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.

MEDIA CONTACT
Norman Turrill (503) 807-4863

People Not Politicians highlights inherent conflict of interest after Oregon Legislature releases first drafts of district maps

PORTLAND—People Not Politicians released the following statement today after the Oregon House and Senate Redistricting Committees released their first legislative and congressional district map drafts.

“There is no amount of technical savvy or sophisticated mapping software that removes the inherent conflict of interest that exists when partisan legislators are given the benefit of drawing their own electoral lines—the fox is guarding the henhouse, ” said Norman Turrill, Chair of People Not Politicians. “Oregon voters should be choosing their politicians, not the other way around.”

Kate Titus, Executive Director of Common Cause Oregon said, “I appreciate both the legislative and public leadership to tackle this critical task of drawing new political district lines. However, these maps, or any variations thereof, will still require a vote of a partisan legislative body and Governor, or if they fail that process, of a partisan Secretary of State. This is not good enough. We need to do what an overwhelming majority of Oregonians support—create an Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission to draw these maps.”

In late 2019, People Not Politicians enlisted Lake Research Partners to run a statewide poll. Results showed an average 76% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 60% of Republicans favor an Independent Citizens’ Redistricting Commission.

People Not Politicians has introduced Initiative Petition 16 for the November 2022 ballot, to put in place an independent citizen’s redistricting commission to redraw district lines in 2024. Initiative Petition 16 is similar to 2020’s IP 57 which narrowly fell short of making the ballot only after Oregon Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed numerous legal challenges and delayed the process, despite a federal judge ruling in favor of the Committee last year.

“In the midst of voter suppression efforts nationally, we must lead with integrity in Oregon and make sure third parties and historically underrepresented communities are not left out of the process,” said Eric Richardson, Executive Director Eugene-Springfield NAACP.

The People Not Politicians coalition includes a full spectrum of Oregon’s voices for an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission: Common Cause Oregon, the League of Women Voters, the Independent Party of Oregon, the NAACP, the Oregon Farm Bureau and others.

###

The post Legislature’s draft maps reinforce inherent conflict of interest 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.

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 People Not Politicians launches safe statewide signature gathering effort on ballot measure to reform Oregon’s redistricting process 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.

The redistricting of Congressional and Legislative Districts happens every 10 years. Oregon’s population growth means we stand to gain a Congressional district after the 2020 Census.

To ensure the process for drawing voting district boundaries is fair and not in politicians’ hands, People Not Politicians, a diverse coalition of Oregon voters and organizations concerned about good government, filed a statewide initiative to reform Oregon’s redistricting process. People Not Politicians launched this campaign in order to ensure that the 2021 redistricting process and every process that follows is fair, impartial and transparent.

The initiative would amend Oregon’s constitution to change how legislative and congressional district boundaries are drawn, creating an independent citizen redistricting commission to draw voting districts. Currently, Oregon legislators draw their own districts, often without taking input from everyday Oregonians into account.

The initiative would create the Oregon Citizens Redistricting Commission consisting of 12 Oregonians selected from qualified applicants – four Democrats, four Republicans and four others who are third party members or non-affiliated. Major donors to political candidates or parties would not be eligible. Neither would elected officials, political party officials or their family members. Commissioners would be selected to represent the broad diversity of Oregonians.

The commission would be required to follow strict criteria in drawing the maps and would be prohibited from favoring or discriminating against any candidate, elected official or political party, nor could they create districts for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic group.

The initiative has already been endorsed by the League of Women Voters of Oregon, Oregon Farm Bureau, Common Cause Oregon, the Independent Party of Oregon, NAACP Eugene/Springfield Branch, Taxpayer Association of Oregon, OSPIRG, American Association of University Women of OR (OR AAUW), Oregon’s Progressive Party, and many others.

“When politicians engineer voting maps, they’re effectively fixing elections,” said Sharon Waterman, President of Oregon Farm Bureau and Chief Petitioner on the initiative. “Turning the redistricting process over to impartial citizens will take partisan politics out of the equation.

The post Broad-based coalition files new petition appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The post Bids to take gerrymandering power from Democrats beginning in two states appeared first on People Not Politicians.

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