4f1 O11 4 q.0 (? m 1 l r 'l� r � . r TN- C N N N a. 04 1A t�pp eppp ppf� pp t��•7� aa 4� tp emp p (+� aa� -N N CIS N N N Qf P1 PN9 2 C'f $ $ M M ? 4 4 4 IN a Attachment B toeme eirrecoecmaeiae dmaCCO � r COM, NNrr V TM NNeCp W fofpp cO aoa�� N aO M �+f �O k M MNf+f k °OD V Na M N Ne'10 . <O er afrCOnO � r�: SINZ: ems ' I72t7: 40nI141: 28aN ' N ( N- fNVngNcr. 3g° I) N ' N- 0 ( vN \ \ \ \ e \ e e M `E N e N e \ ae \ N \ 0 \ \ `2 8 `E o m o 0 o n o a) o {ppp o 0 m r v o N o a o o N o N o 8) a M.o 0 o r o M o N e o M OO M O N N N N N f�7 N N M R N N N cc! Lo N N M M M M N M V 0 r N f� r N 000000000000000000000 V o Ne Ne fMOe Me8e 4 �ecz o ge8 8o 8e4e 20 4 e 2ee8e Ne 4o Mpepp 2e O O O O O M r n N_ b ..- r O O O O O O O O r o O 00066 666666 6060600066 _ N e ° \ ' \ ° � ° N ° `2 M e° e rn e � 2 ° \ \ 2 \ 2- 0 \ g \ 01 °<p � o oaa0 � ap`� a` I. e V o °op pep �ja No o e No no No e OONdO' M (M0. n Of N4nNO3NOnONrA � OOMIQM4 ") <Ov <00, 0<00, N ,a 0F- NO .. O O Orr r O r c4 r N O O O O O O C O N N O <n M O O 0 X ^ e Me ro e e e MeMe �ge 3e Oep�po C') e No pe Me r o N eirpo pC ° No O (6M0Mm t- rnit r- 208 (0 fDrn gicco 2 co r- IAN IO fO G`D pr W ^ fMO Nfm W �p00 C I� I� W W QO r N l7 I� O f0 V N l'7 eD rfl I� Et pp C O O C O O r O r 0 r. C O O O O M r N Gr(pp f0 II COQ er. eN20 ° N ° rnQrS ° <pp 2Ne02ro � e � � e 0 OC 0pe Me N o 6�ppo r O) i0 .�} e e N $3 de<mo o Ne o 0 o M) o O) e o U O � O <O � 010.. M V '" bNM 1OOr• NC70 � ONNN � r NN M � � � � IM. OCCOO.N � O) Z N r r M r r O O O O r r O O O O O O O O O r r r O a V. m I m aernepMpe �rnpe $2gggr. ep� ��p #° gri �gp (ppp .i} �g ei g. �24- teg ° b9 n CON „ Ma M , , O V O IM._ NM IM.. O/.ON1, 'NQ_C7OM0�D l'7 tN0, ONf� 0�f�OO Q f. (0 r N m dici V NO/g0)r.- dmaOrcih tmr NODr. r <OON or. rnO r0 tCONNr- COMNh NO tl N N R r re- N Y r r r r r r 0) r r r N p7 S 0 7e No NeNe 0) e Ner. o r. e Oe Ne OeIOe r. e 012 - 2020202w202 r 1. 18fpp tOM ). f- po O ION NppM aa r0 rO) Nfp dO. � N O 4 VI _ O <Or M(OO r O1NTr O NNW r <O N— N- 1. for f� CD OfO I. r T0 0e Oe r. e a Me eMe re oa.. 20, 2. 122 - 2 ,0� e opye ^ e N. 2O2 '.O. e r MC O0a M � h `Sp� NO3 Me� I. bf Ml TK O3M CMONNa Or•to- 22 I) °P . N flNa Mir. fN � r MCONO) �M r• 0 Of 000 N CI N O <V O) (C<7 i ha <0 � O , 1 ' MIO <+f f?<Ofn N V V Nv rtOr r r. m N 7 ' " N r r N 01 r ON 0 c0') 0 f") 7 CO 0 M (0 CO N M O O M CO •- CCO) O <ri (p O) N r O O)' N N M Id a 0) (0 O) )� N. r O) - f0 LO M N. CO CO N LO CO CD CO CO (0 f` CO M CO N. (O It) LO v CO N- CO v IQi 1l) U)) in I`fi u�) 1O If u°Q in (O CO (NO m CD m 0 Attachment B Attachment C 884. yN Oi Cm m y N O to V tlN Ni 6N �.< co 8Nt0 O 3 r r r m,{,{ O V.,V{ JJ,� Opmm�� qq *�{ type JI CS:. M1 $ m'm Y mmS C mL0 C 2t?N 4 $mt$ ONN qy R N n m T ,N,{{a N 1 1 1 m m 'o' SNN mmS .3E iidS c 01 au Of _.. at mina _. . Ws ei r » Le V V 288 8 -lard ] mmm _.. nm— m mmr- m `rm E 8n�i Writ; Q n es, p (V m N d n $ $ $ _ 4§1m vmmg m$8 $8 Co0 NNN gm,mmm m mmm O 0+0� N'i mm8 i Fst log' $ g w mmm 8 ma 1 V g mmm ` N � h ? 3,r--• /$IguSn m c eiV$ `u�a,8 , V OtN 9 IpN� q ^$tO U $$$ mgg E ng4 mmm `; u Hein CO i U 8m t e$$ ! $$$ ; 8mm nn� nv� o ymn� LL �'� oFtoW _ E 8o E N Nm _ n'§4 l3 1 1m Ad d% yry gar. gig �mn '(1(yrnn��ypYp�f Ih,n�{1,.N1. m' ''yy _ i.n(y NL Y f0...." O P§. ygig mlf t.! Opy In i. _. LN � W 1w) i .-o 222 o Jn�nm g$g . .mm N m&� LI a mmm a -....... QQ H eJ _I $ C3.-: th a G 8 §2g 0 0 to t'1 m m coo,rNV mg� moo) mceic ,-$ w-$a$ S'N o sMI m '. < Egg d E oo� ... 1 mmm $$\S $g 8 2 c NN(pp {�yy �n¢ W . -1 2 V (N{yy qW (t: $N N vi p {Cyl Q m m m i N ,t{7 V N N Y � N N Iy , 3g gg' d g m g & c V�j{ {ppJ �n ��nn I, 03 03 $ $ 8. m .0 Loin W C ^ N ° NM yy� d - E 8 co M '& m a am{O U I rc,m{�Soi Y�� mAg mAB $s Attachment C Attachment D Senate Bill 00-119 AN ACT CONCERNING THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS, AND MAKING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFORE Section 1. 2-2-502. Definitions,As used in this part 5: (1)"Commission"means the Colorado reapportionment commission,created pursuant to section 48 of article V of the state constitutions and appointed in 2001. Section 2. 2-2-503. Designation of senatorial districts to elect in 2002 and 2004. As a part of its preliminary and final reapportionment plans for state senatorial districts,the commission shall designate those senatorial districts in which state senators shall be elected at the general election to be held in November 2002,and every four years thereafter,and those senatorial districts in which state senators shall be elected at the general election to be held in November 2004,and every four years thereafter. Such designation of senatorial districts shall be filed with the secretary of state as part of the approved reapportionment plan required to be filed by section 48(1)(e)of article V of the state constitution. Section 3. 2-2-504 Holdover senators keep office-vacancies. (I)Nothing in this part 5 or in any reapportionment plan shall be construed to cause the removal of any senator from his or her office for the term for which.the senator was elected,and each such senator shall serve the term for which he or she was elected. (2) If any senator elected at the 2000 general election.vacates his or her seat prior to the convening of the regular legislative session in 2003,such vacancy shall be filled from the district from which the senator was elected in accordance with section I-12-203,C.R.S. If such vacancy occurs more than fifty-five days before the general election in 2002,there shall be an election at the general election in 2002 for the remainder of such senator's term from the senatorial district created by the commission. Nomination,of candidates at such ehxtion.shall be in accordance with article 4 of title 1,C.R.S. (3) If any senator elected at the 2000 general election vacates his or her seat on or after the convening of the regular legislative session in 2003, such vacancy shall be filled from the senatorial district created by the commission in accordance with section 1-12-203,C.R.S. Section.4. 2-2-506.Precinct boundaries. (1)(a.5)(I)The general assembly recognizes that,under section 48 of article V of the state constitution, the deadline for the filing of a court-approved redistricting plan for senatorial and representative districts with the secretary of state is March 15,2002. However,the general assembly also recognizes that the redrawing of federal election precinct boundaries cannot be completed by the time required in section 1-5-103,C.R.S.,unless the plan is approved and filed substantially before March 15,2002. The general assembly therefore urges the commission and the Colorado supreme court to make every effort to complete the redistricting process no later than February.15,.2002. (II)If a court-approved redistricting plan for senatorial and representative districts has not been filed with the secretary of state by February 15,2002,notwithstanding the provisions of section 1-5-103 and 1-4-602(4),C.R.S., changes in precinct boundaries shall be completed no later than March 20, 2002,and notices of precinct caucuses shall be posted not later than April 3,2002. (III)This paragraph(a.5)shall take effect on February 1,2001,but only if senate concurrent resolution 00-002 does not become law. Attachment D • Attachment b Section 5. 2-2-511. Applicability. This part 5 shall apply to the Colorado reapportionment commission appointed in 2001 and to state senatorial and state representative districts created by said co nlnlission. Sectibn 6. Definitions. As used in sections 6 through 11 of this act: (1) "Census bureau"means the United States census bureau. (2)"Commission"means the Colorado reapportionment commission appointed in 2001 pursuant to the provisions of section 48 of article V of the state constitution. (3) "Congressional plan" means the plan for the redistricting of congressional districts in Colorado based upon the census conducted in 2000 as provided by section 44 of snick V of the state constitution: (4)"Executive committee"means the executive comtnittee of the legislative council. (5)"State plan"means a plan for theredistricttngofColorado state senatorial and repentant districts based upon the census conducted in 2000 as provided in sectlona 45 through 4i1 of article V of the state constitution. Section 7.Arrangements pending the organization of the reapportionment commission: (1)The genial assembly hereby Skids that the redistricting of congittisional and state senatorial and representative districts t*tuitas the compilation,assimilation turd analysis of late antnitti of Wins data and maps;that the task of redistricting involves complex mathematical analysis and a thorough consideration of legal issues under the state and federal statutes and constitution;that 2000 census data and ten ere being finished to tine states in c otmputeti fed forest that the ortmlittridtethtWeity day limitation on regular Sesrdaas tithe general assembly means that the eiladtitititt of a easgressiotral plan may require a special sestina and that the arrangeMents set fotdn in this section and section it of Oa set are provided in order to assure that the ccihmissian and the gtheiti assembly will be as?MISS as possible to begin their subtve work as scan as possible. (2) Upon the request of the executive committee; the following offices shall provide the legislative council any necessary staff assistance prior to the appointment of the commission: (a)The office of 1 Isla the legal services; (b)The division of local government in the department of local of ire;and (c)The department of state. (3)The legislaivecouncil shall make the following materials available to the commission: (a)A computer data base deceiving all units of census geography built from the TRIER line file received rteM the census bureau. (b)A computer data base of population data built from the Public Law 94-111 files received from the census bureau wing with section 2-2-901,C.R.S.,including racial and ethnic'data; (c)A computer data base of election and voter registration information for the 1998 and 2000 general elections; (d) Any available information indicating the location of cultural, economic,`geographic, demographic;and trade aura factors in Colorado;and (e) Any available information of analysis of state and federal court decisions anent* redistricting: (4)The executive committee may make arrangements for office space for the commission and its staff prior to the convening of the oo uniasion;including but not limited to the leasing ofapptopriate facilities and office equipment Section S.Computer system. (1)The director of research of the legislative council shall be responsible for acquiring a computerized system that uses census data and maps to prepare congressional and state plans in conformity with statutory and constitutional criteria and within the applicable time constraints. Attachment D Attachment D Upon approval by the executive committee,the director of research may contract for the acquisition of computer hardware and software and for the provision of computer services as are necessary to accomplish the tasks of this subsection (1). The computer system shall be available for use by the general assembly for purposes of the congressional plan and by the commission for the state plan. (2)Appropriations made under this section shall not be available for expenditure until approved by the executive committee. (3)Election and voter registration information for the 1998 and 2000 general elections shall be incorporated in the data base for the computerized redistricting system. Such information shall be taken or derived from the official records of the secretary of state or,if such data are not available from the secretary of state, from the official records of the county clerks and recorders. Election and voter registration information in the computerized system shall be considered to be official election and voter registration data for all purposes related to redistricting based upon the 2000 census. (4) The executive committee shall adopt a policy governing access by private persons and governmental agencies other than the general assembly and the commission to the computer data bases developed pursuant to this section and section 7(3)of this act,which policy may include reasonable charges for such access. Section 9. Reapportionment commission-organizational provisions-compensation. (1)Members of the commission shall be appointed and convened,and the officers of the commission elected,pursuant to the provision of section 48 of article V of the state constitution. (2)Members of the commission,shall receive a per diem of ninety-nine dollars for attendance at regularly scheduled meetings of the commission. Members of the commission shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses while performing official duties,together with mileage at the rate prescribed for state employees in section 24-9-104, Colorado Revised Statutes. A member of the commission who is a state officer or employee shall not clam per diem compensation from more than one source for official activities on the same day. Section 10. Staff director-staff hearings. (1)The commission may appoint a staff director who shall keep a full and true record of all proceedings of the commission and perform such other duties as the commission may prescribe. The staff director shalleongtlete the task of obtaining and preparing the materials set form in section 7 (3) of this act and shall compile such other data or materials as the commission may direct. (2)The staff director of the commission may appoint,with the consent of the commission,such employees and consultants:as he or she deems necessary to carry out the provisions of section 48 of article.V of the state constitution, the provisions of part 5 of article 2 of title 2, Colorado Revised Statutes,and this act (3)The commission may request additional information or staff assistance it deems necessary from the agencies of state government;and such agencies shall furnish such information or assistance to the extent feasible within existing appropriations or in accordance with any contract between the agency and the commission. (4)The commission may have the use of the committee rooms in the state capitol building and the legislative services building for its hearings. (5) Upon the organization of the commission, the commission may choose to utilize the arrangements outlined'in section 8 through 11 of this act, or it may choose to make whatever arrangements it deems necessary to carry out its constitutional duties, subject to available appropriations. Section 11. Commission expenses. All expenses incurred by the commission, including per diem compensation and mileage of commission members and salaries and expenses of employees, shall be Attachment D Attachment D paid upon vouchers signed by the presiding officer of the commission, or in his or her absence or unavailability, the vice chair or the staff director upon instruction by the presiding officer in each instance and drawn upon funds appropriated for use by the commission. All such vouchers, except vouchers for the payment of per diem compensation and mileage of commission members,shall also be signed by the chair of the legislative council. Section 12.Appropriation. In addition to any other appropriation,there is hereby appropriated,out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated,to the legislative council,for the fiscal year July 1, 2000, the sum of two hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars ($217 so much thereof as may be necessary,for the implementation of this act. Expenditures made pursuant to this appropriation shall be subject to the provisions of section 8(2)of this act. Section 13. Appropriation- adjustment to legislative appropriation. (1)In addition to any other appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated,to the Colorado reapportionment commission,for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2000, the sum of one hundred eighty four thousand seven hundred eight dollars($184,708),and 1.5 F'i't or so much thereof as may be necessary,for the motion of this act. The moneys appropriated by this subsection(I)shall become available only if SCR00-002 becomes law. (2)(a)For the implementation of subsection(1)of this section,appropriations made in 1i11100. 1352 to the legislative department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000, shall be adjusted as follows: (I)The general fund appropriation for the legislative council is decreased by fortreix thousand six hundred sixtysevet dollars($46,667)and the number of FIE is decreased by.7 FtE;and (11)The*Mend#tint appropriation far the committee on legal sew is dettreasedby eleven thousand six Minted sixty-seven dollars($11,667)and the number of FIE is decreased by .2 P h (b)The adjustment made in this subsection(2)to the appropriations for the legislative council and the committee on legal services shall only be made if SCR00-002 becomes law. Section 14. Appropriation-adjustment in 2000 long bit (1)For the implementation of this act, • appropriations made in the annual general appropriations act for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2000, shall be adjusted as follows: (a)The general fund appropriation to the capital constructing'fund outlined in section 3(1)(f) is reduced by two hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars(217,900). (b) The capital construction find exempt appropriation to the department of transportation, construction projects,is reduced by two hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars($217,900). (2)For the implementation of this act,appteprlations made in the annual general appropriations act for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2000;shall be adjusted as follows: (a)The general hind appropriation to the capital construction fund outlined in section 3(1)(1) is reduced by one hundred twenty-six thousand three hundred seventy-four dollars($126,374). (b) The capital construction fund exempt appropriation to the department of taanipottation; construction projects,is reduced by one hundred twenty-six thousand thine hundred seventy-four dollars ($126,374). (c) The adjustment made by this subsection(2) shall become available only if SCR00-002 becomes law. Section 15. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,determines,and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,health,and safety. Approved:May 30,26.00 Attachment D Attachment E Voting Rights Act SECTION 2 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by.any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2)of this title, as provided in subsection(b) of this section. (b) A violation of subsection(a)of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection(a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. Attachment E Attachment F SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 01SA386 Two East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 48 (1) (e) IN RE REAPPORTIONMENT OF THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLAN DISAPPROVED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS EN BANC January 28, 2002 JUSTICE HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court,. - JUSTICE BENDER dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in the dissent. In this original proceeding under Article V, Section 48 (1) (e) of the Colorado Constitution, we review the decennial Apportionment Plan (Adopted Plan) the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (Commission) approved for the reapportionment of Colorado General Assembly house and senate districts, based on the year 2000 federal census. We hold that the Adopted Plan does not comply with the criteria of Article V, Sections 46 and 47, of the Colorado Constitution because.: (1) it is not "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2) , " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 191, 195 (Colo. 1982) (hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 82") ; and (2) it is not accompanied by "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 828 P.2d 185, 195-96 (Colo. 1992) (hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 92-I") . For example, the Adopted Plan denies whole senate districts to Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, and Pueblo counties for which they qualify based on the year 2000 census data. In addition, the Commission has not advanced an adequate explanation for division of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Attachment F counties and the cities of Boulder and Pueblo between senate Districts. Because our role does not include redrawing the statewide apportionment map to comply with the applicable constitutional criteria, this being the Commission' s responsibility, and because the Commission may choose to make other alterations in district boundaries on remand in redrawing the apportionment map, we set aside the Commission' s action and remand the Adopted Plan to the Commission for further consideration, modification, re-adoption, and re-Submittal by 5:00 p.m. on February 15, 1002. I. Reapportionment Law and Process We commence our analysis by reviewing Colorado' s reapportionment law and process. Reapportionment of the state' s house and senate districts has always been a matter of great moment to Colorado citizens. Citizen-initiated statutes end constitutional amendments have shaped the lab the Ceedlegion and this Cotirt Wet fellow to accoMplish the 2002 reapportionment. The basic purpose of the constitutional Standards far reapportionment is to assure equal protection for the right to participate in the Colorado political process and the right to vote, 2n re. d0400ertiontezet 42, 647 P.2d at 194 . 1. trmvieions of the Colorado Constitution The Colorado Constitution as adopted in 1876 protided for twenty-six Senate member's and forty-nine house members until 1890, at which time the General Assembly could increase that number, not to exteed an aggregate o€ one hundred, with the ratio of senate to house seats being preserved as near as possible. Colo. Const. art. V, 5 46 (amended 1950) . The constitution allowed the General Assembly to alter district boundaries to include two or more counties but prohibited any county divisions:- "No county shall be divided in the feteation of a senatorial or representative district. " Colo. Contt. Art. v, 5 47 (amended 1962) . The constitution provided for the apportionment of senators and representatives on the basis of federal and state census data "according to ratios to be fixed by law: 4 Cele. Conet. art. V, § 45 (amended 1962) . The ratios did not include an equal population basis. In Ateetrgj*g v. Mitten, 95 Colo. 425, 37 P.2d 757 (1934) , we upheld A reapportionment statute the voters enacted after the General Assembly failed to adopt a reapportionment bill after 2 Attachtiieflt F the 1930 census. This act provided for thirty-five senate members and sixty-five house members, set the boundaries for the districts, and determined the number of senators and house members assigned to the districts. We rejected the argument that the people could not initiate a reapportionment statute. Id. at 430, 37 P.2d at 759. In 1950, the voters approved a General Assembly-referred measure amending the constitution to limit the number of senators to thirty-five and the house to sixty-five members. Colo. Const. art. V, § 46 (amended 1962) ; 1951 Colo. Sess. Laws 553 . Section 47 continued to provide that: Senatorial and representative districts may be altered from time to time, as public convenience may require. When a senatorial or representative district shall be composed of two or more counties, they shall be contiguous, and the district as compact as may be. No county shall be divided in the formation of a senatorial or representative district. (Emphasis added. ) In 1962, through a General Assembly-referred measure, the voters amended the constitution to fix the General. Assembly' s membership at thirty-nine senate members and sixty-five house members, one to be elected for each senate and house district.' Colo. Const. art. V, § 45 (amended 1966) ; ch. 312, 1963 Colo. Sess. Laws 1045. The prohibition on dividing counties continued, with its wording slightly revised: Districts of the same house shall not overlap. All districts shall be as compact as may be and shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. No part of one county shall be added to another county or part of another county in forming a district. When a district includes two or more counties they shall be contiguous. Id. The voters amended Section 46 to provide that the sixty- five house districts "shall be as nearly equal in population as may be. " Colo. Const. art. V, § 46 (amended 1966) ; ch. 312, In 1961, the Legislative Council recommended increasing the number of General Assembly members in light of Colorado's growth. See Report to the Colorado General Assembly: Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Legislative Council Research Publication No. 52 (December 1961) . 3 Attachment F 1963 Colo. Sess. Laws 1045 . Section 47 added an additional senator to Adams, 'Arapahoe, Boulder and Jefferson Counties and provided that the population in districts apportioned more than one senator "shall be as nearly equal in population as may be, " but did not provide for equal population in the bulk of Colorado' s senate districts. Colo. Const. art. V, S 47 (amended 1966) ; ch. 312, 1963 Colo. Sess. Laws 1045-46. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court invalidated Colorado' s reapportionment law for its allowance of an unequal population basis for senate districts, requiring instead that both houses reflect representation on a substantially equal population basis.' See Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colo. , 377 U.S. 113 (1964) . the Court held that Colorado's overall apportionment scheme was not "sufficiently grounded on population to be constitutionally sustainable under the Equal Protection Clause. " td.- at 735. The Court observed that adherence to a strict population basis was not a federal constitutional requirement; some deviation from-a strict population basis is allowable, but Colorado's variation in population between districts was too substantial. Id. at 734- 75. 'ithe •General Assembly in 1964 attempted to comply with one person/one vote federal constitutional requirements. It adopted an act that divided counties into multiple senate and house districts. We held that Section 47 prohibited county divisions thus triggering the necessity of changing the Colorado Constitution for compliance with federal equal population requirements. "'No county' cannot be construed as meaning that one county, or two counties, or three counties may be divided; it plainly directs that there is not one county in the state of Colorado that may be divided in the formation of a senatorial or 2 In 1956, the Colorado League of Women Voters had pointed out the wide divergence between populations of senate and house districts: In 1950, for example, a senator from Jefferson county represented almost 56,000 persons . . while the senator from the Fremont-Custer County District. . . represented less than. 20,000 persons . [TJhe state representative from the Cheyenne-Lincoln county district represented less than 9,500 persons . (tin that year a state representative from Jefferson County represented almost 28,000 persons. Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, League of Women Voters of Colorado, Inc. 3 (September 1956). The. League of Women Voters was instrumental in bringing the subsequent 1974 constitutional amendments for reapportionment to the ballot. 4 Attachment F representative district. " White v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 291, 297-98, 394 P.2d 333, 336 (1964) . For the first time in Colorado, the 1966 citizen-initiated amendments to the constitution introduced: (1) a requirement of single member districts; and (2) allowed the General Assembly to add part of one county to all or part of another county in the formation of senate and house districts, if necessary to meet equal population requirements. See An Analysis of 1966 Ballot Proposals, Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication No. 110 at 9-10 (1966) . By the 1966 initiative, voters amended Section 45 to provide for not more than thirty-five senate members and sixty- five house members, one to be elected for each senatorial and each representative district. Colo. Const. art. V, § 45; ch. 456, 1967 Colo. Sess. Laws 11. The voters amended Section 46 to provide that each district in each house shall have "a population as nearly equal as may be, as required by the constitution of the United States." Colo. Const. art. V, § 46 (amended 1974) ; ch. 456, 1967 Colo. Sess. Laws 11. The voters reworded Section 47 to provide that the General Assembly could add one part of a county.to all or part of another county in forming districts when declared by the General.: Assembly to be necessary to meet the equal population requirements. of Section 46: Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap.. Except when declared by the general assembly to be necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. When, county boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts, shall be as prescribed by law. Colo. Const. art. V, § 47 (amended 1974) (emphasis added) . Objectives of the 1966 amendments included making the members of the General Assembly more directly responsible to local constituencies.; a The 1960s were a key period for Colorado reapportionment law. A 1967 report of the Legislative Council to the General Assembly chronicles the court decisions, General Assembly bills, and constitutional amendments 5 Attachment F 4 . A single-member district system will enable a legislator to be aware of the sentiments of his constituents much more than a multi-member district system. In the urban areas, it will also mean that legislative candidates can concentrate their campaigns within a specific district area and can devote their time and attention to the people living within their district. 5 . The single-member district system will mean that voters within a given area will have more effective control over the actions of their senator and representative. In other words, legislators may be held more directly accountable to their constituents under the single-member district system. 6. Under the provisions of Amendment No. 4, minority groups living in concentrated population areas should be better able to obtain representation in the General Assembly commensurate with their population. Under the system of at-large :elections in multi-member count4a, at As possible for many or all of the members 'to °be elected, for example, from merely a few areas Within <a district or from generally the same economic strata. An Analysis of 1966 Ballot Proposals, Legislative Council of the Colorado General assembly, Research Publication No. 110 at 18 (1966) . Though reworded to comply with equal ,population criteria, Section 47 continued Colorado's historic preference for county- based local constituencies; counties were to remain whole,except as necessary for compliance with equal population requirements. "The Constitution just as strongly expressly prohibits a part of one county being added to all or part of another county except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of Article V, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution. "' In re between 1961 and 1947. Belie Summary of Congressional Districting,and Legislative Reapportionment Action in Colorado: 1961-1967, Legislative council. Report to the Colorado General Assembly, Research PublicationNo. 125 (May 1967) . 4. A Legislative Council Committee construing the 1966 constitutional amendments formulated guidelines for General Assembly redistricting bUds In regard to counties, one of the guidelines stated: 6 Attachment F Interrogatories H.R. 1020, 178 Colo. 311, 313, 497 P. 2d 1024, 1025 (1972) . In 1972, we also held that inclusion of enclaves in a district is a direct violation of the constitutional requirements of contiguity and compactness. See In re Interrogatory H.J.R. 1011, 177 Colo. 215, 217-18, 493 P.2d 346, 347 (1972) (prohibiting inclusion of Glendale and Holly Hills— portions of Arapahoe County surrounded by the City and County of Denver-into the Arapahoe County senate district) . In 1974, the voters approved a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment creating the Reapportionment Commission to perform the work of reapportionment the constitution had formerly consigned to the General Assembly. The basic purpose of the initiative was to accomplish reapportionment through the work of an independent body of Colorado citizens appointed by leaders of Colorado' s legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The initiative designed a process for the Commission' s work, criteria for carrying out that work, and review by this court of the Commission' s product. The Legislative Council Analysis of this proposal stated that it would accomplish the following, if adopted: 1 . Remove from the General Assembly the power to reapportion itself or to revise legislative district boundaries. After each federal census (presently conducted every ten years) , an eleven member 'commission would assume responsibility for establishing district boundaries for the General Assembly. The commission would consist of: (a) the Speaker and Minority Leader of the state. House of Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the state Senate (or the designees of these legislative leaders) ; (b) three appointees of the Governor; and (c) four appointees of the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. 2 . Allow no more than a five percent deviation between the most populous districts in each house of the General Assembly. County boundaries should remain intact except where necessary to achieve equal population representation goals. 1967 Legislative Research Publication No. 125 at 12. 7 Attachment F 3 . Require that " .. . . the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible." 4, Encourage the preservation of communities of interest (including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors) within a single district whenever possible, and discourage the splitting of cities and towns between districts. 5. Require publication of a preliminary reapportionment plan and public hearings on this plan in several areas of the state. 6. Provide for automatic review and ultimate approval of the reapportionment plan by the Colorado Supreme Court. Concerning Amendment No. 9, Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, An Analysis of 1974 Ballot Proposals, Research Publication No 205 (1974) at 26-27. Arguments for the Proposal explained the amendment's provision for a maximum allowable five-percent deviation between the district with the greatest population and the least population ip eaCh house. It would (1) „allow greater flexibility in thelocation of small cities and towns within single legislative districts and . make it easier to avoid splitting couxtiee between legislative districts, " and (2) "permit more consideration of the ethnic, cultural, economic, and other aspects of reapportionment. . . ." Id. at 29. The maximum population deviation of five percent between districts is a reasonable standard which will allow greater flexibility in the location of small cities and towns within single legislative districts and which will make it easier to avoid splitting counties between legislative districts. The use of a five percent deviation would also permit more consideration of the ethnic, cultural, economic, and other aspects of reapportionment called for in the proposal Id. at 29 (emphasis added) . Objectives of the proposed constitutional amendment included reducing both partisan politics and gerrymandering: 8 Aftatt!Pa t f The proposal would reduce the impact that partisan politics can have on the drawing of legislative district boundaries, through the placement of the commission outside the legislative branch and through the requirements for appointment of commission members by all three branches of state government. The proposal' s more stringent requirements for consideration of communities of interest, for compact districts, and for minimization of the splitting of cities and towns, and the public visibility of the activities of the reapportionment commission would tend to reduce the gerrymandering of legislative districts. Id. at 29-30 (emphasis added) . The Colorado Voters approved the citizen proposal, and we upheld it over a competing General Assembly-referred measure that received a lesser number of votes in the 1974 election. See In re Interrogatories Propounded by the Senate Concerning House Bill 1078, 189 Colo. 1, 536 P.2d 308 (1975) . The 1974 constitutional amendments built on prior Colorado reapportionment law, Most particularly on the 1966 citizen initiated constitutional amendments. The 1974 amendments carried forth; the prohibition in Section 47 against addition of parts of one county to another in establishing districts, except as necessary to meet the equal population requirements of Section 46. The current constitutional requirements applicable to the Commission' s work, Adopted Plan, and our review of it, are set forth in Sections 46 and 47 of Article V as follows: Section 46. Senatorial and representative districts. The state shall be divided into as many senatorial and representative districts as there are members of the senate and house of representatives respectively, each district in each house having a population as nearly equal as, may be, as required by the constitution of the United States] but in no event shall there be more than five percent deviation between the most populous • and the least populous district in each house. 9 Attachment F Section 47. Composition of districts. (1) Each district shall be as compact in area as possible and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. (2) Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county Shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. When county, city; or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as prescribed by law.. (3) Consistent with the provisions of this section and section 46 of this article, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district wherever possible. (Emphasis added.) Since the adoption of the 1974 initiative, we have reviewed the Commissioin's 1982 and 1992 reapportionment plans. See In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 198 (returning plan to Commission based upon unconstitutional sequencing of elections in two senate districts, because one senate district encompassed residences of two incumbent state senators while a second senate district lacked a state senator) ; In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 209 (Colo. 1982) (rejecting resubmitted plan as less consistent with the hierarchy of constitutional criteria than the previously submitted plan and ordering the Commission to submit the original plan withthe court-ordered election sequencing modifications) ; In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 185 (returning plan to Commission because it divided Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, and the ComMission' s explanation "did not rise to the level of an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution. " The court also 10 AfecM1ent f disapproved the Commission' s division of the Perry Park community and its failure to incorporate requested technical changes to Larimer and Boulder County districts) ; In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 828 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1992) (approving the resubmitted plan because it incorporated all of the court' s requested changes except for the division of Pitkin County, which was found constitutional because the Commission provided the court with "a sufficient basis for judicial review of its actions and reasons for the necessity that Pitkin County be divided. ") . On both occasions, in applying the constitutional criteria, we found a significant deficiency in the Commission' s action that required remand for plan modification, factual demonstration, and articulated rationale. Upon revision and resubmission, we approved both reapportionment plans and they became final. In 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ordered the adoption of a remedial plan to redraw the boundaries of a House District for the San Luis Valley, in order to provide its substantial Hispanic population with a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. See Sanchez v. Colorado, 97 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 1996) . In 1998, the General Assembly approved the redrawing of house districts in the south central portion of the State to comply with Sanchez . See § 2-2-208, 1 C.R.S. (2001) . These legal developments in the course of Colorado' s growth have shaped the Commission' s 2002 reapportionment responsibilities, as well as our own. 2 . The 2002 Reapportionment Process In carrying out its 2002 reapportionment responsibilities, the Commission held fourteen meetings from May 11, 2001 through August 30, 2001 to arrive at its Preliminary Plan. The 2002 federal census, which propels reapportionment, reported a Colorado population of 4, 301, 261 persons. Based thereon, the Commission determined that the ideal population for a senate district is 122, 893 persons and for a house district 66, 173 persons. The Commission convened twenty-two public hearings throughout the State to receive public comment on its Preliminary Plan. The Commission met four times to draft the final plan and completed the Adopted Plan on November 27, 2001. The Commission approved the house component of the Adopted Plan on a 10-1 vote. It approved the senate component of the Adopted 11 Attachment F Plan on a 6-5 vote. On a 7-4 vote, the Commission agreed to submit a comparison alternative to us, at the request of five commissioners . Pursuant to our scheduling order, the Commission and proponents of the Adopted Plan filed their opening briefs and supporting material by December 17, 2001. Opponents of the Adopted Plan answered by December 27, 2001 . The Commission and proponents replied by January 3, 2002 . We heard oral arguments for and against the Adopted Plan on January 7, 2002 . The Constitution provides that our review and determination shall take precedence over other matters. In the event we disapprove the Adopted Plan, the Commission shall revise and resubmit the plan consistent with our opinion. Colo. Const. art. V, § 48 (1) (c) . II. We hold that the Adopted Plan does not comply with the criteria of Article V, Sections 46 and 47, of the Colorado Constitution because: (1) it is not "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2) , " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 195; and (2) it is not accompanied by "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P. 2d at 195-96. For example, the Adopted Plan denies whole senate districts to Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, and Pueblo counties for which they qualify based on the year 2000 census data and the Commission' s ideal district projection. In addition, the Commission has not advanced an adequate explanation for division of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa counties and the cities of Boulder and Pueblo between Senate Districts. A. Standard of Review Our role in reviewing the Commission' s reapportionment action is narrow. In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 189. We must determine whether the Commission followed the procedures and applied the criteria of federal and Colorado law in adopting its reapportionment plan for Colorado General Assembly house and senate districts. We do not redraw the reapportionment map for the Commission. In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 194 . "Our role in this proceeding is a narrow one: to measure the present reapportionment plan against the constitutional 12 Attachment F standards. The choice among alternative plans, each consistent with constitutional requirements, is for the Commission and not the Court. " Id. (footnote omitted) . We uphold the adopted plan if it meets the applicable federal and Colorado standards. Id. at 197 . "Although we might make different choices were we in the Commission' s place, we should not substitute our judgment for the Commission' s unless we are convinced the Commission departed from constitutional criteria. " Id. The Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, superimpose federal requirements on the Colorado constitutional criteria. In order of priority, we have set forth the federal and state criteria as follows: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Fifteenth Amendment; (2) section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; (3) article V, section 46 (equality of population of districts in each house) ; (4) article V, section 47 (2) (districts not to cross county lines except to meet section 46 requirements and the number of cities and towns contained in more than one district minimized) ; (5) article V, section 47 (1) (each district to be as compact as possible and to consist of contiguous whole general election precincts) ; and (6) article V, section 47 (3) (preservation of communities of interest within a district) . In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P. 2d at 190 (footnotes omitted) . Substantively, the Commission is to apply all six of the criteria; procedurally, the Commission is to apply the criteria in order of their stated preference in adopting the final reapportionment plan for the state of Colorado. Id. (describing the listing of these criteria as a "hierarchy from the most to the least important") ; see also In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 209, 210 (Colo. 1982) ("The Colorado Constitution lists a hierarchy of criteria for measuring the adequacy of a reapportionment plan. ") . The Adopted Plan achieves constitutional compliance and becomes the Final Plan when it reflects the above-listed criteria. The plan becomes final after we have completed our review and approve it. Colo. Const. art. V, § 48 (1) (c) . The Commission may not apply the lesser criteria over the greater criteria, but it may use the lesser criteria after satisfying the greater criteria. In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 13 Attachment F 194 . The Commission resolves conflicts by applying the criteria in preferential order, articulating on submittal to us how the Adopted Plan reflects the criteria. In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 194 . The six criteria set forth the context in which the Commission works, from the proposal of a Preliminary Plan for public comment to formulation of its Adopted Plan. If the Commission faces actual or probable federal law violations, its starting point for the Approved Plan is compliance with federal law. In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 193 . The Commission then proceeds to apply the Colorado constitutional criteria. If federal law issues are not present, the Commission proceeds directly to the Colorado criteria and applies them according to their preferential order. The process of drawing maps to comply with the constitution. is reiterative in nature, leading to the Adopted Plan being submitted to this court. 1. Equal Population Obtaining substantial equality of population among districts, as required by Article V, Section 46, is the "paramount criterion for testing the constitutional sufficiency of a reapportionment plan. " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 193; see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (holding that the Equal Protection Clause requires that both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis, also known as the "one person, one vote" rule) ; Lucas, 377 U.S. at 736 (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment demands substantial equality of population between districts so that each person' s vote is substantially equal to another person' s vote) . Article V, Section 46, of the Colorado Constitution sets forth the equal population criteria for reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly: The state shall be divided into as many senatorial and representative districts as there are members of the senate and house of representatives respectively, each district in each house having a population as nearly equal as may be, as required by the constitution of the United States, but in no event shall there be more than five percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district in each house. Colo. Const. art. V, § 46 (emphasis added) . 14 Attachment F The five percent deviation allowance of Section 46 between the most populous district and the least populous district in each house allows the Commission to work towards keeping counties intact, if possible, in shaping a final reapportionment plan through application of the Section 47 criteria. The equal population requirement is satisfied if the "sum of the percent by which the largest district' s population exceeds that of the ideal district and the percent by which the smallest district' s population falls short of the population of the ideal district" is less than five percent. In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P. 2d at 193 n.4 . 2 . County Considerations Article V, Section 47 (2) of the Colorado Constitution favors matching districts to county boundaries and not crossing county boundaries unless necessary to comply with Section 46. "The most important concern under section 47 is whether the Final Plan unnecessarily divides counties or cities within counties. " In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 194 . Colorado' s apportionment law since 1876 has been consistent in this regard. Counties are a basic structural unit of local government for carrying out state purposes. Counties and the cities within their boundaries are already established as communities of interest in their own right, with a functioning legal and physical local government identity on behalf of citizens that is ongoing. Counties have a preferential status under Section 47 over those communities of interest the Commission postulates during its decennial reapportionment process when it must divide a county and join a part of it to another county, or part of another county, to form a district in order to comply with the equal population criteria of Section 46 . A direct line of accountability between citizens, their elected city councils and county commissioners, and their elected state representatives is at the heart of responsive government in Colorado and is built into the county-oriented design of the Constitution' s reapportionment provisions. "The constitution allows the Commission to divide a county only if necessary to meet the equal population requirement. " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 197 (emphasis added) . "By its express language, section 47 (2) subordinates the importance of not dividing counties to the substantial equality of population mandate of section 46 . " Id. at 193-94 . Article V, Section 47 (2) states as follows: 15 Attachment F Except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts. Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in legislative districts shall be as prescribed by law. Colo. Const. art. V, § 47 (2) (emphasis added) . These provisions contemplate that the integrity of county constituent representation in the General Assembly will be respected whenever possible. We therefore construe Section 47 (2) as requiring the Commission to assign whole districts to counties whose population qualifies for them based on the decennial census population and the Commission' s ideal district population projection. The Commission' s Adopted Plan must be: (1) "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2) , " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 195; and (2) accompanied by "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 195-96 . The requirement of a factual showing guards against creating unnecessary county divisions. In complying with the Section 46 criteria, the Commission projects an ideal equal population figure for Colorado house and senate districts. The Commission divides Colorado' s total population by the number of legally allotted districts to be created: sixty-five house districts and thirty-five senate districts. Colo. Const. art. V, § 45 ("The general assembly shall consist of not more than thirty-five members of the senate and of not more than sixty-five members of the house of representatives. . . . ") . In formulating the apportionment map, the Commission' s actions thus include: (1) determining the ideal population for Senate and House districts; (2) identifying those counties that qualify for whole Senate or House districts based upon their population; and (3) preserving to them their number of whole districts throughout the process unless this is not possible. In regard to the other counties and portions of counties that do not qualify for a whole district, the Commission then employs 16 Attachment F the further criteria of Article V, Section 47 in making county divisions to form districts: keeping divisions of cities and towns between districts to a minimum, compactness, contiguity and preservation of communities of interest, in that order. In Re Apportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 190. Because of the necessity to meet federal equal population requirements, we have recognized that "perfection is not obtainable" in regard to the Final Plan for reapportionment; " [a] n addition or deletion in one area of the state necessarily causes alteration in another. " In re Interrogatories H.R. 1020, 178 Colo. at 313, 497 P.2d at 1025 (commenting on the General Assembly' s 1972 apportionment plan that contained county divisions) . The "if necessary" exception of Section 47 (2) permits the Commission to add a portion of a county to another county or portion of another county to form a district upon "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution." In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 195-96; see also In re Interrogatories H.R. 1020, 178 Colo. at 313, 497 P.2d at 1025 (observing, " (T] he General Assembly made findings when it was necessary to cross county lines to meet the command of Section 46 in forming the districts. ") .5 Guided by the constitutional criteria, we now turn to the Commission' s Adopted Plan. Our review focuses on the senate portion of the Adopted Plan, for it presents issues of constitutional compliance that either are not present in the house portion' of the plan or will be addressed in rectifying the non-complying county divisions. B. The Adopted Plan 1. Douglas, Pueblo, Boulder, and Jefferson Counties Based upon the 2000 census, the ideal population for each house district is 66, 173 persons and for each senate district is 122, 893 persons. The Adopted Plan denies Douglas, Pueblo, Boulder and Jefferson Counties whole senate districts within their boundaries for which they qualify based upon the 5 We emphasized in In re Interrogatories H.R. 1020, 178 Colo. at 313, 497 P.2d at 1025, that the General Assembly had kept counties intact where it could meet population requirements and, in doing so, "some degree of compactness was permissibly sacrificed." 17 Attachment F } Commission' s ideal population projection. We have prepared the following chart to illustrate this. The chart depicts only those counties qualifying for whole senate districts within their boundaries. The chart arrays the number of whole districts these counties qualify for, in comparison to the number of whole counties the Commission allotted them. Underscoring in the chart shows the discrepancy between the number of whole senate districts the county qualified for based on its population, in contrast to the number the Adopted Plan allocates to it. The materials before us on review contain two alternatives that the Commission had before it. The chart portrays the number of whole districts the alternative plans would allocate to each of these counties. Because we cannot draw the apportionment map for the Commission, we employ the alternative plans only for comparison purposes to show the availability of less drastic alternatives to the Adopted Plan in regard to county divisions. Whole Senate District Allocations:6 Total 2000 Adopted Rodriguez Wells 37 County Population Census Plan 5 Alt. Alt. Adams 363, 857 2. 96 2 2 2 Arapahoe 487, 967 3 . 97 3 4 4 Boulder 291,288 2 .377 1 1 2 Denver 554, 636 4 . 51 4 4 4 Douglas 175, 766 1.43 0 1 1 El Paso 516, 929 4 . 21 4 4 4 Jefferson 527, 056 4 .29 3 3 4 Larimer 251, 494 2 . 05 2 2 2 Pueblo 141,472 1. 15 0 1 1 6 The 2000 Census column reflects the number of whole senate districts a county would be entitled to based upon the Commission's ideal population projection for a senate district. The Adopted Plan column reflects the number of whole senate districts the Adopted Plan allots to these counties. The Rodriguez 5 alternative and Wells 37 alternative columns reflect the number of whole senate districts these plans would allot. Deducting the population of the newly-created City and County of Broomfield, Boulder County is entitled to 2.20 senate districts based on the ideal population projection for a senate district. 18 Attachment F Weld 180, 936 1 .47 1 1 1 The Adopted Plan divides Douglas County between Senate Districts 2 and 30 . Senate District 2 combines part of Douglas County with Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, and Washington Counties . Senate District 30 combines part of Douglas County with part of Arapahoe County. The Adopted Plan divides Pueblo County between Senate Districts 3 and 4 . Senate District 3 combines part of Pueblo County with Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, and Prowers Counties. Senate District 4 combines part of Pueblo County with part of El Paso County. The Commission explains that the Douglas County and Pueblo County divisions are the product of drawing the Adopted Plan starting with plains counties at Colorado' s eastern border to form three senate "plains districts, " then working west. When the Commission arrived at the populous front range, "equal population requirements" drove the Douglas County and Pueblo County divisions. The Commission' s starting point thereby had the effect of painting the Commission into a corner when it arrived at district line drawing of the populous Eastern Slope counties: One hallmark of the Final Plan for the Senate is the creation of three Senate districts on the eastern plains. All three districts keep rural counties whole and extend from the Kansas border to the growing communities of the Front Range. Equal population requirements drive the split of Weld County in district 1, Douglas County in district 2, and Pueblo County in district 3 . . . . Having finished district 3 in Pueblo county and having made the decision to keep all counties whole in district 5, the only choice left for the Commission to achieve equal population in district 4 was to add a portion of El Paso County to the remaining portion of Pueblo County. District 4 preserves the many common interests shared by northwestern Pueblo and southern El Paso counties (such as the 1-25 transportation corridor, the growth issues facing front range communities, and their similar socio-economic characteristics) . . . . The portion of Douglas County left over after completing district 2 was too small to form its own 19 Attachment F district and therefore it was added to the remaining population in Arapahoe County to from district 30 . Legal Memorandum and Explanatory Materials in Support of Final Plan for Districts in the Senate and House of Representatives, 16-21 (emphasis added) . The Commission justified the Douglas County and Pueblo County divisions on a community of interest extending from Colorado' s eastern border into portions of urban and suburban front range populations. The Adopted Plan divides Boulder County between Senate Districts 18 and 19. Senate District 18 combines part of Boulder County with parts of Adams, Jefferson, and Weld Counties. Senate District 19 combines part of Boulder County with part of Jefferson County, Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties. The Commission again relied on a community of interest rationale to justify the Boulder County division: The Final Plan honors the boundaries of Broomfield by keeping it whole in district 18. Since Broomfield' s population of approximately 40, 000 is far lower than the ideal, part of a neighboring county had to be added to complete the district. The Commission decided to draw from Boulder County for this purpose and combined Broomfield with Superior and the southern portion of the City of Boulder. These communities are all located along the Denver-Boulder Turnpike and share transportation and growth concerns. . . . Boulder County' s population, prior to the creation of Broomfield, entitled it to 2 .37 Senate seats. After deducting the Boulder County population used to finish district 18, Boulder County is entitled to 1. 5 districts. The full district is district 17, which unites the east Boulder County communities of Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette, and Erie. The Commission combined the remainder of Boulder County with Clear Creek and Gilpin counties and the unallocated portion of Jefferson County to form district 19. District 19 encompasses many of the foothills communities . Id. at 18-19 (emphasis added) . The Adopted Plan divides Jefferson County between Senate Districts 19 and 23 . Senate District 19 combines part of Jefferson County with part of Boulder County, Clear Creek and 20 Attachment F Gilpin Counties. Senate District 23 combines parts of Jefferson and Adams Counties. The Commission justified the Jefferson County division on the basis of equal population constraints and the need to minimize division of the City of Westminster: Districts 22, 21, and 20 work their way from south to north along the Douglas/Arapahoe/Denver boundary shared with Jefferson County. The northernmost district, district 23, crosses into Adams County to achieve equal population and to make it possible to include Westminster in only two Senate districts (districts 23 and 26) . The irregular boundary on the north side of district 23 is caused by the boundary of the City and County of Broomfield. Id. at 18. It therefore appears from the Commission' s rationale that it considered itself at liberty to start the cartography of reapportionment at any point of Colorado geography it might choose. Because of this approach, the Commission faced the consequence of county divisions that appear inevitable to meet equal population requirements. But, the constitutional criteria instead contemplate the Commission taking an overview of Colorado' s population by county, then generating a map that respects the state' s legal preference for county integrity, then applying minimization of city divisions, compactness, contiguity, and community of interest criteria to add portions of counties to other counties in forming districts, when necessary. The Commission relies on a community of interest rationale to support denying whole county seats to counties that qualify for them, but this is the least weighty of the Section 46 and 47 criteria. The Commission' s reordering of the criteria offends the constitution. In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 194 . While the Commission has discretion to make necessary compromises, In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P. 2d at 195-96; In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 197, it cannot advance the lesser community of interest criteria over the greater requirement not to make county divisions unless necessary to meet equal population requirements. That the Final Plan--yet to be established--can more certainly conform to the constitutional criteria than the Adopted Plan is demonstrated by the Rodriguez 5 senate alternative and the Wells 37 senate alternative. Each reveals 21 Attachment F the availability of less drastic county division alternatives. Both illustrate that Douglas and Pueblo Counties can have one whole senate district entirely within their boundaries, apparently within the Section 46 equal population no more than five percent deviation criteria. The Wells 37 senate alternative also illustrates the availability of providing Boulder County with two whole senate districts and Jefferson County with four whole senate districts. 2 . Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Counties Adams and Arapahoe Counties are very close to qualifying for an additional senate district located entirely within their boundaries. The above chart demonstrates that Adams qualified for . 96 of an additional senate district. Arapahoe County appears to qualify for . 97 of an additional senate district; however, the Arapahoe County figure must be adjusted downward because Glendale and Holly Hills are Arapahoe County enclaves within the City and County of Denver' s boundaries and are not contiguous to the rest of Arapahoe County. In re Interrogatory H.J.R. 1011, 177 Colo. at 218, 493 P.2d at 348 (1972) . Mesa County qualifies for . 95 of a senate district.8 Instead of allotting these counties an additional senate district, the Adopted Plan divides the counties to form districts with other counties. Given Colorado' s constitutional preference for keeping counties intact in a district, if possible unless equal population considerations require otherwise, the Commission on remand should attempt to create an additional district for Adams County and for Arapahoe County, and a district for Mesa County. The Rodriguez 5 senate alternative would provide Arapahoe County with four senate districts, the number of whole senate districts it nearly qualifies for based upon population. The Rodriguez 5 senate alternative and Wells 37 senate alternative both keep Mesa County whole by adding a portion of Delta County s An addition to the above chart demonstrates this: Whole Senate District Allocations: County Total 2000 Adopted Rodriguez 5 Wells 37 Population Census Plan Alt. Alt. Mesa 116,255 0.95 0 1 1 22 Attachment F in order to complete this district . Alternative plans illustrate how these counties can be divided in a constitutionally preferred manner. Because we remand the Adopted Plan for other reasons, we also require the Commission to reexamine the Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa County divisions. If it is still necessary to make one, some, or all of them, then the Commission must make an adequate factual demonstration and articulate its rationale for the divisions, upon resubmission. 3 . City of Boulder and City of Pueblo The Adopted Plan divides the City of Boulder into Senate Districts 18 and 19 and the City of Pueblo9 into Senate Districts 3 and 4 . The Commission relied on a preservation of communities of interest and equal population rationale in justification of these city divisions. The argument is not persuasive. Article V, Section 47 (2) states in part: Within counties whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house, the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. (Emphasis added. ) It is apparent from the alternative plans that less drastic alternatives exist that would keep the cities intact, as illustrated by the Rodriguez 5 and Rodriguez 6 senate alternatives and the Commission' s Preliminary Plan it took to public hearing. In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P. 2d at 195-96 . In addressing whole senate districts for Boulder and Pueblo Counties on remand, the Commission should avoid these city divisions, if possible. C. Opposers make several other objections to the Adopted Plan.10 The Douglas/Elbert Citizens for Fair State Senate 9 The Preliminary Plan distributed to the public at the hearings throughout Colorado, and in the City of Pueblo, showed the City of Pueblo as being within a single senate district. to The following arguments have already been addressed by this opinion: Jeffry M. Wells, Sen. Mark D. Hillman, Richard P. "Sandy" Hume, Rep. Mark Paschall, and Heather M. Witwer argue that the Adopted Plan unnecessarily divides Arapahoe, Douglas, Boulder, and Jefferson Counties, unnecessarily divides the 23 Attachment F Representation argue that, if the mathematical deviation between the most and least populous senate district contained in the Adopted Plan is calculated to three decimal places, the deviation is 5 . 001 percent, 0 . 001 above the Colorado constitutional limit. On remand, the Commission has the opportunity to address this technical infraction; thus, we do not reach this issue here. The remaining arguments raised in opposition to the Adopted Plan concern decisions which are within the Commission' s discretion. "Our role in this proceeding is a narrow one: to measure the present reapportionment plan against the constitutional standards. The choice among alternative plans, each consistent with constitutional requirements, is for the Commission and not the Court. " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 194 (footnote omitted) . Issues concerning compactness, communities of interest, and which plan is preferred by a certain group of citizens, must remain within the scope of the Commission' s discretion. We do not redraw the reapportionment map for the Commission. Id. The Colorado Hispanic Bar Association objects to House Districts 63 and 65 of the Adopted Plan. It argues that the boundary between House Districts 63 and 65 divides a large Hispanic community located across the border between Weld and Morgan Counties. Susan Fey objected to the Adopted Plan' s failure to include Crestone and Villa Grove in House District 60 . John H. Vigil requests that his portion of unincorporated Adams County should be included with the rest of unincorporated Adams County in Senate District 24, rather than with Arvada in Senate District 19. The Elbert/Douglas County Livestock Cities of Boulder and Pueblo, and fails to preserve ethnic and rural communities of interest; John Brackney, Andre Suharka and Citizens for Constitutional Maps request that four whole senate districts be located within Arapahoe County; Estelle Thaller and Dan Sandoval object to the Adopted Plan's division of the City of Pueblo, and argue that Senate Districts 2 and 3 fail to protect rural communities of interest; Beth Gallegos objects to the Adopted Plan's division of Adams County and Thornton between senate districts, and argues that the Adopted Plan is not as compact as possible and does not preserve ethnic communities of interest; Steve Olstad, James Martinez, and Karen Nelson object to Senate District 18 of the Adopted Plan because it divides Boulder County and the City of Boulder; Richard P. Hume, Betty Chronic, and William Berens object to the Adopted Plan's division of the City of Boulder between Senate Districts 18 and 19; the following individuals and communities objected to the division of Mesa County between Senate Districts 7 and 8 in the Adopted Plan: City of Fruita, Town of Palisade, Mesa County Valley School District 51 Board of Education, Town of Collbran, Ute Water Conservancy District, Mesa County Board of County Commissioners, Don Davis and Ruby Davis. 24 Attachment F Association requests that Elbert and a portion of Douglas County be contained in a single senate district. Douglas/Elbert Citizens for Fair State Senate Representation object to the division of the Highlands Ranch community and the inclusion of Elbert County in Senate District 2 . Mark Sessions, Willie H. Breazell, Sr. , Lionel Rivera, Charles D. Broerman, and Sarah Jack object to the addition of a portion of El Paso County to a portion of Pueblo County in order to form Senate District 4 . These opposers also argue that Senate District 11 violates compactness and community of interest criteria, and House District 18 fails to preserve communities of interest. Betty Chronic, Richard P. Hume, William Swenson, and Betty Swenson object to the Adopted Plan' s division of the City of Boulder between House Districts 10, 11, and 13 ." The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners objected to the Adopted Plan' s realignment of House Districts 57 and 61. Garfield County Republicans object to the division of Garfield County between House Districts 57 and 61 in the Adopted Plan. Grand County Republicans prefer the "Wells 35 Plan" and "Preliminary House District 57" to the Adopted Plan. Jackson County Republican Central Committee prefers the "Wells 35 Plan" and the "Preliminary House Plan" to the Adopted Plan. Routt County Republican Central Committee prefers the "Preliminary House Plan" for House District 57, rather than the Adopted Plan. We hold that all of the above listed challenges, presented either pro se or through attorneys, do not present constitutionally significant issues, although the Commission may consider one or more of them on remand when it addresses redrawing the reapportionment map.12 D. Drawing Districts On Remand 11 The Commission should address this objection on remand in curing the Boulder County and City of Boulder divisions. 12 Opposer Don Lee argues that the Commission held meetings which violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law, §§24-6-401- et seq, 7 C.R.S. (2001) . This argument is not within our limited scope of review in reapportionment proceedings and is without merit. The Commission followed the Open Public Meetings requirements. 25 Attachment F On remand, the Commission must start with whole district assignment to counties that qualify for them. 13 When necessary to meet equal population requirements, the Commission may make county and city divisions. When divisions of counties must be made, the Commission may employ the other criteria of Section 47 in their preferential order: minimizing city divisions (Article V, Section 47 (2) ) , compactness and contiguity (Article V, Section 47 (1) ) , and preservation of communities of interest (Article V, Section 47 (3) ) . See Colo. Const. art . V, § 47; In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P. 2d at 190 . While these criteria are "neutral, " they do involve policy choices that we will defer to if accompanied by an articulated reasonable rationale." Because we remand the Adopted Plan for other reasons, we also require the Commission to reexamine the Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa County divisions. If it is still necessary to make one, some, or all of them, then the Commission must make an adequate factual demonstration and articulate its rationale for the divisions, upon resubmission. We are aware that, in designing the Denver metropolitan area districts and complying with the constitutional criteria as set forth in this opinion, the Commission must make additional adjustments and determinations that most probably will involve some county and city splits. We hold that the Adopted Plan does not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Colorado Constitution. The Commission shall formulate an Adopted Plan which does so and resubmit it to us with supporting materials by 5 : 00 p.m. on February 15, 2002 . See § 2-2-506 (1) (a.5) (I) .ls III. Accordingly, we set aside the Commission' s action, disapprove the Adopted Plan, and return it to the Commission for • reconsideration and resubmission of a reapportionment plan by 5 : 00 p.m. on February 15, 2002 that complies with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Colorado Constitution, consistent with this opinion. 13 The Commission should continue Colorado's compliance with Sanchez in the affected state area. 14 " [T]he constitution provides the additional neutral criteria designed to minimize gerrymandering." In re Reapportionment 92, 828 P.2d at 211 (Mullarkey, J, concurring in part and dissenting in part) . is Section 2-2-506(1) (a.5) (I) states in part that " (t)he general assembly therefore urges the commission and the Colorado supreme court to make every effort to complete the redistricting process no later than February 15, 2002." 26 Attachment F JUSTICE BENDER dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in the dissent. In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 01SA386 JUSTICE BENDER, dissenting: The majority adopts a two-part test to determine the constitutionality of a Commission decision to split a county. First, the Commission must have been "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirements of section 47 (2) . " To comply with this first prong of the test, the majority explains that the Commission must begin by allotting districts to counties that have sufficient population to support one or more house or senate districts. Further, the Commission must "tak [e] an overview" of the state as a whole in drawing districts and, thus, a "build-out" justification will no longer be acceptable under the majority' s interpretation of the Colorado Constitution. Under the second prong of the majority' s test, the Commission must, when it splits a county, advance "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution. " Based on these newly created standards, the majority holds that splits of four specific counties (Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, and Pueblo) in the Commission' s proposed plan for senate districts ("Proposed Plan") are unconstitutional under the first prong of the test. The majority also finds that the Commission did not, under the second prong of the test, advance adequate explanations of the splits of three counties (Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa) and two cities (Boulder and Pueblo) . The majority approves the remainder of the Proposed Plan, including all of the house districts created by the Commission. I respectfully dissent. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority' s interpretation of the Colorado Constitution. The new constitutional tests fashioned by the majority effectively overrule the primary holdings of our 1982 and 1992 reapportionment cases without directly saying so. In my view, the majority takes an overly simplistic view of the reapportionment process -- one which adopts an unnecessarily rigid approach to redistricting, while simultaneously and inconsistently creating a test that defies precedent and fails 27 Attachment F to provide guidance as to how it should be applied in the future. The majority' s opinion is problematic for several reasons. First, the majority, though purporting to apply the correct standard of review, fails to follow its own articulation of that standard. Second, the majority creates an unpredictable two- part test, never before used by this court, to determine the constitutionality of a county split. Third, the majority simultaneously announces a bright-line rule that is inconsistent with precedent because it strips the Commission of discretion and because it prohibits types of splits that we have previously approved as constitutional. Fourth, the majority' s rule will often protect the integrity of more populous counties, especially those in the Denver metropolitan area, at the expense of less populous counties. Finally, applying the second prong of the majority' s two-part test, I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority, that the Commission provided inadequate explanations for the splits of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Counties and the Cities of Boulder and Pueblo. Under the Commission' s Plan, fifty-one of Colorado' s sixty- three counties are not split. The alternative plans, upon which the majority places great weight, increase the number of undivided counties to only fifty-two. Although I readily admit that the Proposed Plan is not perfect, I cannot agree, on these facts, that it fails to comply with the constitutional standards that our previous cases have developed. I would approve the Proposed Plan because it substantially complies with the state constitutional requirements of equal population, avoidance of county and city splits, compactness and contiguousness of districts, and preservation of communities of interest. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 828 P.2d 185, 190 (Colo. 1992) [hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 1992"] ; In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 191, 193-94 (Colo. 1982) [hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 1982"] . Contrary to the approach taken by the majority in determining whether the Proposed Plan complies with the Colorado Constitution, our review should be limited in scope and deferential to the Commission' s judgment. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 189; In re Reapportion 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . Applying our constitutional precedent, the Proposed Plan meets constitutional muster. I. The Majority Fails To Apply Its Own "Narrow" Standard of Review 28 Attachment F No plan adopted by the Commission can go into effect absent approval by this court. Colo. Const. art. V, § 48 (1) (e) . Once a plan is submitted to us, however, we have always required the scope of our review to be narrow. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . We are not to redraw boundaries or choose what we view as a better plan from among alternative plans. If alternate plans all meet constitutional criteria, then the Commission, not this court, is vested with the discretion to adopt the plan of its choice. Id. ( "The choice among alternative plans, each consistent with constitutional requirements, is for the Commission and not the Court. ") . Our job is to examine the plan submitted by the Commission only to determine whether it comports with constitutional criteria. Id. ( "Our role in this proceeding is . . . to measure the present reapportionment plan against the constitutional standards. ") . In reviewing a plan to determine whether it complies with the Colorado Constitution, we do not require absolute compliance. Instead, any plan that substantially complies with constitutional mandates must be approved. See In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 (approving county splits because "the Commission substantially complied with the constitutional requirements") ; In re Interrogatories by the Gen. Assembly, 178 Colo. 311, 313, 497 P. 2d 1024, 1025 (1972) (" [W] e determine that substantial compliance was achieved with the constitutional benchmarks noted above. " ) . Further, the plan submitted to us by the Commission is presumed to be valid. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P. 2d at 189 (recognizing "the presumption of good faith and validity we must accord to the Commission") ; see also In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 ("Although we might make different choices were we in the Commission' s place, we should not substitute our judgment for the Commission' s unless we are convinced the Commission departed from [the] constitutional criteria. ") . The majority purports to apply these standards, but fails to engage in a "narrow" review of the Proposed Plan. Its review instead creates new constitutional standards, which conflict with our precedent. The majority uses these new standards to support its conclusion that the Proposed Plan, in part, fails to comply with the Colorado Constitution. In the majority' s view, the Commission' s Proposed Plan is not entitled to a presumption of validity; nor is the Proposed Plan reviewed for substantial compliance with our state constitution. 29 Attachment F Additionally, as demonstrated by the majority' s use of a chart comparing the number of splits made under the various plans, the majority bolsters many of its conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the Proposed Plan by comparing it to other alternate plans." maj . op. at 34; see also maj . op. at 38-41 . Comparisons such as these are of questionable value since more than one plan may comport with constitutional criteria." In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . II. The Majority Creates an Unworkable Test The majority adopts a new two-part test requiring that: (1) a plan must be "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries" ; and (2) county splits must be accompanied by "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution. " Maj . op. at 8, 24, & 30 . Our court has never before articulated this two-part test. We have never previously even used both of these two phrases in the same case. Additionally, neither phrase was central to the holding of the particular case from which it was taken. Thus, the majority combines two unrelated phrases, contained in two opinions spanning ten years, to create a test that lacks meaningful standards and will be difficult for future courts to apply. The first prong of the majority' s test is taken from In re Reapportionment 1982 . In that case, in response to opponents' arguments that the senate redistricting plan did not comply with section 47 (2) of our constitution, we noted our belief that "the Commission was sufficiently attentive to county boundaries. " In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P. 2d at 195 . This remark was made in the context of a discussion of why the Commission' s 1982 plan, given all of the constitutional criteria, was approved. Id. at 195-97 . 16 I find the majority's chart to be objectionable because it repeats the same bias in favor of more populous counties found throughout the majority's opinion. See infra, section IV. 17 The majority states, "Alternative plans illustrate how . . . counties can be divided in a constitutionally preferred manner." Maj . op. at 40. The question that this court is supposed to answer, however, is only whether the Commission's plan complies with constitutional criteria, not whether there is another constitutionally preferred plan. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . 30 Attachment F The second prong of the majority' s test, that the Commission must advance an "adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement, " is taken from In re Reapportionment 1992 . In that case, we rejected a split of Pitkin County as unconstitutional because: (1) both a city and a county were split; (2) the resulting district lacked compactness; (3) the split destroyed a community of interest; and (4) the Commission' s explanation of the split was not detailed enough to "provide a basis for meaningful judicial review. " In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 195-96 . Hence, the remark that forms the basis for the second prong of the majority' s new test was also made in the context of a discussion of the necessity of applying all of the constitutional criteria. The majority' s test has, thus, overemphasized isolated language from our previous cases in order to develop its two- part analysis. In doing so, it has created a test that lacks predictability and defined standards. For instance, it is unclear when the Commission will have been "sufficiently" attentive to boundaries, or when it will have provided an "adequate" explanation of its decisions. I conclude that the imprecision of the majority' s test will make it impossible for this court to render any consistent review of the constitutionality of future Commission plans. On one hand, the majority articulates its two-part test without defining when a Commission' s plan will have been "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries. " Thus, the Commission and future courts have little guidance as to when a plan will meet the first prong of the majority' s test or when it will fall short of compliance. On the other hand, the majority' s application of the rule demonstrates that there will be only one way for the Commission to satisfy the first prong of the majority' s two-part test. The majority indicates that the first prong is met only when the Commission follows the bright- line rule that it must begin by allocating districts to the most populous counties. This bright-line rule is contrary to our precedent, as discussed below. In addition, the majority' s rejection of the Commission' s build-out justifications strips the Commission of the discretion historically afforded it to determine the order in which counties should be arranged into districts. Based on the majority' s application of its test to the Proposed Plan, I would assume that, any time that the bright- line rule is violated, the first prong of the two-part test will 31 Attachment F not have been satisfied and that the Proposed Plan is therefore unconstitutional . Thus, the articulation of the bright line rule renders the first prong of the test unnecessary since the bright-line rule provides a complete answer to the question of whether the Commission has been "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries. " To summarize, the majority has fashioned a two-part test that finds no support in precedent and that uses language that is vague and imprecise. It then institutes an unprecedented bright-line rule to be implemented under the first part of the test. The second prong of the test, however, remains unexplained, with no standards provided to determine when an explanation will be "adequate." III. Requiring the Commission to Proceed in a Particular Manner and Rejecting Build-Out Justifications Violates Our Precedent The majority posits a bright-line rule that the Commission must first allocate districts to those counties that have a population greater than an ideal house or senate district. Maj . op. at 31 . If the county population will support, for instance, 2 . 5 districts, then the Commission is only permitted to allocate that county' s population among three districts -- two districts contained entirely within county borders and one district which combines part of the population of the relevant county with neighboring counties. A Commission decision that creates, for example, one whole district within county borders and two partial districts, or two whole districts within county borders and two partial districts, will almost always be considered, under the majority' s analysis, unconstitutional. The majority' s approach demands that districts be drawn in a specific way, as detailed above, because anything less would purportedly fail to comply with the constitution. The majority asserts, in essence, that the Colorado Constitution sets forth a rigid hierarchy of apportionment criteria, under which the constitutionality of a redistricting plan can be judged predominantly, if not solely, by counting the number of divisions for the most populous counties. Based on this new rule, the majority rejects the Commission' s divisions of Boulder, Douglas, Pueblo, and Jefferson Counties because these populous counties did not 32 Attachment F receive the number of entire senate districts for which they "qualify. "18 Maj . op. at 8 & 24 . The result reached by the majority is mandated neither by the language of the Colorado Constitution nor by our precedent. The constitution does not state that the redistricting authority must begin by drawing immovable lines that protect the more populous .counties to the detriment of the less populous counties. Nor have previous cases decided by this court ever made such a suggestion, despite numerous opportunities to do so. Our precedent reveals just the opposite. There are numerous state constitutional considerations that weigh upon the redistricting process. These include that: (1) each district should have equal populations, Colo. Const. art. V, § 46; (2) counties should not be divided or combined with other counties " [e)xcept when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, " Colo. Const, art. V, § 47 (2) , and if counties must be split, the number of cities and towns within those split counties should be "as small as possible, " Colo. Const. art. V. , § 47 (2) ; (3) each district should be "as compact in area as possible" and should "consist of contiguous whole general election precincts," Colo. Const. art. V, § 47 (1) ; and (4) "communities of interest . . . shall be preserved within. a single district whenever possible, " Colo. Const. art.. V, S 47 (3) . In re Reapportionment 1.992, 828 P.2d at 190. This court has, however, cautioned against a formulaic, inflexible application of these criteria.19 In re Reapportionment 1982,647 P.24 at .194 (" [T].he criteria of sections 46 and 47 are to be viewed as a whole, as a set of firm 18 As discussed in greater detail below, the majority also rests its rejection of the splits of these four counties on its new rule that the Commission must "tak[e] an overview" of the state when drawing districts, and cannot rely on a build-out justification. See infra; maj . op. at. 38. 19 we have recognized that the concerns listed. at the top of the above list are more "important" than those at the bottom of the list. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 190. We have even gone so far as to describe them as a "hierarchy" of concerns. Id. This does not mean, however, that the criteria at the bottom will never be reached or that they are ordinatily. irrelevant to the Commission's decisions on how to draw. district lines. Apart from the paramount equal population concern, we have never held,, as the majority now does,, that concerns at the bottom of, the list can never outweigh concerns higher up on the list See maj . op. at 26 ("The . Commission may not apply the lesser criteria over the greater criteria.") . To the contrary, we have specifically held that, in certain circumstances, concerns lower in the hierarchy must trump concerns higher in the hierarchy. In re Interrogatory of the House of Representatives, 177 Colo. 215, 217-18, 493 P.2d 346, 347-48 (1972) . 33 Attachment F but general guidelines which allow the Commission some discretion in application. " ) . We have never held that there is only one acceptable approach to the drawing of general assembly districts. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 196 (recognizing that a county' s population may be "dense enough to allow the lines to be drawn in a number of ways without offending section 47 (2) ") . Nor have we ever imposed Strict iuetructions on how to formulate a redistricting plan. /a fact, we have historically afforded "' the Commission a degree of discretion as to how it proceeds when it draws district boundaries. In re Reapportionment 1,992, 8?8'. P.2d at 197 (approving the Commission's decision to draw districts for tegaPee of the State is a predetermined order chosen by the commission) . we afforded the ,Commission such discretion an L9,s? 1982 senate redistricting pin split ,eight counties (,Arapahoe, Boulder;; Delta, 4 $400, ,af rson, i,ar mer, Pu ,lo, *=.10 04) . . In re Rea.ppor3t }t 1;9.$2, 447 P.2d at 195-96.. .Seven 8'1 700 split counties Pel ) .were "aax'ge" aqunt> with populations Litt cient to support more ,than one ,aena to distri.ct. Id. at 196. Contrary Ito .the ,majoriitY's t errtion, We wt}Rproved ;the 1982 Plan.20 I i doing so, .we deferred to the commission's choice of which counties ,to divide and, ;i xtantly, where how to divide them: 4slubstantial .equality.of population and avoidance of splitting counties cannot always be 20 The majority states:that we found "a significant .deficiency.in the Commission'.s.action that ,required remand for plan modification." Maj .' op. at 22. This is incorrect. In fact, we .determined that the redistricting Map"' compliea with constitutional criteria andremanded only for revision of the sequencing of„electiontdistricts. In re.;Reapportionment 1982, 647 p.2d at 192-93. The.;:.majority then tcites 1n re: 20f,FPOrtippment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 209 (colo. 1902) ,(hereinafter "In reRp'frt4onment, 1982- II") , to sepp0r't.,the,,proposition that this court may reject' a resubmitted plan that is leas consistent" with constitutional criteria',than a previously submitted plan. Maj . Op. At 21. The majority's statement is correct, but '*- incomplete. In,In, regeapportionnWnt 1982-II, we outlined a special standard of review applicable only₹in the particular circumstances of ;that case." ' Specifically, we held that, it is only when the resubmitted plan is less consistent.with constitutional criteria than the previously Submitted plan that "deference,to porymission expertise, is inappropriate." ( In re Reapportionment 1982-II,:,647 P.2d. at 211. 34 Atlac()rrrt F met simultaneously. When they cannot, the avoidance of split counties must yield. The area of the state in which these conflicts occur is subject to adjustment, and the Commission must have the discretion to choose where the necessary and constitutionally permissible compromises are made. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197; see also In re Interrogatories by the Gen. Assembly, 178 Colo. at 313, 497 P.2d at 1025 ("while the addition to or deletion from a particular district might be said to be ill-advised by some, the decision is . . . one to be upheld provided a constitutional violation is not shown. ") . Notably, we did not state that the Commission is required to begin its mapping attentive to the needs of the populous counties, while only secondarily moving to the consideration of less populous counties. Nor did we ever hint that there is only one constitutionally acceptable order in which the Commission must proceed. To the contrary, we specifically recognized that the Commission was not required to draw lines in the way the majority now suggests. The 1980 census revealed that El Paso County' s population was large enough that three districts could have been drawn entirely within county boundaries and a fourth partial district could have been created with neighboring counties. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 196 . Under the plan submitted, however, only one district was drawn entirely within county borders and three other partial districts, containing portions of El Paso County and portions of neighboring counties, were also created. Id. Thus, El Paso County presented the precise situation to which the majority now objects, and .which would be unconstitutional under the majority' s approach. Nevertheless, we approved the Commission' s 1982 plan because it had been "drawn to achieve equal population" and did not constitute a "clear constitutional violation. " Id. Similarly, we sanctioned splits in the cities of Boulder and Grand Junction, even though each city was populous enough to support its own district. Id. at 197 . This numerical fact did not convince us that constitutional standards had not been satisfied. 35 Attachment F In In re Reapportionment 1992, we reiterated many of these points when we rejected several section 47 (2) challenges to the proposed house plan.21 In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 193-98 . The plan submitted reflected the Commission' s decision to begin drawing districts in particular areas of the state and then proceed to other areas of the state. Id. at 196-97 . When we considered the 1992 plan, in In re Reapportionment 1992, we did not simply conclude that, as a matter of arithmetic, there was a right or wrong number of split counties. Nor did we begin our analysis by focusing only on the most populous counties. Instead, we considered all the criteria of section 47, including avoidance of split counties, compactness, and preservation of communities of interest. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 196 (analyzing a split of Pitkin County) . Ultimately, we approved splits of Arapahoe, Baca, and Montezuma Counties. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 196 & 197-98 . Further, and inconsistently with the majority' s bright-line rule, we concluded that the division of the City of Westminster into seven house districts did not violate the constitution, despite the fact that it could have been contained in far fewer districts. Id. at 196-97 . We reasoned that "since Westminster' s population exceeds that of an ideal house district, at least one split was required. " Id. We explained the remainder of the splits as being due, in large part, to the order in which the Commission had drawn its districts: " [T] he Commission initially fixed the boundaries of 21 Again, the majority misstates the outcome of this case. We did not remand the plan because of a "significant deficiency." Maj . op. at 22. In fact, we found fault with only minor aspects of the submitted plan. First, we corrected the inadvertent division of the town of Perry Park. Second, we objected to the division of Pitkin County (and the City of Aspen within Pitkin County) and remanded the case so that the Commission could reconsider it. With those exceptions, we approved the plan. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 189. The Commission submitted a revised plan that retained the split of Pitkin County, though it eliminated the split of the City of Aspen. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 828 P.2d 213, 216 (Colo. 1992) [hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 1992-II"] . The Commission explained that it considered, but ultimately rejected, other plans because they would entail splitting additional counties or cities, fail to achieve a "net improvement in preservation of communities of interest" or split communities of interest entirely, or be unable to remedy concerns of limited access between Pitkin County and the rest of District 61. Id. We considered that explanation adequate and approved the revised plan. Id. 36 Attachment F s two districts in the eastern part of Adams County and worked west. Simultaneously, the Commission was moving east out of the mountains in creating District 62 . " Id. at 197 . In light of the practical reality that the drafting of a redistricting plan must begin somewhere, and that some areas of the state will be subject to multiple splits in order to minimize splits in other areas of the state, we held that these numerous splits were "not per se unconstitutional. " Id. We recognized that the Commission's decision about the order in which lines were drawn meant that there would be more splits to areas considered last: Because of the Commission' s choices of where to begin drawing house districts, and in order to bring "closure" to the Final Plan and preserve equality of population, Westminster was split into more parts than if the Commission had proceeded differently. Id. Nevertheless, we approved the seven splits reflected in the reapportionment plan. Ignoring our earlier holdings, the majority now finds that it was improper for the Commission to proceed in the. manner that it did in this case. Specifically, the majority states: It . . . appears from the Commission' s rationale that it considered itself at liberty to start the cartography of reapportionment at any point of Colorado geography it might choose. . . . [T]he constitutional criteria instead contemplate the Commission taking an overview of Colorado' s population by county, then generating a map that respects the state' s legal preference for county integrity, then applying minimization of city divisions, compactness, contiguity, and community of interest criteria to add portions of counties to other counties, in forming districts, when necessary,. Maj . op. at 37-38. The majority thus eliminates the discretion that this court has historically afforded the Commission and announces a rule that requires the Commission to "tak [e] an overview" of the state in an attempt to minimize overall county splits. Based on this new "overview" rule, in combination with its other new rule, that the Commission must begin the 37 Attachment F reapportionment process by allocating districts to the most populous counties, the majority concludes that splits of Boulder, Douglas, Pueblo, and Jefferson Counties are unconstitutional.22 The rules'',announced by the majority represent an extraordinary departure from precedent and upset decades of settled expectations about the application of constitutional criteria'. in my view, the majority's approach is both unwarranted and ill-advised. IV. The Majority's Bright-Line Rule Protects More Populous Counties: at the Reponse of Lee Populous Counties All parties concede that some sparsely populated counties must be combined with other counties, or parts of other counties, in order to create senate districts of constitutionally permissible population. Similarly, other, more Populous counties Must be divided into smaller segments in order to create districts of the right number of people. Such is the natural result,of Colorado's population distribution and the constitutional mandate that districts must be of equal population. The question that the parties now debate is where and how various divisions and combinations should occur. The majority resolves this question by concluding that preference must be given to more populous counties, at the expense of less populous counties. - I cannot agree with this result for I believe that it unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantages the members of less populous communities in the redistricting process. To take a simple example, assume three same-sized, square- shaped counties in a contiguous conformation. County B (the middle county) has sufficient population to support 1.5 districts. County A (the westernmost county) has sufficient population to support 0.25. districts: County C (the easternmost county) also has sufficient population to support 0.25 districts. Under the majority's analysis, the Commission must first create one district entirely contained within County B's boundaries. Then, the Commission must create a separate a2 I note that the majority's "overview" approach and its bright-line rule that the commission must begin by apportioning districts to the most populous counties Are arguably inconsistent: It is certainly possible to envieien a scenario where an overview of the state would, in actuality, reveal that more splits exist in a plan created by a commission that followed the-bright-line rule than might exist in an alternate plan. 38 IMF ' district using the remaining population (0 .5 district) from County B and combining it with population from neighboring counties. To satisfy the majority' s test, this leftover 0. 5 district could be used in one of two ways. First, the leftover population of County B could be cobbled together with both Counties A and C. Under this scenario, Counties A and ,C would be connected by a narrow land bridge through County B, resulting in a dumbbell-shaped district that ignores the compactness requirements of the state constitution. Alternatively, the leftover 0. 5 district could be joined with County A (or C) plus all or part of a more distant county or counties,23 in a sacrifice meant to provide the larger county, County B, with the maximum number of whole, districts that could simultaneously exist within its boundaries. A more logical choice for the Commission might be to split County B into two, with half of its population being coupled with County A and half with County C. Thus, one district would consist of all of County A. and half of County B, and the second district would consist of all of County C and half of County B. Under the terms of the majority' s analysis such a logical result would not ordinarily be constitutional because County B would be split into two partial districts instead of one whole district and one partial district. Note that,. under the logical approach described above, the constitution' s provision regarding compactness is effectuated and neither County A nor County C needs to turn to additional neighboring counties in order to complete a district. Further, the logical approach involves only one split county (County B) , while the majority approach demands a split of County B plus potential splits of additional neighboring counties and/or sacrifices of compactness of districts. While this basic example obviously cannot capture all of the mathematical nuances involved in the redistricting process, its teachings are equally applicable to, the more complicated fact pattern presented by our state county boundaries. I take 23 For instance, assume that County X, located to the northwest of County A, has a population sufficient to support 0.6 district. The leftover 0.5 district from County B Could be combined with the 0.25 district from County A. To complete the district, the Commission could take the final 0.25 district from County X. As part of the resulting chain reaction, County X. would then have to seek out other neighboring counties with which it could merge its remaining 0.35 district to create a whole district. 39 Attachment F this opportunity to acknowledge the sheer difficulty and enormity of the task that the Commission undertakes. The political geography and population distribution of our state, as well as the competing concerns defined by our federal and state constitutions, mean that there are literally thousands of variables affecting the drawing of legislative districts. At the time of the 2000 census, Colorado had sixty-three counties that ranged in size from 150 square miles (Gilpin County) to 4, 773 square miles (Las Animas County) . Though some of these counties are shaped as almost perfect squares (e.g. , Morgan County) , others are irregularly shaped (e.g. , Denver County) , rendering the Commission' s task even more complex. Population densities vary among the counties, with some having fewer than one person per square mile and others having thousands of people per square mile. Additionally, to comply with constitutional criteria not at issue here, the Commission was required to take into account .the distribution and voting patterns of minority groups. To all of these complications is added the further challenge that Colorado's varied topography means that residents of the state may live in rural agricultural areas, in urban centers, in small mountain resort cities, in planned suburban developments, or a plethora of other types of areas. Residents of these different communities may have significantly different attitudes towards issues such as water usage, growth, transportation, and the environment. The Commission, before arriving at its Proposed Plan, held dozens of meetings across the state, where it heard testimony from people representing all sorts of different interests and communities. It publicized a Preliminary Plan, which it then revised in response to suggestions and criticism. In creating its Proposed Plan, the Commission considered literally hundreds of maps involving different permutations of senate districts. The majority' s formulaic approach fails to recognize the mathematical nuances involved in creating districts that maximize compliance with the relevant constitutional criteria. The complexity of the geography of our state, the diverse types of communities, the different and sometimes competing federal and state constitutional requirements, and the almost infinite number of district permutations that can be generated all combine to require this court to defer to the discretion of the Commission, provided that the Proposed Plan was drawn on the basis of the appropriate constitutional criteria. Instead of 40 Attachment F taking this approach, the majority' s new rule favors the most populous counties, using the populations of less populous counties largely as fillers that round out the leftover populations from more populous counties. The result of the majority rule is that less populous counties will be fractured or combined so as to cater to the populations found in more populous counties. Further, depending on population distribution, the majority' s technique will oftentimes lead to sprawling districts that present compactness concerns. The majority rejects the divisions of Boulder, Douglas, Pueblo, and Jefferson Counties in the Proposed Plan because the Commission did not begin by first allocating districts to the most populous counties. Because I believe that the first prong of the majority' s test is ill-advised and unsupported by precedent, I disagree with the majority' s conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the divisions of those four counties. V. The Commission's Explanations for Splits of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Counties and the Cities of Boulder and Pueblo Are Persuasive Even if I was to agree with the two-prong test that the majority adopts, I do not believe that the majority correctly applied the second prong in this case. Specifically, the majority suggests that the explanations advanced to justify the splits of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Counties, and the Cities of Boulder and Pueblo, are inadequate. I disagree because I would accept the Commission' s explanations as satisfying the substantial compliance standard that applies when we evaluate whether the Commission' s work comports with constitutional criteria. I would hold that the Commission' s decision to draw districts in a predetermined order and the Commission' s explanations for county splits are entitled to deference. See In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 197; In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197. Various Commission explanations of splits have been approved by this court in the past. As discussed above, build- out justifications were explicitly deemed acceptable in In re Reapportionment 1992 .24 Additionally, in In re Reapportionment 1992-II, after initially remanding the case so that the 24 The majority rejected build-out justifications as unacceptable under the first prong of its test. Presumably, such justifications are therefore also impermissible under the second prong. 41 Attachment F Commission could reconsider its split of Pitkin County, we accepted as sufficient the Commission' s explanation for why that county split was retained. In re Reapportionment 1992-II, 828 P. 2d at 216 . The Commission described the various alternatives it considered and explained how constitutional criteria applied to each alternative. Based on its reasoning that retaining the Pitkin County split would help effectuate all of the constitutional criteria, including the preservation of communities of interest, we approved it. Id. In this case, the Commission should be held to the same standard. In explaining why counties and cities are split, either when the Proposed Plan is originally submitted or upon resubmittal, the Commission should not be required to make a more strenuous showing than was required ten years ago. The Commission' s Proposed Plan splits Adams County into two whole districts (Districts 24 and 26) and two partial districts (Districts 23 and 25) . When the Commission drew districts in the southwestern metropolitan area, it completed three whole districts in Jefferson County. It then used some of Jefferson County' s leftover population to create a district containing a portion of Jefferson County and a portion of Adams County. This accounts for one of the partial districts. The Commission then created the two whole districts in Adams County. Because the population in the remaining part of Adams County was less than necessary to form its own district, it was combined with the Arapahoe County portion of the City of Aurora.25 This was a logical combination since the City of Aurora spans more than one county. Under the rationale of In re Reapportionment 1992, I do not believe that this build-out justification is inadequate. Additionally, I note that the plans to which the majority compares the Commission' s Proposed Plan for Adams County do not, in fact offer any significant advantage over the Proposed Plan. Specifically, both the Rodriguez 5 Plan and the Wells 37 Plan create two whole districts and two partial districts in Adams County, just like the Commission' s Proposed Plan. Similar build-out justifications drove the creation of three, instead of four, whole senate districts within Arapahoe County. The initial decision tp split Arapahoe County was made because Denver County' s population could accommodate four whole senate districts and one partial district (District 32) . The Commission elected to complete District 32 by combining the 25 Adams County residents dominate the resulting district. 42 Attachment F M remaining Denver County population with population from similar communities to the south of Denver in Arapahoe County. Notably, the choice to push south out of Denver into Arapahoe County was a decision the Commission made early in the process and one that minority commissioners repeatedly embraced in subsequent plans. While the Proposed Plan may have more partial districts in Arapahoe County than other plans, this alone does not render it unconstitutional . Substantial compliance, not perfection, is the standard to which the Proposed Plan should be held. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P. 2d at 197 . Mesa County has sufficient population to support 0 . 95 senate districts. Thus, its population is slightly less than the ideal population for one whole senate district. Therefore, it requires additional population to form a district. Unfortunately, as the Commission explains, every adjacent county has a population that, when added to Mesa County' s population, is too large for an ideal district . This means that either Mesa County must be split and joined with other counties, or that some other county (such as Delta County) must be split and joined with Mesa County. Either way, a county must be split. In my view, our state constitution does not require the splitting of a smaller county merely because its size is less than that of an ideal senate district. Therefore, I disagree with the majority' s conclusion that the Commission has not advanced an adequate explanation to justify the splitting of Mesa County. The Commission has explained that it split the City of Boulder in order to preserve the integrity of the City and County of Broomfield.26 Broomfield' s population was insufficient to complete a district, so the Commission had to cross into some other county. One possible source was the area of Boulder County north of Broomfield, including Longmont, Louisville, Erie, and Lafayette. However, the Commission determined, based on almost uniform public comment, to keep those similar communities together in their own district (District 17) , contained wholly within Boulder County. The option of going south into Jefferson County was foreclosed because that area had already been used to complete District 23 . As the Commission described in its argument to this court, that left them with two options: (1) pushing into Adams County to the east; or (2) pushing to the northwest into the City of 26 Broomfield became a county in November of 2001. Thus, its population was not tabulated as a separate county in the 2000 census. Nevertheless, the Commission chose to preserve its city and county borders. 43 Attachment F Boulder. The Commission, based on the perceived community of interest existing between Broomfield and Boulder along the Highway 36 transportation corridor, decided to combine part of the City of Boulder with Broomfield to create District 18 . The population then remaining in Boulder County was insufficient to comprise an entire district. The remainder of Boulder' s population was, therefore, placed in District 19. While these are not necessarily the best choices that the Commission could have made, I believe that they are constitutionally permissible choices . Finally, the majority finds inadequate the explanation of the Commission' s decision to split the City of Pueblo. Pueblo County, which contains the City of Pueblo, has population sufficient to support 1 . 15 districts. Thus, the county must be split somewhere. The Commission justified its decision to split the City of Pueblo by noting that this was the only place that the split could happen such that Pueblo County could be combined with eastern plains counties. I again note that when counties must be split, the Commission is afforded the discretion to determine where to make difficult, though constitutionally permissible, splits. I do not believe that the splitting of the City of Pueblo offends constitutional principles. VI. The Proposed Plan Substantially Complies with the Appropriate Constitutional Standards As explained in Section I, above, our role in reviewing the Proposed Plan is supposed to be narrow. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . We are not to choose among alternative plans and we are to afford the Proposed Plan a presumption of validity. Id. Our task is to examine the Proposed Plan only to determine whether it substantially complies with constitutional criteria. Id. No party alleges that federal law has been violated with respect to the Proposed Plan, nor does my independent examination reveal any federal constitutional problems . Therefore, I turn to the mandates of the Colorado Constitution. The paramount requirement of the Colorado Constitution is that each district be of equal population. Colo. Const. art. V, § 46 . No serious objection is raised that the districts in this case do not comply with the equal population requirement. The next three requirements, avoidance of city and county splits, compactness and contiguity of districts, and 44 Attachment F preservations of communities of interest, are the subject of much debate among the parties to this case. We have previously held that the Commission has the discretion to draw districts in the order that it chooses, even if this means that there are more splits to the resulting plan than might otherwise exist. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 197; see also In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 196 (recognizing that there are situations where districts can be "drawn in a number of ways without offending section 47 (2) ") . Further, we have stated that the constitutional criteria are to be "viewed as a whole, as a set of firm but general guidelines which allow the Commission some discretion in application. " Id. at 194; see also In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P. 2d at 195-96 (considering all the criteria in determining the constitutionality of a county split) . In applying these standards, we have acknowledged that multiple plans can simultaneously comply with constitutional criteria. In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 194 . These principles form the backdrop for my analysis of the Commission' s Proposed Plan. As mentioned above, the Commission' s Proposed Plan preserves intact fifty-one out of our sixty-three counties." The focus of the majority' s opinion, this dissent, and the arguments of the parties has thus been upon the few counties in which splits do occur. Unfortunately, it is not possible to accommodate everyone. Such is the dilemma faced by the Commission. If the Commission satisfies the desires of one county, city or community of interest to remain whole and undivided, it often must necessarily split another county, city, or community of interest. Put simply, one of the county lines must yield. The Commission has explained that some of the divisions of Boulder, Douglas, Pueblo, and Jefferson Counties resulted from its decision to begin drawing districts in a particular region of the state before proceeding to draw districts in other regions.28 The Commission engaged in numerous discussions and votes regarding the order in which they should work. These decisions are entitled to deference from this court . 27 Other plans advanced by the opponents of the Commission's plan increase the number of undivided counties to only fifty-two. 28 I have already addressed the divisions of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa Counties, as well as the divisions of the Cities of Boulder and Pueblo, in Section V, supra. 45 Attachment F The splits resulting from the order in which the Commission proceeded could have been avoided, in small part, if the Commission had drawn the districts differently. Nevertheless, as our precedent discloses, this reality does not mean that the Commission has failed to substantially comply with constitutional standards. In re Reapportionment 1992, 647 P.2d at 197 . In my opinion, constitutional standards have been satisfied. The alternate plans presented by the objectors in this case may well be acceptable under the Colorado Constitution. However, the presentation of an alternate, constitutionally acceptable plan does not render the Commission' s Proposed Plan unconstitutional, even if many people believe that the alternate plan is better. See, e.g. , In re Reapportionment 1982, 647 P.2d at 197 (" [T] he Commission must have the discretion to choose where the necessary and constitutionally permissible compromises are made. " ) . Ultimately, the reality is that, because of the political nature of the redistricting process, 29 there will also be some people who are dissatisfied with decisions about which counties should be split . This alone does not render a particular plan unconstitutiona1 .30 When the Commission' s Proposed Plan is accorded the deference that it is due and when the proper constitutional standards are applied, it becomes apparent that this court should approve the Commission' s Proposed Plan. VII. Conclusion Were we, the court, in the Commission' s shoes, we might not make the same choices that it has made. Nevertheless, our job is not to second-guess the result, but to test its constitutionality. I believe that the Commission' s Proposed 29 See generally Gene R. Nichol, Jr. , The Practice of Redistricting, 72 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1029 (2001) . 30 It is not inappropriate for the Commission to take political considerations into account, so long as it does not elevate these considerations to the level of constitutional concerns. In re Reapportionment 1992, 828 P.2d at 199 ("It is only when partisan factors are allowed an importance equal to or greater than the proper constitutional criteria that a plan is defective.") 46 Attachment F Plan for both the house and the senate complies with the standards of constitutionality set forth in our precedent and, therefore, should be approved. I am authorized to say that CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in this dissent . 47 Attachment F SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 01SA386 Two East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Original Proceeding Pursuant to Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 48 (1) (e) IN RE REAPPORTIONMENT OF THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVAL OF FINAL 2002 REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN UPON RESUBMISSION EN BANC February 22, 2002 JUSTICE HOBBS delivered the opinion of the court. JUSTICE BENDER concurs, and CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in the concurrence. In this original proceeding, the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (Commission) has resubmitted to us its decennial Apportionment Plan (Readopted Plan) for the reapportionment of Colorado General Assembly house and senate districts, based on the year 2000 federal census, as required under Article V, Section 48 (1) (e) of the Colorado Constitution. We approve the Final 2002 Reapportionment Plan. I. In our prior opinion, we disapproved the Adopted Plan submitted by the Commission and returned the plan to the Commission for revision, modification, and resubmission. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) . We held that the Adopted Plan did not comply with the criteria of Article V, Sections 46 and 47, of the Colorado Constitution because: (1) it was not "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2) , " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, 647 P.2d 191, 195 (Colo. 1982) [hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 82"] ; and (2) it was not accompanied by "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Attachment G Assembly, 828 P.2d 185, 195-96 (Colo. 1992) [hereinafter "In re Reapportionment 92-I"] . For example, the Adopted Plan denied whole senate districts to Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, and Pueblo counties for which they qualify based on the year 2000 census data and the Commission' s ideal district projection. In addition, the Commission had not advanced an adequate explanation for division of Adams, Arapahoe, and Mesa counties and the cities of Boulder and Pueblo between senate districts. The Commission subsequently reconvened on three separate occasions, considering a number of alternative senate reapportionment maps and amendments. On February 7, 2002, the Commission approved the Readopted Plan on a nine to two vote. The Commission resubmitted the Readopted Plan to this Court on February 12, 2002 . We accepted objections to the Readopted Plan through February 19, 2002 . The Commission submitted its Reply Brief to this Court on February 20, 2002 . II. We approve the Readopted Plan as the Final Plan. The Commission has followed the procedures and applied the criteria of federal and Colorado law in adopting its 2002 Final Reapportionment Plan for Colorado General Assembly house and senate districts. A. Review Criteria The federal and state constitutional criteria that guide the Commission and this Court, in order of their applied priority are: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Fifteenth Amendment; (2) section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; (3) article V, section 46 (equality of population of districts in each house) ; (4) article V, section 47 (2) (districts not to cross county lines except to meet section 46 requirements and the number of cities and towns contained in more than one district minimized) ; (5) article V, section 47 (1) (each district to be as compact as possible and to consist of contiguous whole general election precincts) ; and (6) article V, section 47 (3) (preservation of communities of interest within a district) . In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386, slip op. at 25-26 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) (citing In re Reapportionment 92-I, 828 P.2d at 190) . We review the reapportionment plan and Commission' s process to ensure that the 2 Attachment G Commission substantively applied all six of the criteria and procedurally applied the criteria in order of their stated preference in adopting the final reapportionment plan for the state of Colorado. "The Commission may not apply the lesser criteria over the greater criteria, but it may use the lesser criteria after satisfying the greater criteria. The Commission resolves conflicts by applying the criteria in preferential order, articulating on submittal to us how the Adopted Plan reflects the criteria. " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386, slip op. at 26 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) (citations omitted) . B. Plan Compliance We conclude that the Readopted Plan satisfies the six constitutional criteria enumerated in our decision. Id. at 25- 26 . The Readopted Plan provides whole senate districts to Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, and Pueblo counties for which they qualify based on the year 2000 census data and the Commission' s ideal district projection. The Readopted Plan provides Arapahoe County with four whole senate districts, the number for which Arapahoe County almost qualified using the year 2000 federal census data. Mesa County is no longer divided in the Readopted Plan; a portion of Garfield County was added to it to complete Mesa County' s senate district. The cities of Boulder and Pueblo are no longer divided between senate districts in the Readopted Plan. The Readopted Plan contains divisions of Adams County between senate districts and divisions of the City of Boulder between house districts. However, the Commission has advanced adequate explanations for the divisions of Adams County and the City of Boulder, and we determine that the divisions do not offend the constitution. The following chart submitted by the Commission illustrates the changes in the number of whole senate district allotments between the Adopted and Readopted Plan. The chart also reflects year 2000 federal census population numbers which have been • adjusted to reflect the subsequent creation of the City and County of Broomfield. 3 Attachment G Senate Whole Whole District Districts Dietrich County Population Qualification Adopted Plan Readopted Plan Adams 348, 618 2 .84 2 2 Arapahoe 487, 967 3.97 3 4 Boulder 269,814 2.20 1 2 Denver 554, 636 4 .51 4 4 Douglas 175, 766 1.43 0 1 El Paso 516, 929 4 .21 4 4 Jefferson 525, 507 4 .28 3 4 Latimer 251,494 2.05 2 2 Pueblo 141,472 1.15 0 1 Weld 180, 926 1.47 1 1 The Adopted Plan divided Douglas County between Senate Districts 2 and 30, thus denying Douglas County the one whole senate district fqr which it qualified based upon its population.. The Readopted Plan provrides Douglas County with one whole senate district entirely within its boundaries in Senate District 30. The Adopted Plan also divided Pueblo County between Senate Districts 3 and 4, thus denying Pueblo County the one whole senate district for which it qualified based upon its population. The Readopted Plan provides Pueblo County with one whole senate district entirely within its boundaries in Senate District 3 . The Adopted Plan divided Boulder County between Senate Districts 18 and 14, thus providing Boulder County with only one of the two whole senate districts for which it qualified baeed upon its population. The Readopted Plan provides Boulder County with two whole senate districts entirely within its boundaries in Senate Districts 17 and 18 . The Adopted Plan also divided Jefferson County between Senate Districts 19 and 23, thus providing Jefferson County with only three of the four whole Senate districts for which it qualified based upon its population. The Readopted Plan provides Jefferson County with 4 Att3 Y M 41 four whole senate districts within its boundaries (Senate Districts 19, 20, 21 and 22) . The Adopted Plan provided Arapahoe County with only three whole senate districts within its boundaries, even though it qualified for . 97 of an additional senate district. The Readopted Plan provides Arapahoe County with four whole senate districts within its boundaries (Senate Districts 26, 27, 28 and 29) . Although Mesa County qualified for . 95 of a senate district, the Adopted Plan split Mesa County between Senate Districts 7 and 8 . In the Readopted Plan, Mesa County is contained entirely within Senate District 7. The Adopted Plan divided the City of Pueblo into Senate Districts 3 and 4 and the City of Boulder into Senate Districts 18 and 19. The City of Pueblo is contained entirely within Senate District 3 in the Readopted Plan. The City of Boulder is now contained entirely within Senate District 18. Therefore, the Commission has resubmitted a Readopted Plan which complies with the criteria of Article V, Sections 46 and 47, of the Colorado Constitution and is "sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirement of section 47 (2) . " In re Reapportionment 82, 647 P.2d at 195. The Commission was not able to avoid the divisions of Adams County. The Adopted Plan provided Adams County with only two whole senate districts within its boundaries, although it qualified for . 96 of an additional senate district. The Readopted Plan continues to provide Adams County with two whole senate districts within its boundaries, Senate Districts 24 and 25. The Commission has advanced the following explanation for this result: when the City and County of Broomfield was created, it included territory containing 15, 239 people that was formerly part of Adams County. After deducting this population, the number of people in Adams County is 348, 618, which translates to 2 . 84 senate seats. Therefore, it was not possible to form a third district wholly within Adams County and stay within the population variance allowed by Article V, Section 46 . As a result, Adams County contains only two whole districts (24 and 25) and two partial districts (23 and 31) . See In re Reapportionment 2002-I p. 10 . One of two partial districts resulted from the need to complete the partial district remaining in Denver after Arapahoe County was redrawn to include four 5 Attachment G whole districts. See note 5, supra. The other partial district in Adams County resulted from the need to complete district 23 (which contains Broomfield) after the Commission redrew Boulder County to include the maximum number of whole districts. See id. pp. 10, 11. Revised Final Plan for Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, at 5 (emphasis added) . We conclude that the Commission has provided "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment 92, 828 P.2d at 195-96. Therefore, we find that the divisions of Adams County are constitutional . In our prior opinion, we stated that the Commission should address on remand the divisions of the City of Boulder between House Districts 10, 11 and 13 in the Adopted Plan. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386, slip op. at 44 n. 11 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) . The Readopted Plan maintains the divisions of the City of Boulder between House Districts 10, 11 and 13 as they were drawn in the Adopted Plan. Betty Chronic, Richard P. Hume, William Swenson and Betty Swenson reassert their objection to the division of Boulder County between house districts in the Readopted Plan. The Commission advanced the following explanation in support of the decision to divide the City of Boulder between house districts: The Commission has re-examined the objection to the division of the City of Boulder and has concluded to keep house districts 10, 11 and 13 as they were drawn in the Adopted Plan. At the February 1, 2002 and February 7, 2002 Commission meetings, Commissioner Hume introduced and proposed a map called "Hume Boulder Amendment to House. " The Hume amendment splits the same number of cities as are split in the Final Plan (two-the cities of Boulder and Longmont) and thus offers no advantage in terms of Article V, § 47 (2) , which provides that "the number of cities and towns whose territory is contained in more than one district of the same house shall be as small as possible. " Colo. Const. Art. V, § 47 (2) (emphasis added) . In addition, the Hume amendment isolates a small segment of the population of the City of Longmont from all other Longmont residents. The Commission determined that placing this small group of Longmont residents in a district dominated by Boulder would effectively disenfranchise them. By contrast, 6 Attachment G dividing Longmont roughly evenly between two senate districts, as the Commission has done, provides Longmont residents with a more effective voice in the Legislature because they will have the ear of two senators, rather than one. The Hume amendment also fails to preserve the community of interest that the Commission found to exist between the areas of the City of Boulder and Longmont that are joined in district 11 . For these and the other reasons the Commission previously identified in its reply to the objections to the Adopted Plan (see Reply at 53-57 (Jan. 3, 2002) ) , the Commission has concluded to keep house districts 10, 11 and 13 as they were drawn in the Adopted Plan. Revised Final Plan for Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, at 7-8 . We conclude that the Commission has provided "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment 92, 828 P.2d at 195-96 . The Commission also utilized the community of interest criteria of Article V, Section 47 (3) in making the divisions; we agree with this application of the criteria. Therefore, we find that the divisions of the City of Boulder are constitutional. Article V, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution requires that "in no event shall there be more than five percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district in each house. " The maximum population deviation of five percent is intended to make it easier to avoid splitting counties between legislative districts, and to permit the Commission to consider community of interest factors, by allowing the Commission some degree of flexibility in the population number for each district. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386, slip op. at 18 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) . In our opinion, we noted that the Adopted Plan technically exceeded this constitutional limit by 0 . 001% and that the Commission had the opportunity on remand to address this infraction. Id. at 42-43 . The Readopted Plan' s mathematical deviation between the most and least populous senate district is 4 . 95%, 0.05% below the constitutional limit. Therefore, we find that the Readopted Plan complies with Article V, Section 46 of the Colorado Constitution.' In its brief, the Commission stated: "Although the Commission believes that nothing in the Colorado Constitution requires it to calculate the maximum population variance to three decimal places, the variance under the revised 7 Attachment G Garfield County Board of Commissioners objects to the division of Garfield County between Senate Districts 7 and 8 in the Readopted Final Plan. The Commission offered the following explanation for the division of Garfield County between senate districts: The Adopted Plan for Senate district 8 split Mesa and Eagle Counties. On remand, the Commission succeeded in keeping Mesa County whole, as directed by the Court' s January 28, 2002 decision, Reapportionment 2002-I, slip op. at 40, and in eliminating the Eagle County split. Unfortunately, because Mesa County provides only enough population for . 95 of a Senate district, population from an adjacent county had to be added. All adjacent counties were too large in population to be kept whole in a district with Mesa County. The Commission determined that the best option for equalizing population in the new district 8 was to push north into Garfield County to include the Town of Parachute in the district. The net effect of the Revised Final Plan is to reduce the number of county splits by one. The new district 8 does not split any municipality, and it is properly within the discretion of the Commission to decide which of the counties adjacent to Mesa County should be split. Reply of Colorado Reapportionment Commission to Objections to Revised Final Plan, at 2-3 [hereinafter "Reply"] (citations omitted) . Garfield County Board of Commissioners also objects to the division of Garfield County between House Districts 57. and 61. The Commission offered the following explanation for the division of Garfield County between house districts: [T] he Commission drew district 56 to accommodate the public' s desire to include Eagle, Lake, and Summit counties in a single district. To equalize population between districts, the Commission added population from the Roaring Fork Valley section of Eagle County and the eastern portion of Garfield County to district 61. The configuration of district 61 maintains the integrity of the City of Glenwood Springs and places the city in a district with populations that share common, economic, education, and transportation concerns. The Garfield objectors have failed to offer senate plan is 4.95 percent." Because the Readopted Plan satisfies the constitutional deviation requirement, we do not reach the issue of how many. decimal points are required for the deviation calculation here. 8 Attachment G an alternative plan with fewer county or city splits and have failed to identify any constitutional shortcomings in the Revised Final Plan. Reply, supra, at 4-5 (citations omitted) . We conclude that the Commission has provided "an adequate factual showing that less drastic alternatives could not have satisfied the equal population requirement of the Colorado Constitution, " In re Reapportionment 92, 828 P.2d at 195-96, for both of these divisions. The Commission also utilized the community of interest criteria of Article V, Section 47 (3) in making the divisions; we agree with this application of the criteria. We find that the divisions of Garfield County are constitutional. Grand County Republicans object to Senate Districts 8 and 16 in the Readopted Plan; they would prefer that Grand County be contained within Senate District 8 . The Commission offered the following explanation for the location of Grand County in the Readopted Plan: The placement of Grand County in Senate district 16 was driven by the need to create four whole Senate districts in Jefferson County and..two whole Senate districts in Boulder County, as directed by the Court. . . . The objectors' alternative of putting Grand County in Senate district 8 and equalizing population by adding the eastern portion of Eagle County to Senate district 16 would cause an additional county split on the Western Slope in violation of Article V, § 47 (2) and would elevate the communities of interest criterion over the criterion of keeping counties whole, in violation of the hierarchy mandated by the Constitution as interpreted by this Court. The requirement of keeping counties whole trumps the requirement of preserving communities of interest. Reply, supra, at 1-2 . Lake County Republicans and Lake County Democrats object to the placement. of Lake County in Senate District 4 . These objections address decisions which are within the Commission' s discretion. "Issues concerning compactness, communities of interest, and which plan is preferred by a certain group of citizens, must remain within the scope of the Commission' s discretion. We do not redraw the reapportionment map for the Commission. " In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386, slip op. at 25-26 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) . III. 9 Attachment G Accordingly, we uphold and accept the Commission' s action, and approve the Readopted Plan as the Final 2002• Reapportionment Plan for Colorado General Assembly districts. We order the Commission to file the Final Plan with the Secretary of State as expeditiously as practicable. JUSTICE BENDER concurs, and CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in the concurrence. In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Gen. Assembly, No. 01SA386 JUSTICE BENDER, concurring: I agree that the resubmitted plan meets the constitutional criteria as articulated by the court today. However, as stated in my dissent to In re Reapportionment of the Colo. Geri. Assembly, No. 015A,386 (Colo. Jan. 28, 2002) , I would have approved the original plain submitted, by the Commission. I am authorized to say that CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE MARTINEZ join in this concurrence. 10 R Bps GG Attachment H COLORADO REDISTRICTING CASES SINCE 1972 Colorado Supreme Court: In re Interrogatory of the House of Representatives, 177 Cob. 215,493 P.2d 346(1972) Acker v. Love, 178 Cob. 175,496 P.2d 75 (1972) In re Interrogatories by the GeneralAssembly, 178 Cob. 311,497 P.2d 1024(1972) In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 647 P.2d 191 (Cob. 1982) In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly,647 P.2d 209(Cob. 1982) In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 828 P.2d 185 (Cob. 1992) In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 828 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1992) Federal Court: Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F.Supp. 68 (D.Colo. 1982) Sanchez v. State of Colorado, 861 F.Supp. 1516(D.Colo. 1994);rev'd., 97 F.3d 1303 (10'Cir. 1996) Attachment H Attachment 1 COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION Rosemary E.Rodriguez, Kathleen Murphy Beatty Chairman ".9t Dan Grossman Jay Fetcher, Mark Hillman Vice-Chairman F'K' Sandy Hume Daniel E.Muse Becky Lennahan, Mark Paschall Staff Director Bill Thiebaut Jeffrey M.Wells Heather M.Witwer 1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 1020 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 E-mail: Ics.reap@state.co.us 303-866-6466 FAX: 303-866-6434 February 22, 2002 Hon. Donetta Davidson Secretary of State 1560 Broadway, Suite 200 Denver,Colorado 80202 Dear Secretary Davidson: Transmitted herewith is the Final Plan for districts in the Senate and the House of Representatives as approved by the Colorado Supreme Court on February 22,2002,in the proceeding entitled In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, Case No. 01 SA386. The plan is being filed with your office for implementation in accordance with section 48 (1) (e)of article V of the Colorado Constitution. The plan is in the form of an electronic file which indicates the assignment of each unit of census geography to its respective house and senate district. The electronic file is accompanied by a list which describes the sequencing of senate elections. Paper maps of each house and senate district will be provided to your office as soon as they can be prepared from the electronic file. District boundaries on the paper maps have been labeled wherever possible. However, since the labeling process used in preparing the paper maps is not completely error-free,it is important to note that if there is a conflict between a boundary shown on the electronic file and the boundary label shown on a paper map, the electronic file should control. Attachment I a h it t'tihiiiisMoh Utldc,lwtands that)tU it ck tiSc and 4icii=itiii with the t�' ' s 1Fy 111tip�ttl��tieh h i atn 'AVM&tv tt�z�, . t e�liit i l t It i bq is iaiti 2- = 5051(3},1 . . Y'oi svctyhilly, tittatSebiktiol- 1 et1��ltUn R'b eivei1�y: (bit) 2 A c�ti I Attachment J COLORADO REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION Rosemary E. Rodriguez, Kathleen Murphy Beatty Chairman gr,1 Dan Grossman Jay Fetcher, ] Mark Hillman Vice-Chairman Sandy Hume Daniel E. Muse Becky Lennahan, Mark Paschall Staff Director Bill Thiebaut Jeffrey M. Wells Heather M.Witwer 1800 BROADWAY, SUITE 1020 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 E-mail: IcsseapOstate.co.us us 303-866-6466 FAX: 303-868-6434 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,Broomfield became a City and County on November 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, The City and County of Broomfield consists of area formerly included in the counties of Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld; and WHEREAS, The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (the "Commission") wishes to honor the boundaries of the City and County of Broomfield by keeping it whole in House District 33 and Senate District 23, in accordance with article V, section 47 (2) of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, According to information furnished to the Commission by the City and County of Broomfield and analyzed by Commission staff,the boundary of the new city and county splits at least the following census blocks that form parts of the boundaries of House District 33 or Senate District 23: Adams County: Census Block 080010085201121 - population 29 Census Block 080010085201122 - population 14 Census Block 080010085201123 -population 2 Census Block 080010085201115 -population 16 Boulder County: Census Block 080130131073001 -population 11 Census Block 080130131073000 - population 0 Jefferson County: Census Block 080590098222001 - population 0 Census Block 080590098222031 -population 0 Weld County: Census Block 081230020031114 -population 91 Census Block 081230020024079 -population 0; and Attachment J WHEREAS, The Commission cannot split census blocks in drawing legislative districts because official census population data is allocated to census blocks as a whole, and the Commission must certify specific district populations in order to demonstrate that House and Senate plans comply with constitutional equal population requirements; and WHEREAS, The Commission recognizes that its inability to split census blocks might appear to cause additional county splits, since tiny areas outside the City and County of Broomfield may be included in House District 33 or Senate District 23,or tiny areas inside the City and County of Broomfield may be included in Adams, Boulder, Jefferson; or Weld County districts; and WHEREAS, The Commission wishes to give guidance to county clerks and recorders in the affected ass as they implement the new House and Senate plans under these difficult circumstances; now, therefore, Be It Resolved by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission: 1. That the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (the "Commission") intends that the City and County of Broomfield remain whole in House District 33 and Senate District 23,and that no additional county splits be caused by the fact that Broomfltld's boundaries split census blocks. 2. That the Commission staff has examined the populations of the census blocks split by the boundary of the City and County of Broomfield to the best of its ability and has informed the Commission that, whether the population in the split census blocks is allocated to House District 33 or to adjacent House districts, and whether such population is allocated to Senate District 23 or to adjacent Senate districts, all House and Senate district populations are within the five percent deviation limit set forth in article V, section 46 of the Colorado Constitution. 3. That the Commission encourages the county clerks and recorders of Adapts,Boulder,Broomfield,Jefferson,and Weld Counties to implement the House and Senate plans by utilizing the official boundaries of the City and County of Broomfield, even though such boundaries split census blocks. Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the county clerks and recorders of Adams County, Boulder County, Jefferson County, Weld County, and the City and County of Broomfield: Attactgrtt►rtt J Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census Municipality Population Aguilar 593 Akron 1,711 Alamosa 7,960 Alma 179 Antonito 873 Arriba 244 Arvada' 102,153 Aspen 5,914 Ault 1,432 Aurora* 276,393 Avon 5,561 Basalt* 2,681 Bayfield 1,549 Bennett* 2,021 Berthoud* 4,839 Bethune 225 Black Hawk 118 Blanca 391 Blue River 685 Bonanza City 14 Boone 323 Boulder 94,673 Bow Mar* 847 Branson 77 Breckenridge 2,408 Brighton* 20,905 Brookside 219 Broomfield* 38,272 Brush 5,117 Buena Vista 2,195 Burlington 3,678 Calhan 898 Campo 150 Canon City 15,431 Carbondale 5,196 Castle Rock 20,224 Cedaredge 1,854 Center* 2,392 Central City 515 Cheraw 211 Cherry Hills Village 5,958 Cheyenne Wells 1,010 Coal Creek 303 Cokedale 139 Collbran 388 Colorado Springs 360,890 Columbine Valley 1,132 Commerce City 20,991 Cortez 7,977 Craig 9,189 Crawford 366 *Indicates municipalities that are contained in more than one county Attachment K Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census Municipality Population Creede 377 Crested Butte 1,529 Crestone 73 Cripple Creek 1,115 Crook 128 Crowley 187 Dacono 3,015 De Beque 451 Deer Trail 598 Del Norte 1,705 Delta 6,400 Denver 554,636 Dillon 802 Dinosaur 319 Dolores 857 Dove Creek 698 Durango 13,922 Eads 747 Eagle 3,032 Eaton 2,690 Eckley 278 Edgewater 5,445 Elizabeth 1,434 Empire 355 Englewood 31,727 Erie* 6,291 Estes Park 5,413 Evans 9,514 Fairplay 610 Federal Heights 12,065 Firestone 1,908 Flagler 612 Fleming 428 Florence 3,653 Fort Collins 118,652 Fort Lupton 6,787 Fort Morgan 11,034 Fountain 15,197 Fowler 1,206 Foxfield 746 Fraser 910 Frederick 2,467 Frisco 2,443 Fruita 6,478 Garden City 357 Genoa 211 Georgetown 1,088 Gilcrest 1,162 Glendale 4,547 Glenwood Springs 7,736 Golden 17,159 Indicates municipalities that are contained in more than one county Attachment K Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census Municipality Population Granada 640 Granby 1,525 Grand Junction 41,986 Grand Lake 447 Greeley 76,930 Green Mountain Falls* 773 Greenwood Village 11,035 Grover 153 Gunnison 5,409 Gypsum 3,654 Hartman 111 Haswell 84 Haxtun 982 Hayden 1,634 Hillrose 1,634 Holly 1,048 Holyoke 2,261 Hooper 123 Hotchkiss 968 Hot Sulphur Springs 521 Hudson 1,565 Hugo 885 Idaho Springs 1,889 Ignacio 669 Iliff 213 Jamestown 205 Johnstown 3,827 Julesburg 1,467 Keenesburg 855 Kim 65 Kiowa 581 Kit Carson 253 Kremmling 1,578 Lafayette 23,197 La Jam 877 La Junta 7,566 Lake City 375 Lakeside 20 Lakewood 144,126 Lamar 8,869 Larkspur 234 La Salle 1,849 Las Animas 2,758 La Veta 924 Leadville 2,821 Limon 2,071 Littleton* 40,340 Lochbuie 2,049 Log Lane Village 1,006 Lone Tree 4,873 Longmont 71,093 *Indicates municipalities that are contained in more than one county Attachment K Y Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census Municipality Popu}ta Lion Louiyvifle 18,937 Loveland 50,608 Lyons 1,585 Manassa 1,042 Mancos 1,119. Manitou Springs 4,980 Manzanola 525 Marble 105 Mead 2,017 Meeker 2,242 Merino 246 Milliken 2,888 Mintum 1,068 Moffat 114 Monte Vista 4,529 Montezuma 42 Montrose 12,344 Monument 1,971 Morrison 430 Mountain View 569 Mount Crested Butte 707 Mountain Village 978 Naturita 635 Nederland 1,394 New Castle 1,984 Northglenn' 31,575 Norwood 438 Nucla 734 Nunn 471 Oak Creek 849 Olathe 1,573 Olney Springs 389 Ophir. 113 Orchard City 2,880 Ordway 1,248 Otis 534 Ouray 813 Ovid 330 Pagosa Springs 1,591 Palisade 2,579 Palmer Lake 2,179 Paoli 42 . Papilla 1,497 Parachute 1,006 Parker 23,558 Peetz 227 Pierce 884 Pitkin` 124 Platteville 2,370 Poncha Springs 466 Pmchatt 137 *Indicates municipalities that are contained in more than one county N�ry 4 me t K Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 Census Municipality Population Pueblo 102,121 Ramah 117 Rangely 2,096 Barnet 91 Red Cliff 289 Rico 205 Ridgway 713 Rifle 8,784 Rockvale 426 Rocky Ford 4,286 Romeo 375 Rye 202 Saguache 578 Salida 5,504 Sanford 817 San Luis 739 Sawpit 25 Sedgwick 191 Seibert 180 Severance 597 Sheridan Lake 66 Sin 1,740 Silver Cliff 512 Silver Plume 203 Silverthome 3,196 Silverton 531 Simla 633 Snowmass Village 1,822 South Fork 604 Springfield 1,562 Starkville 128 Steamboat Springs 9,815 Sterling 11,360 Stratton 669 Sugar City 279 Superior" 9,011 Swink 696 Telluride 2,221 Thornton 82,384 Timnath 223 Trinidad 9,078 Two Buttes 67 Vail 4,531 Victor 445 Vilas 110 Vona 95 Walden 734 Walsenburg 4,182 Walsh 723 Ward 169 Wellington 2,672 " Indicates municipalities that are contained in more than one county Attachment K Attachment K Populations of Municipalities According to 2000 CenaUs Ma rtjit#ttitty PitulAlltrrt. WasteJiffs 417 Westminster 100,940 Wheat Ridge 32,913 Wiggins 836 WIley 483 Williamsburg 714 Windsor 9,898 Winter Park 662 Woodland Park 8,516 Wray 2,187 Yampa 443 Yuma 3.20$ •Indicates municipalities that are contained in more then one county A11a81'mtertt k Hello