PORTLAND, Ore. - Oregon stands out on the West Coast for the way its voting districts are drawn. Unlike neighbors California, Idaho and Washington, redistricting in Oregon is a political process decided by the party in power.

The threat of gerrymandering is high. Executive Director of Common Cause Oregon Kate Titus says politicians typically draw districts behind closed doors using elaborate data.

"If you move that line over one block and include this block in this district instead of that district," asks Titus, "how's it going to affect their political power? So, that sophisticated analysis is happening - it's just not open to the public, and that's really the problem."

Titus says a coalition of groups is looking to change that.

Signatures are being collected for an initiative to create an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission. Its backers have until July 2 to collect about 150,000 signatures.

Critics of the idea say creating the commission would leave out some marginalized groups. Titus counters that an independent redistricting commission would invite the public to participate in the process.

"It's all out in the open and it centers around community input," says Titus. "So, a lot of public testimony, so that the commission itself is really responding to the needs of communities as the communities themselves see them."

The novel coronavirus has thrown a wrench into the signature-collecting process.

Titus says the campaign had to get creative. The coalition, known as "People Not Politicians," mailed petitions to a half-million households in the state.

She says folks can sign it from home, too.

"If they had a computer at home, they could print out a petition on their computers, sign it and mail it in," says Titus.

She says getting an independent commission passed this year is especially important. Districts are drawn once a decade - and that happens next year, using 2020 Census data.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

BROOKLYN, N.Y. -- Some New Yorkers are voicing concerns about the creation of not one, but two draft maps for congressional, State Senate and Assembly voting districts. The groups are asking the public to weigh in on the redistricting process, to ensure the revised maps properly represent constituents.

Asher Ross, director of the "Mapping Our Future" campaign for the New York Immigration Coalition, said in a virtual discussion this week, the move runs counter to the Independent Redistricting Commission's mission: to deliver one set of maps that are nonpartisan and fully inclusive of public input.

"This process has not worked so far, to this point," Ross asserted. "And it's very troubling about where it's going to go from here, and the commission's ability to deliver fair maps."

He pointed to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, where members of the Arab community advocated to keep their neighborhood from being split up, but do not see their input reflected in the draft maps.

Ross pointed out hundreds of people have already turned out at public hearings. There is still time to submit testimony or attend public hearings, which start again Oct. 20.

In some cases, public input has enhanced representation, such as with Asian American communities in Brooklyn and Queens.

Carlyn Cowen, chief policy and public affairs officer for the Chinese American Planning Council, noted redistricting has not served Asian American communities well in the past. She said even though they represent 10% of the state's population, and 15% in New York City, it is not reflected among elected officials.

"The representation that we have on the state and congressional level is less than 3% at either level, which means that people are not necessarily being represented by people who look like them and represent their interests," Cowen observed. "There are so many urgent issues that our community is facing."

The Independent Redistricting Commission must submit its final maps to the Legislature by Jan. 15. Cowen said it is vital they understand the importance of where neighborhood lines are drawn.

"The idea of fairness in redistricting is not really about partisan; Democrat, Republican," Cowen contended. "It's actually about making sure that we are all represented by our districts, and that we're upholding the Voting Rights Act."

BISMARCK, N.D. -- North Dakota lawmakers in charge of redistricting have approved a preliminary draft of new legislative boundaries, but voters' advocates said a lot is being done without as much public input as they'd like.

The latest version of the map was approved by the Republican-controlled redistricting committee Thursday. The panel has been meeting this month, with residents able to testify in-person or virtually.

Rick Gion, communications and policy director for North Dakota Voters First, said hearings were scheduled during working hours, limiting participation.

"We are concerned about making sure that citizens are engaged in this process," Gion explained.

He contended other states offer a greater number of public hearings that better accommodate people's schedules. Gion pointed out even with late-arriving census data affecting the process, he feels things are moving too quickly.

Sen. Brad Bekkedahl, R-Williston, a member of the committee, argued the panel has done plenty to make hearings accessible, noting the public can weigh in during two more meetings next week.

Gion emphasized they're appealing for additional meetings beyond those currently scheduled. He added contrary to the wording published ahead of the process, his group feels proposed boundaries aren't being posted online in a timely fashion as constituents prepare their testimony.

"The maps are appearing during the meeting, mostly after the meetings," Gion observed. "People don't have time to review them beforehand, and go and testify."

He contended it raises questions about transparency in the overall process. Sen. Bekkedahl believes legislative staff has been moving quickly to relay the latest maps to the public.

The legislative maps are expected to be voted on by the full Legislature in a special session later this fall. The maps also need the governor's endorsement.

ORANGE CITY, Iowa -- There is no federal or statewide race this fall, but Iowa voters in many cities will still head to the polls for municipal and school elections.

County auditors hope they are informed about sweeping changes the state adopted this year dealing with voting.

In March, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill, which, among other things, reduces the early voting period from 29 days down to 20. And, with a few exceptions, mail-in ballots will no longer be accepted after Election Day. They have to arrive by the time polls close that day.

Ryan Dokter, auditor of Sioux County, said without the typical barrage of campaign messaging, voters might not be aware of the changes.

"City [and] school elections tend to be a little bit lower turnout, unless there's something that really gets people excited to be voting," Dokter observed. "These kind of sneak up on people a little bit, so we're trying to get the word out as best we can."

Supporters of the GOP-backed law claimed it restored public faith in the election system, but opponents argued it will suppress votes. The law is being challenged in court by the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa.

Dokter is also president of the Iowa State Association of County Auditors. He noted after the law was passed, there were special elections in a few locations, but added this is the first big test auditors will face since the controversial changes took place.

"We've had some training on that from the Secretary of State's office," pointed out. "On the back end of things for county auditors and their staff, there's a lot more changes than meets the eye for voters."

He feels local election offices will be prepared to serve voters this fall.

Under the law, auditors can no longer designate special sites for early voting. It can only happen if enough voters sign a petition. Another provision enacts tougher penalties, including a felony, for auditors who aren't in full compliance with the statute.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.