Yes on 20-362 to curtail partisan gerrymandering

Protecting voters’ right to choose their elected officials

by Stan Long

Almost everyone understands why friends and relatives of the parties facing a jury trial are not allowed to be jurors for that case. The full list of rules that prohibit tainting a jury verdict with conflicts of interests is comprehensive and designed to promote public confidence in the justice system.

The rules are strict; an interest in just one of the questions to be decided by a jury requires a judge to disqualify the ‘interested” person from serving on a jury.

By parity of purpose and parity of reasoning, we should expect a local government committee created to decide how we conduct county elections to be free from conflicts of interest.

That is not the case in Lane County.

Today, the county sets the boundaries of election districts in a manner that is upside down and backwards from how Oregon government normally tries to avoid conflicts of interest.

It may be hard to believe, but to set election district boundaries Lane County uses an “all-comers” committee and provides no disqualifications for conflicts of interest. It should surprise no one that political activists served on the committee and created toxic district maps that protect certain incumbents and afford certain candidates unfair advantages. 

Overall, the committee’s work reflected a partisan political perspective despite the fact the county offices are by law non-partisan positions.

Though called the “Independent Redistricting Committee,” in no respect is the Lane County committee independent of political interests. The committee simply provides political cover for gerrymandering. The committee design is so subject to corrupt practices that a paid political consultant for two county commissioners was a committee member and was credited with being the principal author of the polluted map adopted by the commissioners in 2021.

None of this distasteful conduct is illegal under county laws, even though most people would regard it as wrong.

A county charter provision to address such corrupt redistricting practices is essential to having competitive and fair elections. There is no clause in the Oregon Constitution that has been interpreted to prevent local government gerrymandering and the only state statute that does address gerrymandering has proved to be toothless in the courts.

Do not confuse federal cases involving the right to vote with anti-gerrymandering cases that involve how we vote. The federal courts simply do not hear objections to incumbency protections and partisan advantages created by local governments.

The only way to protect voters from the politically-motivated redistricting is through charter provisions beyond the reach of county politicians.

I certainly understand the desire of politicians once in office, and their supporters, to have the opportunity to exert undue influence over the next election; “to the victor goes the spoils” is not a new idea but in the Oregon tradition of government it is immoral.

Voters should pick their elected officials, not the other way around. Schemes that allow politicians to choose who votes for them should not be tolerated for the same reasons we do not tolerate tainted juries.

Saying yes to Measure 20-362 protects the sacred right of voters to decide who they elect to county offices. 

Stan Long is a retired attorney and lives in Eugene. While in private practice there, he had many local governments as clients. He also served in state government by appointment of both Republicans and Democrats in several different positions: deputy attorney general; chairman of LCDC; director of the Department of Commerce; and president of SAIF Corp. After his last assignment in government, he worked in the insurance industry as a claims executive.