The Clark County Council on Tuesday decided on a redistricting map to forward to the public for comment. (Screenshot from Webex)
In the 100-plus days since the Clark County Council began its discussions on how to draw the county’s new district boundary map, it has met eight times, held one public hearing, been the subject of a lawsuit, and considered no less than five versions of a map. Now, the council is nearly back to square one.
On Tuesday, the council voted to send map B2 forward for a public hearing. Map B2 was favored by three of the five members of the county’s redistricting committee and was sent to the county council for consideration in December.
Early in Tuesday’s meeting, it appeared the council would yet again fail to reach agreement after Councilor Gary Medvigy proposed returning to map B2, rather than pursue a new alternative created per the council’s request made during an April 13 public hearing.
Medvigy and Chair Karen Bowerman voted in favor of moving forward with B2, while Councilor Temple Lentz voted against it. (Councilor Julie Olson had an excused absence, and the District 5 council seat remains vacant.)
“I think it’s unfortunate that this is the motion on the floor. At the last meeting, three of the four councilors agreed to recuse themselves from the process of trying to draw a map,” Lentz said, noting the redistricting process has been compromised and flawed since the beginning.
Lentz made that motion during the April 13 public hearing on redistricting after the council deadlocked in a 2-2 vote. In addition to recusing themselves from being involved in drawing the district boundaries, Lentz moved for staff to create a new map that meets state guidelines and is updated with Census data but without regard to current councilor districts.
“We have an alternative that has not been influenced by compromised policymakers,” Lentz said. “This is the map we should advance.”
The council’s previous objections to the B2 map centered on moving councilors into other districts. Map B2, like the voter-approved map, moves Bowerman into District 4, which Medvigy represents. The B2 map also moves Olson from District 2 into District 5. A transitional provision in the charter amendment allows each councilor to continue representing the districts they were elected to until the end of their term, after which they’d have to run in the district where they reside.
Hoping to come up with a better version, the council asked staff to create a map that met state requirements but left councilors in their existing districts. That map was presented during the April 13 public hearing and drew sharp criticism from residents. Many claimed the council was gerrymandering the map for personal gain.
“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,” Washougal resident Rob Anderson said during the hearing.
“There’s some benefit to going back to the B2 map. It received the most votes of an independent party, the redistricting committee,” Medvigy said Tuesday. “We had three votes there and a lot of public comments about simply adopting that map. It looked pretty good as far as not changing or advantaging any particular party or group.”
Medvigy’s comments come in stark contrast to comments he made during a March 30 council meeting. Medvigy has argued both the B2 map and voter-approved map intentionally moved Republican councilors out of their districts.
“No voter voted to deliberately change the district of any councilor. That wasn’t the issue,” Medvigy said. “The voters’ will was to break this up into five districts.”
Medvigy said had the county lost the suit filed against it by former redistricting committee member Janet Landesberg, the B2 map likely would have been approved already.
“The B2 map was created by a bipartisan committee according to our charter. But for a voting irregularity in the charter, it didn’t pass. It was the map preferred by the Democrats, in fact,” Medvigy said to Lentz. “I think it satisfies all of your concerns and moves us forward.”
Following discussions about what contingencies the county has, possible outcomes if the council fails to reach consensus and when public meetings will be required, Lentz reconsidered her vote.
Even though she thought the map currently before the council would meet all state requirements while also removing partisanship and bad policy from the process, Lentz said “continuing to drag this out for multiple meetings where the council appears to need to put their own personal preferences before the community is ridiculous.” She said she would support moving map B2 forward for a public hearing.
The public hearing for the B2 map begins at 8:30 a.m. April 27. For a meeting agenda or link to attend, go to https://clark.wa.gov/calendar.
