It’s that time again — time for our editorial board to weigh in on important issues facing local people in the coming November election. The calendar has just rolled over to September, and while it feels early to start sharing our endorsements for races in early November, the autumn goes fast, and before you know it, it will be mid-October, when ballots begin arriving in Oregonians’ mailboxes. (Thankfully, in spite of efforts to the contrary, it appears that mail-in balloting is still allowed.)
Endorsing in local, state and Congressional races is among the heaviest work we do. Each of our endorsements is based on careful research, done year-round through our daily reporting, and in earnest during election season. While numerous media outlets have eschewed the process in fear of upsetting one side or another, we think that sells readers short and undermines your intelligence. Voters — us included — often tap a host of resources to come to a decision on who to vote for. In spite of the unflattering names we can sometimes get called, our primary mission as media professionals is not to be an enemy of the people, but to uphold accountability, and to remain a watchdog of local governments and local leadership. Doing that year-round gives us an important perspective on what’s working, what’s not and who’s ready to lead. Use our endorsements as just one way to gain information about local elections.
Evidence of our year-round commitment to monitoring the political process can be found in the archives of our Opinion section, where we’ve weighed in a number of times this past year on Deschutes County’s waylaid attempt at adding geographic representation to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners. We told you back in January why the district mapping proposal you’ll vote on this November is a bad idea. As far back as November, we questioned whether breaking the County into five districts was a solution in search of a problem. As the election season approaches now in late 2026, we’re back to say it again: The district mapping proposal on Deschutes County voters’ ballots this November is a flawed map that disenfranchises the County’s largest city, Bend, in favor of what proponents hope will be a lopsided “benefit” for the rural voters in the County.
The fastest-growing part of Bend — the southeast portion, home to many families and multigenerational households — contains a far larger raw number of people than other districts.
But let’s back up a bit and cover the basics.
In 2024, voters in Deschutes County voted to expand the size of the Commission from three to five. It’s obvious to anyone who’s spent time at a County Commission meeting, where one more left-leaning commissioner spars daily — and loudly — with the other two right-leaning commissioners, that a larger Commission will introduce some diversity of thought that appears badly needed. That decision was put before the voters, and voters said they wanted to expand. Done.
What happened next, however, has been a series of events that have the contours of democracy, with some glaring red flags. Commissioners voted 2-1 — with conservatives Patti Adair and Tony DeBone voting in favor — of forming a committee to develop a district map that divided the County into five zones. Nowhere in any rulebook did it say that the County had to do this, nor that the five districts be represented by commissioners who live in the districts they represent. Those were all made-up “guidelines,” mind you, cooked up by two commissioners who will not be serving on the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners come January. (Tony DeBone lost to Jamie Collins in May, and Patti Adair is running for Congress.)
But that’s not the most troublesome part. The biggest ticking point is the criteria upon which the maps were drawn. Against any precedent we are aware of, the District Mapping committee opted to use voter registration numbers, rather than total population, to draw the district lines. That means that the fastest-growing part of Bend — the southeast portion, home to many families and multigenerational households — contains a far larger raw number of people than other districts. Commissioners, overseeing everything from county health to juvenile justice, serve the entire county, not just the voting public.
The map is so poorly drawn that both the DMAC members and county commissioners have admitted they should probably go back to the drawing board once the next Census — in just four years — is completed.
Voters are going to have plenty to get their heads around, voting in two more commissioners in November and ushering in four new members of the Commission next year. If districts are a priority for this new Commission, they can opt to take up the issue and incorporate the Census figures in just a few short years.
In the meantime, vote No on Measure 9-185.
This article appears in the Source September 3, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
What is the solution? There is a great deal of finger pointing and blame but not much in the way of sensible solutions being offered. Voters approved the nonpartisan commissioner elections in 2022. Ironically this made the election even more partisan. The biggest fear of independent voters and those voters living outside the Bend UGB is the commissioner elections will become Bend Centric. The city of Bend leadership has shown time and again their propensity to make decisions based on what THEY think the city needs and not based on what residents and voters want, example the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The county government is a place holder in the city of Bend. County commissioners should represent ALL Deschutes County not just a city with the largest population!!
Endorsing is among the heaviest work you do? How hard is it to pick the liberal every time, because that’s what you do, isn’t it? And don’t kid yourself – if the County had two liberal commissioners and one conservative commissioner you wouldn’t have endorsed the move to five commissioners.
Endorsing the status quo does not “undermine” readers intelligence, it reduces the Source’s credibility.
Thank you, Source! Good advice, vote NO on 9-185. We voted on creating two new at-large positions. Every few years, we would need to change the maps due to the demographic changes. This would cost money. This is an unnecessary
Proposal that is very partisan. Vote no.