DMAC Meeting #7
Critics call the decision to use voter registration data a power grab. The record shows something different: a genuine disagreement, debated at length, decided by a 4-3 vote, with both maps moving forward unanimously afterward.
Why This Meeting Matters
The October 15 meeting was the last regular session before the community listening session the following evening. Two big decisions had to be made. Which dataset would guide district population balance? And which maps would the public see?
Opponents have tried to turn the data vote into a scandal. They say no other county in Oregon has used voter registration data to draw commission districts. That is true. But it misses the point. The 2020 Census was five years old. In a county growing as fast as Deschutes, several precincts had more registered voters in August 2025 than their entire census population from 2020. The committee had to decide which numbers to trust. That is not a power grab. That is a hard choice made in public.
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. The question at this meeting was how to measure those communities as accurately as possible.
Who Spoke
Three people testified. They did not agree with each other. That is what an open process looks like.
Charlie Babb, a long-time local resident, stated his opposition to district-based representation. He preferred five at-large seats and described the county as a single community of interest. He thought the mapping process was flawed.
Mark Stockcamp from Bend took the other side. He advocated for five districts, arguing that at-large elections produce clustered representation. With districts, each part of the county would have its own commissioner.
Jared Black from Bend asked the committee to draw boundaries that preserve rural character. He did not want district lines to lead to the urbanization of rural areas.
Three speakers. Three different perspectives. All heard. All on the record.
What Happened
Staff reported on the two remaining maps. Map 2BV2, the committee-refined version of the staff map, came close to meeting the five-percent population variance but fell short in one Bend district. Map PS3B, refined from the publicly submitted PS3, met the five-percent variance for both the 2020 Census and August 2025 voter registration datasets.
Staff also reported an inconsistency discovered in the PS3 precinct data table from the prior meeting. Precinct 8 had been listed in the wrong district. The table would be updated. The map itself had been accurate all along. The committee flagged the problem, disclosed it publicly, and fixed it. That is transparency.
Then came the most significant vote of the process so far.
Matt Cyrus moved to use the August 2025 voter registration data as the primary dataset for achieving district population balance. Ned Dempsey seconded.
The discussion was extensive. Some members argued that voter registration is more current. The 2020 Census was taken five years earlier. Growth in Redmond, south Bend, and other areas meant the census undercount was real and measurable. Several precincts already had more registered voters than the census said people lived there.
Other members argued that census data is the standard used in redistricting everywhere. No other county in Oregon has used voter registration data to establish commission districts. Sticking with the census would put the committee on firmer legal ground.
Both sides made honest arguments. Neither side was trying to rig the outcome.
The motion carried 4-3. A close vote on a hard question. Not a rubber stamp.
Next, Melanie Kebler moved to forward both maps to the October 16 listening session. Bernie Brader seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Both maps would go to the public. The staff-refined map and the publicly submitted map. Side by side. On equal footing.
If one faction controlled this committee, a unanimous vote to send both maps forward would not happen. You would see the losing side’s map killed off. Instead, both survived.
To reduce confusion at the listening session, the committee renamed the maps. 2BV2 became Map A. PS3B became Map B. Simple labels for the public.
Members asked staff to prepare clear handouts with bar charts showing variance for each district. They wanted map labeling that helped people orient themselves. They asked for a race and ethnicity overlay with proposed district lines drawn on top, so the public could assess whether any community was being divided. Members cautioned against adding too many data layers to avoid cluttering the maps.
The committee also requested data on new dwelling permits so they could factor growth into future analysis. Districts near the upper or lower bounds of the variance range needed to account for where growth was heading, not just where it had been in 2020.
The meeting adjourned at 2:29 p.m. The listening session was less than 28 hours away.
What This Means
The 4-3 vote was not a power grab. It was a genuine disagreement about which dataset better reflects Deschutes County in 2025. The committee debated it openly, voted on the record, and moved on. Then they unanimously agreed to present both maps to the public. A staff map and a community-submitted map, treated equally.
That is how representative government is supposed to work. Disagreement, debate, a vote, and then everyone moving forward together. Districts would bring that same principle to county government. Instead of Bend’s majority picking every commissioner, each community would pick its own.