Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Districting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deschutes County commissioners vote 2–1 to send disputed five-district map to voters, set Nov. 3, 2026 ballot date
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment and legal questions about population versus voter-based mapping, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners voted 2–1 to refer "MAP C" to county voters and to place the measure on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. Commissioners also asked staff and counsel to draft code and ballot-language options about redistricting timing.
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners voted 2–1 Feb. 4 to send a proposed five-district county map, known as MAP C, to voters and to put the measure on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot.
The decision came after roughly two hours of public comment, with speakers sharply divided over whether the advisory District Mapping Advisory Committee’s proposal produces fair representation or amounts to a partisan gerrymander. Supporters urged letting the electorate decide; opponents warned of legal risk and taxpayer litigation costs. "If you turn a deaf ear to 80% of the commenters, are you listening to the people?" said Sheila Doyle Kelly during public comments.
Commissioner DeBoehn moved to refer MAP C to voters, a motion seconded and carried when Commissioners DeBoehn and Dare voted in favor and the chair voted no. Later, the board voted 2–1 to set the referral for Nov. 3, 2026; proponents argued that placing the measure on the general-election ballot would separate the new five-seat implementation from the May primary and reduce confusion for voters.
Legal counsel Dave Doyle warned the board that including detailed redistricting timing language in the ballot referral could risk a single-subject challenge to the ballot title, and recommended staff prepare careful draft language. Doyle outlined two approaches: (1) include redistricting timing in the referral language (with litigation risk) or (2) adopt a county code provision after a successful referral that obligates future redistricting at a specified trigger (recognizing future boards could repeal such code).
During deliberations commissioners discussed alternatives to the proposed map, including a mixed structure (one at-large seat plus four districts) or proportional ranked-choice options raised in public comment. Several speakers and commissioners repeatedly emphasized whether districts should be drawn by total population or by registered voters' data — an issue flagged repeatedly as a potential legal vulnerability.
The board directed county counsel and staff to draft examples of ballot language and a possible county-code provision that would require redistricting after the 2030 census if voters approve MAP C. Staff also indicated they would prepare contingency language that could make redistricting contingent on a separate ballot measure if the board wished that structure.
The board's action was procedural: it refers the map to voters for a final decision, and does not itself change the method of electing commissioners. The board will return to the issue if legal questions, ballot drafting or further public comment prompt revisions.
What happens next: staff will circulate draft ballot language and model code to the board for review and may share recommended scoping for redistricting language. If MAP C appears on the Nov. 3 ballot and voters approve it, the board's recommended timing language — or subsequent code changes — would determine when new districts take effect.
