DMAC Meeting #11
After eleven meetings, dozens of public comments, and sessions held in communities from La Pine to Sisters, the District Mapping Advisory Committee gathered on November 12 for what would prove to be its final meeting. The task the seven members had been working toward since August was now in front of them: choose a map to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners.
They chose Map C, by a vote of 4-3.
It was not a unanimous decision, and nobody expected it to be. The committee was made up of seven people with genuinely different perspectives on how Deschutes County’s districts should be drawn. That kind of disagreement is not a sign of a broken process — it is exactly what a healthy democratic process looks like. The members debated, they listened to each other and to the public, and when the time came, they voted.
What Map C Looks Like
Map C divides Deschutes County into five districts, each designed to contain roughly equal population as required by law. The map keeps key communities of interest intact and reflects the geographic and demographic realities of a county that stretches from the urban core of Bend to the rural communities of the high desert and the Cascades foothills.
Importantly, the map does not carve up any single community to dilute its voice. Bend, as the county’s largest city, is represented across multiple districts — a mathematical necessity given its population — but the lines follow recognizable boundaries rather than arbitrary splits. Redmond, La Pine, Sisters, and the unincorporated areas each maintain cohesion within their respective districts. The result is a map where residents can look at their district and understand why they are grouped with their neighbors.
The Legal Counsel Memo on Partisan Data
At the previous meeting on November 5, a motion to request partisan voter registration data for Maps B and C had failed 4-3. The committee then asked County Legal Counsel to attend the November 12 meeting and clarify whether there was any legal requirement to review that data.
The answer arrived in a formal memo dated November 6, 2025, signed by five county attorneys: Christopher Bell, John E. Laherty, Stephanie Marshall, Kimberly Riley, and David Doyle. The memo addressed two questions.
Is the committee required to review partisan data? No. County Legal Counsel stated the committee is not mandated to review or consider political party registrations when drawing district lines.
May the committee review partisan data if it chooses to? In theory, yes — but the memo warned that such review would be subject to strict legal scrutiny. It cited ORS 188.010, which expressly prohibits the use or consideration of data to favor any political party or person, along with three Oregon court cases: Hartung v. Bradbury, Ater v. Keisling, and McCall v. Legislative Assembly.
The guidance was clear. The committee was free to draw maps without partisan data. And if it chose to consider that data, Oregon law would treat any resulting map with suspicion. The committee proceeded to its final vote without using partisan registration numbers.
How the Vote Unfolded
The meeting opened with a final opportunity for committee members to discuss the remaining map options. By this point in the process, the field had been narrowed through weeks of refinement. Public testimony, community feedback gathered at meetings across the county, and the committee’s own deliberations had shaped the maps under consideration.
When the motion to recommend Map C was made, the discussion was direct. Members on both sides stated their reasoning clearly. Those in favor pointed to Map C’s respect for communities of interest, its population balance, and its alignment with the feedback they had heard from residents throughout the fall. Those opposed voiced their preference for alternative configurations and raised concerns about the process timeline.
The vote was taken, and Map C carried 4-3.
Following the vote, a motion was made to cancel the November 19 meeting. That motion also passed 4-3. The committee’s work was done.
The cancellation drew criticism from some who felt the final scheduled meeting should have been held regardless. That reaction is understandable — people care about this process, and that’s a good thing. But the committee had reached its decision through the established procedure. There was no additional map work to be done, no further testimony that would have changed the recommendation already made. The members who voted to conclude did so because, in their judgment, the work was complete.
A Process Worth Trusting
It is easy to look at a 4-3 vote and see division. But step back and consider what preceded that vote: twelve meetings held over nearly three months, in five different locations across the county. A dedicated listening session. Hundreds of written public comments accepted and published on the county website. Agendas and minutes posted for every meeting. Every session open to the public.
No resident who wanted to participate was shut out. No community was ignored. The committee heard from people in Bend, in Redmond, in La Pine, in Sisters, and in the unincorporated areas between them. They heard from people who showed up in person and from people who submitted comments online. All of that input informed the maps that were drawn, revised, and ultimately voted on.
The seven committee members did not always agree — on the maps, on procedure, on priorities. But they showed up, did the work, and made a decision. That is what we ask of the people who serve on bodies like this.
What Comes Next
On February 4, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners voted 2-1 to place Map C on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Voters will have the final say.
That is the most important point of all. The committee did its job by giving the public a well-considered map, built through an open process that welcomed every voice willing to participate. Now it is up to the voters of Deschutes County to decide whether they want geographic districts.
This was the twelfth and final meeting of the DMAC. Over the course of this series, we have followed every step. The process worked the way it was supposed to. Now it is in your hands.