US House Redistricting: Arizona

[krazen1211]

Here's the best guess (at this time) based on the numbers presently available.

Current congressional district 2 (Franks, R) with the largest district (972,839) will become a northwest Maricopa county district, losing the northern (non-Maricopa) part of the district to district 1 (Gosar, R)

Current district 1 (Gosar, R) will lose the southern part of the District (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) to the new district 9, and gain what is currently the northern part of CD 2.

The new district 9 will be composed of the southern part of current district 1 (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) as well as the southern sliver of current district 6, and the Pinal parts of District 7 and 8.

Current district 7 will lose Pinal county part to the new district 9, and the Maricopa part to district 4 (Pastor, D).

Current district 4 (Pastor, D) will pick up Maricopa county part of current district 7, and give up one or two precincts to current district 3.

Current district 3, will picking up territory (and population) from district four (a precinct or two).

Current district 5 (Schweikert, R) will gain a number of precincts  from current district 6 (Flake, R) along the northern and northwestern edges.

Current district 8 will lose the precincts in Pinal county to the new district 9, and around a dozen precincts in central Tucson to current congressional district 7.

Current district 6 lose population to both districts 5 and the new district 9 (as described above)

Under this scenario, the two new congressmen will likely be Russell Pearce (CD 6) and Paul Babeau (CD9).

With the exception of CD 8, the changes indicated will not change the partisan leanings of the existing districts. 

The question in CD 8 is how many Democrat precincts will be transferred to CD 7.  The incumbent Democrat won reelection without a majority of the vote, and would have lost if a half-a-dozen heavily Democrat precincts likely to go to CD 7 had not been in the 8th on the 2010 general election.

Some useful information can be obtained at:

http://www.azredistricting.org/final/congfinal.jpg

I think I got something like that on the first page. Every district ends up at 65-70% white, except the Tempe/Scottsdale 5th, which is 78% white, but that's ok because some of them are latte liberals.

[minionofmidas]

Based on Linus' link stating that the Hopi Council will prefer to continue not having a constituency Rep [/hack spin], and on current Maricopa Rep's residency as far as I could figure it out, I drew this variant of my first map. 7 and 8 unchanged (well... I may not have used the exact same precincts in Tucson in drawing it. Not that it matters.) CD1 retains Coolidge and adds Salt River instead of Hopi etc - imagine a fencelink connection for CD6.



Keeping Flake in CD6 is unproblematic. Just transfer out Gilbert instead of parts of Mesa.
Franks is in Glendale (parts currently in his CD), Quayle is in North Phoenix and apparently somewhere very near both CD 4 and Scottsdale, and Schweikert is also in the northern part of his district (Fountain Hills), so you need to get creative to keep them apart. Or alternately follow Carl's suggestion and draw the rest of the state based on the current CD3.

The end result is sort of packing Hispanics into CD4 (65%), but also packing ultra-Republican areas into the heavily redrawn CD5.
Time to check whether the commission is actually supposed to look at incumbents...

[minionofmidas]

Here's the commission's guidelines.

"A. DISTRICTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES VOTING RIGHTS ACT;

B. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

C. DISTRICTS SHALL BE GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

D. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES SHALL RESPECT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

E. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTRICT LINES SHALL USE VISIBLE GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES, CITY, TOWN AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES, AND UNDIVIDED CENSUS TRACTS;

F. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE FAVORED WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CREATE NO SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO THE OTHER GOALS."

Nothing on incumbents. Provision F is interesting...

[RI]

As to realistic's question - yes, it can be done. The continous >20% Hispanic areas in Maricopa, not touching on Grijalva's district as I drew it before, are just about the right size for two CDs. Split it down the middle, and the eastern one is 51-34 (44-41 VAP) Hispanic, with enough Blacks and Libruls to continue to elect Pastor, no problems at all, and the western one extends to the county line (I had to move one precinct in Yavapai to CD2 to keep it continuous ), is 53-34 (48-40 VAP), and again has quite a few Blacks - in Maricopa, they mostly live in Hispanic-dominated parts of Phoenix proper. So yeah, if the Commission absolutely wanted to, it could draw a map that would likely elect the Hispanic Democrats most years.

I drew one that had three Hispanic districts all with >50% Hispanic VAP, but it wasn't terribly pretty.

EDIT: Here is my second quick attempt at it. My first one had better numbers, but this one still works. Yellow is 50.4% Hispanic VAP, Silver is 50.7% Hispanic VAP, and Cyan is 50.2% Hispanic VAP.



I'm sure someone could do a cleaner version.

[minionofmidas]

Arizona Legislative Districts.

Arizona has only 30 districts, each election 1 Senator and 2 Representatives.

Current map.



Phoenix and Tucson closeups.

My map.



Maricopa / West Pinal



Tucson



One preliminary note before comparing district-by-district. My map has less deviation than the 2000 map - no district is more than 500 off quota. This required some silly precinct transfers.

Also, I'm drawing the old district / 2010 figures from another document prepared for an entirely different purpose, hence why they include only population change, hispanic percentage and native percentage. Oh yes, 2000 figure is non-hispanic native (/black/asian), 2010 old seat figure is native irrespective of hispanic origin. This is a relevant distinction for some Arizona Native communities (5 Reservations have more Hispanic Native than Non-Hispanic Non-Native residents, including the mammoth Gila River and San Carlos - though in the latter case it's mostly because the non-Native share just is that tiny), but can't be helped now. And for my districts, it's whatever Dave Bradlee uses.

SD1 The Prescott district, this used to also include Sedona and rural country north to and surrounding Flagstaff, while ending at Prescott city limits to the southward.
I shifted it southward to where it's now almost identical to Yavapai County.
2000 84.8% nhw, 10.5% hispanic, 3.0% native (87.5 VAP)
2010 +24.7%, 14.3% hispanic, 2.6% native
my map 81.6% nhw, 13.7% hispanic (85.0 VAP). Native population now negligible - I consider below ~2 or 2.5 negligible, slightly higher with urban Black and Asian populations.

SD2 Combines Navajoland and Flagstaff. And Hopi, Havasupai and Hualapai. Used to just include a corridor to Flagstaff, now has Page and almost all of white rural Coconino added.
2000 68.1% native, 24.2% nhw, 6.0% hispanic (62.2 - 30.2 VAP)
2010 +6.2%, 64.0% native, 8.1% hispanic
my map 54.7% native, 32.8% nhw, 9.0% hispanic (50.8 - 37.8 VAP)
Native share could be massaged upward somewhat by including areas in Navajo County just south of the reservation, but between the political lean of that area, the district still being over 50% as is, and the fact that district 5 also needed population... I didn't bother.

SD3 Based on Mojave County. Loses Page and... that's it, really.
2000 84.2% nhw, 10.3% hispanic, 3.1% native (87.2 VAP)
2010 +27.0%, 14.2% hispanic, 2.8% native
my map 80.2% nhw, 14.9% hispanic (83.5 VAP)

SD4 This used to combine far northwest Maricopa with the southern half (less than that in population) of Yavapai, with the Maricopa part dominant even in 2000. Now, it's shed its rural portion.
2000 86.0% nhw, 9.2% hispanic (88.6 VAP)
2010 +147.6% (that's right!), 9.2% hispanic
my map 84.0% nhw, 8.7% hispanic, 3.5% asian (86.8 VAP)

SD5 Gila, Graham, Greenlee, southern Apache and Navajo (with the Apache reservations in the middle), and now also the Sedona area in both Coconino and Yavapai counties.
2000 63.8% nhw, 17.7% hispanic, 16.4% native (68.2 VAP)
2010 +12.2%, 19.9% hispanic, 16.3% native
my map 63.4% nhw, 19.3% hispanic, 14.2% native (68.0 VAP)

SD6 one of two North Phoenix-to-countyline seats, it didn't change much
2000 83.4% nhw, 10.0% hispanic (85.6 VAP)
2010 +28.7%, 14.6% hispanic
my map 75.8% nhw, 14.8% hispanic, 3.7% asian (79.1 VAP)

SD7 this one had to expand southwards a bit
2000 83.9% nhw, 11.1% hispanic (86.2 VAP)
2010 +11.5%, 14.2% hispanic
my map 78.3% nhw, 13.9% hispanic, 3.6% asian (81.6 VAP)

SD8 Based on Scottsdale, though excluding its innermost (southernmost) part. I added Salt River, Fort McDowell and the rural bits of Maricopa east of them to this district. The reason was that as SD23, which once upon a time was a minority-influence Outer Pinal district, lost Gila River there was no point in keeping it angling over to here as well. I also added Paradise Valley.
2000 91.0% nhw, 4.6% hispanic (92.1 VAP)
2010 +8.7%, 6.0% hispanic
my map 85.3% nhw, 6.0% hispanic, 3.3% asian, 2.6% native (87.3 VAP)

SD9 Peoria, Sun City. This lost a bit of Peoria and its share of Glendale, gained some fairly mixed outer suburbs around El Mirage.
2000 81.2% nhw, 12.4% hispanic (84.7 VAP)
2010 +4.7%, 18.6% hispanic
my map 66.4% nhw, 23.8% hispanic, 4.4% black (72.1 VAP)

SD10 This used to be basically a North Phoenix seat, but it's travelled west.
2000 70.0% nhw, 20.4% hispanic, 3.5% black (73.7 VAP)
2010 -4.7% (yes, that's right, a decline), 30.7% hispanic
my map 60.6% nhw, 27.5% hispanic, 4.8% black (66.0 VAP)

SD11 Another North (East) Phoenix seat, this has travelled southwest - but here that means towards inner city; no other way it can go as the seats north of it needed population too.
2000 83.4% nhw, 10.0% hispanic (85.5 VAP)
2010 -5.2% (oh yeah. The inner suburbs took a hit in Maricopa, not just the barrio), 13.3% hispanic
my map 59.5% nhw, 27.3% hispanic, 5.0% black (65.3 VAP)

SD12 Outer western suburbs - Litchfield Park, Goodyear, Buckeye. Contracted bigtime.
2000 57.9% nhw, 31.5% hispanic, 6.0% black (62.9 VAP)
2010 +121.5%, 36.6% hispanic
my map 57.1% nhw, 29.8% hispanic, 6.2% black (61.8 VAP)

SD13 Hispanic-dominated suburbs, Tolleson, Avondale, Phoenix' West End
2000 60.4% hispanic, 29.0% nhw, 6.6% black (55.1 - 34.8 VAP)
2010 +23.1%, 73.3% hispanic
my map 69.7% hispanic, 18.3% nhw, 7.3% black (65.3 - 22.1 VAP)

SD14 Used to be a gerrymandered monstrosity in Central Phoenix, now mostly in South Glendale actually
2000 64.0% hispanic, 25.4% nhw, 4.9% black (58.1 - 31.4 VAP)
2010 -7.2%, 71.2% hispanic
my map 64.1% hispanic, 23.9% nhw, 6.3% black (57.6 - 30.2 VAP)

SD15 Mirroring SD14... before looking it up it never occured to me that it might have been gerrymandered to be an extra White seat. The things people got away with under the Ashcroft Justice Department... (shakes head) I had tried hard to keep it hispanic despite expanding into southern Scottsdale. Or maybe they figured the votes for both seats to elect Hispanics weren't there anyways?
2000 46.1% nhw, 41.1% hispanic, 5.4% black, 4.1% native (53.3 VAP)
2010 -8.6%, 45.8% hispanic, 4.6% native
my map 59.9% hispanic, 30.2% nhw, 4.8% black (51.7 - 38.0) Musta excluded some Yaqui enclave, or maybe it's just many more reporting as Hispanic now? Probably that.

SD16 The South Phoenix seat parforce
2000 64.7% hispanic, 18.3% nhw, 13.3% black (59.7 - 22.9 VAP)
2010 +46.3% (yeah, you read right. There is a suburban fringe to it just north of South Mountain Park, but that can't explain all of it. Also explains neatly why 15 moving southwards worked out despite the natural boundaries of this seat), 61.8% hispanic, also 3.6% native
my map 58.1% hispanic, 19.7% nhw, 14.8% black (53.0 - 24.5 VAP)

SD17 Tempe. Used to include southern parts of Scottsdale (and exclude southern parts of Tempe), now includes some territory to the south of Tempe instead.
2000 70.0% nhw, 18.9% hispanic, 4.2% asian (73.7 VAP)
2010 +0.2%, 22.9% hispanic
my map 64.5% nhw, 19.3% hispanic, 5.8% asian, 5.5% black (68.5 VAP)

[minionofmidas]

SD18 Inner (western) parts of Mesa.
2000 61.2% nhw, 30.7% hispanic (65.4 VAP)
2010 -5.1% (yessir), 43.0% hispanic (yessir!)
my map 50.1% nhw, 38.5% hispanic, 4.0% black (56.4 VAP)
It had previously excluded the southwest corner of the city; I corrected that.

SD19 Outer (eastern) Mesa, mostly. Grew a little towards the south.
2000 86.2% nhw, 9.6% hispanic (88.9 VAP)
2010 +11.7%, 14.7% hispanic
my map 78.3% nhw, 15.2% hispanic (82.4 VAP)

SD20 Chandler, southern Tempe, that weird bit PINO bit south of South Mountain Park. District 17 grew this way, so had to stretch eastward.
2000 77.8% nhw, 10.7% hispanic, 5.8% asian (80.0 VAP)
2010 +0.9%, 14.3% hispanic
my map 61.4% nhw, 22.1% hispanic, (woah, where did that come from? There's a five precinct block of Hispanic-majority territory in Chandler that I transferred in. Never noticed that before.), 8.4% asian, 4.5% black (65.4 VAP)

SD21 Southeast corner of Maricopa - Queen Creek, western Chandler, now also parts of Gilbert. And used to have the southwest corner of Mesa for some reason.
2000 69.3% nhw, 22.0% hispanic (73.5 VAP)
2010 +57.1%, 21.4% (growth in Queen Creek making the hispanic bits less relevant)
my map 73.4% nhw, 14.7% hispanic, 5.6% asian (76.5 VAP)

SD22 Gilbert and parts of Apache Junction, contracted outwards (actually picked up the remainder of Apache Junction)
2000 81.9% nhw, 11.4% hispanic (84.2 VAP)
2010 +70.7%, 15.1% hispanic
my map 77.2% nhw, 14.1% hispanic (80.7 VAP)

SD23 The district that makes bunny cry. This used to be almost all of Pinal, plus the Pima Reservations. Now it's a strip through Maricopa, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Florence, and the Pinal side of Queen Creek (what do you actually call that area, I wonder?). Oh, and Superior. The map shows this wrongly as including Ak-Chin Reservation, not sure how that happened, but I've corrected it in the figures. Added Casa Grande South precinct instead.
2000 50.0% nhw, 34.6% hispanic, 10.6% native (55.9 VAP)
2010 +115.0%, 32.6% hispanic. 7.7% native (and that's double counting some Pima people...)
my map 58.4% nhw, 29.8% hispanic, 5.3% black (63.3 VAP)

SD24 The Yuma district. Had to expand into west rural Maricopa. Exclusion of that one rural Yuma County precinct was for population balance.
2000 49.4% hispanic, 44.4% nhw (52.5 nhw VAP)
2010 +21.2%, 58.3% hispanic
my map 58.0% hispanic, 36.1% nhw (51.2 hispanic VAP)
So yeah, arguably another new minority district. Though it'll be a few more years before it starts to vote like it. Writing's on the wall though - the Republican State Senate incumbent was held to a 6 point margin in 2010, against a Hispanic opponent.

SD25 A weirdly shaped district - Cochise sans Sierra Vista, Nogales, rural Pima with its huge reservation. And now also Eloy and Gila River.
2000 46.6% nhw, 43.8% hispanic, 7.2% native (52.0 nhw VAP)
2010 +24.2%, 46.0% hispanic, 5.9% native (Tohono rez population fell)
my map 47.4% hispanic, 39.0% nhw, 10.0% native (44.6 nhw - 42.5 hispanic VAP)

SD26 The North Tucson suburbs
2000 80.9% nhw, 13.8% hispanic (83.7 VAP)
2010 +15.5%, 19.0% hispanic
my map 73.8% nhw, 19.2% hispanic (77.8 VAP)

SD27 South Tucson (which is southwest geographically)
2000 49.4% hispanic, 40.4% nhw, 4.1% native (47.2 nhw - 43.0 hispanic VAP)
2010 +16.6%, 56.3% hispanic, 5.7% native (the Yaqui effect in full force!)
my map 53.3% hispanic, 35.6% nhw, 3.6% native (46.8 hispanic - 42.4 nhw VAP)

SD28 northeast Tucson
2000 72.2% nhw, 18.4% hispanic (75.9 VAP)
2010 +0.3%, 20.4% hispanic
my map 71.5% nhw, 18.6% hispanic (75.4 VAP)

SD29 southeast Tucson
2000 50.3% hispanic, 39.3% nhw, 5.5% black (45.1 hispanic - 44.5 nhw VAP)
2010 +9.8%, 55.4% hispanic
my map 54.7% hispanic, 34.6% nhw, 4.9% black (49.0 hispanic - 40.4 white VAP)

These are... interesting... racial breakdowns at first glance. It is however difficult to draw two much more Hispanic seats in Tucson, and both seats were very safe throughout the decade - actually so was SD28 (for White Democrats. While SD26 changed hands twice.)

SD30 Sierra Vista, Green Valley, areas on the far east outskirts of Tucson and now pushing north into the still-rural parts of Pinal, which are 40% Hispanic
2000 78.5% nhw, 12.8% hispanic, 4.1% black (SV's an army town.) (81.9 VAP)
2010 +35.9%, 17.9% hispanic
my map 63.6% nhw, 24.5% hispanic, 4.3% black (66.7 VAP)

[krazen1211]

Lewis and Carl, how would a map like this do? I finally tweaked the populations and borders to line them up with the municipal borders.







It should be possible to get all the white Maricopa districts safe R. I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.



CD-1: Rural Counties + some Maricopa exurbs.

68% white, 11.4% hispanic, 17.4% native american

CD-2: Eastern Valley suburbs + same rural counties + Hopi reservation

70.9% white, 19.2% hispanic

CD-3: Half of North Phoenix + Peoria + North Glendale

71.4% white, 18.4% hispanic

CD-4: Downtown Phoenix + South Glendale

25.3% white, 59.8% hispanic

CD-5: Tempe + Scottsdale + Half of North Phoenix + Fountain Hills

78.4% white, 12.1% hispanic

CD-6: Mesa + Chandler

69.6% white, 20.2% hispanic

CD-7: Yuma + Santa Cruz + South Maricopa + Half of Tucson

37.7% white, 53.2% hispanic

CD-8: Cochise + Half of Tucson

72.9% white, 18.3% hispanic

CD-9: Pinal + Gilbert + Queen's Creek

68.7% white, 19.2% hispanic

[minionofmidas]

You're splitting Gila River. That's right out.

I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.

Because it really is two counties from just about any Community of Interest angle you can think of. Not counting the reservation. And not counting the little bit of Tucson suburbia either.
The whole idea of the first district is to keep it out of the metro entirely. That works even better now than before, whether or not you include the Hopi. I would suggest not even contemplating scenarios that change that.

It's not a lot of people, but if I were to draw an R map taking Guadalupe out of the 4th is not something I would allow, either. IIRC Obama cracked 90 there. Protip: When you feel like commenting on something a year after you last looked it up, look it up again. It's just 79%.

[krazen1211]

You're splitting Gila River. That's right out.

I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.

Because it really is two counties from just about any Community of Interest angle you can think of. Not counting the reservation. And not counting the little bit of Tucson suburbia either.
The whole idea of the first district is to keep it out of the metro entirely. That works even better now than before, whether or not you include the Hopi. I would suggest not even contemplating scenarios that change that.

It's not a lot of people, but if I were to draw an R map taking Guadalupe out of the 4th is not something I would allow, either. IIRC Obama cracked 90 there. Protip: When you feel like commenting on something a year after you last looked it up, look it up again. It's just 79%.

Hmm, thanks, I'll think about that.

I thought about routing CD-1 into the north half of Mojave County to pick up the 100k or so people it needs rather than the bitter reaches of Maricopa, to avoid Pinal being split into several pieces as it is now.

It seems to me like the R's need the new district to go in the East Valley; skimming off Gilbert and Chandler just makes too much sense. Putting it in the West Valley ends up further cramming Flake's district while not getting the strength that you need in the new district

[minionofmidas]

I think this is my final submission. I will at some point do the sums for my AZ-3 and AZ-6, and I'll rethink it if either comes out too marginal, but that's the only caveat.



AZ1
57.0 - 17.8 - 21.3 Native
61.8 - 15.6 - 18.7 Native

Map around Hopi is *I think* the closest to actual (pop.wise) that can be done with tabulation districts. Obviously the real boundary would be the current one.

AZ2
65.8 - 24.1
71.6 - 19.5

Gains the road connection between Mojave and Maricopa. Retreats out of Glendale and Peoria. Heads south into Hispanic suburbs somewhat. Open Republican seat.

AZ3
63.4 - 25.2
68.2 - 21.2

Glendale, Peoria, a bit of northwest Phoenix, some outer suburban areas to the north. The same shape as the old AZ3, but really not the old district at all. Trent Franks is here, would have to put a little effort into it but I think it *should* still be a solid lean R.

AZ4
24.8 - 60.7 - 8.3 Black
30.6 - 54.4 - 8.7 Black

Yes, you see right. I added the Phino bit south of South Mountain. Because that way Tempe and points east could be made to line up exact for two seats.

AZ5
75.3 - 15.9
79.1 - 12.9

Scottsdale, most of North Phoenix, some outer suburbs. Safe for Schweikert. Nobody (as in, no political operative of either party) will be sad to see the back of Ben Quayle.

AZ6
65.6 - 23.6
70.3 - 19.5

Tempe, Mesa, and the northern half of Gilbert. See CD3, for Trent Franks read Jeff Flake. Heh, I suppose he can call his Paulite votes "maverick". Though unlike AZ-3, I suppose Dems have a readily apparent candidate in Harry Mitchell. Then again, he'll be 72.

AZ7
33.9 - 56.8
40.3 - 50.5

The only Pinal precinct left is part of Tohono O'odham. The loss of Gila River is sad - the Native share is down to 3.4% - but is a nonnegotiable part of the whole "two East Valley seats" thingamajig. I also had to keep Buckeye in the district on the other side of the metro.

AZ8
69.2 - 21.8
73.6 - 18.2

Nothing to see here, move along.

AZ9
65.4 - 20.9
69.6 - 17.7

Chandler, Queen Creek, southern half of Gilbert, the suburban parts of Pinal, and the reservations there. Open Republican seat.

[Bacon King]

Question to ask here for lack of a better thread- what was the result of those lawsuits regarding the Republican selections for redistricting commission members? What's the makeup of that body and can conclusions be drawn so far regarding what kind of map they'll produce?

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, the suit to get Rick Stertz, the tax-evading tea party hack and close associate of Senate majority leader Pearce and Giffords opponent Kelly on the shortlist was successful. As should be evident from the fact that a suit was even filed, he has since been selected. The other R pick is one Scott Freeman.
Dems picked one José Manuel Herrera and one Linda McNulty.
And the Independent member is one Colleen Mathis - the one monstrously qualified independent to apply, Paul Bender (he was on the shortlist) was understandably passed over as he's quite obviously an IINO - for all practical purposes a Democrat.

Some controversy about the way it was done.

No idea what this Mathis person is like politically or otherwise, but obviously no matter what the end map will be some kind of bipartisan compromise. The bottom line is, even with a commission and firm guidelines a redistricting process remains highly political. Especially when the state is so polarized. It just won't be as shamelessly greedy or protective as when legislators draw their own lines, without rules beyond OMOV.

[minionofmidas]

Minor correction. I spotted three Chandler precincts that I had mistakenly assumed to be part of Tempe in my sixth. They have been excised in exchange for two Gilbert precincts.

I've also done the sums on it now - 56.0% McCain (give or take a bit due to the possibility of some incorrect precinct identifications). So yeah, I think that East Valley map ought to stand. -_-

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Apparently independent commissions are only good if they do what Republicans want.

[minionofmidas]

"House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, charged that chairman Colleen Coyle Mathis is not exercising her role as the commission's sole independent.

He claims that her votes for hiring the consultant to the commission, as well as one of its attorneys, were the same as the votes cast by the commission's two Democrats."

Isn't that her job - cast a tiebreaking vote for whoever appears more qualified?

[Devils30]

Maybe they'll attempt to make AZ-08 a safer Dem seat?

[minionofmidas]

No.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Hey look, maps! (First drafts, anyway.)

[Miles]

What would be the best option for Ann Kirkpatrick? AZ-05 on the second map? (though she wouldn't live there)

[krazen1211]

Both of those are somewhat GOP favored.

[freepcrusher]

democrats should demand a safe central phoenix seat for Pastor and a moderately Tucson district for Grijalva. Anything else probably gets you in trouble with the DOJ. A 2-7 or 3-6 is what we should shoot for. Nothing less.

[Miles]

A 2-7 or 3-6 is what we should shoot for. Nothing less.

[Miles]

"After months of administrative drudgery and political tumult the five-person panel charged with redrawing Arizona’s political districts released its first set of working maps Saturday. The initial “grid” maps only meet two of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s six constitutionally mandated criteria - equal population and contiguity. From there, significant adjustments will be made..."

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/08/13/redistricting-commission-unveils-first-set-of-maps/

[krazen1211]

democrats should demand a safe central phoenix seat for Pastor and a moderately Tucson district for Grijalva. Anything else probably gets you in trouble with the DOJ. A 2-7 or 3-6 is what we should shoot for. Nothing less.

That's very generous of you. Even a full blown GOP gerrymander would give you 2 seats.

[Brittain33]

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