Thank you, Kari. My candidate in the original 5th District primary printed a copy of that 5th District map (which, as I recall, included parts of 5 counties and reached up to Detroit--but not Idahna), and we thought that was one of his great strengths--knew the geography of the district so well, not to mention having grown up in rural Clackamas County.

Those who are proposing candidates for this district should keep in mind that it is a diverse district including Lake Oswego, Dallas, Molalla, parts of the Albany/Corvallis area, almost up to Cannon Beach, and down to Yahats. Hard to imagine anyone from Portland doing town hall meetings in some of those areas, although it might be a real education to them to find out how other Oregonians live and what they care about.

[Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

...and censorship rears its ugly head on BO

What the hell is wrong with District 4 and 5? Was there serious gerrymandering involved? Apparently I lived in district 5 then moved about 5 blocks down the road and now live in district 4.

They should cover at least a whole city and not carve out the stupid university and the blue bloods that live around it.

Absolutely stupid. Really. Stupid. Sometimes it makes it hard to be proud to be an oregonian (doesn't deserve a capitalization).

Note that parts of Portland are in the 5th District. Johns Landing, etc. Small area, but significant numbers of voters.

Yeah, that little spear shooting into PDX had to be the result of some past Democratic gerrymandering designed to increase the Dem numbers in CD5. Because we all know that John's Landing and Waldport voters have so much in common.

Show me a legislative district that is not Gerrymandered, and you will be showing me a government that does not use single member, winner take all elections.

Gerrymandering is usually done to assure political victory for one candidate or party. It may seem proper to draw district lines around cities or population clusters, but that strategy can lead to homogeneous districts with little electoral competition - not a good thing for democracy. It is impossible for anyone to seriously challenge Earl in the 3rd district, as things are. It would promote competitive elections if more of Portland were removed from the 3rd and replaced with more of Clackamas or Hood Counties. that would put more of Portland into the 1st and 5th districts.

Thanks, Miles.

"Note that parts of Portland are in the 5th District. Johns Landing, etc. Small area, but significant numbers of voters." gives new meaning to the word significant.

Just as always, the bulk of the voters are Marion, Polk, and Clackamas.

About gerrymandering.........

If you can find a map of the original 5th District, a little piece of it hangs down -- a legislator wanted his home included in case he decided to run (which he never did).

The people who were the organizational strength of the Democratic Congressional District Central Committees in the 1980s were not available for the same jobs after the 1990 census and 1991 redistricting. By a few blocks or by miles, some of those strong people were drawn into new Congressional districts. But was it really gerrymandering, or was it population shift? For that matter, to look at the top map, could the argument be made that McMinnville has a community of interest with Dallas, Monmouth and Molalla? Or did that line get drawn in the right place?

Some redistricting decisions are gerrymandering, but not all are.

I'm confused - does this mean that the South Waterfront development is in the 5th CD? It's south of the base of the tram. Does anybody know?

Pete Forsyth: A blog is not capable of preventing information from reaching the public.

[comment removed. -editor.]

Kari Chisholm: ...and censorship rears its ugly head on BO

Nope. Just a comment about the presidential race that doesn't belong here.

So what you're saying is that we only have free speech in certain quarters here on Blue Oregon.

OK, Jack, how would you have done it? Would you have put Molalla and McMinnville in the same district? Do communities of interest count? Wasn't Oregon House District 25 supposed to be the Hispanic District? In what way are either Backlund or Thatcher Hispanic?

For all the yelling, the 2001 House Majority did not want to openly discuss communities of interest being kept in the same districts, or even make their maps public---that open discussion went on in the 1991 session.

I live in a district where the core has always been Marion, Polk and Clackamas. If some partisan said our district couldn't be that way anymore because they said so, I'd be angry. Maybe the next redistricting should be taken out of the hands of the legislature--didn't PCOL have a discussion about that? But there should be a public discussion about the numbers and making sure there are communities of interest kept together and maybe relatively the same number of voters who don't choose a major party.

For all the screaming of the GOP about that evil redistricting plan, why did the court approve it? Could it possibly have had the same number of voters + or - a certain percent and that was the standard?

And more importantly, why did it take House Democrats so long to win a majority if districts were drawn in their favor? Could it be that if there is no more than a 35 majority but at with least 7 districts decided by less than 1000 votes, maybe redistricting and the infamous "R to D ratio" aren't really what determines who wins?

Thanks, Kari. Maybe now Jack will understand the concept of "communities of interest".

I went to a legislative hearing in a previous redistricting process (1991) and the plea from one local group was to keep their school attendance area in one legislative district. The school was near the boundary, and part of the attendance area had been in one Oregon House district while a part had been in another.

And from what I hear, the folks on the coast were very vocal to the 2001 redistricting comm. that the coast and Yamhill County should not be in one St. Senate district, just like the 1981 legislature heard pleas that a line be drawn down the middle of the Cascades and no member be force to represent both sides of the mountains.

That's why, when the legislature couldn't pass a redistricting plan, the Democrats took their plan to the state court to approve it rather than to the federal court as it had always been previously the practice.

Well, at least they didn't use the FBI, federal funds and criminal behavior to get their way ala TX.

Redistricting is always shameless. Democrats gerrymander and Republicans gerrymander. Greens and libertarians would, too, if they had power. So long as redistricting is done by politicians, it will be done to maximize the power of the party in office.

It makes me wonder if it's a job that should be taken out of the political process. That's probably idealistic (and unrealistic), but I'd feel more comfortable if the decision was being made by a neutral party following some established criteria.

There are people down in my old town who have literally never been to Portland or California. Forget about this out of district idea. It is very insulting. "Yep, those poor turnip truck slobs down there in redville can't put up any candidates, Portland had better come to the rescue."

Geez. fagetaboutit

I suppose I have a pretty liberal interpretation of free speech. Like being able to say Obama for President in a discussion on the 5th District and not have it [Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

Like I said, it appears Blue Oregon restricts free speech in certain quarters.

I assume the mission of this blog is whatever the owners want it to be -- usually in privately owned media, at least one point is to sell advertising. Since I assume BO sells at least some of their ad-space, this is a business, not a public service or non-profit organization serving the public good.

From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense for the owners of a private blog to set and enforce any policies they want. The whole point of editors is to keep the media interesting so we readers stick around (and thus making advertising more valuable).

In the case of pointless off topic remarks, I appreciate the editing! Yawn! I wish BO would delete MORE of the inappropriate, mean spirited, or private battles that interrupt my enjoyment of this site (and from an advertising point of view make me "turn off" the site before getting to read the advertisers' messages.)

Since the FCC hasn't done anything to give privately owned blogs an unfair advantage on the public "airwaves" I really can't see any injustice happening.

So, Kari, Jeff, and the rest of yous -- count one vote for editing -- from what I've seen you're hardly excluding even borderline comments, so I think you're doing fine here.

And for those who insist on punishing others with repeating the same tired old comments to a captive audience, I believe most forms of government have public comment periods when one can express one's right to free speech. Not to mention just standing on a soapbox or street corner if you prefer.

Lesson for the day as summed up by Pete:

Yes, Blue Oregon restricts free speech.

That's all I needed to hear.

When editors of any stripe remove something so that others may not see it and form their own judgments about it, those editors are censoring that material. (The thinnest of dictionaries will back this up).

Although censorship carries with it a bad connotation, it's not always a bad thing. Censors may have reasonable justifications for removing the material. As Peter Forsyth suggests, it could be wildly off topic, racist, an over-board personal attack or spam, etc.

Forgetting for a second the debate about whether anon's original comment deserved to go, and consider the actual definition of censorship. It is wildly twisted to argue that removing material so that others may not view it is not censorship.

What a bizzare shape for a congressional district. It looks like a Moai (or "Tiki") chasing a sheep.

Were they trying to create a "safe" Republican seat?

That's why, when the legislature couldn't pass a redistricting plan, the Democrats took their plan to the state court to approve it rather than to the federal court as it had always been previously the practice.

Jack: In Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in a decision written by Justice Scalia that redistricting litigation, including congressional redistricting litigation, belonged in state court in the first instance, not in federal court.

Posted by: Kevin | Feb 8, 2008 6:57:34 PM

Posted by: BCM | Feb 8, 2008 2:36:08 PM

So what you're saying is that we only have free speech in certain quarters here on Blue Oregon.

Seems to me that you are perfectly free to start your own blog and set whatever rules you like for it. So what's stopping you?

I already have one Kevin, but thanks.

What you seem to be directing me away from is the point that Blue Oregon actively censors. That's the topic of discussion, and as we all learned earlier today, if you don't stick to it you'll get [Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]

"There may need to be a little fiddling around the edges, but I believe this would produce roughly the same population in each district you have now. The result, however, is that the 5th and 1st CD's would be more Republican and the 3rd would be more Democratic (as if they needed to up their already astronomical percentage). That's what I believe the gerrymandering was designed to prevent."

Jack, I would have to have the population numbers at my fingertips, and I don't. I do know that for someone in 2001 who tried to look at the proposed boundaries as a concerned citizen while the process was controlled by the legislature, I had to ask about 6 people before being shown a Congressional district map on a wall in an obscure office for people to look at but no ordinary citizen was supposed to ask questions---on that or anything else the House leadership didn't want citizens asking questions about.

Jack, from what I recall of that map, Yamhill County was in the 5th District. If you can complete the sentence "From the beginning after the 1980 census, the core of the 5th Cong. District was Polk, Marion and Clackamas, but Yamhill should be added now because...", I'll be glad to discuss this with you.

I don't surmise when I don't have data in front of me. I do know that in my part of Marion County the spirit of the old legislative districts was maintained when the numbering system was changed. What was the old rural district 30 and the partly urban S. Salem and surrounding area district 31 were and still are part of a state senate seat which is now Sen. 10. Because of population changes the boundaries of those districts change every 10 years. 31/20 has been a very interesting district since first created when Norma Paulus was elected to it. A variety of interesting members of both parties has been elected to that district, and the current incumbent's victory 2006 margin is something like half the number of those who don't register in a major party.

Pete has some good ideas.

And I wonder if there were some kind of nonpartisan software made by a group like the Assoc. of Geographers (some technical group, not political) which drew lines with no regard to anything except having each district be exactly the same amount of voters + or - 1% if it would a) make people like Jack happy b) do some really odd things like splitting Waldport, drawing a line down the middle of the state capitol grounds, splitting a college campus, having some legislators represent both sides of the Cascades, put Lincoln and Yamhill (or equally different counties) in the same legislative district.

"Anyway, I think you and I are making the same point, and just using the word "censor" a little differently."

Peter,

You seem to be implying only the government can censor things.

I don't believe that's true.

Again, without judging the right or wrong of the original action, what happened is the "official" editors here at BlueOregon "officially" removed that comment because they had the power to do so.

Government is not the exclusive source of power.

Pete:

Clearly, what's "best for my party" is always going to win out over what's "best for my country". That's why it is called "gary"-mandering (not "jerry"-mandering).

From Wikipedia.org

Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word "gerrymander" is named for the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814), and is a portmanteau of his name with the word "salamander," which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812—and reluctantly signed into law by Gerry—by Jeffersonian democrats, in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents in the upcoming senatorial election. "Gerrymander" is used both as a verb meaning "to divide into political units to give special advantages to one group" as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Elbridge Gerry's actual name is pronounced with an initial /g/ (a hard G), but the "jerry" pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.

The original salamander district even resembles the 5th district of Oregon. The more things change.

Well, at least with its redistricting, the State of Oregon didn't pull a Tom DeLay. The State of Oregon didn't get the FBI to hunt down Democratic legislators who were hiding in motels out of state. (God bless you Willie Nelson for giving them food and drink).

Dumb guy questions: How were the congressional districts established. How are the boundaries altered when needed? I gathered from comments above that it requires some legislative action. Maybe somebody can elaborate or provide a helpful link.

The first three pages of This Document provides an overview of how redistricting has evolved. The Rose Institute is the best source California political history, which (together with New York and Texas) have been trend setters on redistricting politics, gerrymandering, and related case law for the past 40 years.

Here's an interesting bio on Gov. Gerry which underscores the depravity of holding your nose to enact legislation that benefits a partisan cause over the national interest. Gov. Gerry was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and would later serve as Envoy to France and U.S. Vice President (under President Madison). So his democratic credentials were almost above reproach.

It is useful to understand that sacrificing democratic ideals in pursuit of Democratic Hegemony is a 295 year old phenomenon, ya' bunch of pikers...(//Gov. Gerry tips his hat to SoS Bradbury, who smiles, and then looks the other way).

This seat will be very difficult to retain.

Doretta, thanks for the interesting comment. Which leads me to repeat the moment I was pretty sure Darlene would win in 1996. There was a debate in the Salem Public Library auditorium (great venue for political debates, often used). Catherine and Jim B. had debated there in 1994 and it was obvious the crowd was on his side--after the debate, as he came off the stage, a bunch of people who were obviously his supporters gathered around him and were very friendly towards him.

Flash forward 2 years and after the debate was over (a debate where Darlene did extremely well and Bunn had a hard time defending his record in front of the local crowd), the group gathered around Bunn as he came down from the stage were all wearing red Hooley shirts and asking him hostile questions. And outdoors, as they talked before leaving, people were saying things like, "Darlene is going to win because the woman on that stage is the Darlene we have known all these years, and Catherine made the mistake of letting consultants tell her what kind of candidate she should be. "

(Being the genuine article matters. One of the reasons Wyden's 100% positive campaign was such a wise decision was the people saying "i'll gladly vote for the Ron I've known for years, but a candidate running nasty ads is not the Ron I know".)

In all fairness, in the 1994 GOP tidal wave, we didn't know for sure Catherine lost until days later--that was back when absentee ballots couldn't be counted until after the polling place votes had been counted and those poll books closed to make sure no one voted twice.

But Catherine was by no means the first woman candidate to run in the district. Ruth McFarland ran twice, and in her own way was as outspoken, colorful, with a fascinating life story as anything Steve Novick can say. Barbara Ross in 1986 ran a very disorganized campaign. Then Mike Kopetski lost the recount in 1988 and won convincingly in 1990. Those of us who recall any of those campaigns are going to view proposed candidates through that experience, not who sounds better to bloggers.

Imagine for a moment that Brian Boquist is the nominee--he ran before, has grown since those days into a somewhat more reasonable politician, gave that speech on the Iraq Resolution in the 2007 session which had things in it that people here might agree with, and is an Iraq vet. If you have a choice for a 5th District candidate, try imagining that person debating St. Rep. Boquist in the Salem Public Library auditorium, or in his home town of Dallas, or over on the coast somewhere.

It comes down to how the candidate can appeal to such audiences in the 5th District, how well they can discuss federal issues, how well organized their campaign is, how they do attracting volunteers, rather than just money or if they impress bloggers.

For those of us who have experienced contested 5th District elections, this is serious business. Not just a dream about who might be a good member of Congress, but who can actually win the votes of those in the 5th District.

Jennifer, Pete, thanks for helping to shed some light on how congressional districts have been adjusted.

I'm really hoping Paul Evans does throw his hat in on this one. I canvassed for him in 2006, and his record of service (both civil and military) resonated well, even in the West Salem neighborhoods where I was knocking on doors.

That being said, I do think that the overall shape of the 5th CD is kind of ridiculous. Putting Waldport, Lake Oswego, and Salem into the same district really just makes it look like whatever was left after the other districts had been defined.

I do miss spending time on the central coast, though. Here's to an active election season canvassing all those coastal towns...

Someone over on Redstate seems to believe that Mannix will be jumping into the CD5 race.

There's literally nothing more to that story than this "3.. Mannix looks set to make run in the opean [sic] Seat in Oregon"

but here's the link anyway:

http://redstate.com/blogs/dld1717/2008/feb/10/recent_congressional_seat_updates

I have to believe this is a good thing. Mannix can't self-fund like Erickson can, although he'd probably beat him in the primary, and then he'd need lots of Republican money for the rest of the race, draining scarce NRCC resources.