³ÉÈËXÕ¾

The Washington Supreme Court opted to allow late-arriving redistricting maps to move forward on Friday, effectively concluding a process that’s been mired in controversy, and that still faces criticism in the wake of the high court’s decision.

State Supreme Court allows late-arriving redistricting maps to move forward

Initially, the Washington State Redistricting Commission (WSRC) had failed to meet its mandated deadline for approving and transmitting new maps. In a sworn statement to the state Supreme Court, the commission’s chair detailed how that was driven by an 11th-hour vote to approve the map seconds before a midnight deadline, followed by a series of technical glitches that delayed the delivery of the maps to the state Legislature by nearly 24 hours.

That was part of a process that some allege violated the state’s Open Public Meeting Act, pointing to the closed-door nature of the commission’s proceedings leading up to the deadline, as well as the fact that the maps themselves were hastily approved by the commission without public input.

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court allowed the maps to move forward anyway, pointing to a process slowed more by technological obstacles than an inability to come to an agreement.

The maps drawn up by the WSRC have since been denounced as inequitable to communities of color, particularly for predominantly Hispanic districts in Central Washington.

“While the Washington Redistricting Commission attempted to approve maps on November 16, 2021, after the constitutional deadline, in the Yakima region, the Commission has failed to draw legislative redistricting plans that comply with the United States Constitution, the Federal Voting Rights Act and Washington state law redistricting requirements,” an analysis concludes.

That’s a sentiment echoed by the Northwest Progressive Institute, which warns that there could be legal challenges ahead.

“It was clear to anyone who watched the Commission’s chaotic, disorganized meeting on November 15th that it did not finish its work by the deadline,” NPI Executive Director Andrew Villaneuve said in a press release. “Commissioners took a vote on maps that no one had seen, not even themselves, and then promptly congratulated themselves on having done a great job before concluding the following morning that they hadn’t finished on time.”

Post blown redistricting deadline, state commission blames ‘partisan performance’

“A framework is not a set of maps. An informal agreement is not a set of maps,” he added. “There was no opportunity for public comment or review before votes were taken on November 15th to adopt the cartographic equivalent of vaporware. The Supreme Court had an opportunity here to rectify this wrong, and make a good 10 year decision for our state, and sadly, it has declined to do so.”

Conversely, commissioners claim that because they met privately in two-person “dyads” — rather than with a quorum of three — that they were not in violation of public meeting laws. Others have alleged by taking parts of the process behind closed doors in the first place. They’ve also billed their maps as “reflecting the input of thousands of people who took part in the process with us.”

Moving forward, Villaneuve says that the NPI will work to petition state lawmakers to adopt new rules mandating that redistricting maps be subject to public review at least a week before they’re adopted.