Redistricting in Oregon
|Deadline:||July 1, 2011|
|Total Seats to be Drawn|
|Other States Redistricting Pages|
|Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming|
This page is about redistricting in Oregon. Following the 2010 Census, Oregon retained its five Congressional seats, falling short of an additional seat by a slim margin. Despite its static level of representation, Oregon had significant internal population shifts to consider. Most of its growth came in the soft Republican areas around Salem and the Democratic suburbs of Portland. The more solidly conservative eastern part of the state, already sparsely populated, lost population. Other locales, such as the city of Bend, grew at a clip.
Oregon's legislature has not completed redistricting since the 1950s. In each successive decade, lawmakers failed to reach a compromise, and the process has been completed by courts and the Secretary of State. The 30-30 split between the major parties gave some hope in 2011, but the messy history of legislatively-controlled redistricting could not be overlooked.
The Oregon State Legislature is primarily responsible for redistricting. New maps are proposed and passed as ordinary legislation. However, if a state legislative plan is not passed by July 1, the Governor vetoes the plan, or the plan is overturned through litigation, the Oregon Secretary of State assumes control of the process and completes the maps. This contingency plan only exists for state legislative maps; there is no formal deadline for the passage or revision of Congressional maps. However, the candidate filing deadline for the 2012 election served as an effective deadline for the process.
Under state statutes governing Oregon redistricting, maps must meet several criteria:
- (1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:
- (a) Be contiguous;
- (a) Be contiguous;
- (b) Be of equal population;
- (b) Be of equal population;
- (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;
- (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;
- (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and
- (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and
- (e) Be connected by transportation links.
- (e) Be connected by transportation links.
- (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.
- (3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group.
- (4) Two state House of Representative districts shall be wholly included within a single state Senatorial district.
Assignments to the House and Senate Redistricting Committees were handed out along with regular committees on January 10, 2011, when the legislature convened.
House Redistricting Committee
Senate Redistricting Committee
Announced as an adviser was Gary Wilhelms, a four-term Representative in the 1970s who previously consulted with Oregon Republicans on redistricting matters in 2001.
A series of meetings spread across the state was announced as well; in Tillamook (March 11th), in La Grande and Burns (March 18th), and in Bend (March 19th) to solicit citizen input. The hearings would coincide with in-depth review of Census data and would have video conferencing capability for participants.
Lawmakers also vowed to post drafts on maps online with plenty of time for feedback and commentary before voting.
One immediately clear outcome of the 2010 Census was that the state, barely short of picking up another seat, needed to shrink some Districts significantly to maintain an equitable distribution of citizens.
At the state level, Senate districts ideally need to be at 127,702 residents each, with House districts at 63,851.
Minorities drove the state's growth. In a dozen of Oregon's 26 Senate districts, they represented at least one-third of the population. Six districts saw minority growth of at least 10% between 2000 and 2010.
Across the states, Asians, Hispanics, and black respectively grew 63.5%, 39.4%, and 24.3%. The last number alone was triple the rate of growth in the white population.
Having only just missed out on picking up a seat, Oregon contended with the frustrating need to make each existing seat larger while still observing all the other dictates of redistricting. The 4th, in southwest Oregon, would grow the most, and so other seats may have taken cues on how they realigned boundaries after considering where the 4th would make up its population.
At the state level, legislators were confronted with urban-suburban districts, a legacy of the map drawn in 2001 by Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradley, who got the task after the Governor and the General Assembly failed to produce a plan. The GOP was eager to undo those seats, holding that combining city cores and their outlying, at times semi-rural, areas made no sense.
Dems countered that the urban-suburban districts in existence actually did reflect common interests and issues, while charging that Republicans wanted to draw seats that contained urban pockets of liberal voters in single seats. Areas set for major attention included the rapidly growing counties of Washington and Multnomah, and the city of Portland, which lost population.
The entire process was likely to be handled delicately by Republicans, who knew Democrats could simply stall until control of the maps went to Kate Brown, the current Secretary of State and a Democrat.
Media were split, with some papers in left leaning Oregon defending the oddly shaped districts that are easily labeled 'gerrymanders' if "keeping a community of interest intact...involve[s] drawing a district with an odd shape to reflect population patterns and redistricting criteria." Other op-eds blamed past legislatures for chopping up rural communities of interest for partisan reasons.
The state's Hispanic population, a fast-growing demographic, lobbied to be treated as a community of interest and kept intact. In particular, they pressed for this in the Mid-Valley, an area where Hispanics made up 40% and 50% percent of the residents in some legislative districts. Population changes and internal migration meant no Congressional districts were at or near a balanced population. Additionally, a mere handful of legislative seats could make that claim.
Multnomah County was an early bone of contention. Housing the city of Portland and favoring Democrats, its dissolution in the final maps had great say on how both major parties would fare for years. The Democratic plan protected Earl Blumenauer while giving enough of the county's liberal voting base to both David Wu and Kurt Schrader to help their electoral bids. Republicans, though, kept the county more intact, essentially admitting they weren't going to unseat Blumenauer but also making the seats held by Wu and Schrader more competitive. GOP legislators pointed out that Portland, split among three seats under Democratic plans, only had 15% of Oregon's population.
Hood River, which some argued had enough in common with Portland to merit being drawn into a single district, was split, something done to avoid putting two incumbents in the same district - both a nod to the courts' past moods and a move to protect the current House delegation. Shawn Lindsay, Republican Chair of the House Redistricting Committee, immediately labeled Democratic maps as gerrymandering and described the suggested borders as "like a Picasso". Right-leaning bloggers pointed out that Portland might be considered a community of interest by the estimates of the city's residents and by the rest of the state, who felt nothing in common with the city, an argument friendly to GOP efforts to keep the city intact.
Preliminary plans released
The entire process was touchy from the beginning, with the press conference just to announce preliminary maps taking on an air of spectacle, with interruptions and slammed doors. After taking one look at the first maps, a local paper described both the district boundaries and the process that drew them as, "like a brontosaurus".
Jim Huffman, Erskine Wood Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, suggested the state adopt truly mathematical redistricting, done via a computer program, "...sort of like BCS football..." Critics pointed out that such a method could result in mathematically precise but logically questionable maps and that corruption could yet creep in.
Congressional delegation's reaction
Early rumors from Congressman Blumenauer's camp was that he was displeased with the idea of representing Hood County and may have had concerns over whether such a map could survive the courts, anyway. He would soon publicly call for an independent redistricting commission to replace the legislative model.
Sen. Suzanne Bonamici and Rep. Chris Garrett, the Dems heading their chamber's respective committees, responded to Republican criticisms by saying the GOP maps were squarely aimed at boosting partisan registration and that they had been surprised to see such maps from across the aisle. From within the Democratic party, there was also criticism that the GOP registration numbers didn't line up with publicly available figures, pushing some Republican estimates of partisanship in their proposed districts off by as much as two points.
Two other Democratic Congressmen soon joined Blumenauer in voicing dissatisfaction. Kurt Schrader condemned both his own party's efforts and those of GOP as "blatently partisan" and "egregious", suggesting there was room for more bipartisanship. His criticism carried enough water to Chris Garrett, the lead Democrat on redistricting in the House, to admit rethinking was in order.
A reconfigured plan placated Blumenauer and Schrader...at the cost of angering David Wu. Upon seeing the map that would take a large slice of reliably Democratic voters out of his district, he fumed and said the map came "within a Tiger Woods drive" of taking his own home out of the district.
On June 30, 2011 legislators agreed on a compromise map to redraw the five Congressional seats. The map was first approved by the joint committee and then sent for votes by the Senate and House. The primary change to the map would expand the 5th District to include Milwaukie and parts of Clackamas County, while losing Oregon State University. Republicans were forced to accept a compromise on their goal of moving the majority of Multnomah County to District 3. Ultimately, only part of the county was moved. "We chose to work through some thoughtful compromise and get something done, instead of spending taxpayer dollars from the general fund fighting this out in court," said Senator Chris Telfer (R). Overall, the plan was likely to preserve the current partisan balance while making Representatives David Wu (D-1) and Kurt Schrader (D-5) slightly more vulnerable to a GOP challenger -- both districts gave part of Portland and Multinomah counties to District 3. The Senate approved the map by a 24-6 vote and the House cleared the measure 58-2. The Governor signed the plan the same day.
The Secretary of State, not theoretically a key player in Oregon redistricting, has wound up getting involved each time the matter comes up for the past century, giving lawmakers an early goal - to draw the maps themselves.
Having failed to reach an agreement on district boundaries in both 2001 and 1991, Oregon went into 2011 hoping the unusual 30-30 split in the House of Representatives would allow better and earlier bipartisan crafting, and fearing that if legislators could not agree on something in a perfectly bipartisan House, the state would need a drastic change. Incentivized to avoid passing redistricting on to the Secretary of State in 2011 and concerned that the need to compromise could leave everyone involved unhappy if handled poorly, Oregon chose to begin the process by having its committee examine best practices from other states.
In the last round, the then-Republican-held House and Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber, clashed over a plan. Ultimately, it was Secretary of State Bill Bradbury who drew the House district map and the Multnomah County Courts who sorted out the Senate map. Too, in 1991, it was the Secretary of State, at the time, Phil Keisling, who drew the final map.
Legislative redistricting got a bit of a head start when the maps were leaked online, days ahead of the planned public presentation.
Republicans drew four House seats where two Democratic incumbents would be paired and significantly altered the pairing of House seats within Senate districts. They also took one Senate seat away from the coast. Democrats left the current pairing of districts alone and affected both parties in the seats where they proposed pitting two incumbents against one another. In all, they stood a better chance of picking up new seats and growing their advantage in competitive districts.
Other areas likely to see shifts included Astoria on the North Coast. Population growth in central Oregon meant those state Senate district boundaries would shift, setting off a ripple effect. The less populated counties of the east, such as Wallowa, also presented more than one opportunity. The population centers in the area could be split or kept intact, depending on which party prevailed. The terrain and distribution of people also made it more of an effort than it might be elsewhere to ensure all redistricting requirements were met.
Early battlegrounds included Astoria, potentially set to shift from being paired with riverside communities to those on the shore. Adjacent Tillamook County watched anxiously, worried the issues they felt set them apart would take a hit if they were divided or grouped with other communities. Lincoln County's need to gain voters threatened Tillamook's southern portion and led County Commissioner Mark Labhart to declare that Republicans and Democrats alike were guilty of an "unacceptable...slap in the face" to the county.
While Congressional maps remained problematic, lawmakers had greater luck with the legislative maps. The map they came up with was announced on Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Drawn with some consideration of needing to pass both chambers and the governor's desk, it still showed some sign of the Democrats' upper hand. Around Portland, for instance, several districts spanned from the city to its suburbs.
Both sides displayed their pride at having accomplished redistricting legislatively in the accompanying statement. Republican Chris Telfer called it "something Oregon can be proud of" and Democrat Chris Garrett termed it a "a major accomplishment for the legislature." Once in the hands of the entire legislature, some less sanguine feelings came out. Salem Republican Kevin Cameron pronounced the map, "neither fair nor balanced." Fear of something less friendly to the GOP emerging from the pen of the Democratic Secretary of State, however, meant the bill would probably pass its June 10, 2011 vote.
Though the map did not set up any incumbents to face off, some were on the look out for other problems. Oregon's Common Cause chapter warned of "sweetheart gerrymandering" - behind closed door deals where the two parties agreed to split districts in certain ways and each take a share of the easy wins.
On June 13, 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber (D) signed the new state legislative maps into law. Lawmakers praised one another for completing the process in the legislature without court involvement for the first time in 100 years. "It is a tribute to the Oregon Legislature for its leadership in continuing to insist that we find compromise and middle ground," Kitzhaber said. The plan was largely based on the 2001 maps drawn by then-Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D) and preserved Rep. Betty Komp's (D) majority-minority Hispanic district. Although Republicans had pushed for more significant changes to the previous maps, the partisan tie and the threat of handing the process over to Secrectary of State Kate Brown (D) motivated a compromise. The plan passed 27-3 in the Senate and 47-10 in the House.
While Democrats altered maps, Oregon Republicans filed a sort of place holding lawsuit, asking that, if legislative redistricting failed, a three judge panel be set up, with the members coming from across the state, to handle redistricting.
Tyler Smith, an attorney for the state GOP, brought the case in Yamhill County. Smith filed the suit, which named Governor John Kitzhaber and Secretary of State Kate Brown, both Democrats, on behalf of former Yamhill Treasurer Tony Meeker. Meeker's core complaint, seeking to leave the matter of redistricting with a judicial panel, was his concern that the 1st Congressional District could be drawn to large, falling just within the allowable deviation while diluting residents' votes. Democrats called the action premature and one analysis held that the suit might be thrown out on those grounds.
Normally, the Secretary of State takes over from the legislature if the latter cannot agree on maps. As the office holder was a Democrat, Republicans had some obvious incentive to move the fallback into the courts.
One group, the Board of Commissioners of Tillamook County, agreed, outlining their concerns in a letter destined for Salem. At the core of the Board's concerns was an early conviction that the legislature would fail to enact redistricting and that it was in Tillamook's best interests to begin talking with Secretary of State Kate Brown sooner rather than later.
No litigation over legislative maps
The litigation deadline for lawsuits over legislative districts was Monday, August 1, 2011. No lawsuits were filed. Since the earlier GOP suit was contingent on the failure of the legislative process, it did not proceed.
'Fresh start provision'
Following the failure, in 2010, of the Common Sense for Oregon initiative to make it onto the ballot, its sponsor, Kevin Mannix, returned with what he called a 'fresh start provision' for Oregon. His new proposal, also taking the form of a ballot initiative, would have created an independent redistricting commission, which was tasked with drawing new maps in 2013.
If the ballot initiative succeeded, whatever plan the independent commission produced would have superseded any legislatively drawn maps or anything produced by the Oregon Secretary of State, who took over the process if the legislature could not agree on a map.
Calls for the legislature to get it right or get it out came from the press as well, with one blistering op-ed beginning, "Lawmakers haven't delivered an acceptable redistricting plan in 60 years; either they get it done this year, or they get out of the process. It's that special time when lawmakers choose their voters, rather than the other way around. Forgive the cynicism, but the history of reapportionment, known as redistricting, is a tale of naked partisanship and incumbent protection schemes. It's been 60 years since Oregon lawmakers last drew new legislative maps that stood up to scrutiny and met their constitutional obligations."
In order to avoid seeing the Secretary of State take over redistricting again, Oregon legislators had until July 1, 2011 to finish their maps. Legislative maps were set to be unveiled for citizens sometime in mid-May.
Former Secretary of State Phil Keisling, who ended up drawing the 1990 Census maps, recalled the process in his day; "...[People] will posture over it. There’s so much hall of mirrors and spin."
1990 and 2000
In both the 1990 and 2000 redistricting cycles, the state legislature failed to complete congressional and state legislative redistricting. In 1990, the courts approved a congressional plan formed after the end of the session by a joint interim commission. In 2000, the courts redrew the congressional map and ordered its implementation. In both cycles as mandated by the state constitution, the Secretary of State completed state level redistricting.
Deviation from "Ideal Districts"
|2000 Population Deviation|
|State House Districts||1.90%|
|State Senate Districts||1.77%|
|Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.|
- Perrin v. Kitzhaber (2001)
- After the Oregon State Legislature failed to redistrict before adjourning sine die, the Multnomah County Circuit Court ordered the state to adopt new court-drawn maps.
- Hartung v. Bradbury (2001)
- After the failure of the legislature to complete redistricting and the congressional reapportionment by the circuit court, the Secretary of State redrew Oregon's state legislative boundaries. However, this plan was challenged and the Supreme Court, rejecting most of the complaints, asked the Secretary of State to make minor revisions. The court approved the revised plan on December 14, 2001.
- Given the difficulty in accurately counting poor and minority communities, the census (since 1990) has attempted to adjust figures for undercounted population. The original census figures are adjusted using other statistical tools, specifically, secondary surveys distributed to a group of representative households. However, the adjusted figures were not ultimately reported, due to concerns about their accuracy. In 2000, the adjusted figures were similarly withheld from the final report. However, two Oregon lawmakers, submitted a FOIA request to view the adjusted figures. They were denied since the figures were considered part of the "deliberative process" (an exemption under FOIA). However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Oregon legislators.
- Ater v. Keisling (1991)
- After the state legislature failed to complete state redistricting, the Secretary of State, as mandated by the Oregon Constitution, drew the state's new legislative boundaries. The Secretary of State adopted a maximum deviation of +/- 1%. His plan was challenged on the grounds that this standard vitiated the other legal redistricting criteria and that it contained errors. The Oregon Supreme Court denied that the standard was inappropriate and order the correction of errors arising from software problems and Census Bureau errors.
- Linder v. Keisling (1991)
- The Oregon Supreme Court accepted the Secretary of State's revised maps.
- Berkman v. Roberts (1991)
- Since the legislature has also failed to complete congressional redistricting, it formed an interim committee to remap the state. The Federal District Court in Portland ultimately ordered the adoption of this map.
- Republican Party of Oregon v. Keisling (1992)
- Since Oregon elects senators to four years terms with half up for re-election every two years, the state's new senate districts meant that some voters, by their next senate election, would have waited six years to vote. The Oregon GOP argued that this constituted the disenfranchisement of these voters. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim, arguing that the right to vote does not imply a certain schedule of voting and that a temporary weakening of voting power during redistricting is not necessarily an undue burden on voters or a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Oregon State Legislature Redistricting Home page
- Detailed 2010 U.S. Census data for Oregon
- Representative Shawn Lindsay's March 29, 2011 op-ed for the Oregon Catalyst
- Karla Kay Lindsay's April 6, 2011 op-ed for the Cascade Policy Institute
- The Mail Tribune's May 25, 2011 op-ed on an independent commission
- Senator Chiris Telfer's June 2, 2011 interview with The Capital Press
- ↑ Mail Tribune, "Redistricting lawmakers hear call to be bipartisan", April 2, 2011
- ↑ The Register Guard, "Last try for redistricting: If the Legislature can’t succeed this year, it never will", May 21, 2011
- ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "Frequently Asked Questions," Accessed June 16, 2011
- ↑ Oregon State Statutes, Chapter 188, "Congressional and Legislative Districts; Reapportionment"
- ↑ Forest Grove News Times, "News Briefs: Politicians, Bus Service, Tuality, Gas Line", January 12, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Oregon House Republicans will rely on advice from father-daughter team", January 14, 2011
- ↑ Oregonian "Oregon redistricting committees to hold hearings around the state," March 3, 2011
- ↑ Brainstorm NW "House and Senate committees on redistricting," March 5, 2011
- ↑ Blue Mountain Eagle, "State begins review of House, Senate boundaries", March 15, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Census data may alter Oregon's political map", March 4, 2011
- ↑ The Mail Tribune, "Oregon redistricting may shift local political balance", April 1, 2011
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "The changing face of Oregon: Census could bring legislative shift toward Asians, Latinos", April 28, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Census data may alter Oregon's political map", March 4, 2011
- ↑ Forest Grove Times, "Western suburbs will gain influence with redistricting", April 20, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "Oregon Republicans seek to split Portland from its suburbs in legislative redistricting," April 8, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "In redistricting, let's not be too quick on the draw," April 8, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Catalyst, "Redistricting Decisions Must Respect Rural Reality", April 11, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Hispanics seek consideration in redistricting", April 19, 2011
- ↑ South County Spotlight, "Redistricting scenario splits county in half", May 18, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "Oregon lawmakers fight over Multnomah County with competing redistricting plans," May 11, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, "How Oregon congressional redistricting plans differ on voter registration", May 12, 2011
- ↑ Gazette Times, "Ore. lawmakers release dueling redistricting plans", May 11, 2011
- ↑ Blue Oregon "Redistricting: First look at proposed D & R congressional maps," May 11, 2011
- ↑ Red County, "Redistricting in Oregon - the Bloom is off the Rose Thanks to House Democrats", May 13, 2011
- ↑ KUOW "Oregon Lawmakers Release Redistricting Maps," May 11, 2011
- ↑ MSN, "Oregon Editorial Rdp", May 18, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/05/redistricting_an_open_letter_t.html," May 16, 2011
- ↑ Blue Oregon, "Jim Huffman calls for mathematical redistricting. A very bad idea.", May 17, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian Redistricting: Blumenauer reaction, voter registration numbers and more," May 12, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal "Put politics aside when redistricting," May 22, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "Democrats take their shots at Republican redistricting proposal for Oregon," May 13, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Read GOP redistricting numbers for Oregon with caution", May 16, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "Rep. Kurt Schrader blasts Democratic and Republican redistricting plans," May 17, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian, "Rep. David Wu dislikes new Democratic plan for redrawing Oregon congressional districts", May 18, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal "Panel OKs congressional redistricting plan," June 30, 2011
- ↑ Washington Post, "Oregon redistricting gives GOP slight bump," July 7, 2011
- ↑ Oregonian "Oregon congressional redistricting: Triumph of status quo?" June 30, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, Bill Tracker "Senate Bill 990," Accessed July 8, 2011
- ↑ News-Review "Oregon Legislature tackles redistricting," January 26, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live "Oregon House's 30-30 split may redraw election map," November 28, 2010
- ↑ The Register-Guard, "EDITORIAL: Last try for redistricting: If the Legislature can’t succeed this year, it never will", May 21, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Capitol News, "Members hope for acceptable redistricting plan to pass legislature", January 12, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Insider "Legislative Redistricting Maps Leaked," May 11, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Officials drawing outside the lines", May 22, 2011
- ↑ The Oregon Catalyst, "Dem’s Redistricting designed to give them majority in the House ", May 24, 2011
- ↑ The Daily Astorian, "Losing Betsy: Astoria draws the line", May 23, 2011
- ↑ The World, "One less senator for Oregon coast?", May 16, 2011
- ↑ The Wallowa County Chieftain, "EDITORIAL: Political boundaries – change is in the wind", May 19, 2011
- ↑ The Daily Astorian, "Van Dusen, Roscoe battle for Betsy", May 25, 2011
- ↑ The Seaside Signal, "Guest Editorial: Redistricting a challenge", May 25, 2011
- ↑ The Tillamook Headlight Herald, "Redistricting plan would split county", May 25, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian, "Negotiators nearing deal on Oregon legislative redistricting", June 6, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian "Oregon legislative redistricting deal appears likely to pass," June 7, 2011
- ↑ Blue Oregon, "Redistricting: Wow! Ds and Rs produce compromise legislative map", June 8, 2011
- ↑ OPB News, "Oregon Lawmakers Unveil Redistricting Plan", June 8, 2011
- ↑ The Republic, "Democrats, Republicans agree on compromise maps for new Oregon legislative districts", June 7, 2011
- ↑ The Register Guard, "EDITORIAL: Legislature draws the lines: The agreement on state redistricting is encouraging", June 8, 2011
- ↑ Northwest Public Radio, "Oregon Redistricting Plan Raises Some Skepticism", June 9, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal "Redistricting bill signed into law," June 13, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Legislature overcomes decades of impasse on redistricting," June 11, 2011
- ↑ The Oregonian, "Republicans file lawsuit on congressional redistricting", May 18, 2011
- ↑ Yamhill Valley News Register, "Battle lines drawn over redistricting", May 21, 2011
- ↑ Tillamook Headlight Herald, "Tillamook Commissioners blast redistricting plans", May 18, 2011
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "No lawsuit filed about redistricting," August 3, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Kevin Mannix pursues new Oregon redistricting ballot measure", March 5, 2011
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Oregon's next political map", April 20, 2011
- ↑ The World "The redistricting process," April 4, 2011
- ↑ KBND.com, "Proposed Redistricting Maps To Be Released", May 6, 2011
- ↑ Beaverton valley Times, "Drawing political battle lines: Legislative control depends on a few district boundaries", April 28, 2011
- ↑ 70.0 70.1 70.2 70.3 Minnesota Redistricting Department, "2000s Redistricting Case Summaries"
- ↑ 71.0 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 Minnesota Redistricting Cases, "Oregon Redistricting Cases: the 1990's "
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 72.2 Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 188
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, “Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table”, accessed February 1, 2011
- ↑ Carter v. U.S. Department of Commerce