Arizona Congressional Re-apportioinment

[Joe Biden 2020]

Is there a site I can visit to find what Arizona's projected increase of CD's with the 2010 Census?

[muon2]

Arizona will certainly get one additional seat, and is on the bubble to get two. The estimates are difficult to project through this recession for state as hard hit in housing as AZ.

[memphis]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

[Verily]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

[muon2]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

I don't see how the DOJ can force a coalition district after Bartlett.

[Verily]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

I don't see how the DOJ can force a coalition district after Bartlett.

Nonsense. Bartlett had nothing to do with coalition districts. The district in question was majority white; the issue at hand was whether the sizable non-white population had a right to be protected even though no district could be designed that would make the non-white population a majority. (In this case, it being rural North Carolina, "non-white" meant black.)

It could be easily argued that the combined interests of the Hispanic and Native American majority must be addressed and their voting power not diluted--since it is perfectly possible to create a district in which they together are a majority.

[Brittain33]

It could be easily argued that the combined interests of the Hispanic and Native American majority must be addressed and their voting power not diluted--since it is perfectly possible to create a district in which they together are a majority.

What shared interests do those communities have?

It seems as if the representatives of AZ-1 have always had good relations with the Navajo Nation and done what they can to be responsive to its leadership.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

More likely the DOJ will just demand a third Hispanic-majority district. I played in Dave's Redistricting App, and it's quite easy, just a new one in inner-city Phoenix. Ed Pastor's current seat has to extend out to the suburbs further, but it's still easy to keep that Hispanic majority.

And for the record the map probably won't look as ugly with the Hopi/Navajo split, as a new Phoenix metro district will push existing districts out and take in parts of the current District 2. So it'll become more of an outstate seat, and will probably take in Yavapai county and much of Coconino. There won't be such an ugly outward appendage then.

[muon2]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

I don't see how the DOJ can force a coalition district after Bartlett.

Nonsense. Bartlett had nothing to do with coalition districts. The district in question was majority white; the issue at hand was whether the sizable non-white population had a right to be protected even though no district could be designed that would make the non-white population a majority. (In this case, it being rural North Carolina, "non-white" meant black.)

It could be easily argued that the combined interests of the Hispanic and Native American majority must be addressed and their voting power not diluted--since it is perfectly possible to create a district in which they together are a majority.

The issue was whether a minority population under 50% could claim protection under section 2 of the VRA. This is from the syllabus of the opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A coalition district differs from a crossover district only in that the minority population with less than 50% links up with a different minority rather than with a like-minded voting population from the majority. The opinion noted that it would only consider crossover and not this type of coalition district, but I find nothing in the argument where the distinction would matter should a similar coalition district case come before the court.

[Cubby]

Is there a site I can visit to find what Arizona's projected increase of CD's with the 2010 Census?

http://www.polidata.org/census/est009dl.htm

They update it every December when the yearly state and national estimates are released. This December they will have the actual Census numbers instead of estimates.

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Since both the Navajo and the Hopi have consistently asked to be in separate districts, I don't see this gerrymander as bad as purely political ones (i.e. Texas 2003, Georgia 2002 or the worst of all, NC-12 in the 90's)

[muon2]

Is there a site I can visit to find what Arizona's projected increase of CD's with the 2010 Census?

http://www.polidata.org/census/est009dl.htm

They update it every December when the yearly state and national estimates are released. This December they will have the actual Census numbers instead of estimates.

I would also invite you to use the link in my signature. It has two alternate analyses from that used by Polidata.

[Verily]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

I don't see how the DOJ can force a coalition district after Bartlett.

Nonsense. Bartlett had nothing to do with coalition districts. The district in question was majority white; the issue at hand was whether the sizable non-white population had a right to be protected even though no district could be designed that would make the non-white population a majority. (In this case, it being rural North Carolina, "non-white" meant black.)

It could be easily argued that the combined interests of the Hispanic and Native American majority must be addressed and their voting power not diluted--since it is perfectly possible to create a district in which they together are a majority.

The issue was whether a minority population under 50% could claim protection under section 2 of the VRA. This is from the syllabus of the opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A coalition district differs from a crossover district only in that the minority population with less than 50% links up with a different minority rather than with a like-minded voting population from the majority. The opinion noted that it would only consider crossover and not this type of coalition district, but I find nothing in the argument where the distinction would matter should a similar coalition district case come before the court.

The point is that, in a coalition district, there is no majority group, making it a totally different dynamic. The interests of all groups must be protected by allowing each individual group to form a coalition with other groups (white+Hispanic, white+NA, NA+Hispanic). In order to protect the interests of all equally, it is necessary that coalition districts be created.

Again, this differs from Bartlett because there was a majority group in that case. The minority groups seeking representation could not be protected from the majority when there is a majority, and ultimately the design of the district was purely political (to elect a white Democrat as opposed to a white Republican, as it was pretty much impossible to elect a black Democrat in the Bartlett district).

[muon2]

It will be interesting to see if they keep that nightmarish gerrymander in the northern part of the state.

Almost certainly. The Navajo and Hopi will continue to lobby to be in separate districts.

I'm more curious if the Obama administration will force them to make a Native/Hispanic coalition district based on Ann Kirkpatrick's district. It's possible with nine seats and downright easy with ten.

I don't see how the DOJ can force a coalition district after Bartlett.

Nonsense. Bartlett had nothing to do with coalition districts. The district in question was majority white; the issue at hand was whether the sizable non-white population had a right to be protected even though no district could be designed that would make the non-white population a majority. (In this case, it being rural North Carolina, "non-white" meant black.)

It could be easily argued that the combined interests of the Hispanic and Native American majority must be addressed and their voting power not diluted--since it is perfectly possible to create a district in which they together are a majority.

The issue was whether a minority population under 50% could claim protection under section 2 of the VRA. This is from the syllabus of the opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A coalition district differs from a crossover district only in that the minority population with less than 50% links up with a different minority rather than with a like-minded voting population from the majority. The opinion noted that it would only consider crossover and not this type of coalition district, but I find nothing in the argument where the distinction would matter should a similar coalition district case come before the court.

The point is that, in a coalition district, there is no majority group, making it a totally different dynamic. The interests of all groups must be protected by allowing each individual group to form a coalition with other groups (white+Hispanic, white+NA, NA+Hispanic). In order to protect the interests of all equally, it is necessary that coalition districts be created.

Again, this differs from Bartlett because there was a majority group in that case. The minority groups seeking representation could not be protected from the majority when there is a majority, and ultimately the design of the district was purely political (to elect a white Democrat as opposed to a white Republican, as it was pretty much impossible to elect a black Democrat in the Bartlett district).

My reading is that the focus of Bartlett was not that whites were a majority, but that blacks were not a majority, and the court did not presume to determine which crossover voters might vote with the minority. A similar argument would be that a court (or the DOJ) would not presume to determine which factions would form a coalition when no group is an outright majority.

Consider your example where there could be a grouping of white, Hispanic, and NA in an area suitable for a district. Requiring a coalition district immediately assumes which 2 of those groups would join in their votes. Though the state remains free to make that determination on its own, I don't see the court mandating which groups would be forced into a coalition. Without identifying a mandated coalition, there cannot be a requirement for a coalition district.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's all moot really, because there's no point in such a demand when you can just demand a third Hispanic majority district, which can be drawn easily.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Is there a site I can visit to find what Arizona's projected increase of CD's with the 2010 Census?

http://www.polidata.org/census/est009dl.htm

They update it every December when the yearly state and national estimates are released. This December they will have the actual Census numbers instead of estimates.

Thanks!!