DMAC Meeting #4
The fourth DMAC meeting moved to Redmond City Hall — the second meeting held outside Bend. Nine residents spoke during public comment, the largest turnout yet. The committee saw its first draft maps, debated data quality, and voted unanimously to add a community listening session.
What Was at Stake
One recurring criticism of the districting process was that it served Bend at the expense of the rest of the county. Bend holds roughly half the county’s population, and under at-large voting, Bend voters can outvote everyone else in every commissioner race. The whole point of districts is to give communities like Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine their own voice — but that argument only holds if the committee actually listens to those communities. This meeting answered that concern directly. The committee went to Redmond. Redmond showed up.
Who Spoke
Nine residents spoke during public comment — the most of any meeting so far.
Samantha Smith from Redmond questioned the committee’s reliance on 2020 precinct-level census data. The numbers, she said, don’t reflect where Redmond is today. Gloria Olson from Redmond urged the committee to make sure maps include all people, not just registered voters.
Amanda Page, a Redmond resident and member of the Klamath Tribes, opposed using State House districts as a basis for commissioner maps. She cited the 2021 Oregon redistricting process, which Common Cause graded a C-minus. The legislature, she said, had gerrymandered multiple tribal communities.
Lena Berry from Redmond asked whether public comments actually reach the Board of Commissioners. She stressed the need to reach out to BIPOC, Latine, and tribal residents, many of whom cannot attend daytime meetings. Nathan Jenkinson from Redmond encouraged proactive outreach to under-represented groups and brought a printed list of community organizations the committee should invite to testify.
Keith Rockoco encouraged the committee to factor in projected population growth so districts remain workable through the 2030 census cycle. Tony Oliver from Redmond asked the committee to consider communities of interest, saying she felt disenfranchised by the current Library District. Jayne Simmons from rural Deschutes County drew an analogy to the Electoral College, asking that less-populous rural areas not be overpowered by city voters. Jim McAllister, a 30-year Redmond resident, argued that carving the county into districts would dilute shared accountability.
Rod Cooper from Sisters, attending by Zoom, warned that rural residents could be out-voted if districts were drawn poorly.
What Happened
This meeting had three major developments.
First, the committee saw the first draft maps. Staff presented three draft district options — the first maps the committee had seen. Each was generated using 2020 Census population data, with voter registration figures included for context. The math was straightforward. Five equal districts based on the 2020 Census would contain roughly 39,651 residents each, or about 32,763 registered voters each.
Staff also reported that the existing State House district map was an unsuitable baseline. The population deviations were too large. The committee would need to build from scratch using precinct-level data. Michael Tripp’s community-submitted map was included for comparison. GIS analyst Lee Klemp demonstrated a new tool allowing side-by-side comparison of population and voter registration across all three drafts.
Second, the committee debated the data. Multiple members voiced concern that 2020 census numbers may understate actual population, especially in fast-growing Redmond and western Bend. Oregon law allows local districts to deviate by up to ten percent from equal population. But staff noted that most Oregon counties electing commissioners by district keep deviation under one percent. The committee wanted to get the numbers right.
This mattered because the gap between census population and current reality was real. Redmond’s growth since 2020 was a recurring theme in public comment. If the map was based on five-year-old numbers, Redmond could end up with a district that is already too small. The committee took this seriously and asked staff to explore American Community Survey data and updated census estimates.
Third, the committee voted unanimously to hold a community listening session. This was not a close call. Every member agreed. The session would be held in mid-October during a weekday evening or weekend so working residents could attend in person or by Zoom. The purpose was simple: hear directly from the public about what “communities of interest” means to them before the committee locked in a map.
The chair cautioned that partisan registration data should not drive early choices. Over-attention to party balance could invite accusations of gerrymandering. Members generally accepted that approach, though several asked that raw registration numbers be available once a preferred map shape was selected — as a final check to confirm no district was inadvertently tilted.
The meeting adjourned without selecting a preferred map. Staff was assigned to apply a clearer color scheme, generate comparative precinct tables, and stand ready to add communities-of-interest layers once the committee provided guidance.
What This Means
Under at-large voting, Bend’s population share lets Bend voters pick all five commissioners. Redmond, Sisters, La Pine, and south county get no guaranteed seat. Districts change that. Each community gets its own commissioner — someone who lives there, campaigns there, and answers to the people who live there.
The fourth meeting happened in Redmond. Nine people spoke — the most yet. Several were critical of the process. The committee heard every word, debated the concerns openly, and voted unanimously to add a listening session. That is not a Bend-only process. That is a process that went to the communities it was designed to serve and asked them what they needed.