The three-seated Klickitat County Board of Commissioners revealed their redistricting proposal Dec. 13 and faced comment from the public during a Dec. 21 hearing on the proposal.
Following each U.S. census, a 10-year cycle, Klickitat County officials have commenced a redistricting process, whereby the lines separating each commissioner’s district are redrawn.
The current proposal was released Dec. 13 and can be found on the Klickitat County home page at klickitatcounty.org. County commissioners are on a legal deadline of Dec. 31 to approve a final plan.
County election administrator Brandy Sullivan presented the proposal last Tuesday, saying the county auditor’s office received training from the Washington Association of County Auditors and Flow Analytics, a GIS and data analytics firm that works with local governments and school districts in the pacific northwest.
Sullivan said county staff had only four months to prepare a redistricting proposal, half of the regularly allotted time. The county received the relevant data in August, County Auditor Brenda Sorenson said, as opposed to April when the census figures are normally released.
Final population numbers included inmate population allotments, Sullivan said.
The proposal recommends no changes from the previous boundaries, last performed after the conclusion of the 2010 census.
The proposal states that current census figures show District 1, which encapsulates the Bingen-White Salmon area up through Husum and a majority of the Trout Lake Valley and which is currently represented by Commissioner Jacob Anderson, contained 8,015 residents.
District 2, represented by Board Chair Dave Sauter and comprising Lyle and Goldendale, would contain 7,407 residents and District 3, represented by Commissioner Dan Christopher and comprising the eastern portion of the community including Centerville, would contain 7,367 residents.
Under the proposal, District 1 would take the lion’s share of the county’s population with just under 3% above the one-third standard set by state regulation. Sullivan said Flow Analytics recommended a deviation between the least and most populated districts of less than or equal to 10%. In 2011, the deviation was 6%, with a difference of 1,283 people, she said. Under the current proposal, the deviation between the most populated district (District 1) and the least populated district (District 3) is around 3% for a difference of 648 people.
The figures come from the 2020 U.S. Census data received by the Washington State Redistricting Commission, the proposal said.
Washington state requires each local government electoral district to be as nearly equal in population and as compact as possible. It also requires districts to consist of a geographically contiguous area and coincide with existing recognized natural boundaries. Districts must also not be used to favor or disfavor any racial group or political party.
Trout Lake voices concerns
Back in 2011, the county approved a redistricting plan that split the community of Trout Lake between representation by District 1 and District 2 commissioners. Under the current proposal, that same configuration would continue, even as Trout Lake Community Councilors warned that the status quo would exacerbate inequities into 2030.
The council voted to send a letter to the Board of Commissioners, also forwarded to the Washington State Redistricting Commission and Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, which stated the county has not met multiple state redistricting requirements and requested commissioners to consider placing the entire community within a single elected district.
“Trout Lake is an isolated, rural community, and maintains a strong sense of identity supported by having its own school community council, and economic opportunities,” the letter, signed by Council Chair Daina Bambe reads in part. “This is why we feel it is important to keep all of the Trout Lake community together in one commissioner district.”
The 2011 redistricting plan placed 276 Trout Lake residents within the Glenwood Valley precinct in District 2, which encapsulated several blocks in the center of town, and left the remaining 882 residents within the Trout Lake precinct in District 1.
“There have been primary candidates for District 1 Commissioner that have come from Trout Lake. The current situation…. prevents (the 276 residents) from voting for these candidates from their community, if they so choose,” Bambe said in the letter.
The letter alleges that the county has not met four distinct requirements in its redistricting process. Bambe stated that the plan does not meet the requirement that each district contain as close to one-third the population as possible, given that “District 1 is significantly larger in population than the other two district and is the fastest growing area of the county.”
It further states that the plan did not consider that district boundaries are required to preserve existing communities of related and mutual interest. Under the 2011 redistriction decision, the Trout Lake Community Council must work with two county commissioners, while the council that represents the community has a single set of interests, the letter says.
“The Trout Lake Valley is distinct geographically from the Glenwood Valley. The two valleys are in different watersheds, have different sources of drinking and irrigation water, and other natural features,”the letter states. “We (the Trout Lake Community) have a school, a post office, and the Trout Lake Community Council… The Council bylaws define our district to match that of the (Trout Lake School District) to reflect fair representation and to not disenfranchise those living in our community.”
Further, the council stated in the letter that the county had not published adequate and timely notice of the proposal, saying the current schedule “does not allow for any amendment following public comment.
“If the commission were to revise the plan based on comment today, the revised draft plan would have to be published on Dec. 23 or 24 to allow a week of public comment before the required adoption date of Dec. 31,” the letter states. “It appears, then, that the commission’s intention is to adopt the draft plan regardless of public comment or input received today. This is a disservice to your constituency.”
The letter points out that in 2011, the county held a public hearing with three week’s notice, while in 2021, “there is a mere 10 days’ notice for the public meeting.”
Board Chair Dave Sauter had not responded to a request for comment on the proposal by press deadline.
There is still a path for recourse in the event of approval of the proposal without the changes requested by the Trout Lake Community Council. Recently adopted state requirements allow for review by a superior court if requested by any registered voter residing in an area impacted by a redistricting plan within 15 days of approval.
Bambe said in an email that the council sees a court review as the only opportunity to resolve the inequities they see in the current proposal.
“We are researching what that process is and how much it could potentially cost,” she said. “Our council is solely funded by donations and a yearly grant by the Trout Lake Area Business Association. It is highly unlikely that we will have sufficient funds to proceed with the review.”
With the Trout Lake Community Council “only just recently” receiving the census block maps which directed the current proposal, Bambe said the council did not have enough time to even assess any potential adjustments. While the council began a precursory review of possible adjustments, they are not sharing those findings as other communities were not involved.
“This is why an open, collaborative process is necessary to reflect concerns of residents and potentially affected communities,” Bambe said.
Bambe said county commissioners could have used a collaborative framework to guide the redistricting process in August when they received the census figures, but instead restricted public participation to just a couple of weeks.
“This limited any opportunity for potential adjustments to be developed and considered. It is the role of the Klickitat County to develop proposed adjustments to Commissioner District boundaries and (Trout Lake Community Council) had hoped that they would have approached this in a collaborative manner where all potentially affected communities could be involved, issues identified, and reasonable options considered,” she said.
Commissioners respond
During the public hearing, Commissioner Jacob Anderson asked the elections administrator about the cost to bring the deviation down from 3% to 1%, to which Sullivan responded that an effort like that would require splitting precincts and rewriting legal descriptions.
“It wouldn’t happen within days,” Sullivan said.
Sauter added that the county was “not given the date and the final numbers until very late. We did not have a lot of ability, and I am concerned.” He then asked what would happen if the county did not meet the legal deadline, to which Sullivan said she could not respond as it was a legal question. Sauter later stated that he would follow up with the county prosecuting attorney before the next meeting on Dec. 28.
Anderson further added that he looked into the idea of bringing Trout Lake residents into a single district boundary, and concluded that “I was in favor of leaving it alone,” based on his reasoning that growth patterns in the Husum and Fruit Valley (Bingen-White Salmon) precincts suggest Trout Lake could end up entirely within the boundaries of District 2 in the next 10 years.
Christopher stated he was in favor of the current proposal given the current timeframe.
“I don’t see a way that we can follow the law and have it done on a specific time,” Christopher said.
The County Board of Commissioners met on Dec. 28, after press deadline, where there was a public hearing and final consideration for adoption of the redistricting proposal.
Commented