US House Redistricting: Arizona

[Brittain33]

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable.

Consider that Grijalva nearly lost last year to an Anglo Republican...

[Brittain33]

Yeah, I feel that if you try to create three Hispanic VRA districts in Arizona, you may end up with two conservative Anglo Republican representatives in most years.

[Brittain33]

Some points of reference in Maricopa and Pima counties would have been nice.

[Brittain33]

Ok, so what does this mean? It looks like 5-4 at first glance, with all three border districts being at least lean D, but that's be right, can it?

Did they put Tempe in the 7th?

[Brittain33]

Ok, so in Maricopa we have:

3 = Yuma and Hispanic parts of Maricopa drowned out (easily, since few voters) by Chandler and Gilbert
5 = Scottsdale and other Republican territory
6 = Tempe drowned out by Mesa
7 = Pastor
8 = Republican parts of current AZ-1 and AZ-2
9 = Republican north Phoenix, not sure why it has such a high Obama number, maybe I'm missing something

[Brittain33]

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.

Ok, so the idea is "let's do 5 outstate districts, three of them along the border, and then see where the chips fall."?

[Brittain33]

Lewis, can you provide info to link your numbers to locations on the map?

[Brittain33]

How was this map an improvement for Republicans?

[Brittain33]

so they just went through the motions in hewing to that by appending but one border precinct to AZ-01 - with 1,165 people in it,  just to claim they still did.

That is too funny. I couldn't figure out why they carved up Cochise County like that.

Which district will be the first to go over 1,000,000 people this decade? 8, 4, or 1?

[Brittain33]

So much for "the nuclear option." LOL.

[Brittain33]

Welp.

Is this game over?

No, they can throw Mathis out again.

Presumably they've learned from their mistake and won't waste any more time. It only takes one senator--or is it two?--to decide not to continue this farce.

[Brittain33]

It's not really a mistake as there is little downside

There is plenty of downside to stage a constitutional crisis for blatantly partisan ends (declaring war on a non-partisan commission isn't usually a popular move) when your state's economy is still struggling and in theory you're in office to create jobs and streamline government. They tried it once and got slapped down. How are they going to justify it a second time?

It only takes one or two senators, perhaps among the four who may face a pesky recall election as a result of the power grab. They may all be favored to win the recall, but why go through the bother?

[Brittain33]

The justification should have been a nice picture of district 9 and its failure to adhere to the criteria.

That would be an argument for contesting the map once it has been approved, not for impeaching the Independent member of the commission.

[Brittain33]

Some people define a constitutional crisis as "courts did something I didn't like." I'm not one of them.