As Director of Government Affairs for the Tri-City Association of REALTORS®, my role has never been to persuade but to inform. The Association itself has taken no position on whether Richland should adopt districts or remain at large. That decision rightly belongs to the residents who will vote on November 4.

Within my purview, I provide facts, data, and policy context to help TCAR members and local leaders and citizens make sound, educated choices about issues that affect housing, property rights, and representation. This article is intended as a clear, balanced resource to help voters weigh whether the proposed change is ready to serve Richland well…or whether more groundwork is needed first.

What the vote is about

In November, Richland voters will decide whether to continue electing all seven councilmembers at large or to adopt a hybrid system with five single-member districts and two at-large positions. On paper, the plan divides roughly sixty thousand residents evenly so that each area of the city has a voice. Yet equality in population does not always translate to equality at the ballot box.

The law defines equality by people, not ballots

Under the Supreme Court’s Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) decision, states and cities may draw districts based on total population rather than registered or likely voters. The reasoning is that representatives serve everyone who lives within a community, children, renters, and new arrivals, not only those already on voter rolls.

That principle is why nearly all local governments, including Richland’s proposal, base district lines on residents rather than voters. It keeps representation tied to the people who live in a district, not just those who participate in every election.

Why many cities move to district elections

For decades, most Washington cities used at-large council elections in which every voter helped select every councilmember. Court cases such as Montes v. City of Yakima (2014) found that at-large systems can sometimes dilute the votes of geographically concentrated minority communities. The Washington Voting Rights Act of 2018 encourages cities to adopt districts voluntarily to ensure that each neighborhood has a realistic opportunity to elect someone who reflects its needs and priorities.

The goal, in theory, is to make representation fairer across neighborhoods, not to favor high-turnout areas, but to make sure local voices are not lost citywide.

Richland’s current picture

Using certified 2023 election results and the state voter file, I reviewed registration and turnout by precinct and grouped them into the five districts proposed by the city (Yes, it took a while). Four districts appeared balanced, each with about 8,000 to 10,000 registered voters and turnout near 45 percent.

District 5, covering the Badger Mountain South, Keene Road, and Dallas Road corridors, stood apart. Although it included roughly 12,000 residents in 2023, only about 2,300 registered voters lived there at that time.

School-district and census tract data confirm that close to half of those residents are under 18, which immediately reduces the pool of eligible voters. Rapid new construction often outpaces voter-file updates, and recently annexed parcels can remain under county jurisdiction until address transfers are processed. None of these patterns imply an error, but they highlight how population growth and voter registration rarely move in sync.

The effect is simple: if districts were adopted immediately, a few hundred ballots could decide a seat representing a fifth of the city. A winning council candidate in that district might receive 500 votes, compared with 2,500 votes in an older, higher-turnout area. Yet both seats would hold one-seventh of the votes on the city’s budget, land use, and policy decisions.

That imbalance means a single vote cast in District 5 could effectively carry up to five times the influence of a vote elsewhere in Richland. One-fifth of the voter turnout could command one-seventh of the city’s authority over millions of dollars in infrastructure funding, parks, transportation, and development priorities. The result may meet legal equality but fails civic equity; magnifying the voice of a smaller, less engaged segment of the population purely because of timing and demography.

Decisions are made by those who show up

Political scientists have long noted that equal-population maps can mask unequal participation. Sidney Verba and Kay Schlozman’s classic Voice and Equality (Harvard University Press, 1995) called turnout gaps “the central distortion in democratic representation.” Later studies show that when a low-turnout district elects one representative and a high-turnout district elects another, each ballot in the lower-turnout area can carry two, three (or even five times as would be the case for Richland), the influence simply because fewer people participate.

When one district votes at 60 percent and another at 20, both satisfy the law, yet the smaller group’s ballots weigh far more heavily in practice. That is the paradox now facing Richland.

Why “districting by voters” is not the answer

Some might ask why districts are not drawn by the number of registered voters rather than residents. The Supreme Court has already rejected that approach. Apportioning by voters would systematically shift power toward older, wealthier, and less mobile neighborhoods where registration rates are highest. It would reduce representation for younger, more transient, and often more diverse populations.

Courts describe the existing standard as “representational equality.” Every person deserves a councilmember who represents them, whether or not they cast a ballot. The challenge for any city is not legal but civic: districts can equalize population, but only citizens can equalize participation.

Closing the gap between fairness on paper and fairness in practice

If Richland adopts districts, the fairness of those districts will depend on how well the city closes its registration and participation gaps. The city can and should do more before implementing a new voting system.

Title companies already provide opportunities for new homeowners to register to vote at the closing table. Expanding that same practice, through builders, schools, employers, utility companies, and local service providers, could ensure every new resident receives a simple reminder or prompt to register. Pre-registration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, available under Washington law, would also help prepare the next wave of voters in younger neighborhoods.

The infrastructure already exists: ballots are mailed by the Secretary of State to every registered household several weeks before each election. The real challenge is ensuring residents are actually on the rolls to receive them.

Poverty and representation

The Voting Rights Act primarily protects racial and language minorities from vote dilution. Economic status can factor into representation when poverty correlates with those protected groups, but poverty alone does not create a legal basis for redistricting.

In Richland, the poverty rate, about 9% according to the latest American Community Survey, is below both state and national averages, and there are no clearly defined “pockets” of deep poverty comparable to those in cities that have restructured under the Voting Rights Act. That means the case for districting here is not rooted in remedying economic exclusion. Supporters instead frame it as a way to make government more local, lower the barrier to running for office, and ensure every neighborhood has a voice in decisions that shape growth. Those are legitimate and commendable goals. Yet the irony is that, in its current form, the proposed map may achieve the opposite: granting disproportionate weight to the smallest pool of registered voters and leaving other neighborhoods under-represented in practice. If the intent is to build stronger civic inclusion, Richland must first ensure that each district reflects an electorate ready and able to participate, not just a population counted on paper.

A practical path for Richland

Districting can be a fair system when it reflects both people and participation. But as written, Richland’s proposed model does not yet achieve that balance. The city’s boundaries satisfy the letter of the law but risk violating the spirit of equal representation.

Cities rarely revisit boundary lines once maps are drawn. For that reason, it is vital to get them right the first time. Richland has two responsible options. It can pause implementation until registration, annexation, and age demographics stabilize, ensuring that the new southern neighborhoods have matured into a representative electorate. Or, the city can redraw the proposed map now to consider both population and the current distribution of registered voters, keeping legal parity while pursuing genuine civic fairness.

Either path would result in a stronger, more credible system. Moving forward with the current map would not. To act too soon is to trade legal compliance for practical imbalance by risking a model that looks fair on paper but functions less fairly in practice.

The takeaway

Equal population is a constitutional requirement.
Equal power is a civic responsibility.

Districting is often introduced to make representation more fair, but when boundaries outpace the voter file, a well-intended reform can temporarily make representation less equal. The next step for Richland is not only to decide how its leaders are chosen, but to ensure that every resident, long-time or new arrival, has the same opportunity to be part of that choice.