US House Redistricting: Arizona

[BigSkyBob]

Lets see,
An AZ-05 that contains Scottsdale and a large chunk of Native American territory. It voted strongly Republican (58.3% for McCain and has a PVI of R+8). Congratulations, Torie, for putting him back in the US House of Representatives.

An instance where ignoring incumbents can produce worse results.

Electing "him" would be a perfectly okay with me.

[BigSkyBob]

These commissions aren't "non-partisan," they are a set of rules. Once you know the rules, the system can be gamed. The Democrats have taken seriously gaming the system, and the results show. It isn't an accident that the "non-partisan" commission chairwoman happens to have a husband that is active in the Democratic party, or firms with close ties the Democratic party happen to advise such commissions. Nor, is it an accident that key documents explain why the Democratic firms were chosen happen to have disappeared.

In California, the rules appear to be that a winnowing process picks randomly chooses  five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents. A "non-partisan" map was suppose to emerge because it was acceptable to the majority of all three blocks.  In reality,  redistricting in California was controlled by the folks whom performed, and scored, the interviews for the commissioners. They abused their positions to score liberally highly, conservatively poorly, and, as a result, picked a commission that was a mix of liberal Democrats, liberal independents, and liberal "Republicans."

I'm not sure of mechanics of the Arizona system, so I don't know how they gamed the system. But, the fact that the wife of a Democratic party activist was seated to lead the commission proves that Democrats did in fact game the system.

The only thing that stopped the Democrats from completely screwing the Republicans in Arizona was the fact that Republicans exposed the scam before the maps were finalized. Even then, a map that just happens to throw to Republican Congressmen in the same district, weaken the Republican performance in swing districts, and create a new seat favorable to the Democrats was deemed to "suck" by the wife of a Democratic activist who wrote it. Imagine how badly Republicans would have been shafted in a map had no one been looking!

In Florida, the redistricting reform doesn't have anything to do with reforming redistricting. It is a deliberate attempt to impose so many conflicting standards so that redistricting will be decided by the courts.

[BigSkyBob]

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.   In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Really, past practise was to add an equal number of voters to both leading candidates, so a 1-0 precint became 5-4, etc., etc. That little tidbit was uncovered when reconciling the results in the Reid-Ensign race.

[BigSkyBob]

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.

Well, yeah.

Washington is not decided... but it's pretty much decided that protecting all four Republicans will be the prime consideration.

(And yeah, Grijalva probably would have complained about the district I drew for him. Too little Tucson. Which would have knockon effects in the red district in Glendale probably. Still, there is no reason for a Dem gerry to concede four safe Republican districts in the state. If you're ready to draw competitive districts anyways.)

It's looking like WA Republicans will be getting a pretty great map, though...

Don't Democrats get another seat though?

With a trifecta I presume the GOP would be cut to 2 seats. At the minimum Reichert would be a goner.

That makes Washington the one state that the GOP will benefit from a commission.

[BigSkyBob]

Here comes the nuclear option!

http://azstarnet.com/article_52defe34-1fb5-5e96-96e9-290448ba49f6.html

The law empowers the governor to recommend the Senate remove any member of the commission who is not doing her or his job. And Mathis has come under fire from Republicans who charge she sides too much with the Democrats.

Well, the real reason to remove her are that her husband is active in the Democratic party,  which she did not disclosed when she applied for the "independent" seat, and, that she may have obstructed justice in destroying documents created by the commission.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

So spouses having conflicts of interest is more important in redistricting than on the Supreme Court? Wow.

Strawman. Again, if the Supreme Court was mandated to be 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and one Independent, then the exact same standard would apply to Supreme Court justice nominees, and their spouses.  But, Supreme Court nominees are free to have any political positions they please short of advocating the violent overthrow of the government. However, if their spouses had business or financial interests in case likely to come before the court, then that ought to disclosed.

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

[BigSkyBob]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

[BigSkyBob]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

They don't? Oh. So I'm misremembering that detail. *shrugs* Who did?

And, again, you misrepresented the fact that the fifth member must be imparial and neither a Democrat or a Republican.

[BigSkyBob]

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage.

This is a distinction that does not make a difference because the same people whom picked the five Democrats picked the five Republicans and four independents. The folks that conducted the inteviews, and winnowed the candidates chose not just the commissioners, but, the overwhelming likely outcome of the commission. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Are redistricting commission appointments always this litigious, or is this year just bad for Arizona's Commission?

I think we are seeing an inherent weakness in the independent commission model. Few people are completely independent, since individuals do have opinions that reflect on political choices. A system that is seeking independent members has a challenge to see past simple measures such as party registration.

I thought the facts are in this case were that they asked all applicants if their spouse worked for a political party, and she lied! The Commission simply didn't presume all "independents" were suitable candidates. In this case, the system would have excluded her properly because her husband worked on Democratic campaigns.

[BigSkyBob]

How do we know Mathis was a rouge agent whom wormed her way through the process? Another possibility is that the fix was on. If so, her impeachment is merely a matter of changing names. The same commission that nominated her, will submit four new names. The four remaining members of the IRC will have to pick one of the four, or the commission will pick which of the four. If the fix is in, the new "independent" nominee will be another Mathis lite. You might just see the new commissioner piously announce that it too late in the process to start from scratch, and that the proposed map, which is functionally a Democratic gerrymander, is "fair," ad nasceum.

[BigSkyBob]

Mathis was chosen unanimously by the other four commissioners, from a shortlist of five suitable independents picked by a different commission (that has other, earlier tasks.) I've no idea what would happen if a member resigned or was removed; the case is not covered in this legal overview.
I do not know if Mathis was asked about her husband's political links, or whether she lied about them.

There is this thing called "research." The fact that you haven't bothered may very well be motivated by a desire to not want to know what is a very unpleasant fact for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since states like Florida and New York have hardly even began the process, it, obviously, isn't too late to start from scratch.

[BigSkyBob]

Mathis was chosen unanimously by the other four commissioners, from a shortlist of five suitable independents picked by a different commission (that has other, earlier tasks.) I've no idea what would happen if a member resigned or was removed; the case is not covered in this legal overview.
I do not know if Mathis was asked about her husband's political links, or whether she lied about them.

There is this thing called "research." The fact that you haven't bothered may very well be motivated by a desire to not want to know what is a very unpleasant fact for you.

Not really. More a case of not wanting to wade into this stuff deeply unless absolutely forced to, and the fact that anything smacking of Arizona Tea Party fails the LAPD test.

I have done a bit of that wading now, I'm still not ready to do as much as it probably requires, and yeah she apparently has "omitted" info on a questionnaire applicants needed to fill out, about her husband's lawyer work for political officeholders... of both parties, btw. (The man actually was a Republican congressional aide once, more than a decade ago)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they are.

Not under the laws of Arizona. The requirements are pretty clear: have been a registered independent for the past x years, not personally stood for office or worked professionally for a campaign the past y years, not a registered lobbyist.

Whether she would or should have been shortlisted may be quite another matter, though. They are supposed to pick the most qualified five from the applicants after all, and the Arizona Supreme Court made its case law in that earlier decision where it forced alterations of the shortlist.

[/quote]

Here is the relevent passage from the Arizona Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having a spouse active in a political party does undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the redistricting process. The question was on the application for a reason, and she lied for a reason. Lying on your application is simply not consistent with "upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process." A person committed to upholding public confidence in the process would have freely volunteered any possible conflicts or any appearances of conflicts. Nor, is holding remapping sessions with the Democratic members in secret, or destroying documents necessary for oversight consistent with maintaining the appearance of an impartial process. Presumably, all five commissioner should have an equal input on the final map, so all five ought to be present at all mapping sessions. Forbidding the Republican members from hiring their own lawyers didn't pass the smell test, either. She was removed with cause.

Hopefully, she'll be prosecuted for falsifying her application, violating open meeting laws, and obstructing justice.

[BigSkyBob]

And what if the next chair doesn't obey the Republicans demands? Are they going to repeat the process over and over again until they find someone that will? This isn't going to stop, because the commission isn't going to draw the map they want, no matter who the chair is.

The problem for the GOP is that the commission is directed to create competitive districts. But the mix of 2008 and 2010 elections isn't particularly representative, and will tend to create slight Dem leans instead of even districts. Only if the commission is willing to adopt a better mix of elections will the GOP find them making better maps.

"To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so
would create no significant detriment to the other goals."

...which are listed in the Arizona Constitution that includes adherence to the VRA, respect for geographical, city and county lines, compactness, and others. In the proposed map, they aren't (except for the VRA.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

(After googling) Apparently the court has not ruled yet.

Worth pointing out that Brewer wanted to remove the two Democratic members as well... but failed to get 20 votes (from 21 Republican members) behind that... as here she didn't even offer the paltry wrongdoings of Mathis', but was quite clear she wanted them removed because they weren't drawing a Republican map. And, one may speculate, so the Commission would not have a quorum. Right now they can still hold meetings, public hearings, and even adopt their own compromise map.

The Democratic members, also, were parties to secret mapping sessions. That alone, was cause for impeachment.

[BigSkyBob]

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

There is plenty of downside to stage a constitutional crisis

The "Constitutional crisis" began when the Arizona Supreme Court decided to usurp the powers of a coequal branch of government, and, will end when that usurpage is overturned.

This is the third time that I can recall when a State Supreme Court nullified its own Constitution. In New Jersey, the Court struck down the whole city clause in reapportionment. In Nevada, the Court struck down the provision that it takes a 2/3rd vote to raise taxes. And, now, this usurpage. Courts have a mandate to enforce their Constitutions, not nullify it.

The usurpage in New Jersey was dropped when another state upheld the same provision in their Constitution. A pair of Supremes lost their jobs for the second usurpage, and Nevada Supremes were forced to withdraw their act. This third usurpage must not stand.