Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deschutes County advisory committee backs five‑district map amid protests and math dispute
Summary
A citizen advisory committee recommended "Map C" for five commissioner districts and proposed numbering districts by a random draw; committee members and public commenters raised sharply divergent views about using registered‑voter counts vs. total population and whether the plan dilutes representation for growing Bend neighborhoods. The board received the recommendation and will schedule a public hearing.
The Deschutes County District Mapping Advisory Committee recommended a five‑district map ("Map C") and asked the Board of County Commissioners to place the proposal before voters with district numbers determined by a random draw.
The recommendation, presented Dec. 3, followed 10 committee meetings, a public listening session and review of census, voter‑registration and building‑permit data. Neil Bryant, the committee’s facilitator, described the process and the datasets the group used to balance precincts across five districts.
"You can't draw a perfect map and you do the best job you can," Bryant told the board, describing tradeoffs the group faced as it balanced population, precinct lines and communities of common interest.
The session became contentious when committee member Carol Leshy said the mandate to draw five districts "would ensure that Republicans would have the majority in the county even though they are in the minority of voters." Leshy said she reviewed registration figures and public comment and urged the board to reject the map and remain at‑large.
Other committee members defended Map C. Matt Cyrus, who helped craft the recommended precinct groupings, said the map keeps communities and common development patterns together and noted the committee used November 1 voter counts as the most current baseline. "We feel the registration data was a more accurate representation of current population," Cyrus said.
Several commissioners and committee members pointed to a technical dispute over the 10% variance threshold. Committee members explained they used a midpoint method to calculate variance and reported a 7.4% spread by registered‑voter counts; some critics said a straight largest‑minus‑smallest calculation yields a larger variance and could exceed 10%. That disagreement was a focal point for public commenters and several commissioners.
Members also debated whether the committee should examine political registration. The majority declined, citing legal counsel and concern that explicit use of party data could trigger strict scrutiny or appear to be drawn "for the purpose" of favoring a party. "By not having that data, there is no purpose one way or the other," said DMACC member Ned Dempsey.
The committee offered three recommendations: adopt Map C, number districts by a random process ("drawing by lot"), and, if voters approve the map, schedule the next redistricting after the 2030 census. The board did not vote on referral; staff said a public hearing will be scheduled and a press release will announce the date.
What happens next: The Board of County Commissioners will set a date for a public hearing to allow additional public comment and to consider whether to place the committee’s proposal on a future ballot. The board emphasized it will publish materials and timelines to help clarify how the map would affect voters and precincts.
