US House Redistricting: Arizona

[krazen1211]

Legislative maps are out. Not quite as egregious.

They did split the white liberal population of Tucson in half and connected both to suburbs in order to grab an extra district.

How do you do that? Sure the district grabbed isn't one of the Hispanic districts? (Previous map was two Hispanic districts, one White Democratic district, one White Republican district. Unless I totally misremember. And the Hispanic shares were, IIRC, not so very high... so maybe they figured now that they absolutely need 51.0% VAP and can't do that anymore. Hence my idea of what might conceivably be what's happened here.)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F100911%2FLeg-Merge_as_of_100911.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=12.693328,26.784668&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=7


1 Hispanic district in Tucson
1 Hispanic district stretching to Yuma (although this one has a lot of Republicans in it).
1 Hispanic district stretching to Nogales
2 districts with Tucson white liberals and slightly Republican areas like Catalina Foothills.

Average GOP performance here is 47.2 in both of them; currently the Tucson white liberal population is packed into 1 district.


Phoenix is mostly fine.

4 Hispanic districts
1 white liberal district in Phoenix (currently GOP held)
1 lean GOP swing district in South Phoenix/Chandler
1 white liberal district in Tempe/Mesa


At most the Democrats get these 12 and the 1 in the North. 17 districts are safe GOP.

[krazen1211]

Flagstaff - District 6? Yea, 55.5% Republican, or 1% more than the state as a whole.

It's the weakest of the Republican 17, I suppose. But GOP registration is +9 there.

Districts 8 and 11 are likely safe GOP too, at 56/57% per their scale.

[krazen1211]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/arizona_governor_jan_brewer_starts_impeachment_against_redistricting_panel-209840-1.html

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has taken the first step today in what had been previously called “the nuclear option” in seeking a more Republican-friendly redistricting map.

The GOP governor began the impeachment process for removing members from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by submitting a letter outlining her grievances to commission Chairwoman Colleen Mathis.

[krazen1211]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/arizona_governor_jan_brewer_starts_impeachment_against_redistricting_panel-209840-1.html

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has taken the first step today in what had been previously called “the nuclear option” in seeking a more Republican-friendly redistricting map.

The GOP governor began the impeachment process for removing members from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by submitting a letter outlining her grievances to commission Chairwoman Colleen Mathis.

[krazen1211]

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.

A competitive district can be created with all of that south bit of Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, and east Mesa in accordance with the remaining criteria.

[krazen1211]

Welp.

Is this game over?

No, they can throw Mathis out again.

[krazen1211]

Welp.

Is this game over?

No, they can throw Mathis out again.

How so? Wouldn't the supreme court just say no again?

More to the point, they said that Brewer's power to oust a commissioner is limited to situations of substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct.





They merely have to satisfy these criteria with detailed articles of impeachment detailing the situations of substantial neglect of duty.

[krazen1211]

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.

It's not really a mistake as there is little downside, given how crappy the congressional map is. The legislative map is of course more reasonable.

[krazen1211]

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?

Why go through this charade for Ben Quayle? That's a very good question, which is why its perhaps not quite likely to succeed. Still, they are committed.

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

[krazen1211]

So what was not used in court against her that will be used this time, is the question. Presumably all the evidence was presented and the Supreme court decided it didn't meet the standard of substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct?

Based on the order, it seems that all Brewer presented was the 1 page letter here. They thought that such was a political question and thus outside the judicial review process. Obviously if they proceed again they will have to do more than a 1 page letter this time.



http://www.prescottenews.com/news/current-news/item/18954-brewer-removes-colleen-mathis-from-airc-az-senate-concurs

[krazen1211]

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.

The New Jersey Supreme Court is famous for simply ignoring what it wants to, such as the election laws in the 2002 Torricelli switch.

It is why I am in favor of elected judges.

[krazen1211]

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.

It appears we have a 4th. The newly proposed Texas house court map violates the county line rule in Nueces County.

[krazen1211]

AZ-9 is certainly a grotesque gerrymander.

[krazen1211]

I wonder if this map can be appropriately gummed up in preclearance proceedings.

[krazen1211]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F100911%2FLeg-Merge_as_of_100911.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=12.693328,26.784668&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=7

They reworked some parts of that. http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/Tentative-Final-Maps/Legislative/maps/Tentative%20Final%20Legislative%20Map%20-%20Statewide.jpg

(add " - poster size" at the end of the address for a 140 million pixel version that may crash your computer)

I count 13 utterly safe GOP, 3 usually safe GOP (at least for now - the one in NE Phoenix might get competitive towards the decade's end), 3 tossups two of which tilt R, one D (and the tilt R in Pinal might be safe by decade's end), 2 usually safe Dem, 9 utterly safe Dem seats. After looking at their demographic and competitiveness charts.

As it stands, the Democrats won all the 'competitive' districts (basically 8, 9, 10, 26)

A lawsuit is being filed alleging Georgia style malapportionment.



Here are the population totals.

7   203,026
4   204,143
27   204,195
3   204,613
2   204,615
24   206,659
19   207,088
30   207,763
8   208,422
29   211,067
10   211,073
13   211,701
9   213,224
11   213,377
23   213,451
26   213,659
6   214,244
15   214,941
22   215,912
21   216,242
1   216,451
14   217,693
20   218,167
18   218,677
28   218,713
5   219,040
16   220,157
25   220,795
17   221,174
12   221,735


That said, the top 14 (and 14 of the top 15) overpopulated districts are Republican held. The bottom 10 (and 11 of the bottom 12) districts are Democratic held. There is only 1 GOP district with negative deviation.

[krazen1211]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F100911%2FLeg-Merge_as_of_100911.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=12.693328,26.784668&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=7

They reworked some parts of that. http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/Tentative-Final-Maps/Legislative/maps/Tentative%20Final%20Legislative%20Map%20-%20Statewide.jpg

(add " - poster size" at the end of the address for a 140 million pixel version that may crash your computer)

I count 13 utterly safe GOP, 3 usually safe GOP (at least for now - the one in NE Phoenix might get competitive towards the decade's end), 3 tossups two of which tilt R, one D (and the tilt R in Pinal might be safe by decade's end), 2 usually safe Dem, 9 utterly safe Dem seats. After looking at their demographic and competitiveness charts.

As it stands, the Democrats won all the 'competitive' districts (basically 8, 9, 10, 26)

A lawsuit is being filed alleging Georgia style malapportionment.



Here are the population totals.

7   203,026
4   204,143
27   204,195
3   204,613
2   204,615
24   206,659
19   207,088
30   207,763
8   208,422
29   211,067
10   211,073
13   211,701
9   213,224
11   213,377
23   213,451
26   213,659
6   214,244
15   214,941
22   215,912
21   216,242
1   216,451
14   217,693
20   218,167
18   218,677
28   218,713
5   219,040
16   220,157
25   220,795
17   221,174
12   221,735


That said, the top 14 (and 14 of the top 15) overpopulated districts are Republican held. The bottom 10 (and 11 of the bottom 12) districts are Democratic held. There is only 1 GOP district with negative deviation.

This lawsuit has been either refiled or something has been added to it. Given that the alleged defense for Mathis's malapportionment  was Section V, and Section V no longer applies, it is no longer a valid defense.



Much like Congressional seats, the designated 'competitive' districts were all won by 1 party.


The designated 'competitive' districts are, at least with Index 5:

8
9
10
26
4