Lori Schell sat peering at the spreadsheet.

It was February 2021 and she was following the world’s oddest game of bingo.

The prize was not money, but a seat on Colorado’s Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission.

Schell searched the three columns, one Democrat, one Republican and one unaffiliated, for her name and number, unaware that she was among the 50 unaffiliated applicants a panel of judges had selected for the final commissioners pool.

Three bingo drums spun with balls crashing together on Schell’s computer screen. As Schell wrote her number down, a ball popped out.

A staff member read Schell’s name and her number, 17.

“I was so surprised and excited that everything that happened after that is kind of a blur to me,” she said. “… Nothing meant anything to me at that moment other than the fact that my name was drawn first.”

Schell, a Durango resident, was the first ever commissioner selected to the Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission. Voters created the commission and another after approving Amendments Y and Z in 2018.

As an unaffiliated commissioner, Schell gained unique insight into the political fabric of Colorado. She watched as the Democrats and Republicans on the commission jockeyed for their priorities for the state. At 36 public hearings, she heard what both divides and unites Coloradans.

“I learned a lot about the state,” she said.

The redistricting process showed her that political divisions across the state are deep, but there is common ground to be found. And at the end of the day, Coloradans are trying to do what they think is best for the place they call home.

Redistricting happens once every decade after the U.S. census is released. In some states, the state Legislature controls the process, drawing maps that are often accused of gerrymandering, or favoring one party.

Colorado is one of seven states where nonpolitical commissions draw the maps that decide the next decade of political geography and ultimately the balance power in the U.S. Senate and House.

Four Democrats, four Republicans and four unaffiliated voters sit on both the legislative and the congressional redistricting commissions in Colorado, something that appealed to Schell when she first considered applying.

“I’ve been a lifelong unaffiliated voter, and my experience is that if you’re unaffiliated you don’t really stand a chance in any partisan-oriented election,” she said. “… (The redistricting commissions are) probably the first time in an inherently partisan process where the unaffiliated have equal footing.”

More importantly, Schell saw the gap between Republicans and Democrats widening in Colorado.

“I felt that I could make a contribution to closing that divide or making sure that divide was not wider in the state,” she said.

A self-employed energy economist with a love of analytics, Schell was one of hundreds of applicants to the citizen commission.

A pool of 1,050 voters – 450 unaffiliated, 300 Democrats and 300 Republicans – was narrowed to 12 commissioners, with Schell the first and only selection from the Western Slope.

From March to September, she was consumed by the redistricting process.

As the head of the Map Analytics Committee, she assessed more than 150 maps.

Commissioners met weekly, sometimes multiple times each week, to discuss the criteria for the new congressional districts.

The criteria themselves made redistricting challenging.

Districts first had to have equal populations. The commission had to justify any difference no matter if it was a single person as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Commissioners then had to ensure that districts were contiguous, complied with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, preserved “communities of interest” and were as compact as possible.

These metrics competed with one another and commissioners often clashed while debating their weight.

“We had some pretty knockdown, drag-out issues that we discussed and agreed or agreed to disagree on,” Schell said. “There were times when I questioned whether we would be able to come together with the supermajority (needed to approve a map).”

Discussing the most contentious criteria, preserving “communities of interest,” in which commissioners grouped together people with shared concerns, Schell began to see the political fissures in Colorado.

“The political divides are very real and very deep,” she said. “That’s not news. That’s just the way it is. We see it even in La Plata County. We have a very Democrat city and a very Republican county. That’s the way the state tends to break out as well.”

At public hearings in places like Craig, Lamar and Sterling, she listened to issues that split urban and rural, Front Range and Western Slope, Republican and Democrat.

Schell said the divisions are visible, but it’s less clear where they come from.

“Is it partisanship or is it just that the parties tend to reflect our beliefs?” she said.

Some issues that divide can also serve as a bridge to common ground.

“Water is both a divider and a connector,” she said. “We had several former legislators at the federal and at the state level who said when push comes to shove the Colorado delegation comes together on water.”

As a redistricting commissioner, Schell watched the continued evolution of Colorado as the state becomes increasingly urban and diverse.

“What the process really brought out is that the state is changing,” she said. “As the state grows, you have less and less traditional rural areas (on the Eastern Plains and Western Slope).”

The Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission submitted its final plan to the Colorado Supreme Court on Oct. 8.

The Supreme Court unanimously approved Colorado’s new congressional map three weeks later.

The redistricting map is one of only a handful the Princeton Gerrymandering Project has graded with an A.

Schell said serving as a redistricting commissioner was exhausting, but she would do it again because it reminded her why she calls the state home.

“I came away very proud to live in Colorado,” she said. “I think everybody was striving to do the best they could for the state. What they thought was best had differences, but the intentions were honorable.”

ahannon@durangoherald.com