Right now, county residents are up in arms about a district mapping proposal that would divide Deschutes County into five districts. If you have been following the labyrinthine path that got us to this political point, then you know none of this had to be this way. Voters said yes to a referendum in the last election that added two seats to the county commission. It did not dictate that districts be created or bipartisan committees of political map experts be appointed. But nevertheless, as with a lot of the odd partisan politics in 2026, here we are.
If you want an indication of what a dogfight the year 2026 could shape up to be in terms of politics and elections, then look no further than this protracted map-drawing process in our very own county. For reasons still not clearly defined, last year the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners, created a committee, the District Mapping Advisory Committee, that they tasked with coming up with a map dividing county voters into distinct districts. Phil Chang voted against that process, but in any case, the other commissioners also didn’t commit to using the map. They just committed to having a bipartisan group draw it up to see if it could fly. This is where the rulemaking can get complicated.
Some say the five districts deviate from the commissioners’ mandate to make the populations in each district be within 5% of each other, in some cases to over 10% — a dynamic that, in this case, gives the county’s largest city of Bend short shrift with just two districts, and favors conservative voters over the non-affiliated and Democratic voter majority. Many agree that the implementation of such districts is sure to result in legal battles that will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
According to the Northwest-based Sightline Institute, which advocates for ranked-choice voting, “ Single-winner districts can only ever guarantee geographic representation, and residents get only one person who ‘represents’ them in government, even if they hold opposing views. Republicans in Bend likely won’t get a true county representative, nor will Democrats in La Pine.”
Last week, commissioners convened two meetings on the issue, allowing members of the public to share their thoughts. Some warned of the issues named above. Some thought the maps were OK. People brought their passionate remarks — including one person who called out Commissioner Patti Adair for failing to pay attention to other commenters’ remarks. And after all that, Adair asked for two more weeks to consider the issue.
With all that is going on in our nation today — with yet another American killed this past weekend at the hands of the federal government, one might say that a lil’ ol’ county map is nothing to get in a lather over. But county elections matter. Commissioners have discretion over who gets appointed sheriff, for example — a thing that happened just last year. A corrupt sheriff, as we have seen in recent years, can retaliate against employees or cost the county hundreds of thousands in legal fees. What’s more, commissioners have oversight of the county health budget. They can approve land-use decisions that do or don’t jive with state goals. The jobs commissioners do are far-reaching.
And when so much is at stake, good decisions about how we elect those leaders are needed.
This is a terrible time to kick up dust and brew uncertainty or mistrust in electoral politics. A major election which could change the power dynamics in Washington, D.C., is brewing in November. Everyone is nervous about election integrity and how our voter information may be compromised. In this milieu, what we don’t need is more uncertainty from local leaders that fosters mistrust.
In the case of the DMAC and the map, the process seemed fairly well laid out: Draw some maps, choose the one that most fairly fulfills the mission, and then let the county commissioners approve it so it can go to voters. It’s simply not that easy, but now that we’re here, let’s get on with it.
If commissioners don’t move soon to either approve the map or leave the issue alone, they’ll miss the deadline for putting the issue on the May ballot. The deadline is Feb. 27. Miss that deadline and the issue will be kicked to the November election, where things get a bit more complicated. Voters are already voting on county commissioner seats in Deschutes County in May. If no one wins more than 50% of the vote in those contests, the two highest-ranking candidates then square off in November. At the same time, ostensibly, voters could be voting on whether to approve the county district map, which if approved will mean that the sitting commissioners may no longer qualify to represent their current district. Confused yet? Imagine you’re a voter trying to sort that all out.
This was an idea cooked up by county commissioners, and yet now, with their feet-dragging, at least some of them seem to be confused themselves. If commissioners really want to bring a more representative process to county voters, perhaps it’s time to go back to the drawing board and scrap the notion of a divided county all together.
Editor’s note: The second paragraph of this story has been edited to clarify that Commissioner Phil Chang voted against the formation of a map committee.
This article appears in the Source January 29, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The County Commissioners are “supposedly” nonpartisan. In fact it would appear this is not accurate. I would like to see the commissioners represent ALL their constituents, not just focus on RED or BLUE. Commissioner’s, please be listeners and a voice for ALL. Nonpartisan means working together, not being angry together!! There will be some wins and there will be some losses but at the end of the day finding some common ground is the ultimate victory. We have enough disfunction in our national and state politics. Is it to late for Deschutes County ward off the “us v them” biases? I hope not. The phrase in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. This should be front of mind for all County Commisioners!!
Maybe I am missing something, but it appears that we voted to expand from three to five commissioners. We did not vote for district representation. It feels like it’s being forced on us as retaliation from some of the current commissioners who did not agree with the expansion.
We tried to send a message to Debone and Adair that we were frustrated with their overly partisan politics, and therefore we voted to make the BOCC (Board of County Commissioners) positions “non-partisan”.
And before anyone blows the whistle that I’m unfairly singling out those two, or conversely leaving Chang out of the blame attribution, look no further than the BOCC votes over the last umpteen years. Almost every contentious issue comes down to a 2-1 vote: Debone and Adair on one side, Chang on the other.
It was only after suffering for years through this zombie situation did we, The People, moved via petition to get measure 9-148 on the ballot, then voted it into effect.
However, seeing that this didn’t get the attention of Debone and Adair, we then went the next step in deciding to add 2 new BOCC positions, to hopefully end this zombie apocalypse.
Again, did Debone and Adair get the message? The answer appears to be a resounding “yes” and “no”. Yes, they heard it. But no, they again refused to heed the will of the people. Their decision? Steamroll through a process to create a “map” that would divide the county into “districts”, meaning that district reps won’t be tasked with representing all the county’s residents, but instead only those residing in their districts.
My sense would be that this could all end nicely and politely by the BOCC voting to end the DMAC process in its entirety, leaving all 5 Commissioners to represent all the folks in the county.
Do I expect that outcome? Why would I? As Mitch McConnell has often been attributed as using an old Kentucky saying, “There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.”
Republicans gerrymandering because they wouldn’t win any other way. They only want representation by stealing it from someone else. Let the voters decide; Republican representatives might actually adopt some policies that people actually like.