Messages made public as judge prepares to weigh new Spokane City Council maps amid gerrymandering accusations

Messages made public as part of a court case over Spokane’s new City Council district map shed light on how the councilman at the center of the controversy tried to shape public perception of the redrawn boundaries.

On Friday, a Spokane County Superior Court judge will consider whether to keep Spokane’s new map.

The map selected by the City Council made Councilman Zack Zappone’s District 3 – which covers northwest Spokane and was previously considered a swing district – more likely to elect liberal council members. It also made District 1, which covers northeast Spokane and is represented by conservative city lawmakers Michael Cathcart and Jonathan Bingle, less likely to elect conservative members.

A legal challenge filed not long after the City Council’s left-leaning majority approved changes to the map claims the districts were intentionally gerrymandered by Zappone in favor of left-leaning candidates.

Zappone declined an interview, saying he could not comment until a decision was made in the case. He has argued that his only goal with his preferred map was to undo the damage done by previous maps, which had split up some neighborhoods into different council districts.

The four plaintiffs in the case, Michael Brown, Mark Howard, and Rebecca and Colin Cook, are represented by Mark Lamb, who has represented noteworthy Republican figures such as former state Rep. Matt Shea, Tim Eyman and the Senate Republican Campaign Committee.

They allege Zappone’s map approved by his allies on the City Council was intentionally crafted for partisan gain, violating state law, and asked Judge Tony Hazel to throw it out.

In subpoenaed texts and messages made public through the court proceedings, Zappone appeared to have been aware of the partisan implications of his map, working with his legislative assistant and political allies to craft the messaging and drum up support for his redrawing of council districts.

In texts, Zappone and legislative assistant Jeff Gunn discussed what messaging would have the highest likelihood of success.

“In speaking with the community, I heard over and over again how important it was to them that we keep the neighborhoods together … ” Gunn suggested, before adding, “[Something] like that.” 

The messages

Every decade, Spokane redraws the boundaries of its three City Council districts to ensure each has the same number of residents. The city earlier this year tasked three volunteers, appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council, with drawing a new map.

Those three redistricting board members – Rick Friedlander, Heather Beebe-Stevens and Jennifer Thomas – worked on maps through the summer and into the fall. Zappone and City Council President Breean Beggs served as nonvoting members.

Beggs, like Zappone, declined an interview prior to the judge’s decision.

The board drafted more than a dozen maps, whittling them down until each had one that they wanted to present to the public for additional feedback. The City Council had final say in what map to approve.

The city charter states that three maps were supposed to be presented, first to the public and later to the full City Council.

But Zappone presented his own map, which brought the reliably left-leaning voters of Browne’s Addition into his district in exchange for a more politically mixed portion of the West Hills Neighborhood. According to subpoenaed texts, Zappone said he was advised by the city’s attorney that the city charter rule about three maps only applied the first time the city laid out its council districts.

One member of the advisory board pushed back: Thomas, a former candidate for Spokane Public Schools board and today the government affairs director for the Spokane Home Builders Association. She argued it was inappropriate for Zappone to present a map at all, pointing to the city’s charter and the apparent partisan implications of his proposed district boundaries.

In messages to political allies and friends, Zappone disparaged Thomas as a partisan operative. He also decried Thomas’ efforts to “shut down my map,” according to subpoenaed messages, and said that most of the maps she had offered seemed designed to disadvantage him specifically.

In an interview, Thomas said that her priority was to balance the population among districts and make as few changes as possible. Though she had drafted several maps, the one she ultimately presented to the public was the one that changed district boundaries the least.

Gunn in texts recommended that Zappone not highlight the fact that Thomas’ map made the fewest changes, because this might be appealing to the public.

By Zappone’s own admission, his map would “actually have the greatest change in voters than the others. So I’m not gonna share that information,” he wrote in subpoenaed texts.

All four maps, including Zappone’s and the three presented by the three voting members of the advisory board, were approved unanimously by the board for further review by the public.

Thomas emphasized in an interview that she was only voting to support allowing the public to weigh in on Zappone’s map, and was not in favor of transmitting it unchanged to the City Council.

Several days after voting to include Zappone’s suggested map in the public review process, Thomas changed her mind and attempted to convene a meeting with other board members to withdraw or reconsider his proposal. That meeting never occurred, and Thomas said she felt sidelined by her fellow board members.

Thomas said this vote was later used by Zappone to imply his map was unanimously supported by the advisory board.

Friedlander, in a brief interview, said he expected he and Beebe-Stevens would have approved Zappone’s map with or without Thomas’ support. Beebe-Stevens could not be reached for this story.

During the public feedback process, some neighborhood representatives voiced support for Zappone’s map, which would have unified neighborhoods into the same council districts.

When residents were asked to weigh in on which map they preferred through a survey, however, Thomas’ map was the overwhelming favorite, receiving around 65% support.

As a result, the advisory board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Thomas map, Friedlander said.

In more subpoenaed messages, Zappone speculated what the political cost would be if the council overrode the commission’s recommendation and adopted his map.

He worked with Gunn and political allies, such as progressive political organization FUSE Washington employees Jim Dawson and Brian Parker, to drum up support for his map.

In a subpoenaed message, Parker asked former City Councilman Dean Lynch to testify in favor of the Zappone map, saying Beggs already had the votes to overrule the advisory board but needed “our help to provide a bit of cover.”

Lynch declined, saying he didn’t think Zappone’s map was “worth the political risk” to overrule the advisory board.

“Doesn’t matter if he has the votes, I think he is wrong in taking this action,” Lynch replied.

“No one except highly partisan folks will remember what happened,” Parker said back. “It will all work out.”

After it was clear Lynch was not on board, Parker forwarded the messages to Zappone, stating that Lynch’s replies had been “weak whiney … ”

In the end, the City Council voted 4-2 to approve Zappone’s map, with Zappone abstaining. Cathcart and Bingle voted in opposition.

The next day, Dawson asked Zappone in a text “how much better are” districts 1 and 3 after redistricting. In a reply, Zappone did not highlight the improved neighborhood unification.

“It’s about +1.5% more Dem,” he replied.

“Great!” Dawson shot back. “Should put D3 out of reach with a candidate and gives us a good shot in D1.”

“Exactly!” Zappone replied. “And different types of candidates with all of downtown in D1 and Browne’s in D3.”

“Jennifer Thomas is busy complaining this morning,” Zappone followed up.

Next steps

The city of Spokane was required to submit its response to the case by Wednesday night, though the filings were not readily available prior to deadline.

The plaintiffs will then have until 5 p.m. Thursday to submit their final reply. A hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Friday, and it is unclear whether the judge will rule immediately in the case.

Unless they’re thrown out by the judge, district maps approved by the City Council last year will apply in this year’s Council races.