By Lunell Haught, President, LWVWA, and George Erb, Secretary, WCOG 

After discussing what to do about the redistricting situation in Washington with the Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), LWVWA president Lunell Haught (also a member of the WCOG Board) co-authored an opinion article with George Erb, WCOG secretary, that appeared in the Seattle Times. WCOG is considering a suit to take before the Washington Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the League’s work in redistricting continues with Alison McCaffree’s redistricting project.  

The opinion piece included the following points: 

The Washington State Redistricting Commission flouted the open meeting law. That isn’t half of what made the commission’s actions so egregious. During their final public meeting on Nov. 15, the four voting members of the bipartisan commission hid their discussions and actions—at times deliberately—from citizens and the press. 

The commission’s shenanigans began shortly after Chair Sarah Augustine brought the Nov. 15 online meeting to order and called roll. All four voting commissioners were present: Democrats Brady Walkinshaw and April Sims and Republicans Joe Fain and Paul Graves. 

Commissioners approved the minutes from the previous meeting and promptly disappeared behind closed doors for a series of deliberations. Unfortunately, they seemed to know just enough about the state Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) to dance around it by meeting in groups of two—one less than a quorum. Minutes before the midnight deadline, commissioners held a series of public votes on documents that observers never saw. Then the commissioners quickly voted to adjourn without elaboration. They scheduled a press conference for the following morning, which they later canceled. 

Because of the commission’s secret discussions, citizens were unable to judge for themselves anything about the process  or even if their comments were considered.  

Now the state Supreme Court will draw the lines for legislative and congressional districts.  

The four redistricting commissioners had a difficult job. Their work depended on the census, a contentious and complex process resulting in late data. Commissioners had to deal with technological challenges of mapping, criticism, and decisions about how voters are grouped, boundaries drawn, and terms of office set. There is no question this is a difficult task. One wonders how the Washington Supreme Court will do, with their already full schedule. 

We, the people, designate representatives to do our business. In order to accomplish that, Washington state has adopted the Open Public Meetings Act, which states: 

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. 

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  

The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The highlight of the act requires that deliberations be conducted openly. The public should know what happened to all the testimony and how it was used in the final districts submitted to the Washington Supreme Court. 

The public has an interest in what is done in its name. This situation is about the public’s interest in their government. Closed meetings and private dealings have two consequences: 1) they waste taxpayer money, and 2) they deprive legislators of public support to counter outside influence that may not be in the best interest of communities. We have studies proving both arguments.  

The public, by attending, observing, and commenting on public business conducted by elected or appointed officials, can balance the interests of those who are paid to represent a particular viewpoint or project. Citizens in open meetings support the public interest when that is almost impossible to do if the public isn’t there. 

Washington has a good Open Public Meetings Act. Let’s use it.