Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate precinct splits and population variance; motion to widen range to 10% fails
Summary
The board considered whether to allow precinct splits or relax population parity to 10% as DMACC drafts five supervisory districts; a motion to amend map‑drawing guidance to a 10% range was seconded and then failed at roll call.
The Deschutes County Board considered updated guidance for the District Mapping Advisory Committee (DMACC) as it drafts five supervisory districts. Staff reported the committee has produced three draft maps and is wrestling with which population dataset to use (current voter registration versus 2020 census) and whether to split precinct lines to achieve more equal population districts.
Jim Patterson, strategic initiatives manager, told the board the committee had intended a 5% variance but a drafting error had produced a wider spread; staff noted U.S. Supreme Court precedent used in redistricting cases has accepted up to a 10% range in some contexts. Patterson and county staff cautioned that splitting precincts is technically complex, may require additional software and staff effort, could increase administrative costs for elections and typically requires detailed, time‑intensive work (Washington County's recent redistricting was cited as an example that used extensive staff resources).
Several commissioners said they preferred to avoid splitting precinct lines where practicable. One commissioner moved to update map‑drawing guidance (section 4b) to require maps be "within a 10% range between the largest and smallest district" and to remove the word "recommended" so the guidance would be explicit; the motion was seconded and debated.
During discussion commissioners raised legal and equity concerns about relying on voter registration (which omits nonregistered residents) rather than total population. Some commissioners expressed concern that starting maps with larger districts in faster‑growing areas could exacerbate representational imbalances over time. Staff said the committee is also reviewing building‑permit growth data to help anticipate short‑term changes in where population is increasing.
At roll call the motion to change the guideline failed; the board retained the existing precinct‑line guidance and asked staff to continue supporting DMACC and to discuss technical options with the county clerk and GIS staff if splitting precincts is later directed.
Ending: The committee will proceed with the current guidance; staff and the county clerk will be asked to provide technical analysis and to brief the board again if a directive to split precincts is requested.
