Editor’s Update (1/21): After hearing from hundreds of constituents from all over the county (the majority of whom opposed Map C), the Board of County Commissioners moved 2-1 to wait another “two weeks,” Commissioner Patty Adair said, before making any decisions on advancing Map C to a future ballot.
In November, Sisters resident and former Oregon Deputy Attorney General Pete Shepherd warned that “expensive and divisive litigation” could arise from a move to potentially form voting districts for Deschutes County commissioners, alleging that the current proposed map, Map C, is gerrymandered in violation of Oregon state law.
Now, Shepherd has run some numbers and will make that case to the Board of Commissioners at two public hearings this week, hoping that his decades of high-level legal experience lend credibility to his argument.
In July, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners created the District Mapping Advisory Committee to create and choose between proposals for the geographic boundaries of theoretical commission voting districts. While commissioner positions have been non-partisan on paper since 2022, two of the three current commissioners identify as Republicans. They appointed four of seven members to the DMAC, which voted 4-3 to advance its Map C proposal.
The BOCC will expand to five members in 2027. Map C, if approved by voters on a future ballot measure, would create five separate voting districts in 2028.
Commissioner Phil Chang, a Democrat, and members of DMAC’s three-person voting minority have called Map C a gerrymandering attempt by Republicans. Data analysis by the Source and independent researcher Bryce Kellogg shows that Map C is statistically favorable to Republican-affiliated candidates, while Map A, an unsuccessful proposal, likely would have given Democratic-affiliated candidates an advantage instead.
In written statements provided to the Source, Shepherd claimed that Map C is unconstitutional and projected that its potential fiscal impact on county taxpayers could exceed $250,000.
Establishing that the Oregon Constitution mandates “free and equal” elections, Shepherd cited an Oregon Supreme Court opinion in the 1901 case Ladd v. Holmes: “Every elector has the right to have his vote count for all it is worth, in proportion to the whole number of qualified electors desiring to exercise their privilege.”
At a December meeting, Chang noted that Map C was not in compliance with guidelines that the BOCC had set for DMAC – specifically, to make each district’s population within 10% of any other.
“Currently, each vote cast for a candidate for commissioner carries exactly the same political weight as each of the other votes cast for any commissioner,” Shepherd wrote. “Map C moves Deschutes County away from the ‘equal vote’ required by the Oregon Constitution. Instead of hewing more closely to the ideal, Map C undermines it.”
In his view, this will allow opponents “to make out a prima facie case that [Map C] violates Article I, Section 20, and Article II, Section 1 [of the Oregon Constitution].”
Assuming that the proposal would provoke court battles if placed on a future ballot, Shepherd argued that citizens would be footing the legal fees. “Further pursuit of Map C is tantamount to playing craps with taxpayer money,” he said.
“If Deschutes County presses ahead with Map C, and voters approve it, the total litigation expense the County faces is approximately $103,439, even if the County prevails in its defense of Map C,” Shepherd alleged. “If the challenger prevails in the litigation, the County would be required to pay the challenger’s reasonable attorney fees ($158,450) in addition to paying its own fees, making the grand total more than a quarter million taxpayer dollars — $261,889.”
In a phone interview with the Source, Commissioner Tony DeBone said that Shepherd’s figures are “all theoretical and hypothetical,” but acknowledged that punitive damages could be costly “if [Map C] was found to be in violation.”
Commissioner Patty Adair did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.
Public hearings are scheduled for Jan. 20 at 6 pm and Jan. 21 at 9 am. “The Board is expected to discuss the next steps immediately following the public hearing agenda item on Jan. 21,” Deschutes County spokesperson Kim Katchur told the Source.
DeBone told the Source that the BOCC would make a decision next month, giving a tentative date of Feb. 4.
Editor’s Note: Updated 1/21 with comments from Commissioner DeBone.
This article appears in the Source January 22, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
A.G. Shepherd may be mistaken. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled:
Judge Alito in his majority opinion in the case of Alexander v S.Carolina NAACP (May 2024) unabashedly said that seeking to make a seat safer for a Republican or Democrat is a goal that does not violate the Constitution.
I feel that Map C resulted from a good faith effort by the Republican members of DMAC to follow the guidelines that were mandated for them; voter registration numbers not being one of them.
I am a long-time Democrat, but feel Map C is correct on two very important points. If Map C is rejected by voters we would lose (1) separate mapped districts, and (2) the right of people to vote only for the candidates running in their own district. At-large voting would be imposed; equal representation would be lost.
Map C is gerrymandered (intentional or not). But, the two alternatives being proposed by Democrats may be even worse, because they include at-large voting. One alternative eliminates mapped districts and imposes at-large voting for all candidates. The Missoula Model proposed by Phil Chang retains mapped districts but still requires all candidates to run at large.
An at-large election would not be representative, because it lets voters from all over the county vote for candidates running in a district that you may live in. As a result, an election in a rural conservative district might be tipped in favor of a liberal candidate because of a large turnout of Democrats in Bend. Then someone would have been elected who may not share the values of the people living in your district.
A Democrat running at-large has an additional advantage, because the Deschutes Democrats are now attracting large contributions from wealthy special interests. At-large voting requires tens of thousands of dollars to compete in our vast county. As a result candidates must spend time groveling for money, rather than engaging with their neighbors while campaigning.
(Unfortunately, Deschutes County has not yet adopted the limits on campaign spending that Oregon election law now permits.)
The oft repeated argument (heard in Democratic circles) that a county commissioner elected solely from the voters in a rural district would not serve in the best interests of the county as a whole is snooty and condescending! No wonder there is such an urban-rural divide.
Lane County is an Oregon county with geographic districts and which shuns at-large voting. Like us, their districts fall out as 3 urban and 2 rural. If Lane County is any indication, the presence of their truly diverse County Commission might be leading that community into lasting forms of agreement–and even consensus.
On Jan. 6, 2026, KLCC reported that the Lane County Commission, with the support of the three majority liberal Commissioners, voted for conservative Ryan Ceniga to be the new Commission chair. In response, Mr. Ceniga said, “I’m looking forward to great year. I want to run effective, positive meetings in a timely manner. I would also like to remind everyone that we will not always agree and vote the same way, and that’s okay. This is why we are here and why we have been elected by our districts. Lane County is as diverse as any, and that’s one of the many reasons I love it here.”