Dual issues of having legislative districts with competitive elections and making them represent whole communities of interest dominated discussions during an event designed to let a five-member commission gain insight on where it will draw the next boundaries for both the Washington State Legislature and the state’s Congressional districts.
During a remote public hearing for constituents of the Third Congressional District, members of the Washington State Redistricting Commission heard from more than two dozen constituents of that district. Washington state law establishes an independent redistricting commission that looks at legislative and Congressional boundaries every 10 years following the U.S. Census, commission chair Sarah Augustine said at the start of the event.
The Process
Augustine said one of the commission’s values was for an “open, transparent and credible process.” This year’s redistricting procedure has been challenging due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she said, as U.S. Census data the commission would receive by April 1 in a regular year isn’t expected to be received until late August.
Apportionment data was released, however, showing which states would gain or lose seats in Congress. Though the state added approximately 1 million residents in 10 years, Washington’s number in the House of Representatives did not change, Augustine said. The state had a population of 7,705,281 as of April 1 2020.
The goal of the commission is to distribute population “as equally as possible” among the Congressional and legislative districts, Augustine said. For Congressional districts, that would be about 770,000 population, and for legislative districts that is roughly 157,000 residents. Other goals included making districts that were “compact, contiguous, and convenient” and ones that minimized district lines that cut through counties, municipalities, or “communities of interest.”
The commission showed a map indicating the Third Congressional District needed slightly more residents in its boundaries to maintain a proportional population. That district contains all of the 49th, 17th and 18th Legislative Districts, and parts of the 2nd, 14th, 19th and 20th. Of those, the 2nd, 17th and 18th had more population than would be proportional, which means they would likely shrink while others expanded.
Augustine said an analogy given by Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman that the commission’s task was like solving a Rubik’s Cube was apt.
Testimony
Those who testified fell generally into two groups — those who wanted more competitive races, and those who wished to see “communities of interest” located within one district. A number of individuals in the 49th Legislative District fell into the former group, which has been solidly Democrat for some time.
Kelli Fiskum said that of the 78 legislative district elections since the 49th was founded in the 1950s, only 12 were won by Republicans, and the last time one won was more than two decades ago.
Cynthia Gardner said only one district in the state had split Democrat and Republican members of the state House of Representatives, and only two have a Senate member not aligned with house colleagues. She said this one-sided nature led to lawmakers playing only to their political bases and more extreme candidates on both sides of the aisle, as well as general citizen apathy.
“Sometimes the opposing party doesn’t put up a viable candidate, realizing the district is too packed for that person to win,” Gardner said.
“Seeing a balance in the district would be wonderful,” Kathy McDonald, a member of the 49th, said. “Many solid Republicans have looked at this seat, but without any path forward, have chosen not to run for office.” She would like to see her district’s boundary more northward into the 18th, which has been more solidly Republican in recent years.
Constituents in the 18th had their own concerns, with a number being about its shape. The district sprawls across Clark County, incorporating parts of every municipality and completely surrounding the 17th and 49th districts. As one of the districts identified as requiring a downsizing due to population growth, some who testified representing the boundaries of the district expressed concern they might be split away from their communities of interest.
Catherine Morton Greenlee said while the 18th is “overly large and touches every municipality in Clark County,” she wished to keep Washougal in the 18th.
Another testifier, John Anderson, noted Camas and Washougal share a fire department, port, and chamber of commerce.
“The 18th (LD) is neither compact nor convenient,” Judy Zeider said, adding that one legislator got a speeding ticket going from one town hall to the other due to the spread-out nature of the district.
She noted that Battle Ground is split between the 17th and 18th, which also goes against keeping communities together.
Ellie Hutton said for the past 10 years she’s lived in the 18th, but her neighbor is in 14th. A number of testifiers at the hearing brought up how the 14th includes some of Clark County and all of Skamania County, arguing they had more in common with Vancouver than they did Yakima, where much of their state representation is from.
“Yakima is not even within the realm of what most folks in Clark County think of as their community of interest,” Hutton said. “Clark County is where I am involved and do my business.”
