The Public Spoke
The opposition says their voices were ignored. That the committee had its mind made up and treated public comment as a box to check. The record tells a completely different story. The committee listened. And then it changed how it operated because of what it heard.
What Was at Stake
The District Mapping Advisory Committee was charged with drawing five commissioner districts for Deschutes County. Under the current at-large system, Bend’s roughly 50% share of the population means Bend voters can decide every seat. Districts would give Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, and south county each a commissioner of their own.
But plenty of people did not want districts at all. They said so loudly. They said so in writing. And the question was whether the committee would actually listen or just go through the motions.
Over the full course of the process, 334 people submitted written comments. Of those, 218 opposed districts. Only 49 were in favor. Another 55 were neutral, and 12 could not be clearly categorized. The opposition outnumbered supporters more than four to one.
Nobody hid these numbers. The committee received them all.
Who Spoke
In the earliest comment period alone — from late August through September 25 — 25 residents submitted written testimony. Fourteen opposed districts outright. Four supported them. Seven were neutral or focused on process.
The opposition was direct.
Carl Maass wrote: “I am not in favor of drawing ‘district’ boundaries.” He wanted all five commissioners elected at-large, each representing the entire county. Josie Hanneman agreed: “We should have 5 at large seats.” Others raised concerns about the timeline, the committee makeup, and whether voters had really meant to endorse districting when they approved five commissioners.
The supporters were just as clear.
Lisa Quattlebaum wrote that she wanted wards so “some of us felt like we were represented.” Tom Kelley of south county urged the committee to keep in mind “the town versus country aspect” — the roughly even split between Bend residents and everyone else in the county.
And then there were the people who rolled up their sleeves.
Michael Tripp, a Bend physician, built two complete draft maps using the committee’s own data and criteria. He documented his methodology and published precinct-by-precinct spreadsheets. His maps arrived before staff had presented any options of their own.
Bryce Kellogg found errors in the county’s precinct shapefiles — invalid geometries, overlapping boundaries, gaps between precincts. He reported them in technical detail so the GIS team could fix the data. He also set up a template in Dave’s Redistricting App so that anyone could draw their own maps using the same precinct data the committee was using, and posted step-by-step instructions.
Casey Roscoe submitted a map focused on keeping communities of common interest together and asked staff to create a version for the committee to review.
Connie Peterson researched how Lane County had handled its own redistricting — a 15-member committee, widespread advertising for applicants, months of deliberation. Her conclusion was blunt. But the comparison she provided was rigorous and gave the committee a concrete benchmark to measure itself against.
These were not form letters. They were detailed, personal, and sharp. Every single one was entered into the public record and distributed to the committee before the next meeting.
What Happened
Here is the part the opposition never mentions. The committee did not just collect public comments and file them away. It changed the process in direct response to what it heard.
Public comment time was expanded. The committee voted to give residents 30 minutes per meeting, with up to three minutes per speaker. That change happened because people said they needed more time — and the committee agreed.
An evening listening session was added. The committee passed a unanimous motion to hold a Community Listening Session so that working residents who could not attend daytime meetings had a chance to speak.
Meetings rotated across the county. Bend, Sisters, Redmond, La Pine. No community had to drive an hour to participate.
Community-submitted maps were formatted the same way as staff drafts. Four maps submitted by the public were incorporated into the same visual format used for official proposals, so the committee could compare them on equal footing.
The committee used current voter registration data alongside the 2020 Census. Multiple commenters had raised the concern that census numbers were outdated. The committee addressed it directly.
Critics said the timeline was rushed. The committee added sessions. Critics said Redmond would be underrepresented. The committee made Redmond’s population a central design constraint. Critics said the committee lacked diversity. That criticism was entered into the public record, debated in the open, and shaped how the committee approached community input going forward.
What This Means
Rigged processes do not work this way. They do not publish their critics’ letters in the meeting packet. They do not render opponents’ maps in the same format as their own. They do not respond to hostile public comment by giving people more time to speak.
Of 334 public comments, 218 opposed districts. Every one of those comments is part of the public record. Every one was distributed to the committee. And the committee changed its procedures five separate times in response to what the public said.
You can disagree with districts. Many thoughtful residents did, in writing. But you cannot honestly claim this process silenced anyone. The written record — every comment, every procedural change, every vote — proves otherwise.
Under at-large voting, Bend picks all five commissioners. Under districts, every part of the county gets a voice. The committee heard the public. Now it is time for voters to be heard.