The state Supreme Court will draw Washington’s new legislative and congressional district boundaries after the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission failed to reach an agreement on the redrawn districts by Monday’s deadline of 11:59 p.m.
“Last night, after substantial work marked by mutual respect and dedication to the important task, the four voting commissioners on the state redistricting commission were unable to adopt a districting plan by the midnight deadline,” the commission said in a statement on Tuesday. “The late release of the 2020 census data combined with technical challenges hampered the commission's work considerably. Pursuant to [state law], the Supreme Court now has jurisdiction to adopt a districting plan.”
This is the first time in the 30 years since the commission’s creation that it has failed to adopt new boundaries. The court has until April 30 to draw the new district lines, which will be used in the 2022 midterm elections.
“The commissioners have every faith that the Supreme Court will draw maps that are fair and worthy of the people of Washington," the statement said.
Monday's meeting, in which three of the four voting members had to agree to a new set of boundaries, was dysfunctional.
After going into a scheduled public meeting via video at 7 p.m., the commissioners went into closed-door caucuses. Staff or commissioners appeared on video every half-hour to say the private talks were ongoing.
As the deadline neared, it was clear there were disagreements on several aspects of the new boundaries among the commissioners. So it was surprising when, as the clock wound down, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve new district lines. They also voted to transmit a letter to the state Legislature outlining their ostensible agreements.
The meeting adjourned shortly after. Commission Chair Sarah Augustine, a nonvoting member, congratulated the commissioners and said the new boundaries would be revealed in the morning. A press conference was scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday.
That press conference was canceled 20 minutes before it was scheduled to start, and the commission's statement admitting it had failed to reach an agreement was released shortly afterward. The statement did not explain why the commissioners unanimously voted to approve new district lines only to announce they had not actually come to a deal hours later.
Mike Fancher, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, told the Seattle Times that the commission's actions appear to have violated the state's Open Public Meetings Act, which in certain cases forbids public commissions from debating and making deals behind closed-doors.
“It clearly seems as is if this was a deliberate attempt to essentially hide the discussions from the public,” Fancher told the Times. He also said that, even if the commission did follow the law, it "definitely" violated the spirit of the law.
The redistricting process is done every 10 years to reflect changes in population, which are recorded by the decennial census. Unlike many other states, where new district lines are drawn by the political party in power, Washington’s district lines are drawn by a bipartisan commission made up of four voting members. The bipartisan commission was established 30 years ago after the 1990 census.
The commissioners are appointed by state leaders from both political parties. This year's Democratic appointees were former state legislator Brady Piñero Walkinshaw and state labor-council leader April Sims. The Republican appointees were former state legislators Joe Fain and Paul Graves.
Washington has 49 state legislative districts and 10 congressional districts. Voters in each of the state's legislative districts elect two people to serve in the state House of Representatives and one person to serve in the state Senate. Voters in the larger congressional districts elect one person to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
However Washington's Supreme Court draws the new boundaries could have large ramifications for state lawmakers. District lines are usually drawn by the commissioners in ways that are advantageous to both parties. But boundary lines being drawn by a body that is supposed to be nonpartisan could instead lead to headaches for state party leaders — for example, longtime incumbents in the Seattle area could end up in the same district, which would require that they move or step down to avoid running against one another.
Such a scenario isn't as likely for Washington's congressional representatives, but the stakes are still high. New boundary lines could oust a current incumbent from their current district or, at best, fundamentally change the electorate that sent them to Congress in 2020.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
