Redistricting object lesson: Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors does its own redistricting, and one can tell that, for the most part, they pick their own voters. 

See if you can see a pattern here.

The main MCBOS redistricting webpage is here.

First, some basic demographics -

The Board has five members.

The membership is 100% male.

The membership is 80% non-Hispanic Caucasian.

The membership is 80% Republican.

The membership is NOT representative of the county as a whole.  Not even close.

From the U.S. Census Bureau -

Voter registration figures, courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office -

While 80% of the board is Republican, Republicans only make up 53% of the voters who 

have registered in one of the two major parties.

Of course, only 34.3% of all registered voters in Maricopa County are enrolled Republicans.

While partisan affiliation is (allegedly) not a consideration during the supes' redistricting process, other factors may be.

I wonder what those factors could be? (That's sarcasm - I don't actually wonder at all.)

The supes' are considering five plans.  Even the least bad of those plans involve packing most ethnic minority voters into a single district.

The demographic figures of those plans -

I'm torn between wanting to keep them around and doing what they do to serve as a warning to those who believe that elected officials should be allowed to do their own redistricting and having the voters impose an AIRC-like process at the county level.

Then I remember that the county has a $3.42 *billion* budget.

They should be compelled by the voters to be more representative of Maricopa County.

Hey canvassing pros! Got plans for after the election? You just might want to have a chat with the US Census Bureau...

Most regular readers here (and at Arizona Eagletarian and Blog for Arizona), are very cognizant of the important influence that the decennial redistricting process has on Arizona's politics.

It is so influential that the Republicans in the legislature are still litigating it, knowing that even a small change to districts could be very lucrative for them.

A fact that many people are less aware of is the fact that the redistricting process is based on the decennial Census.

The Census' data is used to ensure that states are apportioned the correct number of representatives in Congress, and that districts within each state are equal in size...at least for the first election of a decade.

Hence, observers of the political scene (such as yours truly) keep an eye on developments related to the census.

It's not directly political, but the US Census Bureau announced something of interest to the denizens of Maricopa County today - while we are still over five years away from the 2020 Census, in 2015, Maricopa County will be the site of a test of possible new techniques to be used in 2020.

From the Census Bureau press release -

The test in Maricopa County will be smaller, concentrating on following up with households that fail to respond to the census. Maricopa County has a mobile and diverse population, which will help the Census Bureau study new ways to conduct field operations and manage field staff.  

That's the part that may be of interest of to geeks (such as yours truly? :) ), but the next part of the press release should be of interest to political folks who wish to use or hone their canvassing skills, and make money while doing so (emphasis added by them, not me) -

Conducting this test will require recruiting and hiring more than 800 temporary office and field staff. Pay ranges from $16.25 to $28.25 per hour. Recruiting will begin in early November and more information will be available at that time.

I don't know how long the test activity will last, but it should be something that will keep canvassers canvassing until the 2016 election cycle starts (in a presidential cycle, that means some time in the latter part of 2015).

Democratic vacancy on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Jose Herrera, one of the two Democratic members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, has resigned from the AIRC, citing the time commitment required to fulfill the duties of a commissioner.  With the end of the actual crafting of legislative and Congressional districts part of the process,  most of those duties involve answering the lawsuits from Republicans who are upset that the maps don't overwhelmingly favor them.

With Herrera's resignation, the process for filling the seat has begun.

From a press release issued by the Arizona Judicial Branch -

Applications are currently being accepted by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments for a vacancy on the Independent Redistricting Commission, which is charged with mapping Arizona’s congressional and legislative districts. This vacancy was created by the resignation of Commission Vice Chair Jose M. Herrera.

Residents of all Arizona counties are eligible to apply. To be eligible, applicants must be registered Arizona voters who have been continuously registered with the Democratic Party for the last three years.  People who have held or run for a public office (other than a school board), served as an officer of a political party or a candidate=s campaign committee, or worked as a registered paid lobbyist during the past three years are not eligible.

Application forms are available at www.azcourts.gov/jnc/IRCNominations/ApplicationInfo.aspx , by calling (602) 452-3311, or at 1501 W. Washington, Suite 221, Phoenix, AZ.

Applications must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013.

Redistricting Commission members are barred from seeking or holding any public office in Arizona or for registration as a paid lobbyist during their term on the commission and for three years following.

The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will review the applications and nominate a pool of three candidates. Representative Chad Campbell, Minority Leader in the Arizona House of Representatives, will appoint the new member of the Redistricting Commission.

New Congressional Maps precleared by Department of Justice

From the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission -

Congressional Maps Gets DOJ Approval

Today Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Chair, Colleen Coyle Mathis announced that the Department of Justice has approved the congressional district map submitted by the Commission on February 9, 2012. Chair Mathis thanked those members of the public that participated in the process to develop the congressional map.

The Department of Justice has until April 30, 2012 to act on the legislative map and Chair Mathis indicated that she is very hopeful that it will also be approved by the Department of Justice.

The new Congressional districts -

The maps, in various formats, can be found here; the maps there can be magnified to help you figure out which of the new CDs you live in.  If you live in Maricopa County, the County Recorder's district locator page is here.

The results will look like this -

The top half of the page will show the current districts for a given address; the bottom half of the page will show the tentative districts for the Fall 2012 elections.

Andy Tobin taking the lead in the Republican fight against independent redistricting

...and the fun part is:  he wants the voters to pay $8 million for the privilege of subverting their own will...

Rep. Andy Tobin (R-Paulden), the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, has introduced HB2710, HCR2051, HCR2052, HCR2053, and HR2005.  If passed, they would mandate a special election in May where the voters would be "asked" to amend the independent redistricting provisions in the Arizona constitution.

HB2710 would call the special election.

If passed by the voters, HCR2051 would take the "independent" out of "independent redistricting commission".  It would take the current 5-member Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), where no political hacks are allowed (meaning no party precinct committeemen, or PCs.  Full disclosure:  I'm a Democratic PC, so I can call PCs "hacks." :) ) and turn it into a cesspool of hackery, with 12 politically-appointed members.  It would also remove the requirement under current law that there be an Independent member of the AIRC.  In addition, it would remove the requirement that the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments screen the applicants.

[start sarcasm] Obviously, as the judicial branch of government in Arizona is the only branch the receives, or is even worthy of, respect for its professionalism, so it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the redistricting process. [end sarcasm]

If passed by the voters, HCR2052 and HCR2053 would scrap the the legislative and Congressional maps, respectively, in favor of maps drawn by Tobin.

HR2005 is a resolution where the legislature (or to be realistic, the Republicans in the legislature) pledge to base their maps on the scribblings and the electoral alchemy of the Republicans' own Andy Tobin.

It's "alchemy" because Tobin is trying to turn the iron clauses of the Arizona constitution into a golden opportunity for job security for the Capitol's elected Republicans.

Even more infuriating than Tobin et. al.'s open contempt for the will of the voters (we are the ones who created the independent redistricting process specifically to take it away from legislators interested only in serving their own self interests above all else) or even the best interests of the people of Arizona (we are served best by public officials who have to answer to the entire electorate in their districts, not just a few partisan extremists) is his plan to have the voters pay (subscription required) more than $8 million for the special election/Hail Mary pass.  On top of that, Tobin has defended (subscription required) the secrecy that shrouded his drawing of the maps that he wants to implement, and the use of a taxpayer-funded employee of the legislature, John Mills, to aid him in his quest to overthrow the voters' independent redistricting process.

An interesting two-step for someone who has criticized the AIRC for spending too much money (expenses incurred in part to deal with the litigation stemming from previous attempts to subvert the process by elected Republicans) and has complained that the AIRC's dozens of meetings and hearings with hundreds of hours of testimony isn't transparent enough.

Note: in this context, "interesting" is a synonym for "hypocritical."  In case you couldn't figure that out on your own. :)

Of course, Tobin's scheme pre-supposes that...

a) the other Republicans in the lege go along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, highly likely);

b) the voters go along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, less likely, but given that a special election would be a low-turnout affair dominated by partisan GOTV efforts, definitely possible); and

c) the US DOJ goes along with Tobin's scheme (IMO, highly unlikely given the secrecy and deliberate exclusion of minority groups specifically and the public in general from the crafting of his maps).


On the other hand, Tobin's proposals are so sloppily written that it makes me wonder if this is more about posturing for his caucus or for the inevitable redistricting-related lawsuits than anything else.

As written, HCRs 2052 and 2053 appear to be mutually exclusive.  They each propose to amend the same part of the Arizona constitution by inserting identically labelled clauses.

From HCR2052

From HCR2053









Now, I'm just a layman with no advanced (or even beginning-level) legal education or experience, but it seems any credible attempt to amend the Arizona constitution would at least be correctly written, especially as it comes from putative subject matter experts such as Tobin and his "associate" Mills.

However, given that Tobin's maps guarantee him a safe district, credibility may not have been a consideration in Tobin's scheming, just ensuring his continued seat on the West Washington Gravy Train.

As near as I can tell, the measures haven't been agendized for committee consideration as yet, probably because they haven't been assigned to any as yet while they await for the Speaker to "first read" the bills and assign them to committee.  The timing of that and the specific committee that they are assigned to is completely within the Speaker's discretion and is often subject to the vagaries of the relationship between the introducing sponsor and the Speaker.

In this case, I expect the measures to be formally introduced, First Read, and assigned to committee on Monday.

Something tells me that Rep. Andy Tobin is on good terms with Speaker Andy Tobin.  :)


Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has coverage here, via the East Valley Tribune.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has his take here.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian offers his take here.

The Democratic caucus of the Arizona House of Representatives has a statement from Rep. Chad Campbell, House Minority Leader, here.

The maps are in, and other 2012 updates

Just a few quick updates...

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) has submitted its "tentative final" maps for Congressional and legislative districts to its analysts.  Assuming that the analysts don't find any major issues with the maps (and they probably won't), the maps will then be submitted to the US Department of Justice for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act.  If DOJ doesn't find any major issues (the likelihood of that is anybody's guess), those maps will form the basis of elections for the next decade.

Some national media outlets (The Hill and Politico) are calling the maps a victory for Democrats, but they aren't, really.  They guarantee Republican control of the legislature for another 10 years, and all but guarantee a Republican-majority Congressional delegation for the same period.  What they do however, is make it more difficult for the Rs to maintain their outsized domination of the legislature.

As such, the Rs are crying about the maps, but the tears may be mostly of the "crocodile" variety...

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has more complete coverage of the AIRC here.


...Neil Giuliano, former mayor of Tempe, a rumored candidate for the Democratic nomination in the new 9th Congressional district, has announced that he will not be pursuing that job (subscription required).  State Sen. David Schapira is currently exploring a run at the seat, and State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Arizona Democratic Party chair Andrei Cherny are rumored to be eyeing the same race.


...Lastly, the list of candidates on the ballot for February's Republican presidential preference primary is now five strong - Ron Paul, Mitt Romney...and Wayne Arnett, Raymond Perkins, and Al "Dick" Perry.

No, I don't know those last three either.  Look for the final ballot to include 20 - 25 names, with seven or eight that people actually know.

...

Brewer's latest move to seize control of the redistricting process rebuffed by AZ Supreme Court

...aka - the Hail Mary pass fell harmlessly to the ground...

Late this afternoon, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order regarding the "motion to reconsider" its decision to reinstate Independent Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

To sum up - motion to stay the reinstatement of Mathis is denied, motion to reconsider the entire previous order is denied, and the Court clarified that in her letter removing Mathis from the AIRC, Governor Jan Brewer didn't document any acts or behavior that rises to the level of being constitutionally sufficient to justify Mathis' removal.

In other words, they said "What part of "NO!" did you not understand?"only they did it in a judge-y way.  Very proper, very dignified, and lots of big words.  :))

The order:

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will treat the Motion as an amicus brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, except insofar as the motion seeks clarification of the Order. As the Order notes, the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution. The Court further concluded that the issues presented are not political questions committed by the Constitution to the unreviewable discretion of the other branches of government.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying the Court’s November 17, 2011 Order as it concerns the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to Colleen Mathis. The Order states that the November 1, 2011 letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution. Respondents seek clarification whether the Court’s conclusion was based on the format of the November 1, 2011 letter, which stated that the Governor had determined that Mathis had “failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth in Arizona Constitution Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(14).”

The Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter constitutes her findings of grounds for the removal of Mathis. The Court’s conclusion that the letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” is based on the letter’s substance, not its format. The letter does not, as a matter of law, identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for removal.


One ground identified in the Governor’s letter is a failure to conduct the commission’s business in meetings open to the public.

The Constitution directs that “[w]here a quorum is present, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct business in meetings open to the public, with 48 or more hours public notice provided.” Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Pt. 2, § 1(12). The statutory Open Meeting Law defines “meeting” in terms of a gathering of a quorum, A.R.S. § 38-431(4), and it directs that all meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings and that legal action of Supreme Court Case No. CV-11-0313-SA public bodies shall occur in public meetings. Id. § 38-431.01(A). A failure to conduct the business of the commission in meetings open to the public must at least involve violations of these laws for it to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct.” (We do not decide whether the constitutional provision preempts any statutory Open Meeting Law requirements, an issue that is being litigated in another forum.) There is, however, no allegation of any non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission in the Governor’s October 26, 2011 letter or in the responses thereto. Nor does the Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter find that a non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission occurred.

With regard to preparing maps, the commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must “balance competing concerns” and “exercise discretion in choosing among potential adjustments to the grid map,” Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 587, 597 ¶ 28, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009), and the commission’s adoption of final maps is subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution’s procedural and substantive requirements. Id. at 596 ¶ 24, 208 P.3d at 685. The Governor’s disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal.

 Even before I received the order in my inbox, the reaction from House Speaker Andy Tobin was there.  Needless to say (but I'm going to say it anyway :) ), he's ratcheting up the rhetoric -

“With the Supreme Court having clearly overstepped its bounds, I continue to believe that the reinstatement of Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission represents a dangerous threat to the independent process Arizona voters want and deserve. I fully support any and all efforts by the Governor to immediately remove Chairwoman Mathis and call the Legislature into special session to refer a measure to the ballot allowing voters the opportunity to repeal this commission, which has shown total disregard for the Arizona Constitution. We must act immediately to ensure that this broken and biased process does not continue to unfold.”

Look for an attempt to put a repeal of Prop 106 (the ballot question in 2000 that created the independent redistricting process) before the voters of the Republican primary in February.

After that, look for federal intervention by the US Department of Justice.

And after that, or even if federal intervention doesn't happen, look for AZ's Republicans to have their asses handed to them next November. 

Willfully and maliciously overriding the will of the voters for reasons that range from purely partisan to purely personal tends to tick off voters, even those who normally don't pay much attention between elections.


On a related note:  the AIRC has scheduled three business meetings next week in Tempe, at the Fiesta Inn at the SW corner of Priest and Broadway.

On Tuesday, they will meet at 1:30 p.m. (agenda); Wednesday at 4 p.m. (agenda); Thursday at 1 p.m. (agenda).

"Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Hail Mary"

During football games, often at the end of a half or the end of a game, one team that is desperate to score lines up its receivers on one side of the field and sends them down the field to the end zone while the quarterback heaves a pass into the crowd of players

While occasionally it works, the vast majority of the time the ball is tipped once or twice and falls to the ground incomplete. 

However, teams still use the tactic because they have nothing to lose by it.

Which brings us to Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her paid attack dog/mouthpiece, attorney Lisa Hauser.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted links to various new filings in the case, including a motion to reconsider from Brewer and Hauser.  In it they petition the Arizona Supreme Court to "reconsider" (aka - change its mind about) its order last week reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Their motion is basically a re-presentation of their original argument, that Brewer can remove Mathis or any member from the AIRC for any reason she wants, including a bad haircut.  All Brewer has to do is call it "gross misconduct."

The argument didn't work last week and it almost certainly won't work this week.  Maybe it could, if instead of just disagreeing with the court's decision, they pointed out some procedural error or presented some heretofore unknown facts, but they didn't.

I don't expect the motion to work - Brewer isn't Doug Flutie, Hauser isn't Gerard Phelan and the AZ Supes aren't the University of Miami football team of the mid-1980s (not enough felony convictions) - but like every other Hail Mary pass ever thrown, the rationale behind it is "hey, if it doesn't work, we're no worse off than we were before."

They have nothing to lose if it doesn't work and a lot to gain if it does.  In addition, as Steve points out in his post, it may actually just be a PR move to help rationalize a special session of the lege to refer a ballot question in an attempt to overturn the proposition that originally set up the independent redistricting process.

I don't think that'll work either, but they've got a better chance that way than in court, especially if they go with the scheme proposed by many Republican legislators - put the issue to a vote during the Republican presidential primary.

Note to readers:  I almost named this post " " "Motion to reconsider":  Brewer-speak for "Ave Maria" " but decided the BC football reference was enough.  Didn't need to go the full Catholic on everybody. :)

A study in contrasts: Reaction to this week's court ruling reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

This week's order handed down by the Arizona Supreme Court has elicited reactions from various quarters, that while not entirely unexpected, are stark in their differences.

The AIRC itself greeted the decision with professionalism, as evidenced by their promise to get back to work (press release posted by Steve at Arizona Eagletarian).

The Arizona Democratic Party greeted the decision with cautious satisfaction.

Governor Jan Brewer took a somewhat different tack (as expected), condemning the decision while ascribing to the court and its decision the contempt for the people of Arizona that she and her cronies in the legislature showed in their attempt to hijack the independent redistricting process.

Prime bits of hypocrisy -

"Let’s not forget why we’re here: The IRC followed an unconstitutional redistricting process, conducting too much of its business behind closed doors and disregarding mapping criteria seemingly at will. They did all of this without explanation."

{snip} 

"With its reinstatement of the IRC Chairwoman, the Supreme Court has averted its eyes from the Commission’s misdeeds. The Chairwoman’s actions to meet in secret, arrange critical votes in advance of meetings and twist the words and spirit of the Constitution have been forgiven – if not endorsed outright."

Ummm...when was the last time that the state budget was actually created in public and not cobbled together behind closed doors, and rammed through the legislature on a day's notice?  Of course, if anyone knows what it means to "twist the words and spirit of the Constitution", it's Jan and her clan.

Brewer, however, was actually understated compared to Rep. Andy Tobin, the Speaker of the Arizona House.  He called Mathis the "czar" of the AIRC, accused the the AIRC of "ignoring voter mandates", and called the AIRC's work examples of "gerrymandering."

I'd make a crack about Tobin and his caucus being experts on "ignoring voter mandates", but I used that line in the last paragraph.  So how about the definition of "gerrymander," from Merriam-Webster?

1: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible


2: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group

"Competitive" districts, something that Democrats and Independent voters in Arizona want (a desire expressed and enacted in 2000, when voters created the independent redistricting process), are exactly the opposite of "gerrymandered."
 
Of course, as bad as Tobin was, *he* is understated compared to some of his "base", rank and file members of the Republican caucus of the lege.
 
Rep. Terri Proud (from after the court handed down its order) -
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sen. Al Melvin (from a day before the court handed down its order) -

 
 
 
 
 
 
I'm not sure who is more scarily ignorant -
 
Proud for arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional (I think that she means that she believes the state constitution violates the US Constitution; since Arizona was already a "preclearance" state when Prop 106 passed, we'd have already heard from the DOJ if there was a problem with it) and that the "Founding Fathers" didn't intend for the people of the country to direct how their elected representatives are elected, or Melvin for openly advocating that an election to amend the AZ Constitution should be held when only Republican voters will be voting.
 
And given that his proposed subject matter is one which would affect all elections in Arizona, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division would probably take a rather dim view of the whole affair.
 
In spite of her ignorance, Proud may have inadvertently told the bald truth about independent redistricting and the motivation for the power grab by Jan and her clan -

"It hasn't worked and it won't work for the Republicans.  Not ONE state has stayed Republic with an alternative.  Not ONE."

 Hope she is being prophetic...
 
Howard Fischer of the governor's PR staff Capitol Media Services has coverage of a possible special session of the legislature this coming week to re-fire Mathis and other redistricting-related matters here (via the East Valley Tribune). 
 
I'm not sure they'll be able to pull off a short-notice special session during a holiday-shortened week, but they are pulling out all the stops in their increasingly desperate efforts to override the will of the voters and seize control of the redistricting process.  At this point, anything is possible.
 

The Mathis ruling...

Essentially, the court said that no matter how much the governor, her handlers, and their mouthpieces insist otherwise, the removal of Colleen Mathis is something that is subject to judicial review.  Like almost every act committed by legislative and executive branches of every level of government since Marbury v. Madison.

It also said that no matter how much those same folks insist otherwise,  Mathis has done nothing to meet the threshold set in the Arizona Constitution to justify her removal from office.

My way of putting it:  Actually being the independent on the *independent* redistricting commission and conducting yourself in an independent manner is NOT grounds for kicking being kicked out of office.

No matter how much Jan and her clan click their heels together while say "we wish we still controlled district lines, we wish we still controlled district lines."

Because the order is short, here it is in its entirety -

Having considered the filings in this matter by the petitioner, the intervenor, the respondents, and the amici curiae, and the arguments of counsel,

1. The Court accepts jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution;

2. The Court concludes that the issues presented in this matter are not political questions and are therefore justiciable. See Brewer v. Burns, 222 Ariz. 234, 238-39 ¶¶ 16-22, 213 P.3d671, 675-76 (2009);

3. The Court concludes that the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to the intervenor Colleen Mathis does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” by the intervenor Mathis, as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution;

Therefore, the Court grants the relief requested by the intervenor Mathis and orders that she be reinstated as chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Court in due course will issue an opinion more fully detailing its reasoning in this matter. 

Might I suggest a title for the sequel to Jan Brewer's book?

Crow For Breakfast

From a Facebook posting from the AIRC -

The Arizona Supreme Court has reinstated Colleen Coyle Mathis as chairwoman of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission.


The justices issued their ruling late this afternoon, a couple hours after hearing oral arguments on the issue.

Once the executive director has contacted the five commissioners and determined how they want to move forward, the staff will make the appropriate arrangements.

Arizona Capitol Times coverage here (subscription required)

Arizona Republic coverage here

Court rules; Mathis back on the AIRC...

The story is still breaking, but the AZ Supreme Court has ruled against Governor Jan Brewer and the Republicans in the state senate and has restored Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 

Details as they become available...

Nineteen Arizonans apply for chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission*

* - Pending the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in the lawsuit over the removal of the original chair, Independent Colleen Mathis, by the governor and her Republican colleagues in the Arizona Senate.

If the court does the right thing, the applications will be moot.  However, this is Arizona.  Be hopeful (the AZ judiciary actually has a pretty good reputation), but don't hold your breath.

Nineteen people have applied for the Independent position on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  It became (sort of, depending on the AZ Supreme Court's decision this week) vacant when Jan Brewer and the 21 Republicans in the State Senate railroaded Colleen Mathis off of the AIRC in an effort to usurp the authority of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

Pending the court's decision, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, which screens applicants, will meet  on November 22 (next Tuesday as of this writing) to discuss the applications and decide which applicants should be interviewed at a meeting on November 28.  At that meeting, they will decide upon a list of three names to forward to the other four members of the AIRC for their consideration.

The nineteen applicants are:

Alton Briggs of Scottsdale, retired

James Buesing of Peoria, lawyer

Linda Buscemi of Phoenix, psychologist/counselor

James DiRienzo of Prescott, adjunct professor at Embry-Riddle

Michael Doyle of Cave Creek, retired, and a former member of the Sheriff's Posse

John M. Fife III of Tucson, teacher

Paige Heavey of Phoenix, real estate, former member of WISH List, the Republican counterpart to Emily's List

Daniela Larson of Tucson, graduate research assistant

Eden Lewkowitz of Phoenix, instructional assistant

Anthony Merrill of Chandler, lawyer

Dale Mukavetz of Chandler, retired

Milford Rimmer of Scottsdale, self-employed technical sales

David Roberts of Scottsdale (legal address), editor at White Mountain Publishing

Margarita Silva of Laveen, lawyer (note: Ms. Silva was a candidate for this position during the initial start up phase of this year's AIRC)

Don Snider of Phoenix, an executive with a non-profit foundation

Stanley Usinowitz of Lake Havasu City, self employed

Stephen Weston Sr. of Waddell, training consultant

Marshall Whitmire of Camp Verde, self-employed

Gregory Zamora of Tempe, legal assistant


Public comment on the applicants will be accepted, so feel free to examine the applications.  I know I will be.

Brief update on redistricting mess...

Steve at the Arizona Eagletarian has a far more comprehensive rundown here, but I like brevity, so here is mine...

Regarding the court filings seeking to stay and overturn the removal of Colleen Mathis, the independent chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) by Governor Jan Brewer and the Republicans caucus in the state senate, the pertinent dates/deadlines (from an email press release) -

Monday, 11/7 at 5 pm – Responses due for Motion to Stay Removal and Motion to Intervene

Tuesday, 11/8 at Noon – Reply to responses for Motion to Stay Removal and Motion to Intervene

Tuesday, 11/8 in the afternoon – Court will consider Motion to Stay Removal (no hearing) and a decision expected in Motion to Stay Removal.

Friday, 11/11 at 5 pm – Responses to petition for special action and any amicus briefs due

Monday, 11/14 at 5 pm – Reply to responses to petition for special action and amicus briefs

Thursday, 11/17 at 2 pm – Potential Oral Arguments on merits of petition for special action (25 mins per side.)

So to sum up, the state supreme court will (probably) decide tomorrow to grant or deny a stay of the removal, and will (probably) decide by the end of next week whether or not to overturn the removal in its entirety.

- Steve at the Arizona Eagletarian has linked to a couple of the court filings uploaded as Google docs, but let me summarize:  Lisa Hauser, writing for the governor: "We can do what we want, when we want, to who we want, and our victims (the AIRC and the voters) can't say squat about it."

The response from Mathis and Linda McNulty and Jose Herrera, the Democratic members of the AIRC: "Wanna bet?"

- The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments has reopened applications for the position of independent chair of the AIRC.  The deadline for submitting applications is next Tuesday, November 15, at 5 p.m.

General info for applicants is here.

The application is here (note to applicants: while one of the Republican members of the AIRC lied on his application concerning tax liens, among other things, you shouldn't expect to get away with it if you do.  Of course, even if you don't lie, the Rs will say you did...unless you're actually an R plant.  Then they'll get on their knees in the middle of Washington Street and kiss your butt, even if you've committed violent crimes.  See Bundgaard, Scott.).
Stay tuned...

Redistricting-related meeting on Monday

At 1 p.m Monday., the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will hold an emergency meeting to discuss how they will nominate three Independents to be considered as replacements for Colleen Mathis, who was ousted as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission this past week.

Note to anyone who plans to attend the meeting: it will be held in the Arizona State Courts Building at 1501 W. Washington in Phoenix (directly east of the state capitol, with Wesley Bolin Plaza in between) and will chaired by Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch.  If she is running true to form, that means the meeting will start a 1 p.m. sharp, not "around 1", not "within a few minutes of 1", and not "1-ish", so plan accordingly.

Like most meetings of public bodies in Arizona (but unlike the closed meeting of the Republican caucus of the Senate last week where they wrangled votes for their kangaroo court of Mathis), public comments can be submitted to the Commission, whether in person, via snail mail, or via email.

Since I have to work Monday, I submitted a comment via email (jnc@courts.az.gov) -

Chief Justice Berch and Commissioners,

Regarding the discussion of a nominating process to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC):

Ideally, you would wait until any and all court petitions pertaining to the removal of AIRC chair Colleen Mathis have been adjudicated before starting the nomination process to fill any vacancy (if that is the end result of the court actions), but redistricting is a time sensitive matter and it is only prudent to make appropriate preparations.

With that time sensitivity in mind, the simplest and perhaps fairest process would be to contact the original finalists for the Independent member slot, perhaps in the order of the number of votes they received during the original process, and ask each if they are still interested in serving as chair of the AIRC.

Those original nominees have been through the full vetting and nomination process. If any or all of the original nominees are still interested, it would greatly reduce any delay in the redistricting process.

In addition, even an abbreviated search process for new applicants runs the risk of opening up more opportunities for the sort of mischief that has been evident over the last few months, culminating in last week's removal of Mathis.

Having said all that, I wish upon you the best of good luck - the Arizona Supreme Court may yet make any preparations moot.

I also wish upon you the deepest patience - the Court may make your preparations absolutely necessary, at which point this commission will become the focus of the same extraordinary political pressures that have been directed at the AIRC.

Thank you for your consideration and service.

Regards,

Craig McDermott

Scottsdale

Representing myself

P.S. - My first instinct in writing this was to recommend that you send the Governor and State Senate a letter that says simply "Be careful what you wish for..." and then forward a list of three names for the Independent member of the AIRC - "Paul Bender", "Paul Bender", and "Paul Bender". After careful consideration, I opted for a more tactful approach. Especially since I don't know if Professor Bender is still even interested in the rather thankless job of Chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

...Not the most eloquent thing ever written, but I really did have to rein it in, as indicated in the "P.S.", which in and of itself reined in.  I actually wanted to suggest that the members of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission go to the roof of the Courts Building, walk over to the side closest to the Capitol, turn around, and moon the Governor and Senate.

I also wanted to include this pic -

 

Arizona has its own Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland-style) - Governor Jan Brewer.  Pic courtesy Lauren Kuby

















However, since I wanted my comment to be taken seriously... :))

AIRC hearing in Scottsdale

Thursday evening, well over 200 people gathered at the Granite Reef Senior Citizen Center in Scottsdale for one of the hearings held by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

The room was so crowded that building staff had to put out dozens of extra chairs and there were still people stand around the sides of the room and outside where they still listen to the goings-on.

A couple of us made jokes that the Rs in the legislature weren't going to have time to completely shut down the meeting because the fire department would beat them to it. 

However, the mayor of Scottsdale, Jim Lane, was in the audience, so the Scottsdale Fire Department was nowhere around.

Lane testifying











Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has a full write-up here, but I have a few observations about the meeting, the R talking points (and the early part of the hearing was an R propaganda-fest) -

- Commissioner Rick Stertz, the commissioner present at the hearing (and Russell Pearce's appointee), gave preference to elected officials, letting them speak first.  Apparently, that has been the practice all along, even before the lege moved to usurp the "independence" in the independent redistricting process.

However, the average citizen had only two minutes to speak, where the electeds spoke for as long as they wanted to. 

Apparently in Arizona, not only do alleged public servants not understand the concept of *public" service, they don't even acknowledge (or maybe simply don't understand) the concepts of basic courtesy, as in "hit the high points, submit the rest in writing, and get out of the way - a lot of other people have the right to be heard too".

- Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh was one of the electeds who testified at the hearing.  In the interests of brevity, I won't rehash all of it (it was itself a rehash of the report generated by the GOPers kangaroo court...errr..."Joint Committee On Redistricting"), but suffice to say if Kavanagh or any of his associates choose to stand up and repeat that BS in court, they should bring a good defense attorney with them (hint: not Lisa Hauser; her involvement with this mess may cause her to need a defense attorney, but it doesn't make her one).

And they should bring a good toothbrush with them, in case the good defense attorney just isn't good enough and the judge is one that takes a dim view of perjury.  Ya just don't know where that prison-issued toothbrush has been...

- Other than the generic R talking points excoriating the AIRC for failing to kiss R butt, there was a pattern to specific suggestions that the Rs made to the AIRC.

They want Fountain Hills to be placed in the same district(s) as Scottsdale.  They consider Scottsdale and Fountain Hills to be an unbreakable "community of interest".  One woman testified that placing the two areas in separate districts was unacceptable because while she lives in Fountain Hills, she likes to shop in Scottsdale.

I only *wish* I was making that part up, but alas, my imagination just isn't that creative.

Anyway, the mentality exhibited seemed to be less that district boundaries are lines on a map and more that they walls across streets.

Not the truth, but the truth and intellectual honesty was in short supply during the early part of the meeting.

One thing I'd say to the woman who conflated shopping and district lines if I could - the merchants of north Scottsdale don't care about what district (or state, or country) their customers are from, so long as they leave a lot of money here when they visit.

The other consistent map-specific talking point was that the AIRC should change the lines to include south Scottsdale in the same districts as north Scottsdale.

I haven't heard such professions of solidarity with south Scottsdale from the denizens of north Scottsdale since...

...the last round of redistricting.

The rest of the time, north Scottsdale has as much regard for south Scottsdale as it does for Tempe, Mesa, or a pile of dog poop on the sidewalk.

And after the maps are finalized, and regardless of how the lines turn out, their attitude will return to the normal not-so-benign contempt (gee, can ya tell I live in south Scottsdale?  :) ).

Note: Scottsdale City Councilman Bob Littlefield was there and while he is from north Scottsdale, he is an exception to that observation.  Actually, among Scottsdale's "power elite", he is *the* exception.

- As mentioned earlier, most of the early part of the meeting was Republicans tag-teaming to shovel the same pile of BS.

However, later in the evening, the speakers tended toward being Independents or Democrats, all of whom supported the independence of the AIRC and competitive districts.

Many of them spoke eloquently and passionately, many spoke bluntly and passionately.

However, the best line of the night went to Doris Freeman -

"You think you are living in a Republican state?  You don't.  You live in a banana republic."

Freeman testifying












While the video of the meeting isn't up yet, when it is it will be available here, and it's worth a view...if you need to elevate your blood pressure.

Some pics from the meeting -

The crowd

Kavanagh lying "testifying"

Steve Muratore of the Arizona Eagletarian (seated) and Kavanagh.  Check out the skeptical look from Muratore.

Commission Rick Stertz (seated center), AIRC Republican counsel Joe Kanefield (right) and a representative from Strategic Telemetry whose name I can't spell (left)

Independent Eric Kurland testifying

Jan and her clan waging open war on democracy in Arizona...

Started this post last night, but was far too outraged to write sensibly.  Still pissed off, but am now back to my usual snarky self... :)

Arizona's Republican Governor, Jan Brewer, and her accomplices in the Republican caucus of the state senate have dropped all pretense of respect for the will of the voters.

After spending the days leading up to Tuesday's special session wrangling enough votes to pull this off (strangely, doing so behind closed doors, something they accused the chair of the AIRC doing so they could rationalize removing her from the AIRC),  Brewer called the legislature into a special session to remove Independent Colleen Mathis from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Shortly thereafter, the Senate Republicans held a political necktie party and voted to remove Mathis from the AIRC.

Needless to say (but I'm still going to say it :) ), this is going to end up in court, starting with the Arizona Supreme Court, but probably moving to the federal judiciary before long.

Interestingly, and I'm not sure how it will affect deliberations, but with the Chief Justice's recusal from the case (because of her part in screening the applicants for the AIRC), that leaves Vice-Chief Justice David Hurwitz to preside over the case.  The interesting part is that Hurwitz has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Barack Obama.

That leaves Hurwitz open to pressure from Arizona's US Senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, who can block his nomination from even reaching the floor of the Senate if the Arizona Supreme Court doesn't rule the way that they prefer.

And the Republican members of Arizona's Congressional delegation are among those who are most upset by the independence of the redistricting commission and put a lot of pressure on Brewer to do something to intimidate the AIRC.
Many Democrats and Independents (and even a few Republicans, the ones who realize how Tuesday contemptible act by Jan and her clan could come back to bite them in the ass next year at the polls, or next week in Russell Pearce's case, are outraged.

From State Sen. David Schapira (D-Tempe), the Senate Democratic leader, via Bloomberg (written by Amanda Crawford) -

“There is no basis for this removal other than pure partisan politics,” said Senate Minority Leader David Schapira of Tempe. There were no findings of fact proving misconduct, Schapira and other Democrats said.

From Andrei Cherny, chair of the Arizona Democratic Party (same source as above) -

“Governor Brewer’s power grab is a clear abuse of the powers of her office,” Andrei Cherny, chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, said in a statement.

From Sara Presler, mayor of Flagstaff, via the Arizona Daily Sun -

"This is nuts. The governor went to New York to sell her book and the state is 'Home Alone.'"

Just as predictably, the Republicans are gloating.

From the Facebook page of Sen. Ron Gould (R-The Confederacy Will Rise Again!) (Check out Rep. Doris Goodale's comments) -

Rep. Jack Harper is, of course, being his usual self.  From his Twitter feed (I don't even need to add the snark here; there is nothing that I can write that can top the ridiculousness that is our Jack) -

Possibly the most interesting comment came from Sen. Al Melvin.  It isn't related directly to the AIRC or the Republicans' scheme to blow up the process because there are too many competitive districts, but since it highlights their hypocrisy AND it was posted during or near the time of the Senate's floor vote -

The fun/frustrating part was watching KAET's Horizon tonight with Schapira and Sen. Steve Pierce.  Pierce kept talking about the testimony before the Republican kangaroo court Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting.  Pierce said that the testimony formed the foundation of the reasons that the Rs used to rationalize removing Mathis.

What Pierce didn't say, in fact couldn't say, is that their "indictment" of Mathis, as spurious as it is, was based on *sworn* testimony, the same way as real indictments in real courts.

Because it wasn't.

Go to the lege's video archive page and watch any (or all) of the meetings.

It was mostly an unsworn and unsubstantiated echo chamber (and the Rs bullied any members of the public who dared to go off script).

Also, contrast the Republican high-speed railroad that is aimed at Mathis (and also the Democratic members of the AIRC, but mostly at Mathis) with the painstaking regard for the "proprieties" in the ethics investigation of Republican Sen. Scott Bungaard over his violent assault on his then-girlfriend by the side of a Phoenix freeway..

With Mathis, they have is unsubstantiated allegations supported only by unsworn testimony, yet they scrambled to politically lynch her this week (perhaps worried that they'll be losing Senate President Russell Pearce's vote after next week's recall election?).

With Bundgaard, there are police reports, eye witness accounts, and even court decisions. 

All sworn.  All documented.

They can claim that they aren't motivated by partisanship, but their own behavior gives lie to their denials.

And it flies directly in the face of the voters' will, expressed when they created the independent redistricting process.

No anti-AIRC special session for now, but don't relax yet

OK.  The situation is a little fluid, so everything I'm about to write could change in a minute, but here goes -

As of right now, there probably won't be a special session of the legislature on Tuesday, and it is looking less likely that there will one at all. 

As recently as Monday morning, the Arizona Capitol Tmes was reporting that Republican Governor Jan Brewer would call a special session for Tuesday to remove the members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission for not producing district maps that are lopsided enough in favor of the Republicans.

However, by Monday evening, the Cap Times had posted a story saying that there definitely will NOT be a special session Tuesday.  (Subscription required for both stories)

On the other hand, Steve Muratore at The Arizona Eagletarian is reporting (from KPNX's Brahm Resnick) that GOP senators have been advised to be at the Capitol for a closed caucus meeting at 12:30 p.m.

In other words, keep an eye on this.  It is very possible that the GOPers are planning to try a sneak attack to remove the Commissioners on no real notice (note:  the legislature long ago exempted itself from open meeting requirements including a notice period for meetings) so that there isn't enough time for opposition to organize at the Capitol.

There may yet be a "Day of the Long Knives", wielded by the Governor and lege and targeting the AIRC.

Stay tuned...

AZ Republicans taking the "3 Bs"* approach to redistricting

* = "Bluster, Bully, and Bullshit"

Arizona's Republicans, led by their officeholders, are crying "foul" over the independent redistricting process.

They've whined about all sorts of alleged misdeeds and wrongdoing on the part of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), but mostly they're upset over the fact that, unlike the last incarnation of the AIRC, this Commission is actually living up to the "Independent" part of their name.

They started their attacks with "bluster", ranging from busing scads of "grass roots" Republicans to AIRC hearings and meetings all over the state, many of whom read, with voices filled with self-righteous indignation, from a script of fabricated talking points (seriously, many of them walked up to the microphone script in hand and read the same text over and over) to press releases denouncing the AIRC as partisan and not in keeping with the wishes of Arizona's voters.

They then added "bully" to their repertoire, first with threats from people like Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, a scam artist of long renown, ginning up an "investigation" of the Commission to the current kangaroo court conducted by the members of the Republican majority in the legislature where people like Republican state senator Andy Biggs has bullied and ridiculed members of the public who don't drink the Kool-Aid and follow the script of "independent redistricting really bad, Republican officeholders really good" (check out the video archive here; as of this writing, there are archives of four of the meetings of the Joint Legislative Committee on Redistricting.  Each of them contains many examples of this behavior.  Also, Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has reporting here and here).

Note:  While I was writing this post, word came down that Horne has been disqualified from investigating the AIRC.

Also, Jan Brewer, Arizona's Republican governor is threatening to call a special session of the Arizona Senate in order to remove the commissioners for what she calls "gross misconduct" and I call "living up to the 'Independent' in 'Independent Redistricting Commission'."

As for the "bullshit" part of the "3 Bs", well, that's been an integral part of the game plan all along.

Whether it was the assertion that renowned Constitutional scholar Paul Bender was unqualified to even be nominated to the AIRC and suing to have him removed from the list of nominees, the claims that Colleen Mathis, selected as the independent chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission was actually a Democrat, the assertions that the AIRC has been too secretive in its operations and deliberations crafting the draft maps that have the Republicans so upset, or more, the Rs have been flinging bullshit against the AIRC's wall for months hoping that some of it sticks.

So far, their efforts have only left the Rs with stinky hands, but that hasn't made them less determined to undermine the AIRC and the will of the voters, who created the AIRC specifically to remove elected officials from the redistricting process.

A few facts:

The AIRC has held dozens of public meetings and hearings and accepted *hundreds* of hours of public input on the maps and the factors that should be considered when laying out the new legislative and Congressional districts.

Colleen Mathis *is* an Independent.  The issue of her husband's support for a Democratic candidate in one election ignores the fact that her husband has also supported Republican candidates, attending a Bush inauguration ball with her.

Professor Paul Bender, a true Independent (more liberal than the Rs or Ds) is so qualified that the members of  Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, most of whom are accomplished in their fields, enthusiastically supported his nomination when screening the applicants for the AIRC (except for Doug Cole, Chuck Coughlin's plant on the commission,  Cole was like Mikey of Life Cereal fame - he hates everything...that doesn't result in increased power and profits for him, Coughlin, and their clients at HighGround).

Another thing area that has sparked Republican complaints is that the draft maps have resulted in incumbents such as Congressmen David Schweikert and Ben Quayle facing off in a primary.

What they don't mention in their complaints is that both Schweikert and Quayle have freely chosen to run in a district that they don't live in (Schweikert lives in draft CD4, Quayle in draft CD9, but both would rather run in north Scottsdale, which is in draft CD6).  Something that is allowed under the US Constitution, but it is rather cynical for them to make that choice and then complain about the unfairness of the AIRC.

Note:  The draft CD9 is competitive, leaning slightly R, while both the draft CD4 and draft CD6 are overwhelmingly R.  Draft CD4 has a strong rural component though, and Schweikert is most definitely not an "honorary judge of cow milking contests at 4-H fairs" kind of guy.

As for the whining that the AIRC has sacrificed "communities of interest" to bolster "competitiveness" -

The AIRC's competitiveness analysis of the draft maps are here (legislative) and here (Congressional).

Based on the voter registration numbers, only one of the 30 legislative districts is truly competitive and maybe four others have a realistic chance of breaking that way.  Otherwise, 18 LDs will be solidly R and seven will be solidly D.  Even if all five of the competitive and quasi-competitive districts go Democratic (possible, but not likely), that would result in 18-12 and 36-24 splits (favoring the Rs) in the AZ Senate and House respectively.  Not exactly leading to a positive change in AZ there.

Also based on the registration numbers, the Congressional districts wouldn't be much better.  Two of the nine Congressional districts would be competitive, while four would be solidly R and three would be solidly D (one of the D districts would be poachable by the Rs, but it would be an uphill battle).

Based on the numbers, about the only real "community of interest" whose interests have been sacrificed  is the community called "Arizona", which stands to gain the most from having districts competitive enough to force candidates and officeholders to actually represent their constituents, not just their friends at country club cocktail parties and tea party "Kool-Aid" drinking sessions.

Of course, the draft maps *do*protect the "community of interest" that least needs protection -

Republican officeholders.

And that fact won't change no matter how much they whine about things in an attempt to intimidate the AIRC into making the maps even less competitive than they are already.

The second round of hearings is winding down, but there is still time to add your voice in support of an increased number of truly competitive districts.

The AIRC will travel to places like Yuma, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Marana, Casa Grande and Cottonwood in the next week.  Make plans to be at one or more (if possible) hearings.  If that isn't feasible, the AIRC accepts public input via phone, email, or through their website.

...In a related matter, some pics from the AIRC hearing held in Mesa on Wednesday evening (note - the overall turnout was light, but out of two dozen speakers, only one or two came out against competitive districts):

Commissioner Scott Freeman, the commissioner in attendance Wednesday

Korinne Kubena Belock of Strategic Telemetry giving a overview of the redistricting process

Tempe Democratic activist  Lauren Kuby speaking in support of competitive districts

State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, advocating for keeping Yuma and La Paz counties together, and out of a Maricopa County-dominated LD

Jay Schlum, mayor of Fountain Hills, testifying in favor of changing the maps to put FH together with other northeast valley communities like Rio Verde.  Other local elected officials there, from places like Queen Creek, Apache Junction, Gilbert, Chandler, and more similarly spoke on behalf of issue relevent to their particular communities.