This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Marathon Sessions Fail To Produce Agreement On Pierce County Voting Districts

The Pierce County Districting Committee, charged with re-drawing the seven County Council districts, has been wrestling for months with four proposals. Committee members have until July 28 to make a decision.

Proposals for re-shaping Pierce County's seven County Council districts were all over the map(s) Wednesday night, but Districting Committee members were unable to reach consensus on the fairest and best plan.

Two-and-a-half hours of reviewing failed to yield a front-runner, essentially leaving the matter in the hands of Districting Master Steven Garrett, a committee-appointed geographer who has performed similar work at the state level.

(Click here to visit the Pierce County Districting Committee website.)

Find out what's happening in Gig Harborwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"I'm going to see if it's possible to tweak things based on the pros and cons I've heard tonight," Garrett said after the meeting. "I've already outlined that I'm not touching four council districts. As far as I'm concerned, they're set in stone."

Added Garrett, "There won't be a next meeting like this. I'll submit my plan and they'll accept it or not."

Find out what's happening in Gig Harborwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Garrett said he intends to re-submit the fourth and most-recent proposal, known as Map D, for committee action. If the committee fails to act, the proposal will automatically take effect for the 2012 County Council election and remain in effect for 10 years.

Appointed by the County Council, the five-member Pierce County Districting Committee, is responsible for redrawing County Council districts every 10 years based on the U.S. Census. Redistricting is the process of changing the voting-district boundaries to help ensure equal representation.

Over the past several months, committee members have run through four boundary proposals (Maps A, B, C and D), and a series of public hearings. The committee is coming down to the wire, with a June 28 deadline for completing a map and 14 days to make any last-minute changes.

Once the district boundaries are final, the Pierce County Auditor will draw precinct lines and assign voters to their new precinct.

On Wednesday, two committee members favored Map D, one supported Map A and another preferred Map C. The fifth member, Chairwoman Karen Seinfeld, said she could live with Map D if it had less population in District 6, which takes in Lakewood,

Among the thornier issues was what to do about 7th District County Councilman Stan Flemming and 2nd District Councilwoman Joyce McDonald, who both could end up re-drawn out of their districts if Map D is approved as proposed.

Flemming’s district takes in University Place, Gig Harbor and Key Peninsula, while McDonald represents the north-central portion of the county. Under Map D, University Place would move into District 6, which includes Lakewood.

McDonald’s situation could be resolved with a minor boundary shift in Map D, since she lives on the border, Garrett said. Flemming’s situation is not as easily fixable.

Eariler in the day, Flemming told Patch that Map D represents a blatant attempt at gerrymandering County Council districts to bulk up Republican influence in District 6.

“There’s been a lot of politicking going on behind the scenes,” he said. “You have to wonder what’s happening and who’s been pulling the strings.”

Of the maps presented so far, Map A maintains the most even-handed district representation, Flemming said, based on current and target population distribution throughout Pierce County.

Gig Harbor Councilman Derek Young said Flemming is in an “unfortunate situation.”

“We’re only six months into his term. Theoretically, we could end up with somebody who’s not in our district representing us for the next three years,” he said.

Young said Flemming is a hard, conscientious elected official who would continue to work for the community even if the boundaries are redrawn around him--at least until his term ends.

As for the effect on Gig Harbor, losing University Place probably would be negligible to District 7 since West Tacoma's population would make up the loss.

Meanwhile, to the east, Edgewood resident Colleen Wise was on hand looking out for the interests of her community, Bonney Lake and Lake Tapps.

“I’m not so much worried about Sumner,” she said. “I’m more worried about Bonney Lake and Lake Tapps.”

Under Map D, Lake Tapps would fall within District 1--geographically the largest County Council district--along with Bonney Lake.

At the same time, Wise said Sumner remains a “point of interest” in any talks about political representation since it relies more on the Port of Tacoma for trade than does Bonney Lake, which is more of a bedroom community.

Another major stumbling block Wednesday was finding an appropriate level of representation for Tacoma, which is the county's most densely populated city. Some committee and audience members said Tacoma is over-represented under the Map D proposal but no consensus was reached on how to divvy up its 198,398 residents.

Committee members also are struggling with their mandate under the county charter to keep the individual communities intact and their boundaries as contiguous as possible.

In listing the pros and cons of the different maps, the committee focused on the percentage difference between the actual population and the ideal, or “target,” population that would result in each of the seven County Council districts under each of the boundary scenarios.

During public comments, Lakewood Mayor Douglas Richardson expressed concern about his city winding up with an 8.8 percent variance--the highest among the four boundary proposals--if Map D is approved. Richardson said the proposal would “water down” representation for military personnel at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

Earlier in the day, Lakewood Vice-Mayor Don Anderson, a practicing attorney for 30 years, said Map D’s high variance could result in a constitutional legal challenge and “disruption of governance.”

Anderson said the courts have held 9.93- and 9.8-percent differentials unconstitutional in two lawsuits. However, Garrett countered that the courts also have allowed variations of as much as 20 percent in district populations depending on circumstances.

The committee is scheduled to meet again July 12 at 7 p.m. in the Pierce County Annex, Conference Room D, 2401 South 35th St., Tacoma.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Gig Harbor