Clark County voters, candidate hopefuls and elections staff and officials hoping to finally have a new voting district map approved by the county council will have to wait a little longer.
The county council deadlocked in a 2-2 vote during Wednesday’s public hearing on the proposed Council Alternative 1 map following testimony revealing broad opposition to the map. Chair Karen Bowerman and Councilor Temple Lentz voted against approving the map, while Councilors Gary Medvigy and Julie Olson voted in favor.
The map boundaries were drawn with the intent of keeping the current sitting councilors in the districts they currently represent, per the council’s request. Previous versions of the district map would have moved some of the councilors into other districts.
Creating a map to keep the sitting councilors in their districts rankled nearly all the 41 county residents providing public comment in person, virtually and in writing. Though many of those commenting often found themselves on opposing sides on previous issues, this time they were united in their opposition.
“To openly, publicly state that they wanted to redraw these maps with the goal of keeping councilors in their districts was amazingly and potentially corrupt,” said Washougal resident Rob Anderson.
While it may be an ethical violation rather than a legal action, Anderson said, it’s very clear some of the councilors will personally gain from redrawing the district boundaries with this goal in mind.
Anderson said that gain came from being “able to be reelected as an incumbent in the district in which they now sit.” He said it is obvious the council was not meeting the spirit of state law.
Vancouver resident and former 3rd Congressional District candidate Peter Harrison began his criticism of the council with a quote from late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“The core principle of republican government is the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around,” Harrison said.
Harrison said the quote, which came from the court’s ruling on an attempt by Arizona state legislators to overturn a voter-approved measure to curtail gerrymandering, was especially relevant given the recent actions of the council.
Tim Gaughan of Battle Ground had far sharper criticism for the council in his written comment submitted prior to the meeting.
Gaughan said Medvigy’s request to “create a map that favored sitting councilors keeping their current seats makes the reign of (David) Madore/(Tom) Mielke look like amateurs,” he wrote. “As Loudon Wainwright III aptly wrote, ‘Dead skunk in the middle of the road, stinkin’ to high heaven.’ ”
Despite requests during public comment for the council to return to the map approved by voters in November, Medvigy defended his support for the proposed map and his request to keep councilors in their districts.
“(The council) didn’t get a map through the voter initiative that would comply with state law. That’s why all this came about,” Medvigy said. “We’re the face of this redistricting process because of a failure of the redistricting code in our charter.”
Medvigy said he hoped these issues would be addressed in a future charter amendment.
“We have followed all of the state guidelines, all of them, to come up with this new map. None of this benefits a councilor directly. None of this was intended to help any councilor directly,” he said.
Under state law, districts must be made as equal in population as possible and aren’t supposed to be gerrymandered for partisan advantage or to discriminate against any group. They’re also supposed to avoid splitting up cities and other political subdivisions.
“Clearly the question is, does this map comply with the (state law) with regard to those five criteria?” Olson asked.
Paul Newman from the county’s Geographic Information Services department, who created the map, said it met those requirements but also noted the language does allow some leeway when interpreting.
After the proposed map failed to get a majority vote, Lentz proposed the council recuse themselves from being involved in drawing the district boundaries. She suggested that staff work with County Manager Kathleen Otto to create a new map that meets state guidelines and is updated with Census data but without regard to current councilor districts.
Bowerman and Medvigy instead suggested approving map B2, which received the most votes by the county redistricting committee but was previously rejected by a majority of the council, for a public hearing to get the process wrapped up.
The council voted 3-1 in favor of Lentz’s motion, with Bowerman the only dissenting vote. The council will pick up the discussion again during next week’s meeting on April 19. The county has until April 28 to adopt a new district boundary map to meet election-filing deadlines for the August primary election.
For meeting agendas and links, go to https://clark.wa.gov/calendar.
