The Clark County Council met April 6. (Screenshot from WebEX)
Clark County voters will have their first chance to weigh in on a new council district map during a public hearing at 8:30 a.m. April 13. The Clark County Council on Wednesday voted 3-1 to put the map, called Council Alternative 1, out for public review.
The lone dissenting vote came from Councilor Temple Lentz, who said it was inappropriate for the councilors to set the boundary lines for their own districts. Instead, Lentz suggested county staff should draw the new districts and the council vote whether to accept.
“It’s important to remember that redistricting is about voters, not about who runs for office. This map needs to serve us for 10 years so we should be trying to create a solid process and base our decisions on a solid process that benefits the electorate,” Lentz said, adding the redistricting process has been “off the rails” since the beginning and never got back on track.
At the March 30 meeting, Councilor Gary Medvigy asked Paul Newman from Geographic Information Services to create a map that would keep the sitting council members in their current districts.
The map included with the charter amendment to create five council districts passed by voters in November, as well as the “B2” map created by the county redistricting committee, would have put Chair Karen Bowerman and Councilor Gary Medvigy in the same district. Both maps also would have put former Councilor Eileen Quiring O’Brien in District 5, but her retirement from the council in March eliminated that issue. Additionally, the B2 map would have put District 2 Councilor Julie Olson in District 5.
Lentz said the five criteria for drawing district boundaries does not include moving boundaries to keep councilors in their districts. The criteria are: nearly equal population, as compact as possible, geographically contiguous, population data cannot be used to favor or disfavor racial groups or political parties, and use natural boundaries and preserve existing communities as feasible.
“We are now on the record of putting personal political ambitions over public benefit. Regardless of the merits of the map, I find that problematic,” Lentz said.
For Bowerman’s district, District 3, Newman told the council, “In a nutshell, I started with District 3 and moved (the boundary line) to the eastern boundary of the city of Vancouver. … Continuing north, it goes beyond the city of Vancouver boundary and generally tries to connect in with Lacamas Creek.”
Newman said extending the boundary line east added about 29,000 people to the district, which was balanced by moving the north section of the district into District 4.
For Olson’s district, District 2, Newman said it required including an area southwest of Battle Ground previously in District 5 and also moving a small area on the east boundary into District 4.
While these were not all of the changes made, Newman said these changes were specific to the request to keep the councilors in their existing districts.
Medvigy said keeping the councilors in their districts simply maintains the status quo.
“There was nothing in the ballot (measure) that suggested to move any particular councilor anywhere. That wasn’t something the public knowingly voted for or intended,” Medvigy said. “Moving three councilors into a single district would have been an untoward result.”
Medvigy also said keeping the council makeup as is doesn’t benefit any political party.
“There’s been an absence of any political party or individual coming up on the radar screen saying, ‘This really favors a majority, or favors a minority, or favors someone more than another.’ None of that has happened,” he said. “None of the population movement or rebalancing is anything but neutral.”
