A video diaspora of lawmakers, an alphabet soup of proposals, echoing audio, dead air and a buzzer that cut off testimony at three minutes marked the first day of legislative hearings on 2022 redistricting plans Sept. 8.

The House and Senate redistricting committees held back-to-back-to-back hearings to take online testimony on eight proposals for mapping out political districts to be used beginning next year.

The review was the first of 12 public hearings that could determine the electoral future of Oregon for the next decade. Or it could be a frustrating and futile exercise whose results will be in a trash bin two weeks from now.

The hearings are required as part of the state’s redistricting laws under which the legislature adjusts the lines for 30 Senate and 60 House districts every 10 years based on population changes in the state.

It also draws congressional districts, which this year include a new, sixth seat, awarded to Oregon because of its overall population growth.

The committees submit a plan to the full legislature, which then passes it on to the governor for approval.

“Eight out of the last 10 times that redistricting has been done, that hasn’t happened — we’re trying to buck the trend,” said Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, a member of the Senate Redistricting Committee.

Over the past century, the process has usually run into stalemate in the legislature, opposition by the governor or court challenges that have led to new maps being drawn by the secretary of state or the courts.

The odds seem particularly long this year because the COVID-19 pandemic delayed 2020 U.S. Census data due in April by over four months.

An Oregon Supreme Court ruling gave lawmakers until Sept. 27 to get a plan drawn, voted on, approved by Gov. Kate Brown and to the court for review.

Adding to the headwinds to get a plan done: a deal giving House Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, a seat on the House Redistricting Committee.

With political parity on the House committee, it effectively gave the minority-party GOP a veto over any plan getting to the floor of the legislature. But any compromise would have to get pre-approved by Gov. Kate Brown or face a veto that would slam the door on the process.

No vote in the legislature or a Brown veto would end the legislature’s role in defining its own fate.

No finalized plan at the Oregon Supreme Court by Sept. 27 would mean the lawmakers are out of the mapmaking job. All the drafts, deals, debate and public testimony would be off the table and into the trash.

Secretary of State Shemia Fagan would take over the legislative map making, while a special five-judge judicial panel would draw the congressional districts.

Legislators had hoped to offset the political turbulence of a quick march of maps through the legislative process by going across the state with a “road show” of high profile public hearings.

Like so many plans over much of the past two years, this plan fell victim to COVID-19. A spike in infections in July and August led legislative leaders to call off the political show-and-tell.

Instead of the committee coming to their constituents, the constituents would have to get on their computers or phones and come to the committee. The “road show” became 12 virtual hearings.

Moving the process online meant a rapid-fire series of online testimony with all its inherent technological glitches and logistical headaches.

The first hearing on Sept. 8 underlined the challenges. A man trying to testify from Eastern Oregon said he was using three different phones to see the hearing, call up the maps from the state website and talk to the committee. The resulting screeching echo was finally resolved.

Other testimony would suddenly drop away into silence. A speaker from Columbia County who could barely be heard switched to another device, which caused her voice to sound as if she was talking underwater.

”I’m sorry, we’re unable to hear you through that microphone,” said Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Lake Oswego, co-chair of the House panel.

The problems were particularly troublesome because the first two hearings dealt with an area covering a majority of the state, much of it the farthest from the hearing’s video hub in Salem.

The early morning session included Clatsop, Columbia, part of Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties.

It was followed by an early afternoon session on Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, Jefferson, part of Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco and Wheeler counties.

Many of those testifying started by telling the six Democrats and five Republicans on the two committees that they realized that making big political choices wasn’t easy.

”I do not envy the job before you — this is a puzzle with serious consequences,” said Washington County resident Felicita Monteblanco.

But the vast majority of those testifying would then go on to find fault with the collection of maps.

Monteblanco did not like having her rural area connected with a portion of Portland that could dominate the choice of candidates.

Christopher Cobey agreed with Monteblanco, but from the reverse viewpoint. A resident of the Pearl District, he wasn’t happy with the same proposal Monteblanco was critiquing.

”How did draft maps treat the Pearl?” Cobey said. “Not well.”

Cobey remarked that there had been little time to investigate the maps, which had been unveiled by the committees Friday morning, before the three-day Labor Day weekend, with the first hearing a couple days later.

They included five maps submitted by Democrats and two by Republicans, though committee materials did not make the partisan authorship readily identifiable on the website with PDFs of the maps.

Portland should be one urban political unit, Cobey said. He objected to the “incongruous” congressional district plan that would tie his urban, high-rise neighborhood with towns as far away as Astoria on the northwest thumb of Oregon.

Cecil Blair Walter of Columbia City said his small town and others around it would be swamped by voters from suburban and urban areas in the same district.

”This is unacceptable,” Walter said. “I hope you consider the importance of keeping our rural communities together.”

The mid-day hearing was centered around the Central and Eastern Oregon counties that currently are in the 2nd Congressional District, the only one of the current five that is represented by a Republican, U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario.

Several current and former Republican officeholders objected to divisions in the maps, which Democrats had explained last week were often due to the simple map of population.

Most of the areas east of the Cascades and in southwestern Oregon had not grown as fast as suburban Portland or Bend. The result will be fewer but geographically larger districts in what are often traditional Republican rural strongholds.

But Republicans said that the population realities had been tweaked by Democrats — who control the Legislature and the governorship — to give themselves even more of an advantage.

Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale, already represents the geographically largest district in the state, the 30th Senate District, which covers most of the southeastern, central and southwestern portions of Oregon.

Some of the points in the districts are nearly 400 miles apart, requiring a lot of time and gas.

”I’m going to have to buy stock in ExxonMobile,” Findley joked.

Locations

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.