Redistricting in Oregon after the 2010 census

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

Redistricting in Oregon

General information

Partisan control: Democratic

Process: Legislative

Deadline: July 1, 2011

Total seats

Congress: 5

State Senate: 30

State House: 60

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in Oregon following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

The Oregon Constitution provides authority to the Legislature for redistricting in Section 6 of Article IV. 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.

Requirements

Under state statutes governing Oregon redistricting, maps must meet several criteria:

(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:

• (a) Be contiguous;
  

• (b) Be of equal population;
  

• (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;
  

• (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and
  

• (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.

Leadership

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

Chris Garrett (D), Co-Chair
Shawn Lindsay (R), Co-Chair
Kevin Cameron (R), Co-Vice Chair
Tobias Read (D), Co-Vice Chair
Michael Dembrow (D)
Sal Esquivel (R)

Senate Redistricting Committee

Suzanne Bonamici (D), Chair
Chris Telfer (R), Vice-Chair
Jason Atkinson (R)
Lee Beyer (D)
Floyd Prozanski (D)
Bruce Starr (R)

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 coincided with in-depth review of Census data and had video conferencing capability for participants.

Lawmakers also vowed to post drafts on maps online with plenty of time for feedback and commentary before voting.

Census Results

One outcome of the 2010 Census was that the state, barely short of picking up another seat, needed to shrink some districts 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, minorities 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 blacks respectively grew 63.5%, 39.4%, and 24.3%.

Congressional maps

Scenarios

Having only just missed out on picking up a seat, Oregon needed to make each existing seat larger while still observing all the other dictates of redistricting. The 4th, in southwest Oregon, grew 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 did not 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

Housing the city of Portland and favoring Democrats, Multnomah County's dissolution in the final maps affected 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 was split to avoid putting two incumbents in the same district. Shawn Lindsay, Republican Chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said Democratic maps were gerrymandering. 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.

Preliminary plans released

The release of the preliminary redistricting plans was met with criticism from some commentators. Jim Huffman, Erskine Wood Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, suggested the state adopt truly mathematical redistricting, done via a computer program. Critics pointed out that such a method could result in mathematically precise but logically questionable maps and that were vulnerable to corruption.

Congressional delegation's reaction

Congressman Blumenauer expressed displeasure with the idea of representing Hood County and may have had concerns over whether such a map could survive the courts. He publicly called for an independent redistricting commission to replace the legislative model.

Sen. Suzanne Bonamici and Rep. Chris Garrett, who headed 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 described both his own party's efforts and those of GOP as partisan, suggesting there was room for more bipartisanship. Chris Garrett, the lead Democrat on redistricting in the House, said that rethinking the plans was in order.

A reconfigured plan placated Blumenauer and Schrader but not David Wu. Upon seeing the map that would take a large slice of reliably Democratic voters out of his district, he said the map came close to taking his own home out of the district.

Map approved

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.

Legislative maps

Background

Figure 1: This map shows the Oregon congressional districts after the 2000 census.

With a history of the Secretary of State getting involved in the redistricting process, lawmakers' early goal was 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, disagreed over redistricting plans. Ultimately, it was Secretary of State Bill Bradbury who drew the House district map and the Multnomah County Courts who drafted the Senate map. In 1991, it was also the Secretary of State at the time, Phil Keisling, who drew the final map.

Overview

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 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 say that the actions of both parties were an harmful to the county.

Legislative negotiations

While Congressional maps remained unsettled, 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, the map was favorable to Democrats. 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 said "this is an accomplishment that Oregon can be proud of" and Democrat Chris Garrett said "reaching bipartisan agreement on this plan is a major achievement for this Legislature." Once available to the entire legislature, some lawmakers did criticize the plan. Salem Republican Kevin Cameron criticized the map. 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 the potential of closed door deals where the two parties agreed to split districts in certain ways.

Maps signed

On June 13, 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber (D) signed the new state legislative maps into law, 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.

Legal issues

May 2011: Lawsuit

See also: Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census

In May 2011, Oregon Republicans filed a 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 too 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. 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.

August, 2011: 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.

Reform legislation

'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."

Timeline

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."

History

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.

Oregon Rep. Shawn Lindsay on Legislative Redistricting

Deviation from ideal districts

2000 Population Deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional districts		0.00%
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.

Redistricting lawsuits

Figure 2: This map shows the Oregon House districts after the 2000 census.

Figure 3: This map shows the Oregon Senate districts after the 2000 census.

2000

• 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.

• Carter v. U.S. Department of Commerce (2002)

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.

1990

• 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.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• Oregon State Legislature Redistricting Home page (dead link)
• 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