A finalized map of new Clark County Council districts will have to wait another week for approval as councilors voted to go back to a prior map under consideration in a protracted process to adjust for a new district.
During a special April 27 meeting, the council voted 4-0 to move a recently-developed alternative district map to a public hearing on May 4. The meeting was initially convened to hear public testimony about a different map, which was originally proposed by a now-dissolved redistricting committee, though the council deadlocked 2-2 on its approval.
The council worked to make adjustments to the map following voter approval of an amendment to the county’s home rule charter, which changed the number of councilor districts from four to five. The amendment also made the formerly at-large council chair position an appointed position by the members of the council.
Councilor Temple Lentz mentioned the number of changes to the map proposed throughout several weeks. The council directed staff to create a map that kept the current councilors in their districts. The map presented to voters in the November 2021 election would have put three councilors at the time of the vote into one district. Since then, former county council chair Eileen Quiring O’Brien, one of the three, has resigned, leaving the seat for the newly-created district 5 vacant. Gov. Jay Inslee on Friday appointed Richard "Dick" Rylander to the District 5 seat.
That map received public backlash for perceived gerrymandering since it was focused on keeping councilors in their respective districts. The county council then directed staff to create another map based more closely to the one that was placed in front of voters in November. That map ultimately got superseded by the map under consideration on April 27 which was initially proposed by the redistricting committee.
Lentz expressed frustration over the apparent corruption of the redistricting process by the council, which she said was evident in the map that attempted to keep councilors in their current districts.
“Redistricting should not be about the politicians. It should be about the people who vote,” Lentz said.
Council Chair Karen Bowerman disagreed “vehemently” on the notion the proposed map in front of the council on April 27 worked for the politicians. Bowerman noted that map would place her at a disadvantage in the future when her term comes to an end since she would be placed in Councilor Gary Medvigy’s district.
One thing councilors and the public could agree on was the failure of the process. Public testimony called the county’s redistricting “a trainwreck” and like the movie “Groundhog Day” with its number of restarts.
Lentz said the criticism the council has received is “entirely justified.” She said the only map that attempted “to get the train back on the tracks” with regard to the process was the alternative map initially under consideration on April 19.
Councilor Julie Olson agreed the process went sideways from the start.
“I won’t support anything other than that (alternative) map at this point,” Olson said.
Medvigy said the criticism the council received had been “unfair, unsupported, vacuous, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest.” He pointed to the county redistricting committee’s failure to approve a map based on what was required through the county charter. That failure ultimately put the map process into the council’s lap.
“We didn’t interject ourselves into this. It was handed to us because of a poor charter that created a redistricting committee that really was doomed to deadlock,” Medvigy said.
Although another amendment approved by voters made counselor positions nonpartisan, Medvigy pointed to the map approved in the other amendment, which he said knowingly would put three of the four Republicans on the council into one district.
“It could not have been more partisan in outcome,” Medvigy said about the voter-approved map.
