DMAC Meeting #10
The committee’s job on November 5 was to test the two remaining maps against real data — demographic data, growth data, voter registration data. Critics would later claim partisan data was “suppressed.” The record shows something different: an open debate, a recorded vote, and a request for legal guidance.
What Was at Stake
Maps B and C were the two finalists. They were identical across 44 of 50 precincts. The committee had already eliminated Map A unanimously. What remained was a careful comparison of the six precincts where the two maps diverged.
But the Board of County Commissioners had also widened the allowable population variance from 5% to 10%. That gave the committee more room to keep precincts whole. The committee knew its initial mapping recommendations would come in late November or early December. The Board could then accept, modify, or refer the proposal to the May 2026 ballot. If voters approved, the new districts would affect commissioner elections beginning January 2028. If the measure failed, all five seats would remain at-large.
The stakes were clear: every decision from this point forward would shape the final map.
No Public Comments
No one spoke during public comment. The meeting moved directly to data review and map work.
Updated Voter Registration
County Clerk Steve Dennison reported updated voter registration statistics dated November 1, 2025. Countywide registration totaled approximately 164,000 voters. On building permits, a committee member noted that Redmond alone had over a thousand permits, not including apartment units. That growth mattered because both Maps B and C met the county’s criteria on population and voter registration. The question was which map handled future growth better.
The committee acknowledged that splitting Bend was unavoidable under a five-district structure. Bend holds roughly half the county’s population. Two districts would serve Bend; three would serve the rest of the county. That is the core of what districts would do: give Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, and south county their own voice rather than having Bend’s population decide every seat.
Protecting Minority Communities
The committee reviewed American Community Survey data showing where minority populations were concentrated. Two areas had notable concentrations of Hispanic and Latino residents: one largely within Precinct 2, and another in the area of Precincts 12 and 41. Data also suggested a stronger African American linkage between Precincts 33 and 43.
The mapping criteria required that districts must not dilute the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group. Members discussed how moving Hispanic population concentrations from a Bend district into a South County district could risk exactly that kind of dilution. They agreed that keeping Precinct 2 intact would preserve that community regardless of which district it landed in. Pairing Precincts 12 and 41 also made sense given the observed patterns.
This was the committee doing what the guidelines required. They looked at the data. They discussed it in public. They applied it to the maps.
The Partisan Data Vote
The most contested moment came when Melanie Kebler moved that staff prepare a bar graph for each district under Maps B and C showing counts of registered Democrats, Republicans, and non-affiliated or independent voters. Carol Loesche seconded.
The debate was substantive. Some members argued the data would simply confirm that no district was drawn to favor any party — the same way the demographic review had just confirmed the maps did not dilute minority voting strength. Others argued that using partisan data to choose between two otherwise compliant maps would itself risk violating the directive against favoring a political party.
The committee voted. The motion failed 4-3. Drew Kaza, Carol Loesche, and Melanie Kebler voted in favor. Bernie Brader, Matt Cyrus, Ned Dempsey, and Phil Henderson voted against. Every vote was recorded. Every argument was made in public.
That is not suppression. Suppression is when data is hidden or debate is shut down. Here, three members made their case. Four members made theirs. The majority decided. Then the committee took the next step: they requested that County Legal Counsel attend the November 12 meeting to clarify whether there were legal requirements to review partisan data.
What This Means
Critics want voters to believe that partisan data was buried. The record shows the opposite. The question was raised. It was debated openly. A motion was made, seconded, and voted on. When the vote went 4-3, the committee didn’t move on and forget about it. They invited the county’s lawyers to weigh in at the very next meeting.
That is how a transparent process handles disagreement. You debate it, you vote, and you seek expert guidance. Under the current at-large system, Bend’s roughly 50% population share means Bend voters effectively pick all five commissioners. Districts would change that. This committee was doing the work to get it right.