Arizona takes first step to return redistricting process to Republican control

[jimrtex]

I think you might be repeating yourself there by and large. So let us step back. For each number of chops, the odds are high that there is but one map with the lowest erosity, and thus for each number of chops, there is but one map that reaches the pareto optimal frontier. Do you agree with that?

Let's take a bigger step back. Why are you assuming population equality, particularly in a state like Arizona with its highly concentrated population centers?

Let's replace the House and Senate with a unicameral legislature with 90 members. We'll apportion these out among the counties.

Graham and Greenlee are paired, as are Yuma and La Paz.

Maricopa 53
Pima 14
Pinal 5
Yavapai 3
Mohave 3
Yuma + La Paz 3
Coconino 2
Cochise 2
Navajo 2
Apache 1
Gila 1
Santa Cruz 1
Graham + Greenlee 1

Subapportion to cities to the extent possible. Draw reasonable districts of similar, but not identical population, with population in range of 47,348 to 94,697.

Solons would cast a weighted vote in the legislature.

For Maricopa County:

Phoenix 20
Mesa 6
Gilbert 3
Chandler 3
Glendale 3
Scottsdale 3
Surprise 2
Tempe 2
Peoria 2
Avondale 1
Goodyear 1
Buckeye 1
Remainder 6*

The remaining areas could be attached to larger cities, in which case the apportionment might change, or be formed into 6 separate districts.

Pima County (13)

Tucson 7
Casa Adobes CDP 1
Catalina Foothills CDP 1
Remainder 4*

Pinal County: (5)

San Tan Valley CDP 1
Casa Grande 1
Remainder 3*

Yavapai: (3)

Remainder 3* (no place has enough population for its own district.

Yuma+La Paz: (3)

Yuma 1
Remainder 2*

[Torie]

I assuming population equality within the 1% parameter for CD's.

[jimrtex]

I assuming population equality within the 1% parameter for CD's.

Why are you inflicting that stupidity on legislative districts?

[muon2]

I assuming population equality within the 1% parameter for CD's.

Why are you inflicting that stupidity on legislative districts?

In IL we have to based on an IL SC ruling. They said legislative districts had to be within 0.5% of the quota.

[muon2]

I don't understand why blogs and media outlets act like the 2000 Grand Canyon CD was at all partisan. At the time the Navajo and Hopi were bitterly feuding. The only way to avoid more tension and possible litigation was to put them in different CDs. Since the Hopi reservation is surrounded by the Navajo nation, the only path was to use the bottom of the Canyon as a link from the Hopi area to areas beyond the Navajo. The record at the time was quite clear.

[jimrtex]

I assuming population equality within the 1% parameter for CD's.

Why are you inflicting that stupidity on legislative districts?

In IL we have to based on an IL SC ruling. They said legislative districts had to be within 0.5% of the quota.

What is the court case?

[jimrtex]

I don't understand why blogs and media outlets act like the 2000 Grand Canyon CD was at all partisan. At the time the Navajo and Hopi were bitterly feuding. The only way to avoid more tension and possible litigation was to put them in different CDs. Since the Hopi reservation is surrounded by the Navajo nation, the only path was to use the bottom of the Canyon as a link from the Hopi area to areas beyond the Navajo. The record at the time was quite clear.

It was not a claim whether it was partisan or not.

[jimrtex]

If they were so unfair, why did one of the R commissioners vote for the legislative maps that were adopted?

Arizona Redistricting Commission meeting records

Read the transcript for the meeting of 1/17/2012.

If your claim is accurate - please present evidence of it.

[Virginiá]

Arizona should completely dump their current redistricting scheme and start over.

They could do that, yes. But my comments were mostly geared towards what they are doing now. This is nothing but a ploy to install a commission 100% in-sync with the Republican-led legislature's wishes. The end result will just be maps rigged as much in their favor as the law will allow, rendering the commission nothing but a sham. It's so typical that they can't just do things fairly. First real attempt to fix this is nothing but more corruption.

[jimrtex]

If they were so unfair, why did one of the R commissioners vote for the legislative maps that were adopted?

Arizona Redistricting Commission meeting records

Read the transcript for the meeting of 1/17/2012.

If your claim is accurate - please present evidence of it.

That shows that Stertz clearly supported the maps in the December vote and then flipped to opposing them in the January vote.  It also looks like one of the Dems flipped during that time.  That looks deliberative, not like the behavior of someone rigging/protesting a rigged process.

VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN: Just to correct the record again, there is none of Commissioner Freeman in this legislative map.

Penciled out, originally, going way back, Commissioner McNulty and I had different maps. The chair asked that we try to combine them. And it was even suggested that Commissioner McNulty draft southern Arizona and Commissioner Freeman draft northern Arizona. All the lines in southern Arizona remained virtually unchanged, with only minor changes to southern Arizona. In the rest of the state, whatever remained of my input, eventually over time got completely washed away.

There is nothing of Commissioner Freeman in these maps. And when I say -- and that is supported by the record.

And, you know, the constitution requires the Commission, the commissioners to conduct themselves in an honest way, to uphold public confidence in the process. And I can accept the commissioner every now and then getting something wrong in the record, misremembering something. But to systematically misrepresent the record just demonstrates to me a complete contempt for the truth.

And that, that is -- there is no compromise in this legislative map. This is the Democratic's map, the Democratic Party map. And the only thing real they're really saying is we could have, we could have made it worse for you Republicans. We could have completely flipped the state to a -- on the legislative side. Already did on the congressional side. We could have flipped it on the legislative side as well.

So I just -- it's sort of tiresome to have to speak it, you know. Originally, or in the first few minutes of this Commission, I let it go. But, as people who have been regular observers know that the last few months I've just had to speak up and put a stop to this rewriting of history, this misrepresentation of the record.

Which is just a wordy way of saying to not tell the truth about what's been going on.

And that's all I'll say.

COMMISSIONER STERTZ: I will not be, I will not be supporting this motion.

I -- on December 20th when I voted for the approval of the tentative maps, it was in the attempt to  stop the continued contriving of maps that was going to continue to ensue. So I will not be supporting this.

I think that the -- that all of this as this comes to a close is -- I'm filled with only two words, and that
that's joy and disgust. It was -- it's been a joy to serve with my fellow commissioners and will continue to be.

The process that we have gone through has been one that has been -- one that at the beginning was in my hopes of collaboration and it turned into one of not compromise and not collaboration and not working together as a team for the betterment of all of the citizens and the voters of the state of Arizona.

I think that this Commission was masterfully designed to grant one person unfortunately ultimate power to affect the franchise of the people of Arizona. And I will not be voting on -- for the approval of this map, and nor will I be -- since I will won't make comment on the next map until, until that time.

So, I vote no.

[Kingpoleon]

The title should be, "Arizona takes first step to return redistricting power to the people," but if you don't mind showing your bias, I don't care.

Who says all five commissioners will be Republican in a 55% R state?

[Virginiá]

The title should be, "Arizona takes first step to return redistricting power to the people," but if you don't mind showing your bias, I don't care.

Who says all five commissioners will be Republican in a 55% R state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Arizona

I'd say that sea of red at the bottom gives them one hell of a chance to have a majority in 2021. It's interesting to see some of you guys try and rationalize Republican actions when it comes to redistricting. It's not going to turn out like you seem to think.

And this is funny because Arizona Republicans argued all the way to the Supreme Court that the legislature deserves full control of redistricting. Now they want it in the hands of the people? Give me a break. They found a way that looks fair but whose result is very, very predictable.

And yes, I have a bias against gerrymandering. Democrats and Republicans do it, and I'm not about to bend over backwards trying to come up with excuses for why this is OK, just like I wouldn't for New Jersey's now-defunct (?) horrid plan to rig their maps, or Illinois, or whatever. So don't accuse me of bias when your own post reeks of it.

[Virginiá]

Further movement made:

http://www.chron.com/news/article/House-tentatively-OKs-bill-to-elect-redistricting-6824740.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I particularly liked the last part. "It's already sort of biased, so let's go all in and make it completely corrupt!".

Such honorable politicians.

[Gass3268]

I feel like there is going to need to be a push via referendum to reign in the legislature on this.

[Torie]

I feel like there is going to need to be a push via referendum to reign in the legislature on this.

The Pub plot needs to be passed by the voters in a ballot initiative, since it changes the AZ Constitution. So the law being discussed merely gets the issue on the ballot.

[Gass3268]

I feel like there is going to need to be a push via referendum to reign in the legislature on this.

The Pub plot needs to be passed by the voters in a ballot initiative, since it changes the AZ Constitution. So the law being discussed merely gets the issue on the ballot.

Ah makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

[jimrtex]

Further movement made:

http://www.chron.com/news/article/House-tentatively-OKs-bill-to-elect-redistricting-6824740.php

This is a little bit disingenuous:

"A panel of federal judges recently found the commission did not violate the Constitution's equal-protection clause."

Federal redistricting cases are heard by a 3-judge panel in district court. In this case the district court voted 2-1. Redistricting cases are appealed directly to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS accepted the appeal, and the case was heard in December.

The SCOTUS will rule some time later this year whether district populations may be varied for partisan purposes.

[Virginiá]

This is a little bit disingenuous:

"A panel of federal judges recently found the commission did not violate the Constitution's equal-protection clause."

Federal redistricting cases are heard by a 3-judge panel in district court. In this case the district court voted 2-1. Redistricting cases are appealed directly to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS accepted the appeal, and the case was heard in December.

The SCOTUS will rule some time later this year whether district populations may be varied for partisan purposes.

Right, but that doesn't change what they are doing here. They are trying to subtly return to the way things were, with Republicans drawing the maps as they wanted (within legal limits), but they are doing it in a way that isn't blatantly repealing the previous initiative.

The Pub plot needs to be passed by the voters in a ballot initiative, since it changes the AZ Constitution. So the law being discussed merely gets the issue on the ballot.

I think he's right, in a way, that a new issue will have to be put back in front of the voters to fix the damage this will do. As stated before, this is probably going to look reasonable to voters but the effects are anything but. It's a dirty trick.

[jimrtex]

I feel like there is going to need to be a push via referendum to reign in the legislature on this.

The Pub plot needs to be passed by the voters in a ballot initiative, since it changes the AZ Constitution. So the law being discussed merely gets the issue on the ballot.

I watched the video of the House elections committee, and the committee of the whole.

For an amendment proposed by the legislature, only a simple majority is needed, so passage will occur.

The only speaker from the public was concerned about the inability of independent candidates to run for office, since an independent candidate requires around 40,000 petition signatures, versus around 5000 to get on a primary ballot.

The Democrat on the elections committee knew all too much about the redistricting process. He noted that the previous commission had used the Arizona Quick&Dirty method to determine the partisanship of an area. The AQAD uses the results of the Corporation Commission race since voters are unlikely to know anything about the candidates. He suggested that an election for the redistricting commission would be similar.

While the sponsor said that he thought the un-elected commission was unaccountable to no one, the opponent actually argued that it was accountable to the Department of Justice, which would step in if a plan were too partisan.

One representative said that at a commission hearing in Flagstaff that he and 8 others had opposed the plan, but their representations are missing from the video, even though speakers before and after are present.

And of course the current legislators were elected from the malapportioned districts. If you were a Republican, whose district was overpopulated due to packing of Republicans in order that an adjacent district was more "competitive" you would rightly be incensed.