From Ballotpedia

This Redistricting article's introduction needs to be improved and expanded.

---

Arizona
General Information
Process:	Independent Redistricting Commission
Deadline:	None
Total Seats to be Drawn
Congress:	9
State Senate:	30
State House:	60 (30 districts)
Other States Redistricting Pages
Alabama · Alaska  · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado  · Connecticut  · Delaware · Florida  · Georgia  · Hawaii  · Idaho  · Illinois  · Indiana  · Iowa  · Kansas  · Kentucky  · Louisiana  · Maine  · Maryland  · Massachusetts  · Michigan  · Minnesota  · Mississippi · Missouri  · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada  · New Hampshire  · New Jersey  · New Mexico  · New York  · North Carolina · North Dakota  · Ohio  · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania  · Rhode Island  · South Carolina · South Dakota  · Tennessee · Texas  · Utah · Vermont  · Virginia  · Washington  · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming

This page is about redistricting in Arizona. Arizona is one of a handful states that uses an independent commission for its redistricting.

Update: On December 20, 2011, the Independent Redistricting Commission approved state legislative and congressional maps in a vote along party lines.^[1]

Process

There is an independent redistricting commission, created by Proposition 106 in 2000, that governs redistricting in Arizona. According to the site, the mission of the commission is, "to administer the fair and balanced redistricting of the Congressional and Legislative districts for the State of Arizona."^[2]

The commission has 5 members. Members are selected by the following:

• One appointed by the Senate President
• One appointed by the Senate Minority Leader
• One appointed by the House Speaker
• One appointed by the House Minority Leader

The fifth and final member is an independent, chosen by the first four appointees. The fifth member will also serve as the chair.

Arizona has 30 legislative districts, from which there is 1 senator and 2 representatives elected.

Proposed changes

Republican legislative leaders in December 2011 proposed that the commission ultimately be expanded from five to nine members for the 2020 redistricting. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents would each have three members. Legislators propose that a supermajority would then be required to implement the map.^[3]

2012 proposals

In February 2012, Republican legislators proposed changes to both the commission makeup, and the approved maps from 2011.

Three potential measures were introduced by Speaker of the House Andy Tobin (R) relating to the redistricting maps. If approved by a majority of each chamber, two measures would be placed on a special election ballot in May, and one would be on the November 2012 general election ballot. Most notably, the measures propose alternatives to the maps implemented by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The three measures are:

• Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment: The proposed amendment would increase commission membership from 5 to 12 and give the Speaker of the House more appointments to the commission.

• Arizona Legislative Redistricting Amendment (May): The proposed amendment would offer a legislatively-drawn alternative to the commission's congressional map.

• Arizona Congressional Redistricting Amendment (May): The proposed amendment would offer a legislatively-drawn alternative to the commission's legislative map.

Tobin admitted that the measures would result in more Republicans being elected. But he defended this, stating that this is fair because there are more registered Republicans in the state. According to a spokesman for the Arizona Secretary of State, in order for the state to hold the May special election, the legislature would need to approve Tobin's proposals by Feb. 15, which is 90 days before the election.

Critics have said the measures would undermine the spirit of the Redistricting Commission, which is meant to take the power of drawing new maps out of the hands of legislators.^[4]

However, in February 2012, the State Senate Government Reform Committee voted 4-2 to send to the floor a resolution that would eliminate the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. A proposal floated by Speaker of the House Andy Tobin (R) would have simply altered the composition of the commission, but that idea died in committee.^[5]

Leadership

After 2000 Census

The five members of the commission who served from 2001-2010 were:^[6]

• Republican Daniel Elder
• Republican James Huntwork
• Democratic Joshua Hall
• Democratic Andi Minkoff, Vice Chairman
• Non-partisan Steven Lynn, Chairman

After 2010 Census

The five members of the commission serving from 2011-2020 are:

• Republican Scott Freeman
• Republican Richard Stertz
• Democratic Jose Herrera
• Democratic Linda McNulty
• Non-partisan Colleen Mathis, Chairman

Commissioners

Commissioners were chosen from a final list of applicants. However, Republican lawmakers have filed a lawsuit over the list of nominees.^[7]

The first commissioner was appointed by House speaker Kirk Adams (R) on January 31, 2011. Adams named Scott Freeman to the commission. Freeman is an attorney from Phoenix.^[8]

The second commissioner was appointed by Chad Campbell (D) on February 2, 2011. Campbell, House Minority Leader, named Phoenix resident Jose Herrera to the commission.^[9] Because Herrera is the second commissioner from Maricopa County, the remaining two appointed commissioners must be from other counties in Arizona.^[10] Herrera was born in San Luis and graduated from Northern Arizona University in 2001.^[11]

Senate President Russell Pearce (R) chose Richard Stertz of Tuscon as the third commission member.^[12] Stertz, who runs a faith-based organization, was one of the two replacements added to the list of nominees after Pearce and Adams requested a revised batch of names. "The fact that I was able to select Mr. Stertz is also a direct result of our court challenge. This was a critical issue in law to allow real choice for the IRC. The law is clear and having real choices is critical for Arizona and the process," Pearce said.^[13] Stertz was marred in some controversy because of reports that he had back-taxes still owed to Pima County. Records showed he owed $7,800 for two properties near Tucson. Stertz called the tardiness an "oversight."^[14]

Rounding out the nominees is Linda McNulty, who was appointed to the commission on February 15 by Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D). McNulty is an attorney from Tucscon.^[15]

Thus, the first four members selected to the commission are:

• Jose Herrera
• Linda McNulty
• Scott Freeman
• Richard Stertz

The four appointees selected a fifth member to round out the commission from a pool of five independents. Those nominees were:^[16]

• Paul Bender
• Raymond Bladine
• Kimber Lanning
• Margarita Silva
• Colleen Mathis

Mathis was selected as the fifth and final member.^[17]

Nominee list controversy

Of the 25 finalists for the commission, there were 16 from Maricopa County, six from Pima County, and one from Coconino, Navajo and Yuma counties. The partisan makeup is 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 5 independents. Once the two major parties appointed their four commissioners, those four were then to choose the final member from the list of five independents.

The final list of 25 names was subject to controversy, initially after one Commission member resigned over allegations that he was allowing religion to interfere with an application.^[18] Additionally, Republican leaders demanded a new list of nominees, after allegations that Christopher Gleason was left off the final list because he is a member of a Christian group dedicated to spiritual renewal.^[19] The commissioner who made the comment resigned -- Louis Araneta -- although he says the situation was a misinterpretation of the conversation.^[18]

The two Republican legislative leaders -- House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Russell Pearce -- submitted a letter to Mark Schnepf (R), Steve Sossaman (R) and Paul Bender (I), asking them to withdraw their application to the committee because they are not "constitutionally-qualified."^[20] Both Schnepf and Sossaman submitted resignation letters, but the nominating commission rejected those letters.^[21]

The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments met on December 29, 2010 to re-examine its list of 25 finalists.^[22] The screening panel did not alter the list of final applicants, which prompted a lawsuit from Republican lawmakers.^[23] House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Russell Pearce had been requesting a new list of nominees, with more citizens representing areas outside of Maricopa County.^[23] The Arizona Supreme Court heard arguments for the case on January 18, 2011. Adams and Pearce were legally required to choose their commission members by the end of January 2011.^[24]

Members of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments expressed their concern that the two top Republicans were interfering in the process. The following statements from three members of that commission voice their disapproval with the lawsuit.

• Dewey Schade: "If we respond to the shenanigans that have gone on, that's what undermines public confidence."^[25]
• John Leavitt: "There is no greater intrusion in the process than to have the top two Republicans intervene," he said.^[25]
• Jane Strain: "I hope the people of Arizona are watching this and looking out for the dirty rotten politics.^[25]

The Court on January 18 ruled that two Republican candidates would need to be replaced. Additionally, the Court held that Bender would remain on the final list of 25 candidates.^[26] The two names added to replace Schnepf and Sossaman are Crystal Russell and Richard Stertz.^[27]

Staff

On April 20, 2011, the commission hired Ray Bladine to serve as executive director. Bladine, a former Phoenix administrator and deputy city manager for 11 years, will be responsible for guiding the commission through the process.^[28]

According to reports, Bladine will earn $100,000 per year. Bladine was chosen over Geoffrey Gonsher.^[29] Bladine is registered independent who also applied for a seat on the commission itself.^[30]

The commission has been allocated $500,000 in FY 2011 and $3 million in FY 2012.^[31]

Legal assistance

The commission on May 12, 2011 interviewed attorneys and law firms to fill the role of legal counsel. Interviews took place in public.^[32] On May 13, 2011 the commission voted 3-2 to hire two legal firms -- one Democratic and one Republican -- to assist the redistricting process. The Democratic counsel is Osborne Maledon while the Republican counsel is Ballard Spahr LLP.^[33]

The vote was somewhat controversial, as the two Republican commissioners -- Richard Stertz and Scott Freeman -- voted against the hirings, arguing that the Republican counsel should have been the firm of their choice -- Gammage and Burnham.^[34] "It boils down to this: The Democrats vetoed the Republicans’ selection," Freeman said of the vote.^[35]

The Democratic team includes Mary O'Grady, a former state solicitor general. Joe Kanefield -- former state elections director and chief counsel to Governor Jan Brewer (R) is a member of the Ballard Spahr legal team. Said commission chair Colleen Mathis on her tiebreaking vote: "We are not just Democrats and Republicans on the commission. ... We each have a vote and are each exercising that vote."^[36]

Map-drawing consultant

The Independent Redistricting Commission met on June 24, 2011 to interview four firms that applied to serve as mapping consultants. The four applicants were TerraSystems Southwest Inc., Research Advisory Services, Strategic Telemetry and National Demographics Corp. During the last redistricting process, National Demographics Corporation was the hired consultant. ^[37]

On June 29, 2011, the commission by a vote of 3-2 hired Strategic Telemetry to work as the mapping consultant. Colleen Mathis, commission chair, sided with the two Democratic commissioners. The Republican commissioners questioned the political leanings of Strategic Telemetry, based on its work with the past two Democratic presidential candidates -- John Kerry and President Barack Obama -- as well as current work with the recall campaigns against Republicans in Wisconsin. Mathis defended her decision, saying the hiring is not about politics and more about the advanced presentation that would include social media and mobile phones to gather public input.^[38] A three-hour closed executive session was held prior to the vote.^[39]

In August 2011, the commission decided to track all communication between Strategic Telemetry and any person outside of the commission. Commissioner Scott Freeman said the move was meant to "allay some public concerns" with respect to the consultant's previous ties to Democratic campaign efforts. Later, Democratic commissioners expressed a desire to exempt bloggers and members of the media from the new rules.^[40]

Push to eliminate commission

The 2011 commission has come under criticism by GOP officials in light of some of the hirings and actions by the commission. A Republican lawmaker is proposing the idea that a ballot question be held to eliminate the commission and return the map-drawing process to lawmakers.^[41] House representative Terri Proud (R) said the independent chair of the commission, Colleen Mathis, did not disclose that her husband worked for the unsuccessful re-election bid of a Democratic legislator. Proud also indicated she has not seen enough interest on the commission’s part to gather public input before creating draft maps.^[42]

Speaker of the House Andy Tobin also criticized some decisions by the commission, notably the hiring of Strategic Telemetry as map consultant. That company has recently worked for President Barack Obama, John Kerry and the Democratic effort to recall legislators in Wisconsin.

State senator Ron Gould (R) suggested removing Mathis from the commission entirely. In order to do that, Governor Jan Brewer (R) would need to sign a petition and then the Senate would need to approve that petition with 2/3 vote.^[43]

In response to the criticism, advocates of the commission criticized the move as a way to re-institute political gerrymandering of the districts or to intimidate the commissioners.^{[44] [45]} Still others pointed out that the petition circulated by Proud contained factual errors -- including the year that the ballot initiative was approved.^[46] While Republicans have expressed concern that their voice will be "silenced" by the process, the commissioners themselves have maintained that they will be responsible for drawing the districts.^[47]

Attorney general investigation

Attorney General Tom Horne (R) has launched an investigation into whether the redistricting commission violated state procurement and open meeting laws. Horne said they “don’t have any reason to believe that anything was done wrong” but his office will still investigate in order to solidfy confidence in the process. While commission executive director Ray Bladine says rules have been followed properly. However, State senator Frank Antenori (R) maintains he has proof that laws were broken -- including evidence that government documents subject to public records request were destroyed. ^[48] An investigation by the ‘’Arizona Capitol Times’’ last week first detailed the possible open meeting and procurement violations. According to that report, the commission has met behind closed doors for 37 hours in executive session this year.^[49]

On August 4, Attorney General Tom Horne (R) sent out a press release regarding his investigation into a possible open meetings violation by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). Horne said, “My office will be relentless in pursuing the facts, and no commissioner will succeed in attempting to hide relevant facts.” Horne’s reaction came after commissioner Jose Herrera stated he would not answer any questions from the Attorney General’s office.^[50]

"For the sake of public confidence in this process and to put this matter behind us, I intend to fully answer any questions asked of me from the Attorney General's office," said Committee Chair Colleen Mathis.^[51]

Chair Colleen Mathis has said she would like to make all executive-session minutes public, in order to help dispel public criticism of the commission’s conduct. However, doing so would likely violate state law, as the executive session minutes are legally meant to be kept confidential.^[52]

Court hearing set

An October 3, 2011 court hearing was scheduled to hear Attorney General Tom Horne’s (R) request to compel three commissioners to cooperate with his investigation. Horne’s investigation pertains to the selection of Strategic Telemetry as mapping consultant. Thus far, the two Democratic commissioners and the independent chair have refused to cooperate, according to accusations from Horne’s office.^[53]

In September 2011, new allegations surfaced that Collen Mathis, chair of the Redistricting Commission, destroyed documents relating to the selection process. Horne told media outlets that Republican Commissioner Richard Stertz testified that some score sheets were destroyed. If so, Horne says that might violate open meeting and procurement laws. Ray Bladine, executive director of the commission, said no documents that should have been kept were destroyed.^[54]

Unrelated to above matters, the Democratic Party filed a complaint against Stertz. The complaint requests an investigation into Stertz’s commission application and possible omissions. ^[55]

Andrei Cherny, Arizona Democratic Party Chairman, criticized Horne for the attack on the commission. Cherny said the allegations are another example of partisan interference with the commission’s mapping process.^[56]

Impeachment of commission chair

Governor threatens to impeach

Governor Jan Brewer (R) on October 26, 2011 threatened to begin impeachment proceedings against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission members. She sent allegations to the five commissioners and gave a deadline of October 31 for them to respond.^[57] If she is not pleased, then she says she will initiate impeachment proceedings -- meaning with a 2/3 vote from the Senate, members could be removed from the commission. Should that occur, then the process would start from scratch with selection of replacements and new maps to be drawn.^[58]

Brewer’s point of contention is the Congressional map. Namely, three of the chief complaints are that the commission over-prioritized competitiveness, disregarded natural borders and violated open-meeting laws.^[59]

Democrats allege the complaints are “bogus” and just an attempt by Republicans to protect their incumbents.^[57]

James Huntwork, a Republican who sat on the Commission from 2001-2010, said this current commission erred in its order of priorities when creating maps. He said the new commission should have first drawn maps that satisfied minority voting, equal population, and local government boundaries. Only at that point, should the commission have considered competitiveness and parties. Huntwork’s comments are contrary to what a former Democratic commissioner said several months ago, when she criticized the commission for waiting too long to consider competitiveness.^[60]

Chairwoman removed

On November 1, 2011, Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer (R) officially impeached Independent Redistricting Chair Colleen Mathis. With the Arizona State Senate’s 21-6 vote in favor of Brewer’s decision, the governor essentially fired Mathis from her role as the lone independent on the 5-member commission. "I will not sit idly by while Arizona’s Congressional and legislative boundaries are drawn in a fashion that is anything but constitutional and proper," Brewer said.^[61]

Brewer alleges that the new Congressional map does not meet Constitutional requirements. The current map favors the GOP 5-3. The new map would give the GOP four safe districts, two for Democrats, and then three competitive seats. Brewer says the law requires a “grid-like” map -- which she says was put off at the expense of making more competitive districts.^[62]

Democratic officials slammed the decision. "Every honest person in the state agrees that this is not about substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct in office. It is about protecting the careers of Republican congressmen at the expense of good government and fair elections," said Andrei Cherny, chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.^[63] According to her lawyer, Mathis will legally challenge the decision. The case will likely go before district court and the State Supreme Court.^[64]

Arizona Democratic Party officials have threatened to recall four Republican state senators who voted to remove Mathis. The four senators are Rich Crandall, Adam Driggs, Michele Reagan and John McComish.^[65]

Experts now assume that the 2012 elections will be held on a court-drawn interim map.^[66]

Court hearing

A November 17, 2011 court hearing was set for State Supreme Court hearings over whether Mathis was wrongly removed from the commission. On November 8, 2011, the court denied a request to temporarily reinstate Mathis to her post.^[67]

Replacement

A state nominating panel began accepting applications for a replacement for Mathis during the week of November 7, 2011. A deadline of November 15 was established for applicants. The panel has until December 1 to nominate three finalists.^[68] A total of 19 applicants applied for the post. However, the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated Mathis on November 17, 2011.^[69] Because Mathis was reinstated, the screening process is halted.

Reinstatement

On November 17, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court overruled Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer (R) and reinstated Mathis to the commission. The court held that Brewer failed to show that Mathis had engaged in any conduct to provide grounds for removal.^[70]

Brewer's spokesman left open the possibility that another removal attempt could be sought.^[71]

Back to work

In late November 2011, the full commission returned its work on the final maps. On December 1, 2011, the commission began setting up times for current legislators to testify regarding proposed maps.^[72]

Post-map budget issues

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission said it would run out of money by March 16, 2012 if state officials did not appropriate additional funding. A bill was passed by the Arizona State Senate to send an additional $1 to the commission.^[73] Senate GOP leaders were opposed to the commission's maps. In fact, on March 1, senators advanced a measure that would eliminate the commission and return the power of drawing maps to the legislature.^[74][75]

On March 8, 2012, the commission's executive director Ray Bladine said the commission will file a lawsuit over the state's failure to approve additional funding. Bladine said the commission will run out of money by the end of the month without a supplemental appropriation. The commission cited unanticipated legal expenses as the cause of the early draining of its budget.^[76]

On March 21, 2012, the Arizona State Senate approved an additional $700,000 appropriation to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Senate voted 18-9 to approve the measure which had been sent to its chamber by the House. The commission had sought for an extra $1.1 million.^[77][78]

On March 27, 2012, Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation to provide an additional $700,000 to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. While the commission did ask for $1.1 million, executive director Ray Bladine said the approved sum is enough to avoid a possible lawsuit for more funding.^[79][80]

Census Results

Based on the new Congressional apportionment, Arizona has been awarded an additional seat based on population growth.^[81] Arizona will now have 9 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The new district will likely be in either Maricopa or Pinal counties, where the growth has been concentrated over the past decade.^[82]

In October 2010, there were 1 million registered Democrats and 1.1 million Republicans in Arizona.^[83]

Arizona received its local census results on March 9, 2011.^[84] Although the state grew by almost 25 percent -- second in the nation to Nevada's 35 percent -- some population areas did not meet growth expectations. One theory is that the recession and hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants fleeing the state may have offset even greater population gains. The state fell 270,000 residents short of predictions.^[85]

Overall, the population figures show large growth in Arizona's Hispanic population. The White population fell from 65.1 percent to 59.4 percent, while the Hispanic population grew from 25 percent to 30 percent.^[86] Across the state, the suburbs grew faster than major cities. Based on initial estimates, that would result in higher representation in the state legislature for Maricopa and Pinal counties. Conversely, Pima County displayed slower growth, which could result in the loss of some state legislative clout.^[87]

Top 10 Ranking

According to a report in the Washington Post, Arizona is one of the top 10 states to watch in the redistricting process. The reporters ranked Arizona number 5 on the list. Florida was given the distinction as the number 1 state to watch.^[88]

Congressional Maps

Navajo, Hopi tribes

In Arizona, the Navajo and Hopi Indians have more than 2 million acres of land in northeastern Arizona.^[89] During the 2000 redistricting, the two tribes were feuding and requested being placed in separate Congressional districts, despite their close physical proximity. The Navajos were put in the 1st Congressional district and the Hopis were placed in the 2nd Congressional district. For the 2011 redistricting process, there is momentum to recombine the two tribes into one district, according to Navajo president Ben Shelly.^[89]

Native American tribal groups testified to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in mid-September 2011 about the drawing of Congressional districts. Historically, the relationship between Hopi and Navajo tribes has been contentious -- but this year, the tribes have signaled a willingness to be drawn into the same district in order to have more collective unity on common issues. Additionally, the tribes expressed a desire that the district be drawn so that it would provide a greater likelihood for a Native American to be elected to Congress.^[90][91]

Gerrymandering

Arizona's 2nd Congressional district was featured in a Slate publication titled, "The Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts." There were 20 districts featured from across the country.^[92]

Congressional draft map passed

On October 3, 2011, the Commission passed a draft Congressional map by a vote of 3-1, with one Republican abstaining and one voting against.

The newly-created 9th Congressional district is considered to lean Democrat, based on early analysis of the draft map.^[93]

After it was passed, the draft Congressional map was came under assault by GOP leaders from all fronts.^[94]

• U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain released a joint statement that called the process political and requested that maps be corrected.
• Governor Jan Brewer (R) criticized the map and said it favors Democrats. Brewer said, "The IRC proposal is simply gerrymandering at its worst."^[95]
• U.S. House Representative Trent Franks (R) said the "obviously biased map is unacceptable."^[96]

According to Stuart Rothenberg, author of a nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, the Congressional map allows Democrats to "screw" Republicans.

Meanwhile, Andrei Cherny, Arizona Democratic Party chairman, accused the GOP of unveiling a coordinated attack on the redistricting commission. Cherny said there are currently four safe GOP districts, two safe Democratic districts, and two competitive districts. He said the new map would still have four safe GOP seats, two safe Democratic seats, and now have three competitive districts.^[97]

The plan appears to place two Republican Congressmen -- David Schweikert and Ben Quayle -- in one district where they would face each other in a primary.^[98]

According to the Phoenix Business Journal, the breakdown of the nine districts is:^[96]

District 1: Competitive district District 2: Leans Democratic District 3: Leans Democratic District 4: Leans Republican District 5: Leans Republican

District 6: Leans Republican District 7: Leans Democratic District 8: Leans Republican District 9: Competitive district

Members of the public now have 30 days to comment on the draft Congressional map.

On October 13, the commission will return to Flagstaff to gather input from citizens on the draft Congressional map.^[99]

Possible changes

In November 2011, the commission returned to work following the temporary removal of Colleen Mathis as chair. Commissioner Richard Stertz (R) prefers to start the map from scratch, arguing that Mathis drew most of the map in secret.^[100]

Pre-clearance

On April 9, 2012, the Department of Justice gave pre-clearance to the new congressional map.^[101]

Legislative Maps

More districts?

The current breakdown of Arizona's representation is 30 state senators and 60 state house representatives. Each representative will have 106,534 constituents -- the 8th highest population per house district in the country. Recently, a blogger in Arizona suggested the idea that the redistricting commission increase the total number of districts.^[102] Legally, the redistricting commission is allowed to grow the size of the legislature, based on language from Proposition 106.

Prescott Council opposition

In August 2011, the Prescott City Council voted unanimously to send a letter to the Independent Redistricting Commission to relay the council's disapproval with the early legislative maps. Draft options would divide Yavapai County into four districts. According to the letter, this would weaken the county's core values. ^[103]

Draft maps passed

One week after the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission approved a draft Congressional map, the 5 members voted 4-1 in favor of a draft state legislative map.^[104]

In a twist from last week’s reaction, this time it is the Democratic Party that feels slighted by the draft map. After a week full of GOP leaders decrying the Congressional map, Democratic leaders cried foul this week about the 30 state districts.^[104]

Based on initial analysis, Republicans would have a voter registration edge in 18 of the 30 districts. Additionally, only 3 to 8 districts would be considered competitive.^[104]

Luis Heredia, Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party, said the commission should have created more districts that are competitive.^[105]

The new districts create several instances where incumbents are thrown into the same district. Notably, State Senate President Russell Pearce (R) would be in the same district as State Senator Rich Crandall (R). Pearce -- who is facing a recall election on November 8 against fellow Republican Jerry Lewis -- has said he intends to run again in 2012.^[106]

A 30-day comment period began on October 11, 2011. A total of 26 hearings will be held.^[107] Among the initial public reaction:

• Some Flagstaff residents want to be moved into District 6 as opposed to being in District 7 -- which is shared with the Navajo Nation.^[108]

Partisan discontent

Both Democrats and Republicans continue to express their disapproval of the legislative draft map.^[109] This week the state legislature announced it is forming a special committee to make recommendations to the Arizona Independent Redistricting commission. The bipartisan legislative committee is met on October 21, 2011 for the first time.^[110] While the six-member committee includes two Democrats and 4 Republicans, legislative Democrats are boycotting the new meeting. House Minority Leader Chad Campbell and Senate Minority Leader David Schapira said the committee is simply a scheme to protect incumbents’ seats and undermine the Independent Commission.^[111]

Approved maps

On December 20, 2011, the Independent Redistricting Commission voted 3-2 to approve new state legislative and congressional maps. The new congressional map creates four Republican-leaning districts, two Democratic-leaning districts and three competitive districts. The state legislative map contains 16 districts deemed safe for Republicans, 10 that are safe for Democrats and four that are considered competitive. The two Republican commissioners voted against the new maps. ^[112]

One of the contentious final discussion points centered around the number of congressional districts along the Mexico border. The final map will have two border districts. Early versions of the map contained three border districts.^[113]

As expected, some officials expressed their dismay at the new maps. State legislator Olivia Cajero Bedford (D) immediately announced she would move in order to seek election in a different district, after hers was made more Republican-leaning in the new map.^[114]

Redistricting Maps, approved December 2011
This is the tentatively approved congressional map. This is the tentatively approved state legislative map.

Final approval

The Independent Redistricting Commission met on January 13, 2012 to discuss minor, technical changes to the state legislative and congressional maps.^[1]

The final maps were approved and sent to the Department of Justice on January 17, 2012. The final vote was 3-2, with chairwoman Mathis voting in the affirmative alongside the two Democratic chairpersons.^[2]

On April 26, 2012, the Department of Justice signed off on the new maps.^[3]

Draft maps

Options 1 and 2

On August 12, 2011, the redistricting commission released a first set of Congressional and legislative maps. The initial draft only addresses two of the six required criteria -- equal population and contiguity.^[4] The first maps contain two Congressional options and two legislative options.^[5] The draft maps can be found here.

Redistricting Draft Maps, released August 2011
This is option 1 of the proposed draft Congressional maps. This is option 2 of the proposed draft Congressional maps This is option 1 of the proposed draft state legislative maps This is option 2 of the proposed draft state legislative maps

Starting point chosen

On August 18, 2011, the AIRC chose option 2 as a starting point. This version focuses on a more rural-based approach to the map. Proponents of option 2 said it was preferred in part because at random it created more compact districts.^[1] The commission vote was 4-1, with commissioner Jose Herrera dissenting over concerns about the congressional districts along the U.S.-Mexico border.^[2]

Public Meetings

Commission meetings

February 24, 2011

The first redistricting meeting took place on February 24, 2011 in Phoenix.^[3] The purpose of the meeting was to interview applicants for the fifth and final member of the commission, who will be an independent.^[4] During this meeting, the four commissioners were sworn-in.^[5]

They then interviewed the five independent candidates for 30 minutes each. The commission chose to delay voting on its fifth member until March 1.^[6]

March 24, 2011

On March 24, 2011 the 5-member commission will hold a meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona. The posted agenda includes an introduction of the interim executive director of the commission, as well as discussing RFPs for consultants. Additionally, the commission's budget and office space possibilities may be discussed.^[7]

April 8, 2011

An agenda was posted for a meeting on April 8, 2011. The new website has been created and staff hiring as well as a timeline will be discussed at the meeting.^[8]

Statewide input meetings

A total of 15 meetings will be held in 24 locations across the state throughout July and August 2011.^[9] A list of the meetings is available here.

• Throughout the course of public hearings, residents have also stressed a desire to see more competitive legislative and congressional districts. The final public hearing will take place tomorrow in Tuscon. More public hearings will be held once a set of draft maps have been generated.
• In a scheduling snafu on August 1, more than 100 residents in northern Arizona attended a public input hearing in Flagstaff -- only to find that no actual commissioners were present. The commissioners had accidentally mixed up which ones were going to attend. However, commissioner Herrera was able to attend virtually using Skype. About three dozen residents testified at the meeting, with most specifying that they preferred maintaining communities of interest in the maps.^[10]
• At a public hearing on August 6, state senator Al Melvin (R) said he would like to see his district remain unchanged as much as possible.^[11]

Legal issues

Voting Rights Act challenge

On August 25, 2011, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal government that challenged portions of the Voting Rights Act. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state is subject to a "tortuous" procedure and approval process conducted by the Department of Justice. Horne said that Arizona has demonstrated that the state is fair to racial minority voters and should no longer be subject to preclearance.^[12] The lawsuit requests a hearing before a three-judge panel. According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the DOJ will defend the Voting Rights Act. "The provisions challenged in this case, including the preclearance requirement, were reauthorized by Congress in 2006 with overwhelming and bipartisan support," Holder wrote in an email to the Arizona Republic.^[13]

Challenge to implemented maps

After a contentious map-drawing process in Arizona was seemingly ended with the approval of maps by the Department of Justice, it seems that drama may be returning.^[14] Two lawsuits were filed last week against the new congressional and state legislative maps. Both lawsuits said the state’s independent redistricting commission violated constitutional requirements on processes and criteria for drawing maps. The suit challenging the legislative district alleges that it unconstitutionally packs Republicans into certain districts, providing an advantage to Democrats in other districts.^[15]

Citizen Activism

Competitive districts

Arizona's 30 legislative districts have also been criticized as being overtly partisan in one party's favor of the other.^[16] Because of requirements for majority-minority districts, a former commission member said only 7 of the 30 legislative districts are actually "competitive."^[17] Two former state legislators -- Ken Clark and Roberta Voss -- said only 6 of the 30 districts are competitive. They believe that at least 10 of the 30 districts can be made competitive through the redistricting process. Clark and Voss are cochairs of the Arizona Competitive Districts Coalition, which is sponsoring a public contest to draw the best, most competitive legal map.^[18] The coalition describes competitive districts as those having a difference of 7 percent or less between registered Democrats and Republicans. In September, the coalition will submit a collection of publicly drawn maps to the redistricting commission.^[19]

Public contest

A public contest is being held from May 1 through June 6.^[20] The contest is geared to garner citizen submissions of Congressional and legislative districts, using an online tool. The Arizona Competitive Districts Coalition organized the competition. Prizes for the winners have yet to be determined. The winning maps will be presented to the redistricting commission later in the summre.^[21] The competition will allow users to determine whether their map meets four of the six constitutional requirements -- equal in population, compact, competitive, and Voting Rights Act-compliant. The other two requirements -- keeping communities of interest together and geographic boundaries -- were deemed too subjective for the contest.^[22]

Rural representation

Some rural communities are concerned that the redistricting commission will place greater emphasis on urban locations and dilute rural districts. In particular, some residents criticized the commission's geographic makeup -- as all 5 members are from Pima or Maricopa counties. There are 15 total counties in Arizona. A group known as the Greater Arizona Success has been formed with the goal to request rural communities get equal representation -- both in legislative and congressional maps.^[23]

Partisan Registration by District

Below are the partisan registration figures by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts in November 2010 ^[24]

Partisan Registration and Representation by Congressional District, 2010
Congressional District		Democrats	Republicans	Unaffiliated	District Total	Party Advantage*	111th Congress	112th Congress
1		152,320	134,249	117,015	403,584	13.46% Democratic
2		138,209	208,769	168,628	515,606	51.05% Republican
3		105,648	155,381	120,727	381,756	47.07% Republican
4		99,022	39,308	78,038	216,368	151.91% Democratic
5		105,138	144,798	124,395	374,331	37.72% Republican
6		118,367	213,522	162,642	494,531	80.39% Republican
7		144,119	76,730	111,883	332,732	87.83% Democratic
8		140,114	159,045	128,351	427,510	13.51% Republican
State Totals		1,002,937	1,131,802	1,011,679	3,146,418	12.85% Republican	5 D, 3 R	3 D, 5 R
*The partisan registration advantage was computed as the gap between the two major parties in registered voters.

History

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was formed after voters approved Proposition 106 in 2000. The Independent Commission began its work shortly after the 2000 Census. Prior to the approval of Proposition 106, the Arizona Legislature was responsible for redistricting.

The initial redistricting plan after the 2000 census was mired in controversy through the decade. The 2002 elections were governed by an interim map while a revised version was used in 2004, as the redistricting process was held up in legal challenges.^[25]

The five members of the commission in 2001 were:^[26]

• Republican Daniel Elder
• Republican James Huntwork
• Democratic Joshua Hall
• Democratic Andi Minkoff, Vice Chairman
• Non-partisan Steven Lynn, Chairman

2001 redistricting

Arizona headed into 2001 redistricting with a Republican Governor, a divided House, and a two-to-one GOP edge in the state's Senate. Both U.S. Senators and all but one of six Congressmen belonged to the Republican party. When the 2000 Census announced the state would gain not one but two additional seats in the U.S. House, Arizona became a compelling state to watch. Despite GOP dominance, Arizona's redistricting is the domain of a non-partisan commission and the state had already been trending to left in recent years when the 2000 results were publicized.

2001 was also the inaugural run for Proposition 106, a Common Cause and League of Women Voters sponsored ballot initiative that passed 56% to 44% in November 2000. Proposition 106 requires an independent citizen commission to draw more compact districts. Shortly after the 2001 new year, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments had whittled 311 applicants for the commission down to 25 finalists. Within a month of a panel being seated, Hispanics demanded the resignation of all five members, irate that the entire commission was white. In a compromise, two Hispanic staffers were named and the commission was able to begin crunching through data and maps. The first draft, which drew reasonably compact Districts and gave minorities control of 25% of the Congressional seats and one-third of the state legislative districts, still drew marked criticism from Democrats.

Indeed, Arizona Democrats began building a legal team and publicly speaking of a potential lawsuit during the summer of 2001, before the Commission had actually completed its work.^[27] When Democrats developed a plan for a Congressional District that would wind through parts of Maricopa County, Republicans and Hispanics found themselves on the same side, fighting the 'downtown' district that planned to take sections of the cities of Tempe, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Glendale. Democrats accused their opposite number of feigning concern for minorities while GOP lawmakers insisted the Department of Justice would never approve the proposed Maricopa District anyway.

The final plan, approved 4-1 on October 13, 2001, generally pleased Republicans more than Democrats, despite increasing the number of minority-majority seats. At the end of a decade of being outpaced by more northern areas, Tuscon lost representation at the state level to Maricopa County. Minorities generally did well but Democrats, particularly those who had backed Prop 106 so strongly, described profound frustration with the outcome, arguing their rival party had more safe seats in both legislative chambers. Criticism aside, on November 5, 2001, the Commission signed-off on the maps, clearing the way for the Department of Justice to take them up. However, six weeks later, the maps still sat in Arizona as Democrats made it increasingly clear they were planning legal action. Given that the Justice Department has 60 days from whenever they receive the maps, some commentators worried over Arizona's ability to have set boundaries in time for the 2002 elections.^[28]

The maps were finally sent off to Washington at the end of January 2002. After a month, the Justice Department requested additional details and information. While the Commission was able to sort out the problem, the Justice Department's 60-day window started fresh in early March. Nearly two months passed before it become clear that Election Data Services, hired to consult on the map making, had spoiled data by missing active and inactive voters. Faced with the possibility that all the legislative districts could fail to meet the state Constitution's competitiveness requirement, Arizona considered appealing to a Federal judge to secure approval on an interim map. The Department of Justice had preliminarily approved the Congressional maps only when the mistake surfaced.

In early May 2002, the Commission bowed to political reality and sought a ruling for interim boundaries. At the same time, a lawsuit challenging district boundaries in Maricopa County was postponed until January 2003, a temporary victory for the GOP and one hurdle cleared in using an interim map for the 2002 midterms. A three-member panel of Federal judges reviewed proposed maps for interim use. The Commission submitted its work while the Navajo Nation drew its own map and built a coalition with Hispanics to challenged the official set of boundaries. The month's end brought bad news; the Department of Justice rejected the Commission's map, citing five House seats in particular. The Federal judges followed and gave the Commission only days to rework the divisions among seats.

It would be February 10, 2003 before the Commission finally received notice they had Justice Department approval. By then the Democrats' court case over competitiveness in Maricopa County had been delayed once more, until July 2003. When the case was heard, the Maricopa County Superior Court's ruling wound up in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals, who ordered the Commission to release certain documents to Democrats. Ultimately, a U.S. District Court would send the case back to Maricopa County. Facing the magnitude of the lawsuit, the Commission requested $4.2 million in help for legal bills and received, on a near unanimous vote from the legislature, $1.7 million.

In early 2004, Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields of Maricopa County overturned the Commission's map, agreeing with Democrats that it was inadequately competitive to pass Constitutional muster. Judge Fields ordered all 30 legislative districts redrawn and banned the 2000 map from being used anywhere in the 2004 elections. Realizing the Commission would take 45 days to rework maps and that Justice Department would have, and likely use all of, 90 days, candidates contemplated having a three-month campaign season when they finally knew what districts would look like. At the start of a Presidential election year, Arizona's political hopeful were at a baffled standstill.

Dutifully, the Commission drew another map which, in January 2004, Judge Fields rejected. The Commission simultaneously appealed that ruling and prepared yet another map. On April 14, 2004, Judge Fields accepted the third effort, ordering the map to be used in 2004 and for the rest of decade. Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer said the Judge's delay in ruling did not give her enough time to run the 2004 elections on the new map and sought a ruling to allow the old maps to be used that fall Anticipating Sec. Brewer, a coalition of mainly Hispanic Democrats sued, seeking a ruling ordering Field's April 2004 map be used. At the end of May 2004, Federal Judge Rosalyn Silvers threw out the Democratic lawsuit. Halfway into the decade, Arizona had a map.^[29]

Deviation from "Ideal Districts"

2000 Population Deviation[30]
Office		Percentage
Congressional Districts		0.00%
State House Districts		3.79%
State Senate Districts		3.79%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Ballot measures

The following measures have appeared on the Arizona ballot pertaining to redistricting.

• Arizona Proposition 106 (2000) a - created an independent redistricting commission.

Speculation

A possible repeal of Proposition 106 turned more bleak on November 29, 2011, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer refused to call a special session of Arizona Legislature to discuss a proposal to place the repeal on the 2012 ballot.

According to Brewer, the governor did not want to be rushed into that situation, and also stated that she has seen "no evidence" that voters are ready to repeal the measure, which would dissolve the Independent Redistricting Commission.^[31]

Constitutional explanation

With respect to redistricting, the Arizona Constitution provides authority to an independent redistricting commission in Section 1, Part 2 of Article IV.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures

External links

• Independent Redistricting Commission site

References

v • d • e Redistricting State Redistricting Pages Alabama · Alaska  · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado  · Connecticut  · Delaware · Florida  · Georgia  · Hawaii  · Idaho  · Illinois  · Indiana  · Iowa  · Kansas  · Kentucky  · Louisiana  · Maine  · Maryland  · Massachusetts  · Michigan  · Minnesota  · Mississippi · Missouri  · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada  · New Hampshire  · New Jersey  · New Mexico  · New York  · North Carolina · North Dakota  · Ohio  · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania  · Rhode Island  · South Carolina · South Dakota  · Tennessee · Texas  · Utah · Vermont  · Virginia  · Washington  · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming State-by-state redistricting procedures • Redistricting news desk • Redistricting lawsuits relating to the 2010 Census • Partisan balance of redistricting committees in 2011 • Redistricting Activist Organizations • Redistricting Roundup • Status of redistricting maps after the 2010 census