Placer residents did county’s redistricting for it. Supervisors should approve public map

A group of Placer County residents succeeded in doing what the county itself failed to do: They redrew the county’s supervisor districts based on public input rather than partisan maneuvering.

From the beginning, Placer’s redistricting process has raised concerns about political interference. Instead of entrusting this pivotal political power to a nonpartisan, independent board, the Placer County Board of Supervisors delegated it to a county commission with conflicts of interest and no prior redistricting experience.

The county’s Planning Commission has not only struggled to maintain neutrality but also to complete its chief task of recommending a single redistricting map to the Board of Supervisors.

The Planning Commission meeting held Nov. 4 was supposed to culminate in a vote to recommend a single map to the supervisors. Instead, the four-hour meeting resulted in a decision to delay the vote. Then, at a meeting last week, the commission decided to recommend not one but four maps to the supervisors. This was after commission Chair Anders Hauge clearly specified that only one or two maps should be recommended to the board.

The decision came after the vast majority of residents in attendance spoke in support of hybrid map B.2-P1C, a collaborative effort by several Placer community members. The map is labeled a “hybrid” as it combines elements of four previous public maps.

Hauge himself spoke in support of the hybrid map, saying it “represents who the county is today and would better serve the county in the future.” But in addition to that map, the Planning Commission also recommended maps A and C2, both of which have received public support from sitting Placer County supervisors, creating an obvious conflict of interest.

The fourth map the commission chose to recommend to the supervisors doesn’t yet exist. The members directed county staff to draw it up by combining elements of the other three.

Confused? So are we.

Thanks to community members who actively participated in redistricting for months, the commission had a clearly superior choice before it in the hybrid map developed by the public.

“The original maps were very unsatisfactory and split many communities of interest,” Placer County resident Kathleen Crawford said during last week’s meeting. “I am very impressed that the hybrid map has brought together comments and given them a satisfactory conclusion.”

Other members of the public called out the fact that at least two of five sitting county supervisors came out in support of maps under consideration, compromising the legitimacy of the process.

At a recent Loomis Town Council meeting, District 3 Supervisor Jim Holmes voiced his support for map C, which, unlike maps A and B, would keep him in his current district. Holmes also said he spoke with county staff to ensure that the commission considered map C. The supervisor thereby admitted that he influenced the process to work in his favor in the coming election rather than in the best interests of the county.

“It keeps me in my district, and that’s important because I do plan to run for another term,” Holmes said. “If they move me out of my district, I’ll be in District 5, and I’m not going to run for District 5 supervisor.”

District 2 Supervisor Robert Weygandt told Gold Country Media that Holmes’ comments were “troubling,” and then, in the very same interview, voiced his support for maps A and B.

The two Planning Commission members most vocally opposed to the public map have reason to be less than objective. Commission member Richard Johnson previously represented Holmes’ District 3, and member Anthony DeMattei was appointed to the commission by Holmes.

The supervisors, who are scheduled to approve new districts on Nov. 30, must choose the map created and endorsed by the public. Any other choice would show they care less about their constituents than they do about remaining in office — and confirm the impression that the county’s redistricting process has been a complete embarrassment.