2022 Denver redistricting

Effective April 4, 2023

Sponsored by: Councilmember CdeBaca
(Failed on First Reading)
I drew this map with an eye toward equity and preserving the communities of interest identified both in the Representable.org maps and through conversations with constituents and the D9 redistricting town halls I held last fall.
The aim of my map is to correct for the huge population shifts over the past ten years that have left us with such a wide disparity in population and representation between Council districts—currently, District 2 is 13% under the target population size of 65,000 constituents, whereas District 9 is 16% over that target population size. The spatial organization of such drastic shifts (population and growth have been consistently pushing northeast) makes it necessary for us to design districts in a way that doesn't isolate southern Council districts, but rather stretches their edges inward toward the city center to more evenly absorb that growth.

These are the equity criteria I used in drawing the districts on my map.

• Doesn't crack/dilute historically marginalized voters
• Doesn't pack/concentrate historically marginalized voters
• Doesn't stack power against historically marginalized voters
• Considers Census undercounts in marginalized areas
• Considers past and future growth trends

Sponsored by: Councilmember Torres
(WITHDRAWN)
We asked community to help us identify their communities of interest and several areas of town were quite clear about neighborhood unity and continuity. This map reflects key communities of interest in West Denver keeping Barnum, Barnum West, Westwood, Athmar Park, and Valverde in one district. It also keeps Five Points whole, provides representation of Downtown Central Business District and Union Station by more than one Councilmember, connects Auraria to Lincoln Park, unifies the East Colfax Neighborhood, connects College View to Loretto Heights, and keeps both NE Park Hill and Lowry whole. This map respects, as much as possible, neighborhood cohesion. However, with a reduction in 55 precincts, it was a challenge to avoid splitting all neighborhoods. Districts are compact and deviation from the goal population is max 4.01% and min -2.56%, with a total range of 6.57% difference, with most districts hovering around +1% or -1% deviation. This map assumes that our city will continue to grow in population - districts that will likely carry that growth are positioned to absorb it in an equitable manner.

Sponsored by: Councilmember Flynn
(WITHDRAWN)
This map is based on communities of interest and compactness and was drawn intentionally to minimize the amount of change and swapping of areas.

Sponsored by: Councilmembers ​​​Gilmore, Herndon, Clark, Black, Hinds, Kashmann, and Sawyer
(DRAFT 2)
(FINAL)
The submitted map adheres to all of the rules put forth in our City Charter, and to the greatest extent possible to the additional criteria set forth in Council Resolution 21-1059. The largest district is 8.3% larger than the smallest, falling well within the 10% goal. Special attention was put toward preserving communities of interest (COI) based on the final report provided to Council using the 14 group COI areas and 154 individual COIs that were submitted by members of the public. Additionally, this map puts forward a plan that also preserves the constituencies traditionally represented by each district to the greatest extent possible.
This map re-unites several statistical neighborhoods that have, in the past, been split while minimizing drawing district boundaries through neighborhood boundaries whenever possible. For the Neighborhood Planning Initiative (NPI) neighborhoods were analyzed and then grouped together after carefully considering the following elements; shared histories, issues, and aspirations, built environment and natural features, planning need, character, context, development patterns, major destinations, and common infrastructure. This plan also makes several moves to put neighborhoods that are grouped in the NPI together in the same Council District.
The sponsors of this map believe that this map represents the best scenario for creating district maps that are compact, contiguous and abide by the allowed standard deviation while giving a strong voice to each resident, neighborhood, and community of interest.

What did you change about the map and why?

What map base-layer did you use (for naming purpose), i.e. “I used map E as my base-layer.”

Sponsored by: ​​​​​​​Councilwoman Torres and Councilwoman Sandoval
(DRAFT 2)
(Failed on First Reading)
This map attempts to respect natural boundaries honor communities of interest and keep statistical neighborhoods intact to the extent possible. This map has a 6% deviation.

What did you change about the map and why?

What map base-layer did you use (for naming purpose), i.e. “I used map E as my base-layer.”

Sponsored by: Councilmember Sawyer
(WITHDRAWN)
This is the map created by City Council District 5 Office based upon the community feedback we have heard.

• March 2, 2022 Update: My staff and I attended every redistricting public meeting except one, to be sure that we were hearing as much community feedback as possible. At each event, map F was well-received but was not one of the top preferred maps at any of the redistricting community meetings. In addition, we heard feedback from residents of several District 5 neighborhoods that they prefer to remain in District 5 instead of being redistricted into District 6, and also wanted to stay together as a neighborhood. Map F had put those residents into District 6. As a result of all of this feedback, I will remove map F from consideration and support Map D, and will propose a few changes to that map instead.

(Failed on First Reading)