Redistricting: Wow! Ds and Rs produce compromise legislative map

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

In a relatively stunning turn of events, the Democratic and Republican teams working on redistricting the 60 House and 30 Senate districts have produced a compromise map.

From their statement:

“We’ve managed to put many of our differences aside in what is typically a very partisan process,” said Representative Chris Garrett (D-Lake Oswego). “Reaching bipartisan agreement on this plan is a major achievement for this Legislature.”

“This is an accomplishment that Oregon can be proud of,” said Senator Chris Telfer (R-Bend). “A bipartisan redistricting map represents the legislature at its best, working together and finding common ground, even in the face of big obstacles. This is a fair and bipartisan plan that will give Oregonians quality representation over the next ten years.”

You can check out the new map on the legislature's mapping site or you can check the (much better, IMHO) Google-map powered version from Moonshadow Mobile.

According to the O's Jeff Mapes, an agreement on the congressional map is much less likely.

I'm digging into the legislative maps now, and will be sharing some critical highlights as I find them. As you look at the maps, what do you see?

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Not sure why it went from "less likely" to "much less likely" from Mapes to here.

  • (Show?)

    I see that Newberg and Dundee, two communities that share most significant infrastructure (police, school district, library, park and rec, etc.) and are two scant miles apart, are still in different House districts. And despite multiple people giving testimony for changing that. The definition of frustration...

  • (Show?)

    The two of them strike me overall as looking a whole lot like the current two maps. Not exactly, of course - but close enough that they could have been designed with the idea of altering existing districts overall as little as possible. (Compare, district by district, to the current maps.) Which is neither awful nor wonderful, but I will be curious to see how they go over.

  • (Show?)

    the most vital question: does Jules Bailey have to move?

    • (Show?)

      it looks like we found Option 3 for HD 42: not into downtown, not up into Laurelhurst, but SE into the Woodstock district. that actually makes more sense; that chunk of neighorhood has more in common with the rest of the district.

      it'll be interesting to see what others find elsewhere.

  • (Show?)

    Lots of tinkering in Sen. Bates district and Rep. Buckley's district.

  • (Show?)

    I'm pleased with the D49 map. Few changes and the ones that are there make sense to me. As far as this district goes, I hope it passes.

  • (Show?)

    I'm a bit surprised they kept the Multnomah County part of my HD (HD 27) since it was put in their only to give the district a Dem edge last time and is no longer needed to do so. That being said, this looks like a good map that isn't frankly a lot different from last time.

  • (Show?)

    I am pleased that the two sides were able to reach a bi-partisan agreement. It is difficult to offer much by way of analysis, however, until we have more information about what this will do in terms of competitive districts.

    Here are some initial thoughts:

    1) They kept most of Bend into a single district, which makes some sense.

    2) Both of the initial Republican and Democratic plans reduced the number of competitive districts. There was substantial public comment in favor of increasing rather than reducing the number of competitive districts. Hopefully, the legislators took that commentary to heart.

    3) A little closer to home... Timi parker's comment is spot on. Splitting Newberg and Dundee into separate house districts and combining Newberg and Keizer is as absurd now as it was in 2001, and they have "compounded the sin" by placing the districts into separate Senate Districts. I am similarly perplexed that they split Sheridan and Willamina. Also, Yamhill County is split into 3 Senate and 4 House districts, but only 1 of the 7 current legislators actually lives in Yamhill County.

    • (Show?)

      Thanks, Sal. In studying our current maps from a Yamhill County perspective, I was pretty stunned to figure out how fractured our county legislative representation is. Kind of feels like being the step-child getting the leftovers from dinner but not getting to sit at the table.

  • (Show?)

    Well they have drawn our lower part of Wasco Co. out of the present district with Madras and the Dalles into a further Eastern district with which we have abolutely nothing in common with the major communites. Well there's no one to complain to that would listen and Huffman is no loss but it's pretty sorry because there are only a couple of hundred voters out here and the people in these little communities are already isolated enough but now we will be even more cut off.

    • (Show?)

      Not defending those lines, but eastern and southern Wasco County was in a district with Baker City in the 1990s. The new district links with Hermiston, which has got to be a little better.

  • (Show?)

    Looks like 39 was the general dump site. They have it running up into parts of Boring, and one sparsely populated corner of Sandy, and it goes all the way down to Canby. 51 and 52 have this little affinity divot of 39 dividing us from some of our bestest kids, but we still have bright red Corbett and distant Hood River. Don't much like it but given pop growth in Happy Valley, I guess it was inevitable that 51 would get a lot smaller geographically.

connect with blueoregon