Lane County hears dueling redistricting proposals

Dozens of Lane County residents gave feedback last week on dueling proposals for how Lane County should handle redistricting.

Every 10 years, Lane County convenes a Charter Review Committee to examine and recommend changes to Lane County's Charter, the county government's guiding document comparable to a local constitution. This cycle, the committee recommended six charter amendments, the biggest of which centers around how the county should handle redistricting.

In its first two proposed amendments, a majority of the committee outlined a proposal it promoted as a way to add independence to the redistricting process. A local lawyer also put forward his recommendation, which he promoted as another way to achieve redistricting independence and which received mixed reactions from county commissioners. Both proposals drew dueling praise and criticism at a public hearing on June 26.

How Lane County currently redistricts

Either of these redistricting proposals would change two parts of the county charter: the names and descriptions of the districts, and who draws those lines. The current charter describes five districts used to elect the Lane County Commissioners, and are also used by the Lane Community College Board to elect its members.

The charter describes each of the five districts first by name, and secondarily by number. For example, the first district is "The West Lane County District, generally comprised of western Lane County outside the metropolitan area," and its commissioner "shall fill Position No. 1."

The charter says little about how those lines should be drawn, simply saying the board of commissioners draws the boundaries, that they do so at least every 10 years, and that they base those boundaries on both the district descriptions and on giving equal protection according to the U.S. Census.

The board has taken different approaches to this in different cycles. During the 2011 redistricting, commissioners appointed a redistricting task force, but two commissioners also put forward their own maps, one of which the board selected in a 3-2 vote that prompted an unsuccessful lawsuit.

In the 2021 cycle, Commissioners established an "Independent Redistricting Committee" which presented three maps to commissioners, who selected one, also in a 3-2 vote. Because the pandemic census delay slowed redistricting, these maps didn't go into effect in time for the 2022 county commissioner elections.

Those who supported leaving the charter as it is said the county could save money by not sending the amendments to public vote (a requirement to adopt charter amendments), that they felt prioritizing geographic names over district numbers discouraged gerrymandering, and that the commissioners should retain final say on redistricting.

"Having an independent, unaccountable, appointed commission, where there's no checks and balances to that committee … was very uneasy to me," said Jeremy Sherer, one of the Charter Review Committee members who opposed the majority's recommendation.

Those who wanted redistricting reform were split between two competing proposals, both of which claim to bring more independence to the process.

Independent Redistricting Committee

The majority of Lane County's Charter Review Committee recommended giving the Independent Redistricting Committee the final say on maps and elevating this authority to the charter. This proposal was endorsed by Lane County's League of Women Voters, and most of the people at the public hearing either spoke in favor of this proposal or in opposition to the competing one.

This proposal suggests dropping the geographic names of commissioner districts in favor of their numbers but retaining general geographic descriptions such as "District No. 1, generally comprised of Western Lane County outside the metropolitan area, but also including contiguous portions of the County as necessary" for equal protection according to the census.

On the two Eugene districts, it also removes the current distinction between the "South Eugene" and "North Eugene" districts, describing them both as "a portion of the Eugene metropolitan area, but also including contiguous portions of the County as necessary" for equal protection according to the census.

The amendment enshrines an Independent Redistricting Committee in the charter modeled after the one county commissioners established for 2021 redistricting. It spells out:

• The county should redistrict "every 10 years, in conjunction with the release of Federal Census Data" instead of the current language of "not less than every 10 years."
• The committee will include 15 regular and three alternate members. Each commissioner will appoint one member, and those five will appoint the other 13.
• The committee will hold at least 10 public meetings.
• The committee will present between two and four maps to the public, and select one after at least five public meetings. The county commissioners are then required to adopt the committee's selected map.

Most of the amendment reflects the practices of the redistricting committee in 2021, but it would add more meetings at the end of the process and give the committee final say instead of the commissioners.

Proponents of replacing the district names with numbers said it would reduce tribalism and confusion from instances where the perception of the names doesn't match up with actual boundaries because of the equal population requirement.

According to the 1970 census, (the latest one when Lane County switched from three to five commissioners), Eugene city limits made up 35.8% of Lane County's population, and as such two seats on the board were designated for the Eugene area, and the other three were designated for other parts of the county. But Eugene has grown faster than the rest of the county and in the latest census made up 46.1% of the county. As such, parts of city limits are currently included in each of the three non-Eugene districts.

Proponents of elevating the Independent Redistricting Committee to the charter praised its work during 2021 redistricting process and said that giving final say to the committee rather than the commissioners would reduce partisanship and gerrymandering.

"After this census, we had a 150-member independent citizen committee." Eugene resident Nancy Mills said at the hearing. "They represented the political spectrum and they were charged with, and took their charge very seriously, of creating maps and doing robust public outreach. They had over 600 people weigh in on what the boundaries should be. … That is good local government. That was transparent."

Citizens Redistricting Commission

Eugene law firm Harrang Long sent a second redistricting proposal to commissioners in May, which received a mixed reaction from the board and from commenters at last week's public hearing.

Long's proposal retains the current practice of describing districts first by geography and second by number but changes the language from "generally comprised of" to "entirely within" when describing the districts, and defines Roosevelt Boulevard and the Willamette River as the line between the North and South Eugene districts.

The proposal creates a "Citizens Redistricting Commission" and goes into over six pages of detail on its form.

Proponents of Long's proposal said the 2021 committee lacked sufficient independence and that adding the disqualifying factors and selecting commission members randomly addressed this.

"The so-called Independent Redistricting Commission of 2021 … is structured to ensure the re-election of county commissioners," Eugene resident Duncan Murray said at the public hearing. "The (2021) IRC contains several members who were significant contributors to the county commissioners' campaigns. We can do better. … (In Long's proposal) there are high standards of ethics and conflicts of interest which are imposed on these members."

Opponents of the Long proposal criticized the firm for going directly to commissioners in May rather than through the Charter Review Committee earlier in the process, adding a mid-decade 2025 redistricting, fixing Roosevelt Boulevard as a district boundary in the charter (which opponents described as a gerrymander), putting more details in the charter than belong there (which they said opened the county to lawsuits), and going further than was appropriate in disqualifying redistricting volunteers.

"(Long's) proposal would be an end-run around the recent redistricting process and charter review process and waste considerable time and money." Stefan Ostrach, a member of the Charter Review Committee and 2021 redistricting committee said at the hearing. "Roosevelt Boulevard as a boundary would split the North Eugene High School catchment area … the Bethel School District … multiple Eugene City Wards (and) established neighborhoods."

Other amendments

The other four amendments the Charter Review Committee recommended got less attention. Proponents on the committee said they would clean up the charter and make work easier for future charter review committees, while opponents acknowledged they would be nice to have but not worth the cost of holding an election.

These amendments include:

• Removing the Spending Limitation section of the charter, which is no longer binding because county spending is limited by state law.
• Removing the section governing East Alton Baker Park, which is no longer applicable because Lane County transferred the park to the City of Eugene.
• Removing the Income Tax Cap. In 2007 County Commissioners sent voters a pair of amendments, one to establish a county income tax and one to cap and restrict its use. Voters passed the measure capping the tax but rejected the one creating it, so the committee recommended removing it.
• Editing the section on the Charter Review Committee to give future committees two years instead of one to form their recommendations.

Another public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 9, where commissioners may or may not vote to refer any of these measures to the ballot. August 6/7 is the latest meeting commissioners have scheduled where they could refer measures in time for the Nov. 5 election.

Alan Torres covers local government for the Register-Guard. He can be reached over email at atorres@registerguard.com or on X @alanfryetorres.