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.

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.

As the nation grapples with its legacy of racism and how to move toward a just society, the right to vote and be fairly represented becomes even more critical.

In Oregon we have an opportunity to reform how voting districts are created and reduce the risk of gerrymandering. During June you can sign an initiative petition for the November ballot that would create an independent commission to draw state and federal legislative districts after the 2020 census.

Boundaries are drawn by the Oregon Legislature or, if it fails to act, by the secretary of state. In other words, politicians, not voters, create the districts that elect them. This is a conflict of interest that has often resulted in gerrymandering. The initiative replaces politicians with a committee of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters.

A coalition of groups, including the Eugene Springfield NAACP, League of Women Voters and Oregon Farm Bureau are leading this effort. If you received a petition in the mail, follow the instructions for signing and mail it in the postage-paid envelope. If you didn’t receive the petition, get one at peoplenotpoliticiansoregon.com. Signing the petition is one important, concrete thing you can do to strengthen voting rights.

The post Strengthen voting rights appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has killed several would-be initiative campaigns in Oregon because organizers can’t send canvassers out to gather the tens of thousands of signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot.

But backers of a proposal to take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature are not giving up. They’re trying to do something that’s never been done before in Oregon: collect almost all of the signatures through the mail or the internet.

“It’s a long shot,” conceded Kate Titus, the executive director of Common Cause Oregon. “It will be remarkable if we pull it off.”

Common Cause is one of the government watchdog groups pushing to create a nonpartisan commission to redraw congressional and legislative district lines. Pandemic aside, this coalition already faces major political headwinds going up against the state’s dominant Democratic political establishment.

The stakes in redistricting are particularly high for political partisans.

Democrats poised to control redistricting

For the first time in modern Oregon political history, Democrats are poised to be able to draw political boundary lines next year in the Legislature without having to negotiate with Republicans. They control the governorship and both legislative chambers. In previous redistricting battles spread over the last 50 years, the two parties shared control.

Because of the importance of how these lines are redrawn, the fighting over this measure started soon after it was filed last year. Groups allied with Democratic leaders in the Legislature mounted ballot title challenges in court that delayed signature gathering. They charged that the initiative has several flaws that would make it unfair to marginalized voters. They also say the measure would give Republicans too big of a say in redistricting.

Our Oregon, which organizes political activities for unions and other liberal groups, has also filed a lawsuit — which remains unsettled in the courts — questioning the constitutionality of the redistricting measure.

“There are some real fatal flaws” in the measure, said Our Oregon’s executive director, Becca Uherbelau, who is “watching and waiting” to see what happens next.

The initiative wasn’t cleared for signature gathering until early April, when the entire state was under strict lockdown orders. “You can’t go out with a clipboard,” Titus said. “it wouldn’t be safe.”

Organizers plan mass mailings

Instead sponsors pivoted. They have raised about $250,000 — mostly from business interests — to organize a mass mailing that is sending petitions to 500,000 Oregon households containing more than a million registered voters. They are also sending out mass emails to their supporters urging them to download single-signature petitions, sign them and return them in the mail.

Backers need nearly 150,000 valid signatures from registered voters by the July 2 deadline, a daunting task even without the lurking dangers of the coronavirus.

“This is entirely new territory for any initiative-signature campaign,” said Norman Turrill, a longtime Oregon League of Women Voters official who is one of the measure’s chief sponsors.

But Turrill said he thinks the timing is right to get the attention of voters since districts around the country will be redrawn next year following the 2020 Census. Although many Democratic groups in Oregon are leery of this measure, it has been Democrats around the country who have repeatedly highlighted the issue. They have criticized several Republican-led states for manipulating congressional district lines to gain additional seats in the House.

Former President Barack Obama has formed a group, All On The Line, to fight against “rigged electoral maps drawn with surgical precision by politicians to preserve their party’s political power and silence the will of the people,” according to the group’s website.

The group is initially focused on redistricting battles in 10 states. Oregon is not among them, although the Democratic Party of Oregon’s 2018 platform supports having redistricting “determined by a politically neutral entity.”

Molly Woon, the party’s deputy director, said the party’s elected leadership has not taken a stand on the redistricting initiative. She said the central committee will decide at its August meeting whether to support or oppose measures that qualify for the ballot.

Still, measure sponsors say their own polling shows strong voter support for independent redistricting, with the highest support levels among Democrats.

Voters in Oregon “understand the importance of the redistricting process and the threat of gerrymandering,” Turrill said, “and if we can get this on the ballot, we think it will pass handily.”

The proposed constitutional amendment calls for a 12-member redistricting commission that would be made up of an equal number of Democrats, Republicans and voters who don’t belong to either major party. They would be chosen in a complicated process that begins with three administrative law judges picking a pool of 150 commissioner applicants split equally among those three political-party groupings.

Supporters say the process is aimed at driving consensus among voters coming from different ideological points of view. That is why it calls for an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, even though Democrats have a large voter registration advantage. Turrill, a chief sponsor, also noted that the measure requires that no redistricting plan can be approved without the votes of at least one commissioner from each party grouping.

Still, critics say the initiative could wind up leaving some people excluded.

“The real problem we have with this ballot measure is that it’s exclusionary of young people, newly naturalized citizens and people in civic leadership,” said Samantha Gladu, executive director of Next Up. Formerly known as the Bus Project, the group works helps young people get involved in progressive political causes.

She criticized provisions in the initiative that require commissioners to be registered within the same political party for the past three years — and noted that it excludes many people already involved in politics, such as lobbyists and members of party central committees. She said these restrictions can prevent the involvement of community leaders on the commission.

Two groups representing minorities, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon and Causa, have also raised these criticisms.

Turrill said the aim is to prevent seating commissioners who have conflicts of interest. And he said that the commission should be made up of people who have some experience and knowledge of the state and its communities. He also noted that there are provisions in the measure seeking diversity among the commissioners.

The measure is also supported by Oregon’s four local chapters of the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil-rights group. Eric Richardson, executive director of the Eugene-Springfield chapter of the group, said he believes that independent redistricting should be adopted nationally.

“I’m not naïve to what is going with the Republican Party” in other states where it has sought to minimize the electoral clout of African-American voters, said Richardson. “But the thing is, we want to hold the high ground and be principled.”

Republicans joining in support of measure

In Oregon, Republicans have been active in supporting the redistricting measure. The other chief sponsor is Sharon Waterman, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, which tends to back GOP candidates. Out of the $247,000 raised by the initiative campaign, $148,000 comes from business donors.

Rebecca Tweed is a Republican political consultant who is active in the redistricting initiative campaign. “The fact that Democrats for the first time could reapportion exactly how they want is even more of a reason than ever to have an independent commission do it,” she said. “And I would say that if it was flipped and Republicans owned the state.”

Like just about everybody else, Tweed acknowledged the difficulties of qualifying for the ballot. “They’ve created a program that at least pencils out the opportunity to be successful,” she said.

In addition, backers say they also are hoping they won’t have to depend solely on the mail and the internet. Before the July 2 deadline, they hope to have at least some in-person canvassing.

“We’ll get out there as soon as we can,” said Turrill, hoping that petitioners could help put them over the top.

One other petition campaign — for a measure to decriminalize possession of illegal drugs and provide more money for drug treatment – has also once again resumed to collecting signatures in person. Devon Downeysmith, a spokeswoman for that campaign, said in an email that canvassers are now working in some parts of the state where most businesses have been allowed to reopen.

Downeysmith said canvassers wear masks and gloves and place a new petition and pen on an easel that a voter can sign.

However, backers of this measure had already gathered around three-quarters of the signatures they needed before the pandemic hit. That was back when it was OK for petitioners to stand outside a grocery store and thrust a clipboard and pen in front of a voter.

The post In Face Of Pandemic, Partisan Redistricting Opponents In Oregon Pursue New Ballot Initiative Strategy appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Oregonians trust politicians to make decisions about what taxes are collected, how taxes are spent and policies that shape lives. But should politicians be trusted with setting up voting districts?

A proposed ballot measure aims to take politicians out of political redistricting. The measure would create a citizen commission to draw the lines. Would it be more fair? That’s unclear.

The new census will mean Oregon’s congressional and legislative districts will be redrawn. In Oregon, the districts are now redrawn by legislators. That could be putting the fox in charge of the henhouse — at least that’s what the groups supporting a citizen commission argue. The measure is backed by the League of Women Voters of Oregon, Oregon Common Cause, the Independent Party, The Taxpayer Association of Oregon and more.

It would work like this: It creates an independent, multipartisan commission of 12 Oregonians. They would hold public meetings across the state and draw up the boundaries in an open process. The goal is it would be done fairly, respecting communities and less manipulated by partisanship or other politics.

The proposal takes substantial steps to keep politicians out of it. People would apply for the commission spots. Basically paid politicians couldn’t be chosen. People who have recently run for such offices couldn’t be chosen. Neither could their staff. Political consultants are barred. An individual who has given more than $2,700 a year to any single candidate couldn’t be chosen. There are also requirements to limit the members from the two largest political parties and include nonaffiliated voters. From the pool of applicants, candidates for the commission would be winnowed by administrative law judges and would eventually be chosen by lot. The governor could remove someone from the commission, but only with a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

If you are interested, you should read the full text of the proposal, not just how we or its advocates summarize it. The website is www.peoplenotpoliticiansoregon.com. Supporters are trying to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Gerrymandering began before it was called gerrymandering, before the country’s independence. It’s the idea of drawing a voting district so it will get a certain kind of candidate elected. The name was immortalized in a political cartoon satirizing a law signed by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry in 1812. The law redrew state senate districts to ensure Gerry’s party — Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans — would be strong and John Adams’ and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists would be weak. It worked. One of the districts looked a bit like a salamander. Gerrymander was born.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to decide when partisanship goes too far in gerrymandering. It would require two things difficult for the courts: defining what is fair and divining the future. What’s a clear test for fairness? There are many different ways to measure what’s fair. Fair to whom? Fair to what? As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, choosing one “poses basic questions that are political, not legal.” The courts would also have to look at a district and somehow know that in the future the outcomes it creates would turn out to be unfair — by some definition. It’s additionally unclear that the founders intended judges to decide such things.

These days, leaning on big data, political consultants have more tools than ever to draw up districts to get an outcome they want. Does Oregon need to change? Oregonians could do nothing. If legislators are making the redistricting decisions, they can be held accountable by voters, though it would be mostly after the districts are drawn.

An independent redistricting commission creates a way to try to minimize the influence of some politicians on the process. Commissioners will still have to make choices about defining what is fair. They will still have to guess if sticking the lines in one place will produce more “fair” outcomes in the future. We don’t know if the commission would be more fair. It might. It would get more Oregonians involved in making important decisions about how they are governed.

The post Editorial: Do politicians need to be kicked out of redistricting? appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The post Campaign pushes for citizen commission, not Legislature, to handle redistricting in Oregon appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Turrill is president of League of Women Voters of Oregon Advocacy Fund Governance Coordinator and past president of League of Women Voters. He chairs the People Not Politicians campaign committee. Titus is the executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization.

Oregonians should choose their representatives.

This simple concept is the basis of our electoral system. It is embedded in the U.S. Constitution’s opening three words, “We the People.” And it is the principle behind a series of ballot initiatives that could reshape Oregon’s political future.

Under current Oregon law, state legislators redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts after each census to adjust for population changes. This once-in-a-decade system was designed to ensure that each district contains roughly the same number of people.

In the 2020 census, Oregon is projected to gain another U.S. congressional seat due to population growth, which means not only will we have a new district and a new electoral vote, but all five of our existing congressional district boundaries will radically change in shape and size. Not only are congressional districts redrawn, but so are the 90 state representative and state senate seats that make up Oregon’s Legislature. Every single Oregonian will be impacted – every single Oregonian should be represented.

These significant changes make the need for a fairer process more important than ever.

Letting politicians draw their own voting maps is an inherent conflict of interest, like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Politicians in power shouldn’t be allowed to draw voting maps that benefit themselves, but that’s exactly what the process allows for now. We need to reform the process to create a fair system so that Oregon voters are choosing their politicians, instead of politicians choosing their voters.

A diverse coalition, People Not Politicians, has united across party, identity and geographic lines to propose a fair and transparent redistricting system that puts everyday Oregonians in charge of drawing these districts. We are asking voters to support a series of measures proposed for the November ballot that would create an independent citizen redistricting commission to draw Oregon’s voting maps in 2021 and beyond.

The independent citizen redistricting commission would be made up of ordinary Oregonians — four members of the state’s largest party, four of the second largest party, and four registered voters unaffiliated with either major party. No lobbyists or consultants, big dollar political donors, party officers or elected officials would be allowed to serve.

The commission would draw district borders with respect to geographic and voter diversity, reflecting city, county or other natural boundaries, as well as language, racial or other communities of interest. Favoritism or discrimination against any political party or office holder is prohibited. Perhaps most importantly, the entire process would be completed with full transparency and public meetings held across the state, instead of behind closed doors in the Capitol.

This reform would put Oregon at the forefront of history. We are the latest voice in the chorus of activists across the United States calling for people, not politicians, to be the center of the redistricting process.

Oregon is known for its ballot initiative process which gives ordinary voters the ultimate say in the biggest issues facing our state. Likewise, our coalition of unexpected allies – which includes nonpartisan groups Common Cause and League of Women Voters, the Independent Party of Oregon, NAACP, the Taxpayer Association of Oregon and the Oregon Farm Bureau – wants to put people, not politicians, in charge of drawing our maps.

To be clear, this reform isn’t about taking power from one party and giving it to the other. The goal is to give Oregonians the opportunity for a fair, transparent process by which voting lines are drawn which will allow for more competitive primaries and general elections, for historically marginalized communities to be represented and for elected officials to be held accountable to their voters. It’s about unrigging the electoral system and holding our officials accountable to the growing number of people who call Oregon home.

Oregonians face a choice – to let politicians draw districts in a way that serve their own interests, or to reform Oregon’s redistricting process with a fair and transparent process to draw districts that represent all Oregonians.

After all, the Constitution does not begin with the words “We the Politicians.” In fair elections, voters pick their leaders, not the other way around.

The post Opinion: Oregonians, not politicians, should draw our electoral districts appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy. For generations, activists have fought first to gain that right and then to protect it — marching in our streets, organizing our communities and running and getting elected to the halls of power.

We understand that the right to vote is more than just the ability to cast a ballot. When the outcomes of elections are foregone conclusions because politicians have chosen their voters, rather than the other way around, our right to vote doesn’t mean nearly as much.

That’s why we are supporting a series of ballot measures that would change the way state legislative and congressional districts are drawn in Oregon and put the power where it belongs: with Oregon voters.

According to Oregon law, state legislators are responsible for drawing the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts after each census to adjust for population changes. Because it looks likely that Oregon will gain a sixth congressional district following the 2020 Census, it is even more important that the process for drawing districts is fair, transparent and driven by everyday Oregonians.

The ballot measures would take redistricting out of the hands of politicians by creating an independent, multi-partisan redistricting commission to draw congressional and legislative lines. Commissioners would be everyday Oregonians, elected or appointed officials, political party leaders, lobbyists, major donors or their close family members would be prohibited from serving on the commission. The commission would be required to follow strict mapmaking criteria that prioritizes ensuring that racial or language groups have equal opportunities to elect the candidates of their choice and protecting communities of interest. Final maps would have to be approved by a multi-partisan majority of commissioners in order to ensure that no one party can gerrymander.

Importantly, the commission would be required to hold multiple public hearings across the state to gather information about the communities where Oregonians live, accept public comment and testimony and explain their decisions in a final report where they must respond directly to public input. This is to ensure that the hearings are meaningful and that the commission actually takes into account the input of Oregonians.

When people think of Oregon, they do not generally associate it with gerrymandering. And that’s fair. Compared to some states, Oregon’s districts aren’t terrible. But this reform is about more than fixing strangely shaped districts. It’s about putting people — not politicians — in charge of the process of drawing districts. And it’s about ensuring that communities are protected and that all voters have an equal opportunity to elect someone who shares their lived experiences.

In having conversations about this reform with friends and allies, I am often asked why I am choosing to spend my time working on this rather than focusing on other, equally important issues, especially in a blue state like Oregon.

First, redistricting is driven by who is at the table. When legislators draw the maps, communities of color and legislators of color are often the ones traded away.

Second, I would have little hesitation in backing this reform in a state like Alabama or Mississippi — why should the fact that the Oregon Legislature is majority Democrat have any bearing on whether the reform makes sense?

Redistricting reform isn’t about building or breaking down power for Republicans or Democrats. It’s about ensuring that we the people have the power. That’s why an independent redistricting commission makes sense for Oregon.

Eric Richardson is the executive director of the Eugene/Springfield NAACP. He lives in Eugene.

The post Guest View: Redistricting reform keeps the power with the people appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The post Editorial: A promising proposal to counter self-serving politics appeared first on People Not Politicians.