Supervisors reject new district map

The Franklin County Board of Supervisors has decided to reject a proposed map for new supervisor districts that would dramatically change the make-up of how the county is represented.

Following the 2020 Census, the county established a bi-partisan commission to draw a new district map that would reflect changes in the county population and set precinct lines for the next ten years. The proposed map evenly split the population of the county as closely as possible while making minimal changes to the districts overall, with the largest change being the move of Lee Township from District 2 into District 3.

That map was sent to the Secretary of State and the Iowa Legislative Services Agency (LSA) for approval, however, the map that the Iowa Legislative Services Agency sent back was very different.

The proposed map from the LSA would divide the entirety of rural Franklin County between District 1 and 3, with District 2 being reduced in geographical size to encompass the bulk of the City of Hampton. This map would fundamentally change the make-up of the Board of Supervisors, which has traditionally divided rural Franklin County relatively evenly among its three districts.

Immediate consequences of the new map would be the virtual elimination of the current District 2's geographic area. Supervisor Gary McVicker, currently representing the district, would instead be located in the new District 1 and would have to either move into Hampton or run for re-election against Supervisor Chris Vanness, who also resides in that area. McVicker expressed no desire to run again under either of those circumstances.

Supervisor Vanness would also be affected by the redistricting. As the current representative of District 3, his area would be renumbered into District 1 under the new map. This would force him to run for re-election this year, even though he's currently in the middle of his term.

The least affected member of the board would be Supervisor Mike Nolte, who currently represents District 1. Like Vanness, his redistrict would be renumbered into District 3, though because Nolte's term is up this year, he will have to run for re-election regardless.

While the new map would have direct consequences on the current supervisors, it would also result in major changes for how Franklin County residents would be represented. As much of the board's business involves issues in the rural area of the county, board members have traditionally been residents of rural Franklin County. It has been two decades since a Hampton resident has even run for a seat on the board, but under the new map the District 2 seat would exclusively represent residents of the city.

Along with the usual business of maintaining drainage districts and county roads, the county is also in the midst of controversial wind farm and pipeline projects that would largely impact rural residents. The supervisors raised concerns about having one of the three board members exclusively representing residents less impacted by these projects.

"It's unfair that one supervisor would represent the majority of Hampton," said Brian Borcherding, one of the members of the local commission that designed the first proposed map.

Borcherding spoke with the Board of Supervisors during their regular meeting on Monday, February 7 to ask that they consider rejecting the LSA's proposed map in the hope that a new map could be drawn that is more in line with what they intended.

Under normal circumstances, the county would have the opportunity to send the LSA's map back with suggestions and receive a second proposal they could vote on. However, delays in the review process and the Secretary of State's decision to strictly adhere to deadlines have made this impossible. This has left the county with two options.

The first option would be to approve the LSA's proposed map with a request that the district numbers be rearranged so that Supervisor Vanness would at least be able to finish his term. It has been indicated that the Secretary of State would be amicable to those changes.

The second option would be to reject the map and send it back to the LSA with suggestions for revisions. This, however, would essentially leave the county rolling the dice on the map as the county would be forced to accept whatever changes the LSA decides to make in their second proposal.

"Whatever that plan is, that is what the Secretary of State will accept without us even seeing it," said County Auditor Katy Flint.

With their options laid out for them, Supervisor McVicker made a motion to reject the LSA's map.

"I struggle with a rural person not sitting in this seat because of the rural issues we contend with," said McVicker.

The motion, which requests a new map more in-line with what the county's bi-partisan commission agreed on, was seconded by Vanness and unanimously passed by the supervisors.

From there it will be up to the LSA to decide what the final result will be.