How do you keep a highly political redistricting process grounded in fairness and transparency?

The process must be anchored in clear criteria, consistent communication, and documentation that can withstand scrutiny. That means explaining why every district line changes, how community testimony influenced the decisions, and what legal requirements shaped the final product. This reduces opportunities for misinformation and helps leadership maintain credibility when the process becomes politically charged.

How do you ensure a redistricting plan withstands legal and judicial scrutiny?

By grounding decisions in state and federal law, maintaining thorough records of public input, prioritizing communities of interest, assessing demographic equity, and developing clear written rationales that demonstrate a nonpartisan, criteria-based approach.

What does effective public engagement look like during redistricting?

Public engagement is only useful if it’s structured, synthesized, and fed back into the map development process. We turned hundreds of individual comments into themes and actionable guidance for map drawers, then communicated those connections back to the public. When people see their input reflected in revisions, trust increases—even if they don’t agree with every outcome.

How do you manage internal caucus alignment when members have competing district needs?

I create individualized district analyses, brief members in smaller cohorts, and provide clear scripts and rationale so everyone understands both the local and statewide implications of each revision. This reduces anxiety, prevents misinformation from spreading internally, and builds unity before the maps come to a vote.

What’s your strategy for navigating high-stakes or contentious negotiations?

I use data-driven district analysis, scenario testing, and rapid-response memos to help leadership anticipate and respond to shifting dynamics. During late-night negotiations or quorum threats, my role is to translate political pressure into strategic options, what we can trade, what we must protect, and where compromise strengthens the overall map.

How do you communicate complex map changes to the media and general public?

I translate technical decisions into plain language tied to values Oregonians care about: fairness, representation, communities staying intact, and adherence to legal criteria. Reporters respond well to clarity and specificity, and clear framing shapes the narrative at a time when redistricting stories can easily skew partisan.

Why does a redistricting strategy matter for long-term governance?

Maps influence political stability, community representation, and the effectiveness of future legislatures. A well-designed redistricting strategy doesn’t just withstand court challenges, it creates a decade of predictable, durable representation that allows policymakers to focus on governing instead of litigating.

How does your redistricting experience translate to other policy or communications work?

Redistricting requires rapid synthesis of technical information, stakeholder management, public messaging under scrutiny, and alignment across large organizations—all skills that translate directly to crisis communications, government relations, and policy analysis. This work sharpens your ability to lead when the stakes are high and the timeline is tight.