DMAC Meeting #6
Critics say demographics were ignored in the district map process. The October 8 meeting proves the opposite. The committee spent the day reviewing demographic data, eliminating maps that did not hold up, and planning how to hear from as many people as possible.
Why This Meeting Matters
One of the most common arguments against the district map is that the committee did not think about who lives in these districts. That it was all about lines on a map and nothing about the people inside those lines.
This argument does not survive contact with the record. At Meeting 6, staff introduced American Community Survey data for the first time. The committee discussed race, ethnicity, and community makeup. They talked about how to draw lines without diluting the voting power of any group. And they asked a member of the public how to reach communities that had not been at the table yet.
Under the current at-large system, Bend’s roughly 50% share of the county population means Bend voters choose all five commissioners. Districts would give Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, and south county their own voice. But districts only work if they reflect real communities. That is exactly what the committee was working to ensure.
Who Spoke
One person testified at this meeting, but his testimony mattered.
Nathan Jenkinson from Redmond recommended the committee request testimony from local groups that serve underrepresented communities. He raised the interests of children in foster care, who cannot advocate for themselves. He urged outreach to the Latino Community Association to bring a different perspective into the process.
Jenkinson was not making a partisan argument. He was making a practical one: if you are drawing maps that will determine who represents people, you should hear from people who are often left out. The committee listened.
What Happened
The committee had six map options on the table. Two were staff-drafted: Option 2 and Option 2B. Four were publicly submitted maps, labeled PS1 through PS4. All six had been formatted in the same visual style so they could be compared on equal footing. A community-submitted map looked exactly like a staff map. Same scale, same labels, same data tables.
Staff presented an update on the American Community Survey, the Census Bureau’s ongoing data product used between the decennial censuses. The committee had been working with 2020 Census redistricting block data and August 2025 voter registration counts. Now staff introduced five-year ACS estimates at the tract and block-group levels. That included maps showing race-group distributions and how those distributions aligned with precinct boundaries.
The discussion was substantive. Members talked about how to use demographic data without unintentionally diluting or packing voters. They discussed the importance of checking proposed district boundaries against communities of interest. This was the committee doing exactly what critics later said it did not do: looking at who lives in these districts, not just how many.
Then the committee voted. They worked through the six maps one by one.
Option 2 was eliminated. Its successor, Option 2B, had evolved from it and was now the working version. There was no reason to keep both.
PS4 was eliminated based on population deviation concerns. The numbers did not hold up under the five-percent variance standard.
PS2 and PS1 were eliminated next. The committee evaluated each map against the criteria: contiguity, population balance, compactness, and communities of interest.
Two maps survived. Option 2B was the staff map, refined through three meetings of committee input. PS3 was a publicly submitted map, created by Greg Bryant. A community member’s map made it through the same filter as the staff map. Both continued forward as the two working alternatives.
The committee then planned the October 16 community listening session. They agreed on a three-minute testimony limit. At three minutes per speaker, roughly 40 people could testify in a two-hour session. At five minutes, only 24 could. The committee chose to hear from more people.
The format would be listen-only. The committee would not debate speakers during the session. Any response would come at the end, and only to correct a clear factual mistake. The chair would keep things moving. Staff would prepare materials explaining the timeline and the committee’s criteria so attendees could follow along.
Phil Chang had recommended the Missoula County model early in the process, where candidates live in districts but run at-large. But Nick Lelack had already reported that the Board majority did not support that approach. The committee was building real districts for real district elections.
What This Means
Demographics were not ignored. They were introduced at this meeting with data, maps, and a serious discussion about how to avoid harming any community. A publicly submitted map survived alongside the staff map. And the committee designed a listening session to maximize the number of voices they could hear.
The at-large system gives every voter in the county a say in every commissioner race. That sounds fair until you realize it means Bend’s majority can outvote every other community in every single race. Districts fix that. And this committee took the time to make sure those districts reflected the real makeup of Deschutes County.