DMAC Meeting #2
Critics say the district map was drawn without public input. The second DMAC meeting proves the opposite. Nine residents showed up, said exactly what they thought, and the committee changed its own rules to give them more time.
What Was at Stake
Before this meeting, the committee had set aside just 15 minutes for public comment. That’s not much time when you’re deciding how 198,253 people get represented. Critics of the process were already saying the fix was in. They said the committee would ignore the public. They said decisions were being made behind closed doors. This meeting was the first real test. Would the committee listen? Or would they rush through public comment and move on? The answer matters because the whole case for districts depends on the process being fair and open.
Who Spoke
Nine residents came to the microphone. They did not hold back.
Ashley Proctor pointed out that the committee had only two women and no people of color. She had to take time off work to attend a daytime meeting. Connie Peterson raised concerns about the committee’s makeup and the lack of public input. Liz Goodrich said Redmond was being disenfranchised. David Roth said he supported districts and opposed keeping any at-large position. Carl Shoemaker wanted communities on both sides of the Deschutes River to have their own district. Greg Bryant suggested districts shaped like spokes in a wheel. Samantha Smith said census data was five years old and Redmond had grown significantly. Nathan Jenkinson raised concerns about gerrymandering and said the committee should wait for newer census data.
Amanda Page challenged the partisan makeup, calling it four Republicans, one independent, and two Democrats. Carol Loesche corrected the record on the spot — she is a non-affiliated voter, not a member of any party. Chair Neil Bryant said the same about himself. Non-affiliated voters make up 40% of the county’s electorate. The committee was more balanced than critics claimed.
What Happened
The committee did three important things at this meeting.
First, they expanded public comment. The original plan allowed 15 minutes total for public input. After hearing from nine residents — many of whom asked for more access — the committee doubled it. Public comment was expanded to 30 minutes going forward, with up to three minutes per person. Carol Loesche went further. She suggested adding an evening listening session, like a candidate forum, so working people who can’t attend daytime meetings could still participate. Kebler agreed. This was not a committee that wanted to shut people out. This was a committee that heard criticism and responded by opening the door wider.
Second, they got the data. County Clerk Steve Dennison walked through population counts for all 50 precincts. The committee saw 2020 Census numbers side by side with current voter registration as of August 2025. The county had 198,253 residents in the 2020 Census and 163,816 registered voters as of 2025. That gap matters. It means about 34,000 county residents are not registered to vote. Any map based only on voter registration would leave those people out.
The committee quickly saw a problem. Several precincts had more registered voters in 2025 than their total 2020 Census population. Black Butte Ranch, Redmond, and Sunriver had all grown fast. The five-year-old census was already outdated.
Third, they got the tools. GIS analyst Lee Klemp demonstrated the mapping software the committee would use. It included layers for city limits, fire districts, school districts, roads, water features, and public lands — all toggleable in real time. The committee would direct GIS staff to draw and adjust maps on screen in future meetings. Every line would be drawn in public, with the data visible to anyone watching.
Fourth, they started defining “community.” Oregon law says districts should not unreasonably divide communities of common interest. OAR defines those communities as identifiable urban neighborhoods, rural communities, or other communities that should be kept within a single district. The Oregon Supreme Court confirmed this requirement in Sheehan v. Legislature.
But what does that mean in Deschutes County? The committee debated it. Phil Henderson said fire districts and sheriff patrol zones are natural community boundaries. Drew Kaza suggested letting citizens define it through public comment rather than spending many meetings on a theoretical definition. The committee agreed that each member would bring their own definition to the next meeting.
Chair Bryant set an important ground rule. The committee should draw maps based on geography and community first. Then, as a final step, they would check voter registration data to confirm no gerrymander. Geography first. Partisanship as a check, not a starting point.
What This Means
Today, right now, Bend holds roughly half the county’s population. Under at-large voting, Bend voters can outvote everyone else in every single commissioner race. Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, and south county get drowned out. Districts fix that. Each community picks its own commissioner.
The second DMAC meeting shows how the process actually worked. Nine residents spoke up. The committee listened. They doubled public comment time on the spot. They scheduled an evening session so more people could attend. They laid out the data, the tools, and the legal standards — all in public. That is not a process that shuts people out. That is a process that invites them in and changes when they ask for more.