Johnson County commissioners review four draft redistricting maps, request clearer map landmarks and more time for review

Johnson County commissioners on May 8 reviewed four draft precinct-to-district redistricting maps prepared by consultant Haystack and requested more time, clearer map landmarking and additional public-engagement materials before the board advances a draft for formal action.

The maps were presented at a Committee of the Whole meeting by Andrew Dressler and Zach Coombs of Haystack, with Assistant County Manager Emily Vincent explaining that the maps are “a starting point for this process” and will be used to solicit public feedback this summer. “We are at the beginning stages of the redistricting process,” Vincent said.

Why it matters: federal and state courts expect county commission districts to be “compact and equal in population,” and Johnson County’s existing plan now exceeds a commonly cited 10% population-deviation threshold. The consultants said the current map would reach about 11.02% deviation if unchanged, a level courts have treated as a warning sign.

Haystack showed four alternatives that each meet the required statutory criteria of population equality, logical compactness and alignment with existing voting precincts but trade off among other priorities — keeping cities whole, accommodating projected growth, continuity in office and minimizing the number of residents moved between districts. For example, Draft Map 1 was described as minimizing the number of people moved (about 18,421 people moved under 2025 estimates) and producing a 4.26% total deviation; Draft Map 3 produced a 4.82% deviation but would move about 33,000 people; Draft Map 4 prioritized longevity and future growth at an estimated 7% deviation and would move roughly 40,000 people.

Commissioners asked for clearer visual cues on the public maps. “For some folks, it might be really helpful if we were to provide a little bit more landmarking so that they can get a little bit of a better sense of where they are,” Chair Mike Kelly said, asking for major highways and other place-making layers. Commissioners also asked that city boundaries be available on the public mapping interface and requested layered views (roads, satellite imagery and precincts) so residents can locate themselves when the county opens public engagement.

Legal context and limits were discussed. Cindy Dunham of the county legal department noted the controlling statutory language: “the statute on redistricting for county commissions … uses the phrase ‘compact and equal in population as possible’” and does not define “compact,” meaning the board will weigh competing criteria in its decisions.

Next steps and timeline: staff and consultants said a public website would go live as soon as the following day with background materials; the interactive mapping tool and draft maps would be posted when the commission gives direction. The consultants announced public input sessions planned for June 2–4 (libraries in each district) and a virtual session after those dates; staff expects to deliver a report summarizing public input the week of June 16 and return to the board in mid-July to seek direction on a draft map. County staff also noted an internal elections-related deadline: election staff (represented by Fred Sherman) asked to receive final mapping information by Sept. 1 so the elections office can prepare for upcoming elections.

No formal motion or vote on a draft map occurred during the May 8 session. Several commissioners said they wanted up to two weeks to study the materials and requested staff provide city boundary overlays, major thoroughfares and additional handouts. Commissioners also asked staff to schedule one-on-one sessions to walk through the online mapping tool and to allow commissioners to request custom precinct changes for study.

What remained unsettled: commissioners debated priorities — shorter disruption to current voters versus longevity of a map to delay future redistricting. Some favored maps that move fewer residents (maps 1 and 2); others favored maps intended to last longer (maps 3 and 4). Commissioners also raised questions about population data sources used by the consultant; AIMS population projections and appraisal/permitting data were described as inputs to the consultant’s models.

The board did not take action to adopt any map; staff was directed to return with additional materials and public-engagement scheduling.

The county will accept public comment and map proposals through the website and the scheduled in-person and virtual sessions before taking further action.