The Johnson County Board of County Commissioners voted 5‑2 on May 22 to present three draft redistricting maps — draft 1B, draft 2 and draft 3B — for public engagement and review.

The vote came after a full-hour presentation by county staff and consultants outlining six draft maps and the criteria used to create them, including population deviation, compactness and anticipated longevity. Mike Kelly, chair of the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, presided over the Committee of the Whole meeting and led commissioners through the discussion and final motions.

Why it matters: the board must adopt new district boundaries that respond to population changes; the county’s existing map showed a population deviation of 11.02 percent, above the 10 percent threshold staff identified as triggering redistricting work. The board’s decision sends a limited set of options to residents for comment and begins a public engagement phase that staff said will conclude in mid‑June with a consultant report before a final map is chosen in July.

County staff and consultants described the six draft maps as varying by how many voters would move between districts and by the expected lifespan of the maps. Emily Vincent of the county manager’s office led the presentation and told commissioners the timeline for outreach: “our tentative plans are, to close public engagement around June 16, and then the consultants will prepare a report with our goal of getting it out to you by June 20, summarizing all of the public engagement that we've received.” The board will consider the consultant report at a meeting now scheduled for July 24, staff said; staff also noted the process must meet the election office deadline of Sept. 1.

The board debate centered on three competing considerations: (1) keeping districts compact, (2) minimizing the number of voters who would be moved to a different district, and (3) creating a map that would remain accurate for the longest period given expected growth. Commissioner Fast argued compactness is a mandatory criterion, saying, “keeping a city together is not a required criteria. The compactness is. That's in a state constitution.” Other commissioners raised growth concerns in parts of the county, with Commissioner Allenbrand noting construction and housing growth in DeSoto and Spring Hill.

Consultant Andrew Dressler, who joined on Zoom, said there is no single standard practice for outreach: “there isn't a hard and fast rule… So I would think, if you decided just on 1 map, that would be fine. If you wanted to give a couple different variations, that would be, totally acceptable as well.” Commissioners ultimately chose to send three maps to the public rather than a single option.

Formal action and votes: Commissioner Fast originally moved to advance draft maps 1 and 1B; that motion was amended several times. After additional motions and substitute amendments, Commissioner Brewer’s amendment to include draft map 2 alongside 1B and 3B carried, and the final motion to present draft 1B, draft 2 and draft 3B to the public passed on the recorded roll call 5‑2. The final roll call recorded yes votes from Commissioners Myers, Brewer, (Hansley/Hanslick), Allenbrand and Chairman Mike Kelly; Commissioners Fast and Ashcraft voted no.

Concerns and dissent: several commissioners objected to draft map 2 because they said it produced an unusually long, noncompact District 1 and would divide some cities into multiple districts. Commissioner Fast said draft 2 “increases gerrymandering irregularity,” while others said draft 3 (and its variant 3B) moved substantially more people and therefore risked greater voter disruption. Commissioners who supported including multiple maps said offering distinct options helps residents visualize tradeoffs during public engagement.

Public engagement plan and next steps: staff said listening sessions and a virtual option will start in early June; the county website will host the selected draft maps and the interactive redistricting tool used by the consultants, plus a public comment box. Staff told the board they expect to close public comment around June 16, produce a summary report by June 20, follow up individually with commissioners, and return with a refined recommendation on July 24. The board’s final adoption must meet the election office’s Sept. 1 deadline for candidate filings.

Background details: staff said six draft maps were prepared for review. Map longevity estimates provided during the presentation ranged from about five years to 10–15 years depending on growth assumptions; staff noted the existing map had a population deviation of 11.02 percent. Consultants referenced particular precinct swaps on some drafts (for example, precincts 404, 406 and 407 were discussed on a variant of map 1).