Redistricting in Washington, Pt. 2

Gerrymandering has returned to Washington State. This is a big deal because we are supposed to avoid this through our Redistricting Commission process. This article touches on the situation while also calling attention to state leaders who are responsible.

18 states use commissions for state legislative redistricting. Washington used to be one of these states — in fact an early adopter. In the 1980s, voters and our legislature approved a state constitutional amendment to establish a redistricting commission to avoid the partisan treachery experienced in other states.

Washington, through the efforts of special interests — and the lawmakers and judges who enable them — is no longer a redistricting commission state.

Indeed, this program is still in our state constitution, and we’re supposed to convene the next one in 2031, but after the 2021 round, and the litigation which nullified its purpose, the future is bleak for the commission process.

The 2021 process was chaotic and controversial, nevertheless, a map was produced.

Days after being released, the commission’s map was legally challenged under the federal Voting Rights Act. There was yet to be an election in the Yakima Valley’s 15th LD to prove any racial bias in voting. Therefore, the case had to rely on evidence from the previous 2011 map, including testimony from expert witnesses.

In November 2022, the test of a real election took place. The vote resulted in a Latina representing the state senate in the 15th Legislative District.

To the partisan plaintiffs, the problem is the GOP — the political party Sen. Nikki Torres political aligns with.

The heart of the ruling is about the idea of how Latinos are supposed to vote. In the opinion, Judge Robert Lasnik writes,

“Party labels help identify candidates that favor a certain bundle of policy prescriptions and choices, and the Democratic platform is apparently better aligned with the economic and social preferences of Latinos in the Yakima Valley region than is the Republican platform …”

The ruling has enabled a partisan gerrymander.

The new map, approved by Lasnik on March 15, changes the shape of 13 districts in the state to benefit Democrats.

These new districts were not drawn by our voter approved Commission, instead, they were created by the plaintiffs in the case.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s has sided with the plaintiffs, so the Court had to admit intervenor defendants to stick up for the Commission maps. Ferguson is not appealing the ruling, and in fact, has filed legal briefs opposing the intervenors appeal.

“No Position”

Secretary of State (SOS) Steven Hobbs only comments on this issue when he is obligated through legal briefs. He has filed briefs helping plaintiff maps avoid technical issues with boundaries. In anotherJuly 12, 2023 brief Hobbs declares,

“On the question of the appropriate remedy [new plaintiff map], if the Court invalidates the existing legislative [commission] district map, the Secretary largely takes no position. The Secretary’s one limited position on this issue is the Office of the Secretary of State is not the appropriate entity to create new maps. The Secretary’s role, together with county elections officials, is to administer election maps, not to draw them.”

I will be clear, the appropriate entity to create new maps is the State Redistricting Commission. Yet, through legal proceedings, 13 districts within the new maps were drawn by the plaintiffs to benefit Hobbs’ party. His lack of a position effectively is the position of siding with the plaintiffs; while trying to appear as having nothing to do with the attack on the commission process!

The SOS could have, from the start of the legal action in 2022, publicly announced his support of Washington’s redistricting process. In fact, he could have made clear to the Governor, State Attorney General and partisan legislators, that the attack on the redistricting process is wrong.

Hobbs had a big opportunity to publicly stand up for the commission process in November of 2022 with the election of a Latina lawmaker in the 15th LD.

Surely, this would have caused political headaches to Ferguson’s case. If AG Ferguson, who is tasked to defend the State, can side with the plaintiffs, why can’t SOS Hobbs, on the other hand, make public statements in favor of the redistricting commission process?

The office of SOS is a bully pulpit. When Sam Reed served as SOS, he caught the ire of both major parties by publicly opposing their legal attack on the Top 2 Primary system. Hobbs could have stood up for good government and the voter approved redistricting system. Instead, he’s allowed a gerrymander to ride roughshod.

The legal case is a political ruse. Yet, Hobbs expects us to believe his supposed neutrality is protecting some kind of sanctity of the proceedings. Many people are unhappy, if not angry about this mess. The new gerrymander is degrading public confidence in elections.

Our institutions have been attacked by a partisan agenda. Gerrymandering has returned to Washington State and AG Bob Ferguson and SOS Steve Hobbs are participating.

A functional redistricting commission is supposed to prevent gerrymandering. There is still hope for a fair outcome as the case is on appeal.

(Image: Novoselić, back row, 3rd from left. Jay Inslee press conference advocating the Washington Voting Rights Act. Novoselić testified in Olympia over various sessions in favor of the Act.)