After lawmakers redrew Oregon’s 90 legislative districts and created a new six-district congressional map, many voters will find themselves in a district whose political leanings have changed – or in new ones entirely — come 2022.

Take Teri Lenahan, mayor of the Washington County city of North Plains.

Currently, Lenahan’s home near the northern edge of North Plains lies in House District 30, which straddles U.S. 26 near Hillsboro and includes broad swaths of that Democratic-leaning city. Since at least 2009, the district has been represented by a Democrat, except for a single term, in 2011 and 2012, when Republican Shawn Lindsay held the seat.

Under the new maps approved by lawmakers late last month, however, Lenahan and her North Plains neighbors will be moved into District 31. That district, with its new boundaries, will have a new political orientation. It’ll shed its swath of heavily Democratic suburbs north of U.S. 26 in unincorporated Washington County and become more intensely rural – and Republican.

Similarly, North Plains voters will be switched from Senate District 15, which centers on Hillsboro and Forest Grove and has grown to be safely Democratic, to Senate District 16, represented by moderate Democratic Sen. Betsy Johnson, which will become a competitive swing district.

Thus, without relocating, Lenahan and the many other voters in North Plains not affiliated with either major party will move from being represented by Democrats to likely being represented by the Senate’s most moderate Democrat and a Republican in the Oregon House.

That’s but one of the many ways the political landscape will shift at a micro level across Oregon, even though at a macro level, Democrats are highly likely to maintain their supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

As a result, many individual voters will find their district or districts, and the amount of attention they get from politicians, are all but certain to change. The Oregonian/OregonLive launched a new tool that allows you to look up which districts your home has been drawn into and the partisan ramifications of the neighbors who will now cast votes to determine who will represent you.

Bend Mayor Sally Russell is among those who will experience a change of political wind as a result of Democrats’ biggest district-drawing power play.

Her home in a historic area near the Deschutes River and downtown Bend will remain in the same state House and Senate districts. Specifically, she votes in heavily Democratic state House District 54, currently represented by first-term Democratic Rep. Jason Kropf, and competitive state Senate District 27, currently represented by second-term Republican Sen. Tim Knopp.

But in a big change, she, along with most other residents of the city of Bend, will become part of a new and very different voting district for the U.S. House of Representatives.

For decades, Bend has been part of the expansive 2nd Congressional District spanning virtually all of eastern Oregon. In recent years, that has meant it was a bright blue spot in a deeply red and overwhelmingly rural district, giving its voters little ability to affect the policy positions of its long-time former Congressman Greg Walden, a Republican, nor current first-term Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario.

Under the new maps, Russell and her neighbors will become part of a newly drawn 5th Congressional District, the oddest shaped of all the congressional districts Democrats drew this fall. They’ll vote in a district that spans much of Deschutes County, then crosses the Cascade Mountain Range to take in parts of Linn and Marion counties and most of Clackamas County, including Oregon City, Milwaukie and Lake Oswego.

That change was part of Democrats’ strategy, derided by Republicans as patently partisan and against the rules, to maximize the power of Democratic voter distribution patterns. They managed to create five Democrat-safe or -leaning congressional districts and just one safe Republican district, all but guaranteeing their party 83% of Oregon’s seats in the U.S. House, while Joe Biden won 56% of the votes in the 2020 race for president.

That highly partisan line-drawing also fueled renewed drive among good government types to try to get a measure on the fall 2022 ballot that would ask voters to create an independent redistricting commission empowered to redraw the lines in 2023 ahead of the 2024 election cycle.

The newly drawn districts for state House and Senate seats more closely track Oregonians’ voting patterns.

Those boundaries, drawn by Democratic lawmakers with input from Republicans, were drawn and redrawn to protect most incumbents in both parties.

But a half dozen or more incumbents will need to move or quit the Legislature – or find themselves pitted in what could be a losing race against a fellow incumbent.

Sen. Brian Clem, a Salem Democrat, has announced he will avoid running against Rep. Raquel Moore-Green, a Republican he admires who has been redistricted into a single district with him, by stepping down from politics for now to care for his aging mother.

Similarly, Sen. Michael Dembrow, a Portland Democrat, announced during his 2020 race that it would be his last – meaning he won’t have to face off against his friend and colleague Sen. Lew Frederick, another Portland Democrat, whose district lawmakers expanded to include Dembrow’s home.

Less certain is what will happen to lawmakers who are slated to wake up in 2022 sharing districts with each other: fellow doctors and freshmen Democratic Reps. Lisa Reynolds and Maxine Dexter in deep blue Northwest Portand-centered District 33; Democratic Rep. Marty Wilde and Republican Rep. Cedric Hayden, who will inhabit a new overwhelmingly rural and Republican-leaning District 12 east of Eugene; and Democratic Rep. Anna Williams and Republican Rep. Daniel Bonham, whose current homes both lie in a new Democratic-leaning District 52 stretching from Corbett east to The Dalles.

– Betsy Hammond; betsyhammond@oregonian.com; @OregonianPol

The post Map: Look up how partisan your new legislative, congressional districts are in Oregon appeared first on People Not Politicians.

In the waning hours of last week’s special legislative session on redistricting, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle declared this should be the last time elected representatives are responsible for drawing these maps.

The session was defined by partisan controversy: House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, changed the makeup of a redistricting committee to favor Democrats, sparking a House Republican boycott, and the congressional map itself skewed Democratic, according to independent analyses.

The top alternative is an independent redistricting commission, where members of the public are selected to draw new congressional and legislative district maps once per decade after the new census.

Experts and political analysts warn such commissions aren’t guaranteed to result in fairer maps and could be difficult to establish in Oregon.

Those who oppose a redistricting commission say commissioners would not be accountable to the people, nor would they be as representative of the state as the 90-member legislative body.

But those who support a commission say this past session just further demonstrated why the state needs to have a new system.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, said redistricting fights and the perceived or actual partisan bias of the maps damage the public’s trust in the state’s political systems.

“The events of the last week add to a mounting pile of evidence that we should not be creating the districts in which we and our allies and friends might be running in the future,” he said.

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, called on Oregonians to vote in support of the creation of an independent redistricting commission should the measure make it to the ballot.

“Oregonians will only get the fair maps they deserve, free of partisan influence, by supporting an independent redistricting commission in the next election,” Drazan said. “Politicians should not be drawing their own political lines.”

Independent analyses of the newly drawn congressional districts indicate two are safe Democrat seats, one is a safe Republican seat, two lean Democrat and one is a relative toss-up.

However, that toss-up (Congressional District 5) contains the city of Bend, which has shifted left in recent decades and is growing rapidly, meaning the district could soon turn into a safe Democratic seat.

Oregon political analyst Jim Moore said that based on voter registration and trends, Democrats “should win four of the six seats” for the state to have a fair congressional delegation, but not five.

Even so, that doesn’t mean a court challenge will prove successful.

“Showing that it’s intentional and violates Oregon law is going to be really tough to do,” Moore said.

Oregon has tended to find itself on the cutting edge of elections innovations — from vote-by-mail to automatic voter registration. Moore said lawmakers have not been as eager on this issue.

Fourteen other states have taken the responsibility of redistricting out of the hands of lawmakers and given it to a commission.

So while Moore said there is “zero chance” of a bill passing the Legislature to create an independent redistricting commission, getting it on the ballot via an initiative petition could also prove difficult.

“We’ve seen it time and time again: the voters have a very short attention span on this,” Moore said.

Coalition trying to get issue on ballot

The current effort to bring an independent redistricting commission to the state is being led by People Not Politicians, a coalition which includes the Oregon Farm Bureau, League of Women Voters, Eugene-Springfield NAACP and Independent Party of Oregon.

Initiative Petition 34 would create a Citizens Redistricting Commission with 12 members, six selected at random from an applicant pool and those selecting an additional six. Membership would be split evenly between Democrats, Republicans and nonaffiliated voters.

People Not Politicians Chair Norman Turrill said the most important thing the commission would do is take redistricting out of the partisan arena.

“Every legislator has a conflict of interest in the outcome, whether they admit it or not,” he said, noting the commission would be made up of “normal citizens instead of people who would have an interest in the outcome.”

He said the commission would also better represent nonaffiliated voters, who make up the second largest block of registered voters in the state.

As of August, Republicans made up 25% of registered voters, while Democrats constituted 35%. Nonaffiliated voters were 33%.

People Not Politicians undertook a similar initiative effort in 2020 with IP 57, but the coronavirus pandemic made signature-gathering difficult.

Petitioners were not able to gather the required number of signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot and were conclusively kept off the ballot when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the State of Oregon and did not allow a reduction in the number of needed signatures.

“There was lots of support,” Turrill said. “The whole political spectrum is supportive of it, outside of the people who are directly involved in the process.

Independent group wouldn’t be ‘totally objective’

Those opposed to the idea of an independent redistricting commission include Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, who pushed back against the very notion of an independent commission.

“I don’t see these commissions as being totally objective, totally fair, no politics. That’s a myth,” Courtney said. “Politics is involved in everything in life.”

He said redistricting commissions are not accountable to the public is the same way the legislative body is, since a lawmaker could face a recall or primary challenge for decisions they make.

Nor, Courtney said, could a 12-member commission be as representative of all corners of the state as the Legislature’s 90 members.

Moreover, if this year’s maps are not changed by the courts, it would be the second straight redistricting cycle the Legislature has passed maps, which Courtney said shows the system works.

Opponents point out that, if they do avoid a successful court challenge, it would only be the third time in the past century maps came out of the Legislature unchanged.

Courtney acknowledged the process this year wasn’t as efficient or drama-free as it could have been, but the Legislature still achieved its goal in drawing and passing maps that, he said, abide by the laws that guide redistricting.

“The product we came up with, I don’t think you can fault it,” he said. “I don’t think (a commission) could do any better a job or a fairer job than we could.”

Benjamin Schneer, assistant professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, has presented research that concludes there are many factors which influence maps that independent commissions might not be able to overcome.

These include the inherent characteristics of a population, such as likeminded people clustering in certain geographic areas. But these commissions could also increase competitiveness of various races.

“Independent commissions are, generally speaking, likely to produce fairer maps overall compared to a partisan process through the state legislature,” Schneer said, “but, of course, an independent commission does not guarantee a fair map, nor remove partisan politics from the redistricting process.”

The post Calls grow for citizen commission to redraw congressional maps, not perfect solution some warn appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Oregon lawmakers went down to the wire Monday when they approved majority Democrats’ new congressional and legislative district maps with party-line votes just hours ahead of deadline.

Their actions, made possible when House Republicans ended a boycott that stalled redistricting action on Saturday, made Oregon the first state in the nation to pass both congressional and legislative maps.

Only time will tell if it turns out to be the last time lawmakers redraw Oregon’s electoral lines: On Tuesday, a coalition of good government groups, business associations and the Independent and Progressive parties announced they will try to get a ballot measure before voters in 2022 to create an independent redistricting commission. It would draw new lines in 2023 as well as after future censuses.

“The promise of fair representation should not be a pawn in a partisan political game,” said Norman Turrill, chair of the People Not Politicians campaign and former president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon.

Oregon’s redistricting process held importance nationally as it is one of just six states to gain at least one congressional seat in this redistricting cycle, as a result of higher-than-average population growth in recent decades. It’s the only state of those six in which Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature and the governorship.

Oregon’s Democrats and Republicans both faced the decision whether to prioritize getting a favorable congressional map or favorable state House and Senate maps, due to the mechanics of Oregon’s redistricting system. If lawmakers had failed to agree or Republicans had continued their boycott, a five-judge panel would have drafted new congressional districts and Democratic Secretary of State Shemia Fagan would have redone the state’s 90 legislative districts. There was the potential the judicial panel would draw a congressional plan less tilted toward Democrats than the highly party-favoring maps the Democrats drew. Meanwhile, both some Democrats and some Republicans acknowledged Fagan would likely have issued state House and Senate maps more to Democrats’ liking than the not-very-partisan ones Democratic lawmakers drew with Republican input.

In the end, Democrats passed a congressional plan with three super safe Democratic seats, one super safe Republican seat, one seat that tilts in Democrats’ favor and one seat that is a virtual 50-50 tie in terms of how its voters have sided in key Republican-Democratic match-ups since 2015, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive. The district that will have nearly even Democratic-Republican match-ups includes fast-growing Bend, where expected Democratic growth could make the district bluer over the next decade.

It was a compromise Democrats offered Republicans late last week, after insisting throughout September that the original map they drafted — which would almost certainly have led to five Democrats and just one Republican winning seats in the U.S. House — should pass without even technical tweaks in spite of testimony from hundreds of Oregonians, much of it critical of aspects of the plan. That would have given Democrats 83% of the seats, while President Joe Biden collected just 56% of Oregonian’s votes in his winning 2020 race. Public critiques ranged from the maps splitting up Black voters and cultural institutions in Multnomah County to their including Portland-area neighborhoods in districts with broad swaths of rural Oregon.

The Democrats’ revised congressional maps didn’t extend the Portland-heavy 3rd District held by Rep. Earl Blumenauer across the Cascades to rural Madras, and it kept the historically Black Albina neighborhood in Portland in the same district with neighborhoods further east where many Black families now live. Still, Republicans objected to Democrats’ compromise map, pointing out it could lead to the same outcome as Democrats’ original one: a 5-1 power split.

On Tuesday evening, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat who now promotes independent redistricting commissions and other reforms through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, wrote on Twitter that “Oregon’s compromise map is just that—a compromise from both parties. Importantly, the map reflects the state’s diverse communities, preserves a competitive seat, and shows that public input was considered.”

As for Oregon’s new legislative districts, they will likely allow Democrats to maintain their supermajorities in the state House and Senate and even expand their power, particularly in the Senate, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive. However, the districts on balance are fairly representative of Oregonians’ voting patterns. They also manage to put nearly all 90 state representatives and senators in districts where they have a good chance at reelection, although state law admonishes lawmakers not to draw political lines to benefit “any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.”

Still, some lawmakers who ended up doubled up in districts with other incumbents will face tough decisions about whether to run in a primary against another incumbent from the same party or a general election against a fellow lawmaker from the opposing party.

Rep. Raquel Moore-Green, R-Salem and the only lawmaker of Latina heritage in her caucus, will be in a blue leaning district with Democratic Rep. Brian Clem of Salem. Clem, one of two House Democrats who voted against the plan Monday, announced during his floor speech that he will retire at the end of his term next year due to personal and family health issues. Clem lavished praise on Moore-Green, who he said saved the Salem City Club and “cast many courageous votes that some of you wouldn’t even notice …”

Clem said while the House and Senate plans overall are good, he disagreed with the difficult and partisan process of drafting them, which he alleged involved “people trying to draw people out of districts that are legitimate …”

Democrats’ plan also puts two Democratic incumbents, both Portland area physicians, in the same House district: Reps. Maxine Dexter and Lisa Reynolds. And Rep. Cedric Hayden, R-Fall Creek, will be in a competitive district with a potentially 4.4-percentage point Republican advantage along with Rep. Marty Wilde, D-Eugene, according to the newsroom’s analysis.

Earlier this year, Wilde cited his current House District as a blatant example of past gerrymandering. He continued to raise similar concerns about this year’s redistricting proposals, noting in an email to House Democrats last week that the Eugene precinct he lives in was the only one in Oregon’s second-largest city included in the new district that is largely rural and Republican.

Throughout the weeklong special session, Democrats reiterated that their plans complied with Oregon law and the state constitution. Senate redistricting committee chair Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, said of Democrats’ initial congressional plan that several analyses found was clearly tilted to her party, “It is a fair and balanced map.” Rep. Wlnsvey Campos, D-Aloha, a member of the House congressional redistricting committee, said in a speech on the House floor Monday that Democrats’ congressional districts plan meets “the highest legal standards…”

They may be correct, given past high court rulings that set a very high bar for showing that a map has been drawn unfairly. The Oregon Supreme Court, in a 2001 redistricting case, pointed out state law simply says lawmakers or the secretary of state must “consider” eight district-drawing criteria including existing geographic or political boundaries, transportation links and that no district shall be drawn to favor an incumbent or political party.

“Consequently, this court will void a reapportionment plan only if we can say from the record that the secretary of state either did not consider one or more criteria or, having considered them all, made a choice or choices that no reasonable secretary of state would have made,” the court ruled in the case, which pertained to legislative districts drawn by then-Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. “A party challenging a reapportionment plan has the burden to show that one of those circumstances is present.”

The court could soon hear a fresh test of Oregon’s redistricting laws. In a press release issued after lawmakers finished work Monday with the headline “Rigged redistricting process fails Oregon,” House Republican Leader Christine Drazan of Canby predicted someone will soon file such a challenge. “The illegal congressional map adopted (Monday), clearly drawn for partisan benefit, will not survive legal challenge,” Drazan said.

The post Oregon’s new political maps, which would cement Democrats’ dominance, may come under challenge from voters, courts appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Oregon lawmakers went down to the wire Monday when they approved majority Democrats’ new congressional and legislative district maps with party-line votes just hours ahead of deadline.

Their actions, made possible when House Republicans ended a boycott that stalled redistricting action on Saturday, made Oregon the first state in the nation to pass both congressional and legislative maps.

Only time will tell if it turns out to be the last time lawmakers redraw Oregon’s electoral lines: On Tuesday, a coalition of good government groups, business associations and the Independent and Progressive parties announced they will try to get a ballot measure before voters in 2022 to create an independent redistricting commission. It would draw new lines in 2023 as well as after future censuses.

“The promise of fair representation should not be a pawn in a partisan political game,” said Norman Turrill, chair of the People Not Politicians campaign and former president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon.

Oregon’s redistricting process held importance nationally as it is one of just six states to gain at least one congressional seat in this redistricting cycle, as a result of higher-than-average population growth in recent decades. It’s the only state of those six in which Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature and the governorship.

Oregon’s Democrats and Republicans both faced the decision whether to prioritize getting a favorable congressional map or favorable state House and Senate maps, due to the mechanics of Oregon’s redistricting system. If lawmakers had failed to agree or Republicans had continued their boycott, a five-judge panel would have drafted new congressional districts and Democratic Secretary of State Shemia Fagan would have redone the state’s 90 legislative districts. There was the potential the judicial panel would draw a congressional plan less tilted toward Democrats than the highly party-favoring maps the Democrats drew. Meanwhile, both some Democrats and some Republicans acknowledged Fagan would likely have issued state House and Senate maps more to Democrats’ liking than the not-very-partisan ones Democratic lawmakers drew with Republican input.

In the end, Democrats passed a congressional plan with three super safe Democratic seats, one super safe Republican seat, one seat that tilts in Democrats’ favor and one seat that is a virtual 50-50 tie in terms of how its voters have sided in key Republican-Democratic match-ups since 2015, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive. The district that will have nearly even Democratic-Republican match-ups includes fast-growing Bend, where expected Democratic growth could make the district bluer over the next decade.

It was a compromise Democrats offered Republicans late last week, after insisting throughout September that the original map they drafted — which would almost certainly have led to five Democrats and just one Republican winning seats in the U.S. House — should pass without even technical tweaks in spite of testimony from hundreds of Oregonians, much of it critical of aspects of the plan. That would have given Democrats 83% of the seats, while President Joe Biden collected just 56% of Oregonian’s votes in his winning 2020 race. Public critiques ranged from the maps splitting up Black voters and cultural institutions in Multnomah County to their including Portland-area neighborhoods in districts with broad swaths of rural Oregon.

The Democrats’ revised congressional maps didn’t extend the Portland-heavy 3rd District held by Rep. Earl Blumenauer across the Cascades to rural Madras, and it kept the historically Black Albina neighborhood in Portland in the same district with neighborhoods further east where many Black families now live. Still, Republicans objected to Democrats’ compromise map, pointing out it could lead to the same outcome as Democrats’ original one: a 5-1 power split.

On Tuesday evening, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat who now promotes independent redistricting commissions and other reforms through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, wrote on Twitter that “Oregon’s compromise map is just that—a compromise from both parties. Importantly, the map reflects the state’s diverse communities, preserves a competitive seat, and shows that public input was considered.”

As for Oregon’s new legislative districts, they will likely allow Democrats to maintain their supermajorities in the state House and Senate and even expand their power, particularly in the Senate, according to an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive. However, the districts on balance are fairly representative of Oregonians’ voting patterns. They also manage to put nearly all 90 state representatives and senators in districts where they have a good chance at reelection, although state law admonishes lawmakers not to draw political lines to benefit “any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.”

Still, some lawmakers who ended up doubled up in districts with other incumbents will face tough decisions about whether to run in a primary against another incumbent from the same party or a general election against a fellow lawmaker from the opposing party.

Rep. Raquel Moore-Green, R-Salem and the only lawmaker of Latina heritage in her caucus, will be in a blue leaning district with Democratic Rep. Brian Clem of Salem. Clem, one of two House Democrats who voted against the plan Monday, announced during his floor speech that he will retire at the end of his term next year due to personal and family health issues. Clem lavished praise on Moore-Green, who he said saved the Salem City Club and “cast many courageous votes that some of you wouldn’t even notice …”

Clem said while the House and Senate plans overall are good, he disagreed with the difficult and partisan process of drafting them, which he alleged involved “people trying to draw people out of districts that are legitimate …”

Democrats’ plan also puts two Democratic incumbents, both Portland area physicians, in the same House district: Reps. Maxine Dexter and Lisa Reynolds. And Rep. Cedric Hayden, R-Fall Creek, will be in a competitive district with a potentially 4.4-percentage point Republican advantage along with Rep. Marty Wilde, D-Eugene, according to the newsroom’s analysis.

Earlier this year, Wilde cited his current House District as a blatant example of past gerrymandering. He continued to raise similar concerns about this year’s redistricting proposals, noting in an email to House Democrats last week that the Eugene precinct he lives in was the only one in Oregon’s second-largest city included in the new district that is largely rural and Republican.

Throughout the weeklong special session, Democrats reiterated that their plans complied with Oregon law and the state constitution. Senate redistricting committee chair Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, said of Democrats’ initial congressional plan that several analyses found was clearly tilted to her party, “It is a fair and balanced map.” Rep. Wlnsvey Campos, D-Aloha, a member of the House congressional redistricting committee, said in a speech on the House floor Monday that Democrats’ congressional districts plan meets “the highest legal standards…”

They may be correct, given past high court rulings that set a very high bar for showing that a map has been drawn unfairly. The Oregon Supreme Court, in a 2001 redistricting case, pointed out state law simply says lawmakers or the secretary of state must “consider” eight district-drawing criteria including existing geographic or political boundaries, transportation links and that no district shall be drawn to favor an incumbent or political party.

“Consequently, this court will void a reapportionment plan only if we can say from the record that the secretary of state either did not consider one or more criteria or, having considered them all, made a choice or choices that no reasonable secretary of state would have made,” the court ruled in the case, which pertained to legislative districts drawn by then-Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. “A party challenging a reapportionment plan has the burden to show that one of those circumstances is present.”

The court could soon hear a fresh test of Oregon’s redistricting laws. In a press release issued after lawmakers finished work Monday with the headline “Rigged redistricting process fails Oregon,” House Republican Leader Christine Drazan of Canby predicted someone will soon file such a challenge. “The illegal congressional map adopted (Monday), clearly drawn for partisan benefit, will not survive legal challenge,” Drazan said.

The post Oregon’s new political maps, which would cement Democrats’ dominance, may come under challenge from voters, courts appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The post Redistricting: People Not Politicians seeking independent commission appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Friday offered very different visions for how Oregon should redraw its political districts for the next decade, with both sides offering plans that could offer a partisan advantage.

In the first salvo of a three-and-a-half week dash toward passing new maps, members of the House and Senate committees on redistricting unveiled their starting visions for how to apportion the state’s 60 House seats, 30 Senate seats, and six congressional seats.

It’s an inherently political fight, with Democrats hoping to keep the supermajority lock they have on the statehouse, and Republicans arguing the current maps — which members of their party approved 10 years ago — are wildly biased.

“These maps aren’t final. None of them are,” said state Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, a co-chair of the House Redistricting Committee. “We’ll be using them for public input to help us improve and ensure fair representative lines for the final maps we vote on later this month.”

Of special interest this year is how Oregon creates a brand new congressional district, splitting the state into six parts instead of the current five. With Democrats currently controlling the U.S. House by a slim margin, how Oregon proceeds could have implications in Washington, D.C.

Democrats’ proposal would center the new Congressional district in two areas that have seen some of the fastest population growth in the last decade: Washington County and the Salem region. The proposal would expand Congressional District 3, currently held by Portland Democratic U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, far to the east and south to encompass Hood River, Wasco, and Jefferson counties, and snatch up a portion of fast-growing Bend. It would send Congressional District 5, held by Democrat Kurt Schrader, deeper into the Portland area, and farther south while divorcing it from the coast.

And according to one analysis, the plan would be biased heavily in Democrats’ favor. A tool created by the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center to identify bias in political maps based on four measures suggests the proposal favors Democrats on all four measures, though it suggests such ratings might be skewed in a state with fewer than seven districts. The analysis suggests it could lead to a congressional split of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican, a breakdown that is far out-of-step with the partisan split in statewide races. The website Fivethirtyeight concurred with that analysis.

Republicans’ congressional proposal, meanwhile, was tilted more in the GOP’s favor, the analysis suggested. The plan would create a highly competitive sixth congressional district based around Portland’s southern suburbs and stretching down to encompass Salem and out east. It would shrink down two seats held by Blumenauer and U.S. Rep Suzanne Bonamici, so that they’re confined to deep blue Multnomah and Washington counties, and rejigger the lines of the competitive districts held by Schrader and Democratic U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio to favor Republicans.

According to the Campaign Legal Center analysis, the Republican proposal would create two solid Democratic districts, two districts that lean Republican, one swing district and one solid Republican district. Fivethirtyeight labeled three of the districts under the Republican plan “highly competitive,” with two solid Democratic districts and one solid Republican seat.

Neither analysis of the congressional plans account for the power of incumbency enjoyed by Oregon’s veteran congressional Democrats, a factor that typically has sizeable weight in elections.

Lawmakers also unveiled three separate visions for how to draw the state’s legislative districts — one joint proposal from the Senate, and one apiece from House Democrats and House Republicans.

There, too, the parties brought very different ideas.

Plans for drawing the 60 House districts submitted by House Democrats and the Senate Redistricting Committee were scored similarly in terms of bias. They could each lead to Democrats’ retaining their three-fifths supermajority in the House, according to the Campaign Legal Center, though some districts would be extremely competitive.

House Republicans’ plans for apportioning House districts were rated as more biased in the GOP’s favor by the Campaign Legal Center’s tool, which suggested an unlikely 30-30 split could be possible under the plan.

Plans submitted for Senate districts contained less difference. Each would likely retain Democratic majorities in the chamber, though the Democrats’ current 18-member supermajority would not be a given.

Which plans prevail, and how they’re altered along the way as the public and advocacy groups offer feedback, will be decided in the coming weeks. Lawmakers will hold 12 hearings beginning Sept. 8 in order to solicit input. Members of the public can also submit their own maps until Sept. 8 at 5 pm.

Advocates were already at work pressing their views Friday morning.

Labor-affiliated group Our Oregon issued a release saying Republicans were “brazenly attempting to gerrymander Oregon in a desperate bid to secure outsized influence…” The new group Fair Maps Oregon, which is aligned with Republican interests, held up Democrats’ proposal for congressional districts as “an example of just how extreme partisan gerrymandering in Oregon can be.”

That kind of rhetoric is not limited to outside groups. From the first moments of Friday morning’s hearing, some lawmakers suggested they were ready for confrontation.

“The current districts that we are living with are based upon partisan gerrymandering maps drawn to benefit the political party and the politicians in power at the expense of Oregonians,” said state Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, co-chair of the House Redistricting Committee. She added: “Our current districts have diluted the voices of Oregonians for two decades to advance one political party…”

Boshart Davis and other Republicans have raised this argument repeatedly in recent months, saying that sizable Democratic majorities were baked in when lawmakers passed the current maps in 2011. That year, control of redistricting was shared equally between the parties, and Republicans agreed to the maps. If the Legislature had failed to find agreement, the task would have been sent to then-Secretary of State Kate Brown.

“I think we demonstrated civility and worked together on a lot of issues, but particularly redistricting at that point in time,” Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron, who was the House Republican leader in 2011, told OPB recently. “It was a good accomplishment.”

But Republicans now say the 2011 plans were a bad deal. Members of both parties have told OPB that Democrats benefited from better data in 2011, and so were able to grasp how districts were likely to vote than Republicans.

On Friday, House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, suggested that both parties had agreed to the 2011 plan as a way to protect the incumbents currently sitting in the statehouse.

“There was a focus on incumbents and people who were currently serving having a lot of say in what their districts would look like moving forward,” Drazan told reporters. “We can’t do things the way they’ve done it in the past.”

But Democrats stand behind the current maps and are hoping to use them as a starting point as they make changes this year. Salinas, the House Democratic redistricting lead, shot back when Boshart Davis raised the specter of bias.

“With all due respect to my co-chair, repeating the false claim of gerrymandering doesn’t make it true,” Salinas said. “The maps that we’re basing our current maps on passed in 2011, and they were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support… There was no litigation, not complaints and the committees worked collaboratively to come up with fair maps.”

Under an order from the Oregon Supreme Court, lawmakers have until Sept. 27 to submit maps. If they cannot pass a plan, or a plan they do pass is vetoed by the governor, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, will assume responsibility for drawing legislative districts. Congressional districts would be drawn by a judicial panel, under a process that lawmakers created in 2013.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect that Democrats have a three-fifths supermajority in the House.

The post Lawmakers unveil starkly different plans for redrawing Oregon’s political landscape appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The Oregon House interim committee on redistricting, evenly split with three Democrats and three Republicans, also offered vastly different maps on how the existing five U.S. House of Representative districts in Oregon should be drawn.

Four of Oregon’s House seats in Congress are currently held by Democrats while one has long been held by a Republican.

The Democrats’ map says new congressional District 6 should be south of Portland, Oregon’s biggest city, and west of Interstate 5. Republicans also put it south of Portland, but on the east side of the interstate.

Expanding Oregon’s number of U.S. House seats from five to six won’t necessarily be a win for Democrats, who control the state politically.

The new district would be safely Democratic under the Democrats’ map and competitive under the Republican map, according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, a website that gets its name from the number of Electoral College members and which focuses on opinion poll analysis, politics and other topics.

The maps were released with little fanfare. The proposed placement of the six congressional districts were not discussed by the interim committee members, who met remotely by video. A series of virtual public hearings about redrawing the districts will start next Wednesday.

Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, a Republican and co-chair of the interim redistricting committee, accused Democrats of having in the past conducted gerrymandering — which is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to win an unfair political advantage.

“Our current districts have diluted the voices of Oregonians for two decades to advance one political party and incumbent politicians,” Boshart said during Friday’s meeting.

Rep. Andrea Salinas, a Democrat and fellow co-chair of the interim committee, contested the allegation.

“With all due respect to my co-chair, repeating the false claim of gerrymandering doesn’t make it true,” Salinas said. “The maps that we’re basing our current maps on passed in 2011, and they were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

One of the biggest map redraws came from the Democrats, whose draft plan would expand U.S. House District 3 — currently squeezed between Portland’s eastern suburbs and the Columbia River — toward the southeast, all the way to the edge of the central Oregon town of Bend.

The Republican map squeezes District 3 even closer to the river that marks the Washington state line, to allow for the new District 6 to fit into the electoral boundary puzzle.

In a normal redistricting year, the redistricting process would likely have been completed by this time. But the coronavirus pandemic caused delays in the release of U.S. Census Bureau data required to draw new maps. The redistricting data, culled from the 2020 census, was released last month — four months later than expected.

The redistricting numbers that states use for redrawing congressional and legislative districts show where white, Asian, Black and Hispanic communities grew over the past decade.

Steady population growth — driven by newcomers from other states — is giving Oregon greater national political clout. U.S. Census Bureau figures released in April showed the state’s population increased by 10% over the past decade. Oregon as a result got an additional congressional district for the first time in 40 years.

For state legislative districts, there is a set number of districts, so lawmakers can only move the boundary lines and the legislators’ districts must be equal in population. Congressional districts are added and subtracted to states based on population and also must be equal in population.

State legislative Democrats, who overwhelmingly control the Legislature, agreed to give up an advantage in redrawing the state’s political districts for the next 10 years in exchange for a Republican commitment to stop blocking legislation in the state Legislature with delay tactics.

The deal gives Republicans more say over what the boundaries for 90 legislative districts will look like and increases the GOP’s influence on how to divide the state into congressional districts.

The Legislature has until Sept. 27 to complete the redistricting process.

If lawmakers fail to pass new legislative boundaries by then, the task will fall to Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a progressive Democrat. Lawmakers have succeeded in passing a legal redistricting plan just twice since 1911.

___

Cline, who reported from Portland, Oregon, is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

The post Oregon starts wrestling over new congressional district appeared first on People Not Politicians.

When Oregon lawmakers unveil their first proposals for redrawing the state’s political maps Friday morning, plenty of people will be tuned in.

Business interests, bankrolling a new advocacy group, will be watching for districts they deem unfair to Republicans.

Organized labor, a major backer of the state’s supermajority Democrats, will have their own arguments about fair districts at the ready.

National committees fretting about the delicate balance of power in Washington, D.C., will be keenly interested in lawmakers’ first crack at drawing a brand new congressional district — Oregon’s first in 40 years.

And most likely, they’ll all begin fighting. The draft maps state Senate and House lawmakers plan to drop Friday are the first volleys in a chaotic but brief battle — one that will hold major consequences for the next decade. Oregonians can expect no end of advocacy and arguing as legislators sprint toward their Sept. 27 deadline to pass new maps.

“We have an idea what we think the maps should look like,” said Joe Baessler, associate director for AFSCME Council 75, one of the state’s largest labor groups. “We’re obviously organizing testimony. Fundamentally, we want the Legislature to have a fair process.”

Via affiliate group Our Oregon, labor has been marshalling supporters to testify at 12 virtual public hearings set to begin Sept. 8, advocating for political boundaries they believe best reflect how Oregon should divide its electorate into 60 House districts, 30 Senate districts, and soon-to-be six congressional districts.

Forming up on the other side is a group called Fair Maps Oregon. A nonprofit organization that’s not required to disclose its donors, the group is affiliated with a cadre of industry lobbyists and Republican allies, state filings show.

Preston Mann, a former House Republican staffer and vice president of public affairs for the business group Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce, is the director of Fair Maps Oregon. He said in a recent interview the group would focus on educating citizens about redistricting, but would also push back against maps it feels give Democrats an unfair advantage.

“Redistricting at times can be this abstract concept to Oregonians that happens once a decade,” Mann said. “The goal here is, one, raise awareness of what is about to happen over the next month and, two, raise awareness about why it’s so important.”

Room for creativity

The task the groups will be trying to influence is more art than science. State and federal law include rules the Legislature must abide by during redistricting, but leave room for plenty of creative license.

Lawmakers must draw contiguous districts of roughly equal populations, using existing geographical or political boundaries, and connecting districts by transportation links. Lawmakers also must not draw districts to favor any party or incumbent, and cannot unnecessarily divide “communities of interest,” an amorphous term that can describe any number of things, from ethnic groups to members of a close-knit church.

The question is whether lawmakers want to tweak existing districts at the edges — making more dramatic changes in high-growth areas like central Oregon and the Portland suburbs, and low-growth areas like eastern and southern Oregon — or rethink the map entirely.

“I don’t think anyone has the right answer” said state Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, a co-chair of the House Redistricting Committee. “You can slice and dice this is in so many ways. I believe where you start really makes a difference in how your map ends up.”

Democrats have also said they will be focused on communities of interest, with a goal of not unduly diluting the voting power of traditionally underserved communities by splitting them up. Republicans have been more concerned with districts that they say unnaturally meld urban and rural populations — and therefore tend to overpower conservative-leaning voters by roping in a slice of a liberal city.

The process of drawing an entirely new congressional district is likely to be especially fraught. Democrats currently hold four of the state’s five seats in the U.S. House. In separating the state into six pieces, both parties will be keenly aware of the possible implications for congressional control.

Democrats could press for a map that would give them an additional seat, a 5-1 imbalance that does not reflect the ratio of Democrat to Republican votes statewide. Or the party could content itself with shoring up its strength in two existing, competitive districts held by Democratic U.S. Reps. Kurt Schrader and Peter DeFazio, and agreeing to a new district that leans conservative.

With Democrats holding a tenuous majority in congress, national interest groups are keeping an eye on that dynamic.

“We’re definitely watching the process in Oregon and looking forward to seeing the draft maps in a few days,” said Fabiola Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Early disagreement

Already, there are signs that the Legislature’s chances of passing maps might be dim.

In recent weeks, Democrats had envisioned working with Republicans to develop a single set of draft maps for release Friday. Those maps would have been refined — or altered dramatically — based on feedback and redistricting maps submitted by the public and advocacy groups.

Instead, it appears lawmakers will begin on more divided terms. House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said Wednesday that her members bristled at a map-drafting process that would have been driven by Senate Democrats. Instead, Drazan said her caucus will unveil its own proposal for new districts that would differ from any drafts by Democrats.

“There was an expectation in [the Senate] that they were going to just kind of tell everybody else how it was going to be,” Drazan said. “Where we’re at now is we’re going to be transparent about this. We’re not going to start this process and finish this process before Oregonians engage.”

The approach, Drazan conceded, might make finding bipartisan agreement more difficult. But such agreement will be necessary for lawmakers to pass a new redistricting plan.

As part of a deal to avoid Republican delay tactics in this year’s legislative session, House Speaker Tina Kotek agreed to give GOP members an equal say on the House Redistricting Committee. Without at least one Republican vote in that committee, no map can pass.

“I think we have people who want to get to agreement,” Drazan said. “But I am not going to sign off on a map that I believe is gerrymandered.”

Salinas, who is leading House Democrats’ effort, acknowledged Thursday that common ground had been hard to find so far. Her party’s own map, she said, started by situating districts around population centers and areas of highest population growth, and worked from there.

“It could look extreme to some people,” she said, adding she believed her first draft complied with federal and state law. “I will be curious to see the maps that come out tomorrow.”

It was unclear Thursday whether Republicans and Democrats in the Senate would release a united plan or separate drafts. Sen. Tim Knopp, the Bend Republican running point on the issue for his party in the Senate, said Thursday morning talks were still ongoing. Sen. Kathleen Taylor, the Portland Democrat who chairs the Senate Redistricting Committee, did not respond to inquiries.

A rough decade for Republicans

Advocates for more political balance in Oregon have reason to push for altered maps. Republicans and Democrats held almost equal power in the statehouse when the last maps were drawn in 2011. But Democrats have come to dominate legislative politics in the decade since, achieving three-fifths supermajorities in both chambers.

That change can’t only be attributed to maps. The growth of registered Democrats in the state has outpaced that of Republicans in the last decade, 22% to 13%, according to state records. Once reliably red or purple districts in the suburbs and Central Oregon have grown bluer. The party also typically has a better organized reservoir of volunteers to assist its campaigns.

One analysis of Oregon’s current legislative maps, by the Washington, D.C., nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, suggests they are slightly tilted in Democrats’ favor, but do not lean as far to either side as maps of previous decades. Based on four metrics for determining whether maps are biased, the CLC describes Oregon’s districts as “balanced.”

Drazan and others believe that’s not the case.

While she concedes Democrats gained strength, Drazan says the fastest-growing segment of voters — those affiliated with neither party — also have a say. And when all votes are tallied, she notes, results in competitive statewide elections reveal an electorate that is more evenly balanced than the current Legislature.

“There are not landslide governor’s races,” she says. No Democrat has cleared more than 50.7% of the vote in the last six gubernatorial elections. No Republican has received less than 42.8% of the vote.

The claim that Oregon’s legislative maps are drawn to assure Democratic dominance might seem confusing if you’re familiar with the state’s last redistricting effort in 2011. With the House evenly split between parties, and the Senate nearly so, Republicans and Democrats had an equal say in those maps.

The parties ultimately found agreement, and the Legislature was able to pass new districts for just the second time in a century.

Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron was the House Republican leader in 2011. Cameron said he recalls both Republicans and Democrats celebrating the fact they were able to come to an agreement over the maps for the first time in as long as anyone could remember.

“I think we demonstrated civility and worked together on a lot of issues, but particularly redistricting at that point in time,” Cameron said. “It was a good accomplishment.”

Others say Cameron’s sunny view is off base. Members of both parties suggested to OPB that Democrats were better prepared than Republicans for the 2011 redistricting process, and so were able to access better data to help them understand which way a new district was likely to vote.

Time is short

This year’s redistricting process comes with one major difference from 2011′s: It has to happen at hyperspeed.

The U.S. Census data states rely on to draw new maps was delayed by months this year, largely due to COVID-19. As a result, the Oregon Supreme Court gave lawmakers until Sept. 27 to pass new maps — a far tighter window than in most redistricting years.

The Legislature is tentatively scheduled to meet in a special session beginning Sept. 20 to attempt to find agreement. If lawmakers cannot pass a plan by the deadline, the job of redistricting will be snatched away from them.

A panel of judges will decide what the state’s congressional districts look like. Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a liberal Democrat, will have responsibility for drawing legislative maps. Fagan announced last month she’ll get input from a citizens’ committee if the task is handed to her. Even so, it’s an outcome few Republicans would relish.

“I just don’t think [Fagan] has to take the same political considerations into account as I would,” Salinas said. “That would feel riskier to me if I were the Republicans.”

Drazan disagreed, saying she’s unwilling to vote in favor of a plan she deems unfair.

“I have to look at this from the perspective of the map,” she said. “If I’m staring at a gerrymandered map that cements a Democratic quorum-proof supermajority, whether that’s written by [Democratic state Sen.] Kathleen Taylor or it’s written by Shemia Fagan, it’s still a gerrymandered map.”

OPB reporter Sam Stites contributed to this story.

The post Oregon lawmakers are about to debate new political maps. Can they find agreement? appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Lawmakers taking up the question of how to redraw Oregon’s legislative and congressional districts this year have decided not to take the show on the road.

As COVID-19 continues its alarming spread in the state, members of the Senate and House committees tasked with coming up with new political maps will instead hold required public hearings on potential maps in a virtual hearing format that has grown familiar.

“While the committees had hoped to visit communities across Oregon in person, the recent surge in COVID-19 cases has made this increasingly risky to public health,” Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said in a statement Monday. “More Oregonians are now in our hospitals, intensive care units, or on ventilators than ever before in this pandemic.”

The announcement is not entirely surprising. Chairs of the Senate and House redistricting committees in recent days had voiced uncertainty about whether they would be able to hold in-person public hearings as they have in past redistricting years.

Under state law, legislators are required to hold “at least 10 public hearings at locations throughout the state” before proposing new maps. They’re also encouraged to hold five hearings once maps have been proposed. The law explicitly encourages use of video technology to allow people in far-flung areas to testify.

This year, lawmakers are facing an uncharacteristically rushed time table. Delays at the U.S. Census Bureau meant that states only received detailed population data required for redrawing maps this month, roughly six months late.

As a result Oregon lawmakers have already had to breach constitutional requirements for getting maps completed by July 1. With the blessing of the Oregon Supreme Court, the Legislature now has until Sept. 27 to pass a new plan.

Even so, the Legislature appears set to hold more than the required number of public hearings.

The two legislative redistricting committees held 10 virtual meetings to take testimony from the public in March and April — two hearings apiece for the state’s five congressional districts. While citizens in those hearings did not have access to final census data, they were able to advocate for cultural communities or geographic areas they believe should be united into certain political districts.

Lawmakers now plan to unveil a set of draft maps on Sept. 3, before a series of 12 more virtual public hearings from Sept. 8-13. Of key interest in those maps, and the discussion that follows, will be how lawmakers propose drawing a new, sixth congressional district the state was granted this year.

Citizens have a way to offer input beyond testifying remotely. They can use the Legislature’s district mapping tool to create their own proposed maps for state House and Senate districts, as long as they meet legal requirements for how those districts are arranged.

The once-a-decade redistricting process comes with high political stakes. The outcome of new legislative and congressional maps can dictate which party holds sway in Oregon, and help determine control of Congress.

The post Hearings on new Oregon political maps will be virtual, as COVID spreads appeared first on People Not Politicians.

In keeping with social distancing mandates, crusaders against partisan gerrymandering in Oregon have settled on a new old-fashioned way to recruit allies: Send a letter, by snail mail.

With the coronavirus pandemic ruling out traditional in-person canvassing across the country, many grassroots democracy efforts have gone silent — some after failing to get permission to obtain electronic signatures for their ballot measures.

Redistricting reformers in Oregon aren’t going down the online route. Instead they are mailing copies of their ballot proposal, which would turn legislative mapmaking over to an independent redistricting commission, to half a million residential addresses in search of handwritten endorsements.

Time is of the essence. Political maps generally get drawn once every decade, after the census provides detailed population figures, so the reliably Democratic majorities in the Oregon Legislature will claim the job for themselves next year unless voters decide otherwise in November. And the measure won’t be on the ballot unless 149,000 people sign and return the forms in the next three weeks.

The League of Women Voters and People Not Politicians are behind the flooding of the Postal Service in the Oregon campaign. Their mailing, which includes a postage-paid return envelope, is going to 500,000 households identified as having more than one registered voter.

Voters can also download the petition on the People Not Politicians’ website or they can ask the group for a version in the mail if it doesn’t show up soon.

The measure would establish a commission of four Democrats, four Republicans and four people unaffiliated with a major party. It would draw the district lines for the state House and Senate and set the boundaries of congressional districts — six of them, probably, up from five because of the state’s population growth during the 2010s.

Oregon is one of a handful of states where advocates for taking mapmaking away from its beneficiaries are still campaigning. The group pushing for creation of a commission in newly blue Nevada was recently given more time to collect signatures to get on the ballot. But the effort in reliably red Arkansas has been hobbled since a federal judge refused to allow e-signatures on petitions.

Virginia is the only state that for sure will have a referendum in November on creation of an independent commission, while Missourians will vote on whether to largely undo a redistricting reform initiative they approved two years ago.

At the moment, 14 states will use independent commissions to draw the next decade’s legislative districts, and eight of those will also take over congressional cartography.

Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that have so far permitted electronic signatures for ballot measures in light of Covid-19. At least two dozen citizen democracy efforts, including four related to democracy reform, have been suspended due to the pandemic.

The post Redistricting reformers to Oregon voters: You’ve got mail appeared first on People Not Politicians.