The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is commencing its road tour, scheduling hearings in various locations around the state. The list isn't complete yet, but here's what they have listed so far -
Thursday, July 21, 6 p.m. - South Mountain Community College, 7050 S. 24th St., Phoenix. Room SU 100A
Friday, July 22, 6 p.m. - Nogales Unified School District Adminstrative Building/District Office, 310 Plum St., Nogales. Anita Lichter Board Room.
Saturday, July 23, 1 p.m. - City of Yuma, with remote locations in San Luis and Parker (physical locations to be announced)
Monday, July 25, 6 p.m. - Mesa Convention Center, 263 N. Center St., Mesa. Palo Verde III - Building B
Tuesday, July 26, 6 p.m. - Bullhead City Council Chambers, 1255 Marina Blvd., Bullhead City
Wednesday, July 27, 6 p.m. - Casa Grande City Council Chambers, 510 E. Florence Blvd., Casa Grande; remote location: (City of) Maricopa Unified School District Office Administration Building, 44150 W. Maricopa/Casa Grande Hwy, Maricopa. Board Room
Thursday, July 28, 6 p.m. - Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Board Hearing Room, 1015 Fair St., Prescott; remote location: Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex, 10 S. 6th St., Cottonwood
Friday, July 29, 1 p.m. - Navajoland Inn & Suites (formerly Days Inn) Conference Room, 392 W. Hwy 264, St. Michaels
Saturday, July 30, 1 p.m. - Hon Dah Resort - Casino, 777 Hwy 260, Pinetop. Mt. Baldy Room; remote locations: Holbrook City Council Chambers, 465 1st Ave., Holbrook and Winslow City Council Chambers, 115 E. 2nd St., Winslow
Monday, August 1, 6 p.m. - City of Flagstaff, with remote locations in Page and Tuba City (physical locations to be announced)
Tuesday, August 2, 6 p.m. - South Tucson City Council Chambers, 1601 S. 6th Ave., South Tucson
Wednesday, August 3, 6 p.m. - Glendale City Council Chambers, 5850 W. Glendale Ave., Glendale
Thursday, August 4, 6 p.m. - Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma St., Sierra Vista; remote location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Room, Building G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee
Friday, August 5, 6 p.m. - City of Phoenix (physical location to be announced)
Saturday, August 6, 6 p.m. - Abrams Public Health Building, 3950 S. Country Club Rd., Tucson. Room 1106
Note: the schedule is subject to change. In addition, this is only the first round of meetings according to the schedule. Check the AIRC's website for updates before attending any of the meetings listed above.
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redistricting. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Baseball and politics: The games inside the games
In honor of MLB's All Star Game coming to Phoenix next week...
Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.
One example of that is "working the umpires."
In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game. Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that.
That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.
It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.
In politics, much the same activity takes place.
Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts. The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.
The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.
The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.
In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.
Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.
Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.
Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.
The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running. That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators. However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind. He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.
The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission. It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.
The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant. ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.
The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle. The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.
Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle. Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.
Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.
From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -
However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.
Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.
Even though it wasn't true.
And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate. One does work for him though.
Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process.
Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting.
At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.
Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).
Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed. Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.
Later...
Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.
One example of that is "working the umpires."
In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game. Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that.
That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.
It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.
In politics, much the same activity takes place.
Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts. The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.
The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.
The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.
In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.
Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.
Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.
Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.
The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running. That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators. However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind. He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.
The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission. It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.
The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant. ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.
The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle. The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.
Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle. Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.
Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.
From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -
Each member shall be a registered Arizona voter who has been continuously registered with the same political party or registered as unaffiliated with a political party for three or more years immediately preceding appointment, who is committed to applying the provisions of this section in an honest, independent and impartial fashion and to upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. Within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee.Nothing is mentioned about spouses in the constitutional requirements, nor are there any questions relating to the involvement of spouses in campaign in the application for the Commission.
However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.
Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.
Even though it wasn't true.
And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate. One does work for him though.
Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process.
Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting.
At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.
Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).
Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed. Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.
Later...
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission meeting Friday
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) is scheduled to hold a meeting on Friday.
Info:
Location - Room 312, Executive Tower (Pharmacy Board Meeting Room), 1700 West Washington, Phoenix
Time - 9:30 a.m.
Agenda - here
After the last meeting, where a number of tea party types showed up to disrupt the meeting and attempted to intimidate members of the Commission and members of the public, a strong turnout of people who are actually concerned about the future of Arizona is called for.
The Commission needs to hear both that competitive districts are important to the future of Arizona and that people acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of the members.
And they need to see that most of the people for whom they toil are civil, rational human beings.
Be there folks, whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or something else (yes, even a Republican).
Info:
Location - Room 312, Executive Tower (Pharmacy Board Meeting Room), 1700 West Washington, Phoenix
Time - 9:30 a.m.
Agenda - here
After the last meeting, where a number of tea party types showed up to disrupt the meeting and attempted to intimidate members of the Commission and members of the public, a strong turnout of people who are actually concerned about the future of Arizona is called for.
The Commission needs to hear both that competitive districts are important to the future of Arizona and that people acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of the members.
And they need to see that most of the people for whom they toil are civil, rational human beings.
Be there folks, whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or something else (yes, even a Republican).
Thursday, March 24, 2011
County redistricting process warming up...
- First, a little bit of good news: the measure that would insert the legislature into county-level redistricting, the striker to HB2289, was held by the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, almost certainly killing the idea. Thursday was the last day for most legislative committees to consider bills.
If they are really serious about foisting off this measure on the state, there are still a few tricks left (consisting mostly of running the measure through Appropriations, which is still meeting), but it seems highly likely that this one fell in the face of some quickly-organized opposition from most of the counties affected, even the Republican-heavy ones.
- Second, time for the educational part of this post.
Over the next six or seven months, Maricopa County will be engaging in its decennial redistricting process.
Here, we have five supervisorial districts, which will be redistricted with the five coterminous districts (meaning that the districts have the same boundaries...I like big words :) ) of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) and the Maricopa Special Healthcare District (MIHS).
In addition to those, there are also 25 justice court precincts/districts (redrawn every two years, based on workload, not population), seven districts for the Western Maricopa Education Consortium (West-MEC), and nine districts for the East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT).
Both West-MEC and EVIT are "Joint Technical Education Districts, or JTEDs, which are comprised of a number of school districts combining resources to deliver technical and vocational education to those of their students who are interested.
West-MEC and EVIT are redistricted separately from the County, yet because of their size (between them, they cover most of the county geographically, other than Phoenix), they do a lot of their redistricting work in conjunction with the County.
Besides those, the county must redraw voting precincts, but that won't be done until the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission redraws the boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts - can't have a voting precinct split into two different Congressional or lege districts.
To assist in county-level redistricting, Maricopa County has put up a redistricting page on its website.
That page includes:
- A Powerpoint presentation on the county-level redistricting process that does a far better job of explaining all of this than I can in a brief blog post.
- A Powerpoint presentation on using the County's redistricting mapping tool.
- The redistricting mapping tool itself. It will allow users to craft suggested maps and submit them to the county for consideration. There are a few points to this:
1. Current electeds cannot be redistricted out of their districts. Their home voting precincts must remain in their districts.
2. The tool allows for working on board of supervisor (BOS) district, justice of the peace (JP) precincts, and West-MEC (WMEC) districts.
3. Selecting "check in plan" will submit plans for all three at once. If you plan on working on more than one plan, don't hit "check in" before all are complete. If you do, all plans, even incomplete ones, will be submitted.
4. Read the directions and use the "help" files whenever necessary, and don't be afraid to scrap a plan and start over - even the pros are going to have to do that many times.
5. When submitting comments (and plans) to the County, remember that everything submitted is public record and can be read by anyone. In addition, because Arizona is a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act, *all* materials will be submitted to the US Department of Justice for examination and approval before a plan is finalized.
In April and May, County Elections will be holding a series of public meetings to present this to members of the public. They will be held at various community college districts throughout the Valley -
April 4, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
South Mountain Community College
Located in the Student Union Room 100 ABC
7050 S. 24th St.
Phoenix, AZ 85042
April 5, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Rio Salado Community College - Surprise
Located in Communiversity
15950 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
April 6, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Gateway Community College
Located in MA Room 1100N/S
108 N. 40th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
April 11, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Chandler Gilbert Community College - Pecos Campus
Located in the Student Center Conference Suite (SC-140-144)
2626 East Pecos Road
Chandler, Arizona 85225
April 13, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Estrella Mountain Community College
Located in Montezuma Hall Center for Teaching and Learning Community Room
3000 North Dysart Rd.
Avondale, AZ 85323
April 14, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Scottsdale Community College
Located in the Torquoise Room
9000 East Chaparral Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
April 18, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Mesa Community College - Red Mountain Campus
Located in the Community Room, on the second level of the Mesquite Building (#5)
7110 East McKellips Road
Mesa, AZ 85207
Campus Information
April 19, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Chandler Gilbert Community College - Sun Lakes
Located in SLC-207
25105 South Alma School Road
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248
April 20, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Rio Salado Community College - Avondale
Located in Community Room
420 N Central Ave.
Avondale, Arizona 85323
April 21, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Paradise Valley Community College
Located in Q Building Room 120A/B
18401 North 32nd St.
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
April 25, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Phoenix College
Located in Osborn Site South Willow Room
1202 West Thomas Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
May 3, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Glendale Community College
Located in the Student Union Room 104
6000 W. Olive Ave.
Glendale, Arizona 85302
Later...
If they are really serious about foisting off this measure on the state, there are still a few tricks left (consisting mostly of running the measure through Appropriations, which is still meeting), but it seems highly likely that this one fell in the face of some quickly-organized opposition from most of the counties affected, even the Republican-heavy ones.
- Second, time for the educational part of this post.
Over the next six or seven months, Maricopa County will be engaging in its decennial redistricting process.
Here, we have five supervisorial districts, which will be redistricted with the five coterminous districts (meaning that the districts have the same boundaries...I like big words :) ) of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) and the Maricopa Special Healthcare District (MIHS).
In addition to those, there are also 25 justice court precincts/districts (redrawn every two years, based on workload, not population), seven districts for the Western Maricopa Education Consortium (West-MEC), and nine districts for the East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT).
Both West-MEC and EVIT are "Joint Technical Education Districts, or JTEDs, which are comprised of a number of school districts combining resources to deliver technical and vocational education to those of their students who are interested.
West-MEC and EVIT are redistricted separately from the County, yet because of their size (between them, they cover most of the county geographically, other than Phoenix), they do a lot of their redistricting work in conjunction with the County.
Besides those, the county must redraw voting precincts, but that won't be done until the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission redraws the boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts - can't have a voting precinct split into two different Congressional or lege districts.
To assist in county-level redistricting, Maricopa County has put up a redistricting page on its website.
That page includes:
- A Powerpoint presentation on the county-level redistricting process that does a far better job of explaining all of this than I can in a brief blog post.
- A Powerpoint presentation on using the County's redistricting mapping tool.
- The redistricting mapping tool itself. It will allow users to craft suggested maps and submit them to the county for consideration. There are a few points to this:
1. Current electeds cannot be redistricted out of their districts. Their home voting precincts must remain in their districts.
2. The tool allows for working on board of supervisor (BOS) district, justice of the peace (JP) precincts, and West-MEC (WMEC) districts.
3. Selecting "check in plan" will submit plans for all three at once. If you plan on working on more than one plan, don't hit "check in" before all are complete. If you do, all plans, even incomplete ones, will be submitted.
4. Read the directions and use the "help" files whenever necessary, and don't be afraid to scrap a plan and start over - even the pros are going to have to do that many times.
5. When submitting comments (and plans) to the County, remember that everything submitted is public record and can be read by anyone. In addition, because Arizona is a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act, *all* materials will be submitted to the US Department of Justice for examination and approval before a plan is finalized.
In April and May, County Elections will be holding a series of public meetings to present this to members of the public. They will be held at various community college districts throughout the Valley -
April 4, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
South Mountain Community College
Located in the Student Union Room 100 ABC
7050 S. 24th St.
Phoenix, AZ 85042
April 5, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Rio Salado Community College - Surprise
Located in Communiversity
15950 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
April 6, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Gateway Community College
Located in MA Room 1100N/S
108 N. 40th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
April 11, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Chandler Gilbert Community College - Pecos Campus
Located in the Student Center Conference Suite (SC-140-144)
2626 East Pecos Road
Chandler, Arizona 85225
April 13, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Estrella Mountain Community College
Located in Montezuma Hall Center for Teaching and Learning Community Room
3000 North Dysart Rd.
Avondale, AZ 85323
April 14, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Scottsdale Community College
Located in the Torquoise Room
9000 East Chaparral Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
April 18, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Mesa Community College - Red Mountain Campus
Located in the Community Room, on the second level of the Mesquite Building (#5)
7110 East McKellips Road
Mesa, AZ 85207
Campus Information
April 19, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Chandler Gilbert Community College - Sun Lakes
Located in SLC-207
25105 South Alma School Road
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248
April 20, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Rio Salado Community College - Avondale
Located in Community Room
420 N Central Ave.
Avondale, Arizona 85323
April 21, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Paradise Valley Community College
Located in Q Building Room 120A/B
18401 North 32nd St.
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
April 25, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Phoenix College
Located in Osborn Site South Willow Room
1202 West Thomas Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
May 3, 2011
6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Glendale Community College
Located in the Student Union Room 104
6000 W. Olive Ave.
Glendale, Arizona 85302
Later...
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Legislative Republicans Seeking To Interfere In County Level Redistricting
...and "interfere" is something of an understatement...
State Sen. Lori Klein, late of the controversy over a bigoted letter that she read on the Senate floor, has proposed a strike-everything amendment to HB2289, one that is scheduled for committee consideration at Thursday's meeting of Senate Finance.
It concerns the redistricting of county supervisorial districts.
Her proposed measure would set up an "independent redistricting committee" in counties with five supervisorial districts.
Currently Maricopa, Pima, Cochise, Coconino, and Yuma counties each have five supervisor districts. Because of the population counts of the 2010 Census, Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai counties will have to go to a five-district plan.
The "independent" committee would be made up of the current supervisors (either five or three, as appropriate) plus *six* members appointed by legislative Republicans and the Governor.
Specifically, the Speaker and majority leader of the House would each get to appoint one person, as would the President and majority leader of the Senate. In addition, the governor would get to appoint two members of each county's "independent" redistricting commission.
Those folks, the legislative leadership and the governor, are all Republicans, who can be reasonably be expected to appoint fellow Republicans. And there is nothing in the proposal to require that the commissions be partisanly balanced or even non-partisan.
So that trend would translate to commissions made up of -
10 Republicans and 1 Democrat (Maricopa)
8 Republicans and 3 Democrats (Pima)
7 Republicans and 2 Democrats (Pinal)
9 Republicans (Yavapai)
9 Republicans (Mohave)
9 Republicans and 2 Democrats (Yuma)
6 Republicans and 5 Democrats (Coconino)
7 Republicans and 4 Democrats (Cochise)
Oh, and in case the partisan gamesmanship behind this isn't obvious already, there are two other clause in the proposal that make it even more obvious -
1. The Republican governor has final approval over *any* county redistricting plan.
2. The new plan sunsets after December 31, 2015, when there will be a new governor and legislative leadership, who may not be (fingers crossed) Republicans.
While slightly more than half of Arizona's counties, 8 out of 15, will be affected by this measure, those counties contain more than 94% of the state's residents
There is a reason that Arizona is, and almost certainly will remain, a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
NB - Am I the only person that thinks that Klein and her fellow Republicans have a curiously self-serving definition of the word "independent"? It make the voters' wisdom in creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission look better by the day. It may be time to do something similar for the county level.
NB2 - I *really* can't even hazard a guess as to why this one is going before Finance. Yes, Klein is a member of Finance, but she is also a member of Government Reform, which this is a better fit with. Of course, Judiciary is the best fit, but she isn't a member of that committee.
State Sen. Lori Klein, late of the controversy over a bigoted letter that she read on the Senate floor, has proposed a strike-everything amendment to HB2289, one that is scheduled for committee consideration at Thursday's meeting of Senate Finance.
It concerns the redistricting of county supervisorial districts.
Her proposed measure would set up an "independent redistricting committee" in counties with five supervisorial districts.
Currently Maricopa, Pima, Cochise, Coconino, and Yuma counties each have five supervisor districts. Because of the population counts of the 2010 Census, Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai counties will have to go to a five-district plan.
The "independent" committee would be made up of the current supervisors (either five or three, as appropriate) plus *six* members appointed by legislative Republicans and the Governor.
Specifically, the Speaker and majority leader of the House would each get to appoint one person, as would the President and majority leader of the Senate. In addition, the governor would get to appoint two members of each county's "independent" redistricting commission.
Those folks, the legislative leadership and the governor, are all Republicans, who can be reasonably be expected to appoint fellow Republicans. And there is nothing in the proposal to require that the commissions be partisanly balanced or even non-partisan.
So that trend would translate to commissions made up of -
10 Republicans and 1 Democrat (Maricopa)
8 Republicans and 3 Democrats (Pima)
7 Republicans and 2 Democrats (Pinal)
9 Republicans (Yavapai)
9 Republicans (Mohave)
9 Republicans and 2 Democrats (Yuma)
6 Republicans and 5 Democrats (Coconino)
7 Republicans and 4 Democrats (Cochise)
Oh, and in case the partisan gamesmanship behind this isn't obvious already, there are two other clause in the proposal that make it even more obvious -
1. The Republican governor has final approval over *any* county redistricting plan.
2. The new plan sunsets after December 31, 2015, when there will be a new governor and legislative leadership, who may not be (fingers crossed) Republicans.
While slightly more than half of Arizona's counties, 8 out of 15, will be affected by this measure, those counties contain more than 94% of the state's residents
There is a reason that Arizona is, and almost certainly will remain, a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
NB - Am I the only person that thinks that Klein and her fellow Republicans have a curiously self-serving definition of the word "independent"? It make the voters' wisdom in creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission look better by the day. It may be time to do something similar for the county level.
NB2 - I *really* can't even hazard a guess as to why this one is going before Finance. Yes, Klein is a member of Finance, but she is also a member of Government Reform, which this is a better fit with. Of course, Judiciary is the best fit, but she isn't a member of that committee.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Census numbers - Arizona's Legislative and Congressional Districts
All information available at the Census Bureau's American Factfinder page (watch the instructional videos, trust me :) )...
Census numbers for the state's 30 legislative districts -
Geographic area Total population
Arizona 6,392,017
LD1 (2010) 217,022
LD2 (2010) 177,904
LD3 (2010) 216,687
LD4 (2010) 294,239
LD5 (2010) 192,258
LD6 (2010) 219,170
LD7 (2010) 190,272
LD8 (2010) 185,419
LD9 (2010) 178,499
LD10 (2010) 163,683
LD11 (2010) 161,630
LD12 (2010) 378,298
LD13 (2010) 207,107
LD14 (2010) 158,881
LD15 (2010) 155,897
LD16 (2010) 247,146
LD17 (2010) 171,129
LD18 (2010) 165,729
LD19 (2010) 195,221
LD20 (2010) 176,043
LD21 (2010) 274,260
LD22 (2010) 297,687
LD23 (2010) 370,479
LD24 (2010) 207,694
LD25 (2010) 208,220
LD26 (2010) 195,881
LD27 (2010) 199,340
LD28 (2010) 170,527
LD29 (2010) 184,459
LD30 (2010) 231,236
Average 213,067
A map of the current LDs is here.
Most LDs should experience significant changes to their borders, but with many LDs, significant changes are guaranteed because their populations vary significantly from the average, and the new legislative districts have to be pretty much the same size. There can be a little variation, but it's small.
Looking at the raw numbers of residents in each legislative district, a few things are obvious - LD12 (western Maricopa County), LD21, LD22 (both SE metro Phoenix), and LD23 (mostly Pinal County, but reaching into Maricopa) are going to be split up - they're far too big to continue in anything resembling their current forms.
Also likely to see significant changes are current Phoenix-area LDs 8, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 - all have populations significantly below the average of 213K. The areas covered by those LDs will absorb or be absorbed by other areas.
Tucson-area LDs 26, 28, and 29 are in the same boat as the Phoenix-area LDs above.
Congressional districts -
Geographic area Total population
Arizona 6,392,017
CD 1 774,310
CD 2 972,839
CD 3 707,919
CD 4 698,314
CD 5 656,833
CD 6 971,733
CD 7 855,769
CD 8 754,300
Current average (for 8 CDs) 799,002
New average (for 9 CDs) 710,224
Map of the current Congressional districts here.
In some ways, tea leaf reading when looking at potential changes to lege districts is easy - there are 30 LDs now, and there will be 30 LDs after redistricting.
Looking at potential changes to Congressional districts is more difficult because there are 8 districts now but there are going to be 9 after redistricting. Once the new district is carved out (expected to be in the East Valley/Pinal County area or in the West Valley, in the area where the current CDs 2 and 7 meet), there will be a cascade effect of changes to all of the other CDs, and I cannot even begin to predict those changes.
Expect significant changes to all CDs.
More on that as the redistricting process grinds on...
Census numbers for the state's 30 legislative districts -
Geographic area Total population
Arizona 6,392,017
LD1 (2010) 217,022
LD2 (2010) 177,904
LD3 (2010) 216,687
LD4 (2010) 294,239
LD5 (2010) 192,258
LD6 (2010) 219,170
LD7 (2010) 190,272
LD8 (2010) 185,419
LD9 (2010) 178,499
LD10 (2010) 163,683
LD11 (2010) 161,630
LD12 (2010) 378,298
LD13 (2010) 207,107
LD14 (2010) 158,881
LD15 (2010) 155,897
LD16 (2010) 247,146
LD17 (2010) 171,129
LD18 (2010) 165,729
LD19 (2010) 195,221
LD20 (2010) 176,043
LD21 (2010) 274,260
LD22 (2010) 297,687
LD23 (2010) 370,479
LD24 (2010) 207,694
LD25 (2010) 208,220
LD26 (2010) 195,881
LD27 (2010) 199,340
LD28 (2010) 170,527
LD29 (2010) 184,459
LD30 (2010) 231,236
Average 213,067
A map of the current LDs is here.
Most LDs should experience significant changes to their borders, but with many LDs, significant changes are guaranteed because their populations vary significantly from the average, and the new legislative districts have to be pretty much the same size. There can be a little variation, but it's small.
Looking at the raw numbers of residents in each legislative district, a few things are obvious - LD12 (western Maricopa County), LD21, LD22 (both SE metro Phoenix), and LD23 (mostly Pinal County, but reaching into Maricopa) are going to be split up - they're far too big to continue in anything resembling their current forms.
Also likely to see significant changes are current Phoenix-area LDs 8, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 - all have populations significantly below the average of 213K. The areas covered by those LDs will absorb or be absorbed by other areas.
Tucson-area LDs 26, 28, and 29 are in the same boat as the Phoenix-area LDs above.
Congressional districts -
Geographic area Total population
Arizona 6,392,017
CD 1 774,310
CD 2 972,839
CD 3 707,919
CD 4 698,314
CD 5 656,833
CD 6 971,733
CD 7 855,769
CD 8 754,300
Current average (for 8 CDs) 799,002
New average (for 9 CDs) 710,224
Map of the current Congressional districts here.
In some ways, tea leaf reading when looking at potential changes to lege districts is easy - there are 30 LDs now, and there will be 30 LDs after redistricting.
Looking at potential changes to Congressional districts is more difficult because there are 8 districts now but there are going to be 9 after redistricting. Once the new district is carved out (expected to be in the East Valley/Pinal County area or in the West Valley, in the area where the current CDs 2 and 7 meet), there will be a cascade effect of changes to all of the other CDs, and I cannot even begin to predict those changes.
Expect significant changes to all CDs.
More on that as the redistricting process grinds on...
Saturday, March 12, 2011
More 2010 Census Numbers - Cities and Towns
This past week, the U.S. Census Bureau released Arizona's 2010 local level census data.
On Thursday, I put up a quick post on county population numbers. Summary: Maricopa County grew during the decade, but not as much as some of the other counties.
Today, raw numbers for the 20 largest cities and towns, with brief analysis.
Cities and towns -
City pop 2000 pop 2010
Phoenix 1,321,045 1,445,632
Tucson 486,699 520,116
Mesa 396,375 439,041
Chandler 176,581 236,123
Glendale 218,812 226,721
Scottsdale 202,705 217,385
Gilbert 109,697 208,453
Tempe 158,625 161,719
Peoria 108,364 154,065
Surprise 30,848 117,517
Yuma 77,515 93,064
Avondale 35,883 76,238
Flagstaff 52,894 65,870
Goodyear 18,911 65,275
Lake Havasu City 41,938 52,527
Buckeye 6,537 50,876
Casa Grande 25,224 48,571
Sierra Vista 37,775 43,888
Maricopa 1,040 43,482
Oro Valley 29,700 41,011
The most recent "official" Census Bureau estimates that I could find for cities and towns were from 2006, so those are somewhat less useful than the 2009 county estimates used in the previous post.
However, even those showed some interesting developments.
...Scottsdale (my home) had a 2006 estimate of over 231K, and late in the decade was operating under the belief that the population was between 230K and 240K. The City (electeds, staff, most residents) expected that the 2010 Census would show that Scottsdale would rank 5th, maybe even 4th, in population.
The reality of the 2010 census shows that Chandler and Glendale are easily ahead of it, while Gilbert is gaining fast
...In terms of percentage growth, the Town of Maricopa (which, strangely enough, is NOT in Maricopa County :) ), grew by more than 4000% during the decade, from a population of 1,040 in the year 2000, to a population of 43,482 in 2010. It is now the "City of Maricopa," officially.
...Of the cities that were "cities" in 2000, Surprise led the way in percentage growth during the decade at more than 280%. It grew from 30,848 people in 2000 to 117,517 in 2010.
...The City of Phoenix experienced the greatest raw growth, growing by 124,587 during the decade. However, Phoenix was and remains far and away the largest city in the state, so their percentage growth only 9.4%.
...Of the top 20 cities and towns, Tempe experienced the smallest growth, both as a percentage of year 2000 population and in absolute numbers. During the decade, it grew by 3,094, or 2%. It's one of the few completely land-locked municipalities in the state, so it doesn't really have anywhere to grow. Most of the other cities and towns in the state contain or border on unincorporated areas that can be annexed.
Tempe does contain four "county islands," land that is not incorporated into the city but is completely surrounded by it. However, those are fairly small, and even if Tempe was interested in adding those locations to it, the additional land area (<100 parcels of land) and population count wouldn't make a significant difference.
Legislative and Congressional districts next...
On Thursday, I put up a quick post on county population numbers. Summary: Maricopa County grew during the decade, but not as much as some of the other counties.
Today, raw numbers for the 20 largest cities and towns, with brief analysis.
Cities and towns -
City pop 2000 pop 2010
Phoenix 1,321,045 1,445,632
Tucson 486,699 520,116
Mesa 396,375 439,041
Chandler 176,581 236,123
Glendale 218,812 226,721
Scottsdale 202,705 217,385
Gilbert 109,697 208,453
Tempe 158,625 161,719
Peoria 108,364 154,065
Surprise 30,848 117,517
Yuma 77,515 93,064
Avondale 35,883 76,238
Flagstaff 52,894 65,870
Goodyear 18,911 65,275
Lake Havasu City 41,938 52,527
Buckeye 6,537 50,876
Casa Grande 25,224 48,571
Sierra Vista 37,775 43,888
Maricopa 1,040 43,482
Oro Valley 29,700 41,011
The most recent "official" Census Bureau estimates that I could find for cities and towns were from 2006, so those are somewhat less useful than the 2009 county estimates used in the previous post.
However, even those showed some interesting developments.
...Scottsdale (my home) had a 2006 estimate of over 231K, and late in the decade was operating under the belief that the population was between 230K and 240K. The City (electeds, staff, most residents) expected that the 2010 Census would show that Scottsdale would rank 5th, maybe even 4th, in population.
The reality of the 2010 census shows that Chandler and Glendale are easily ahead of it, while Gilbert is gaining fast
...In terms of percentage growth, the Town of Maricopa (which, strangely enough, is NOT in Maricopa County :) ), grew by more than 4000% during the decade, from a population of 1,040 in the year 2000, to a population of 43,482 in 2010. It is now the "City of Maricopa," officially.
...Of the cities that were "cities" in 2000, Surprise led the way in percentage growth during the decade at more than 280%. It grew from 30,848 people in 2000 to 117,517 in 2010.
...The City of Phoenix experienced the greatest raw growth, growing by 124,587 during the decade. However, Phoenix was and remains far and away the largest city in the state, so their percentage growth only 9.4%.
...Of the top 20 cities and towns, Tempe experienced the smallest growth, both as a percentage of year 2000 population and in absolute numbers. During the decade, it grew by 3,094, or 2%. It's one of the few completely land-locked municipalities in the state, so it doesn't really have anywhere to grow. Most of the other cities and towns in the state contain or border on unincorporated areas that can be annexed.
Tempe does contain four "county islands," land that is not incorporated into the city but is completely surrounded by it. However, those are fairly small, and even if Tempe was interested in adding those locations to it, the additional land area (<100 parcels of land) and population count wouldn't make a significant difference.
Legislative and Congressional districts next...
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Maricopa County Losing Influence*
* Maricopa County is still Arizona's "big dog" and is still growing, but AZ's other "dogs" grew more from 2000 to 2010. Given that the overall "pie" of Arizona didn't get any bigger, that means that Maricopa is getting a slightly smaller part of that pie.
Over a month ago, the Census Bureau held a conference call where they talked about some of the 2010 census numbers that were already available to them.
The post about that call is here.
During the call, one point that piqued my interest was that the vast majority of the state "actual" totals were close to what had been estimated by statisticians. 34 of the 50 states were within +/- 1%, and 46 of 50 were within +/- 2% of 2010 estimates.
Only one state was more than 2% below estimate.
That state?
Arizona. Of course.
Graph courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau.
The local level data released Thursday by the Census Bureau shines some light on that phenomenon.
While the state's actual count total came in more than 203K below the estimate, the variance wasn't evenly spread out across the state (based on 2009 estimates because I couldn't find the 2010 estimates, and this is only a rough analysis. The Census Bureau is sure to put out a far more detailed analysis in the coming months).
The state's total drop from 2009 estimate was >203K; more than 206K of that total, or more than the statewide total difference, was in Maricopa County alone.
With the actual numbers, Maricopa County contains 59.7% of the state's population; the 2009 estimates (and the Census Bureau's statisticians are pretty good at estimating) showed Maricopa County with 62% of the state's population. Not only that, Maricopa County didn't even hold the percentage that it had after the 2000 census, dropping to 59.7% from 59.9%.
.2% doesn't sound like a big deal, until we remember that Maricopa County is the population, political and economic hub of Arizona. A small loss here translates to large gains elsewhere. In this case, the biggest beneficiary is Pinal County, which grew by more than 109% between 2000 and 2010, and saw its share of the state's population grow by more than 2.37%.
Some of the raw data ("difference" is the difference between the 2010 actual number and the 2009 estimate) -
Geographic Area pop 2000 pop 2010 pop est 2009 difference
Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 6,595,778 - 203,761
Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,817,117 4,023,132 - 206,015
Pima County 843,746 980,263 1,020,200 - 39,937
Pinal County 179,727 375,770 340,962 34,808
Yavapai County 167,517 211,033 215.686 - 4,653
Mohave County 155,032 200,186 194,825 5,361
Yuma County 160,026 195,751 196,972 - 1,221
Coconino County 116,320 134,421 129,849 4,572
Cochise County 117,755 131,346 129,518 1,828
Navajo County 97,470 107,449 112,975 - 5,526
Apache County 69,423 71,518 70,591 927
Gila County 51,335 53,597 52,199 1,398
Santa Cruz County 38,381 47,420 43,771 3,649
Graham County 33,489 37,220 37,045 175
La Paz County 19,715 20,489 20,012 477
Greenlee County 8,547 8,437 8,041 396
Numbers on some of the cities and towns tomorrow...
Over a month ago, the Census Bureau held a conference call where they talked about some of the 2010 census numbers that were already available to them.
The post about that call is here.
During the call, one point that piqued my interest was that the vast majority of the state "actual" totals were close to what had been estimated by statisticians. 34 of the 50 states were within +/- 1%, and 46 of 50 were within +/- 2% of 2010 estimates.
Only one state was more than 2% below estimate.
That state?
Arizona. Of course.
Graph courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau.
The local level data released Thursday by the Census Bureau shines some light on that phenomenon.
While the state's actual count total came in more than 203K below the estimate, the variance wasn't evenly spread out across the state (based on 2009 estimates because I couldn't find the 2010 estimates, and this is only a rough analysis. The Census Bureau is sure to put out a far more detailed analysis in the coming months).
The state's total drop from 2009 estimate was >203K; more than 206K of that total, or more than the statewide total difference, was in Maricopa County alone.
With the actual numbers, Maricopa County contains 59.7% of the state's population; the 2009 estimates (and the Census Bureau's statisticians are pretty good at estimating) showed Maricopa County with 62% of the state's population. Not only that, Maricopa County didn't even hold the percentage that it had after the 2000 census, dropping to 59.7% from 59.9%.
.2% doesn't sound like a big deal, until we remember that Maricopa County is the population, political and economic hub of Arizona. A small loss here translates to large gains elsewhere. In this case, the biggest beneficiary is Pinal County, which grew by more than 109% between 2000 and 2010, and saw its share of the state's population grow by more than 2.37%.
Some of the raw data ("difference" is the difference between the 2010 actual number and the 2009 estimate) -
Geographic Area pop 2000 pop 2010 pop est 2009 difference
Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 6,595,778 - 203,761
Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,817,117 4,023,132 - 206,015
Pima County 843,746 980,263 1,020,200 - 39,937
Pinal County 179,727 375,770 340,962 34,808
Yavapai County 167,517 211,033 215.686 - 4,653
Mohave County 155,032 200,186 194,825 5,361
Yuma County 160,026 195,751 196,972 - 1,221
Coconino County 116,320 134,421 129,849 4,572
Cochise County 117,755 131,346 129,518 1,828
Navajo County 97,470 107,449 112,975 - 5,526
Apache County 69,423 71,518 70,591 927
Gila County 51,335 53,597 52,199 1,398
Santa Cruz County 38,381 47,420 43,771 3,649
Graham County 33,489 37,220 37,045 175
La Paz County 19,715 20,489 20,012 477
Greenlee County 8,547 8,437 8,041 396
Numbers on some of the cities and towns tomorrow...
Arizona's census data released
I'm still sorting through the data - it's available on the Census website as three very large zipped files and is a bit of a pain in the _ _ _ to work with.
However, Ronald Hansen of the Arizona Republic already has a story up. It contains some bad news for Russell Pearce and his fellow travelers.
From the story -
Oopsie. Maybe it's time for SB1070 and its siblings to come back and bite the Rs in the butt.
Anyway, an interactive map with some top-level data, courtesy the Census Bureau -
The complete data files can be found here; if you go that route, read the "readme" file (aka - the directions) and visit the Census Bureau's "Tech Tips" site here.
Total population, by county (courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau)
Percent change, by county (Courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau)
More analysis later...
However, Ronald Hansen of the Arizona Republic already has a story up. It contains some bad news for Russell Pearce and his fellow travelers.
From the story -
Soaring numbers of Hispanics and overall growth in Phoenix and the West Valley helped make Arizona the second-fastest growing state in the nation, newly released census data show.
Arizona had nearly 1.9 million Hispanic residents as of April 1, 2010, and their share of the overall population rose to 29.6 percent. It was 25.3 percent in 2000. The total count of Hispanics rose by nearly 600,000 over the decade.
Oopsie. Maybe it's time for SB1070 and its siblings to come back and bite the Rs in the butt.
Anyway, an interactive map with some top-level data, courtesy the Census Bureau -
The complete data files can be found here; if you go that route, read the "readme" file (aka - the directions) and visit the Census Bureau's "Tech Tips" site here.
Total population, by county (courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau)
Percent change, by county (Courtesy the U.S. Census Bureau)
More analysis later...
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Redistricting Update: The numbers will be here next week
...and then the real work begins.
From a U.S. Census Bureau press release -
Now there's an Arizona metaphor for ya... :)
From a U.S. Census Bureau press release -
Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania and WisconsinWhile I and many other observers have been caught up covering the bits of drama surrounding the formation of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, those events were nothing more than a few spring training games taking place prior to a long regular season.
What: Next week, the U.S. Census Bureau anticipates releasing local-level 2010 Census population counts for Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. For each state, the Census Bureau will provide summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts.
According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
When: Each state's geographic products and redistricting data are first delivered to the state's leadership, such as the governor and majority and minority leaders in the state legislative body. Upon confirmation of delivery to the state leadership, we will release a news release with five custom tables of data. Within 24 hours, the full set of five detailed tables will be available to the public online at http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
For more information on the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, visit http://www.census.gov/rdo/.
Online Press Kit: For more information about the U.S. Census Bureau, please visit http://www.census.gov/ and http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
Now there's an Arizona metaphor for ya... :)
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Redistricting Update: Colleen Mathis of Tucson selected as fifth member and chair of AIRC
Regardless of how the next round of redistricting turns out, Tucson should have nothing to gripe about.
Three out of the five members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) are from Tucson.
Independent Colleen Mathis joined Democrat Linda McNulty and Republican Richard Stertz on the AIRC today.
Mathis being sworn in by Secretary of State Ken Bennett. Commissioner Linda McNulty is in the foreground with her back to the camera
The first four members of the new AIRC met Tuesday afternoon to appoint the fifth member of the Commission. Last week, they interviewed the five candidates for that last spot but they instead of making the selection at that time, they chose to ponder over the candidates and their responses over the weekend.
After the weekend, the four members, with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett serving as the non-voting temporary chair, met in the old Capitol building. After a few minutes of public comment, they adjourned into executive session at 1:16 p.m. to discuss "personnel matters."
At 2:39 p.m. they returned to regular session to select, by unanimous acclamation, Colleen Mathis of Tucson as the final member and chair of the AIRC.
While I'm not sure that it was legal for the four to deliberate behind closed doors, and it was obviously inappropriate, it is equally obvious that they did so.
The new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is (their applications linked to their names):
Chair Colleen Mathis, Independent of Pima County
Linda McNulty, Democrat of Pima County
Jose Herrera, Democrat of Maricopa County
Scott Freeman, Republican of Maricopa County
Richard Stertz, Republican of Pima County
Steve Muratore of Arizona Eagletarian has a report here.
Because the vast majority of the meeting took place outside of public view, it was pretty anti-climactic, and there isn't much to write about it.
However, I did get a few pics. :)
former AIRC candidate Marcia Busching addressing the panel, urging them not to give in to the implied threat issued last week (that the lege could withhold adequate funding for redistricting if the four selected Professor Paul Bender as the fifth member)
State Sen. David Schapira explaining the "bill-to-law" process in Arizona to Christopher Mathis, husband of Colleen (you can see the top of her head in this pic :) )
The post-meeting scrum as members of the media gather around the new chair of the AIRC
The new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (l-r) - Jose Herrera, Linda McNulty, Chair Colleen Mathis, Scott Freeman, Richard Stertz
Three out of the five members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) are from Tucson.
Independent Colleen Mathis joined Democrat Linda McNulty and Republican Richard Stertz on the AIRC today.
Mathis being sworn in by Secretary of State Ken Bennett. Commissioner Linda McNulty is in the foreground with her back to the camera
The first four members of the new AIRC met Tuesday afternoon to appoint the fifth member of the Commission. Last week, they interviewed the five candidates for that last spot but they instead of making the selection at that time, they chose to ponder over the candidates and their responses over the weekend.
After the weekend, the four members, with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett serving as the non-voting temporary chair, met in the old Capitol building. After a few minutes of public comment, they adjourned into executive session at 1:16 p.m. to discuss "personnel matters."
At 2:39 p.m. they returned to regular session to select, by unanimous acclamation, Colleen Mathis of Tucson as the final member and chair of the AIRC.
While I'm not sure that it was legal for the four to deliberate behind closed doors, and it was obviously inappropriate, it is equally obvious that they did so.
The new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is (their applications linked to their names):
Chair Colleen Mathis, Independent of Pima County
Linda McNulty, Democrat of Pima County
Jose Herrera, Democrat of Maricopa County
Scott Freeman, Republican of Maricopa County
Richard Stertz, Republican of Pima County
Steve Muratore of Arizona Eagletarian has a report here.
Because the vast majority of the meeting took place outside of public view, it was pretty anti-climactic, and there isn't much to write about it.
However, I did get a few pics. :)
former AIRC candidate Marcia Busching addressing the panel, urging them not to give in to the implied threat issued last week (that the lege could withhold adequate funding for redistricting if the four selected Professor Paul Bender as the fifth member)
State Sen. David Schapira explaining the "bill-to-law" process in Arizona to Christopher Mathis, husband of Colleen (you can see the top of her head in this pic :) )
The post-meeting scrum as members of the media gather around the new chair of the AIRC
The new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (l-r) - Jose Herrera, Linda McNulty, Chair Colleen Mathis, Scott Freeman, Richard Stertz
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Redistricting update: not much to update
Today, the four partisan members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) met to interview the five Independent candidates for the final, and chair's, spot on the AIRC, but after the interviews, they chose to delay the selection until Tuesday.
The meeting start a few minutes late, at approximately 2:35 p.m. (the time listed on the agenda was 2:30 p.m.)
After a brief explanation of the history of the room - it used to be the meeting room of the Arizona Supreme Court and was the home of many decisions, including the famous Miranda decision. Not relevant, but OK...until he went on with a somewhat odd recounting of that decision and the future activities of the principals), Bennett proceeded to swear in the four AIRC members who have been appointed by the legislative leadership.
Richard Stertz, Scott Freeman, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Jose Herrera, and Linda McNulty
Things proceeded a little faster than expected - because the published agenda indicated that the first interview would start at 3 p.m., they had to recess the meeting for a few minutes. After that, however, the interview part of the meeting proceeded efficiently.
As should have been expected for a group of applicants who have already been thoroughly researched, interviewed, and screened, they all did a good job at their interviews. While each exhibited a couple of "weak" answers to the questions posed by the panel, each them was thoughtful and polished and appeared to be eminently qualified. Even without the political pressures on the current AIRC foursome, they'll have a tough time making their choice.
And have no doubt, they're already feeling some *heavy* pressure.
A member of the public, Norris Nordvold, speaking on behalf of candidate Ray Bladine, issued a not-too-thinly veiled threat to the AIRC.
Some concerns over the AIRC's budget cropped up during the afternoon. The original AIRC had approximately $6 million to use; the new AIRC currently has $500K.
Nordvold mentioned the possibility of the Legislature appropriating significantly less money for the next fiscal year if they don't like the choice for chair.
Call it a "don't you dare pick Paul Bender" moment.
Nordvold addressing the panel
The next speaker, Jim Huntwork, a Republican member of the original AIRC, spent his entire time railing about native tribes, in an attempt to influence the members of the new AIRC to nullify the recent decision of the Arizona Supreme Court to allow Professor Bender's candidacy to continue in spite of the same objections from Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams, the Senate President and Speaker of the House, respectively.
Other than that, however, things seemed pretty straightforward today.
We'll see what the next meeting, as well as the next few months, look like.
I hope this isn't jinxing things, but I predict the next lawsuit will be rooted in today's discussions - if the current members of the AIRC surrender to Pearce and Adams on the selection of the chair, they'll be opening themselves up to litigation from the other candidates as well as others. If they don't surrender and the lege tries to use its budgetary powers to retaliate, interfering with the redistricting process, court actions from the feds and from other groups who are affected by redistricting.
And that doesn't even begin to address what the U.S. Department of Justice could do to Arizona if they believe that Pearce and Adams are trying to corrupt the process.
I'll let attorneys speak more on this; they know far more than I do.
Anyway, candidates under consideration are:
Kimber Lanning
Colleen Mathis
Ray Bladine
Paul Bender
Margarita Silva
The next meeting, at which the selection will presumably be made, will be Tuesday at 1 p.m. in the conference room of the Arizona State Library (the same location as today's meeting.)
Steve Muratore of the blog The Arizona Eagletarian has coverage here.
Some pics from the meeting:
The members of the AIRC and Ken Bennett speaking during the first recess of the committee. On the far left: Jim Barton of the Arizona Attorney General's Office, present to provide legal advice, when necessary.
Professor Paul Bender thanking the members of the panel after his interview.
candidate Ray Bladine during his interview
candidate Colleen Mathis during her interview
candidate Kimber Lanning during her interview
candidate Margarita Silva during her interview
During Kimber Lanning's interview, from left to right: Bennett, Herrera, McNulty, and Lanning. I'm not sure who the man in the corner is; he was photographing the proceeding for an MSM outlet, I think.
The meeting start a few minutes late, at approximately 2:35 p.m. (the time listed on the agenda was 2:30 p.m.)
After a brief explanation of the history of the room - it used to be the meeting room of the Arizona Supreme Court and was the home of many decisions, including the famous Miranda decision. Not relevant, but OK...until he went on with a somewhat odd recounting of that decision and the future activities of the principals), Bennett proceeded to swear in the four AIRC members who have been appointed by the legislative leadership.
Richard Stertz, Scott Freeman, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Jose Herrera, and Linda McNulty
Things proceeded a little faster than expected - because the published agenda indicated that the first interview would start at 3 p.m., they had to recess the meeting for a few minutes. After that, however, the interview part of the meeting proceeded efficiently.
As should have been expected for a group of applicants who have already been thoroughly researched, interviewed, and screened, they all did a good job at their interviews. While each exhibited a couple of "weak" answers to the questions posed by the panel, each them was thoughtful and polished and appeared to be eminently qualified. Even without the political pressures on the current AIRC foursome, they'll have a tough time making their choice.
And have no doubt, they're already feeling some *heavy* pressure.
A member of the public, Norris Nordvold, speaking on behalf of candidate Ray Bladine, issued a not-too-thinly veiled threat to the AIRC.
Some concerns over the AIRC's budget cropped up during the afternoon. The original AIRC had approximately $6 million to use; the new AIRC currently has $500K.
Nordvold mentioned the possibility of the Legislature appropriating significantly less money for the next fiscal year if they don't like the choice for chair.
Call it a "don't you dare pick Paul Bender" moment.
Nordvold addressing the panel
The next speaker, Jim Huntwork, a Republican member of the original AIRC, spent his entire time railing about native tribes, in an attempt to influence the members of the new AIRC to nullify the recent decision of the Arizona Supreme Court to allow Professor Bender's candidacy to continue in spite of the same objections from Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams, the Senate President and Speaker of the House, respectively.
Other than that, however, things seemed pretty straightforward today.
We'll see what the next meeting, as well as the next few months, look like.
I hope this isn't jinxing things, but I predict the next lawsuit will be rooted in today's discussions - if the current members of the AIRC surrender to Pearce and Adams on the selection of the chair, they'll be opening themselves up to litigation from the other candidates as well as others. If they don't surrender and the lege tries to use its budgetary powers to retaliate, interfering with the redistricting process, court actions from the feds and from other groups who are affected by redistricting.
And that doesn't even begin to address what the U.S. Department of Justice could do to Arizona if they believe that Pearce and Adams are trying to corrupt the process.
I'll let attorneys speak more on this; they know far more than I do.
Anyway, candidates under consideration are:
Kimber Lanning
Colleen Mathis
Ray Bladine
Paul Bender
Margarita Silva
The next meeting, at which the selection will presumably be made, will be Tuesday at 1 p.m. in the conference room of the Arizona State Library (the same location as today's meeting.)
Steve Muratore of the blog The Arizona Eagletarian has coverage here.
Some pics from the meeting:
The members of the AIRC and Ken Bennett speaking during the first recess of the committee. On the far left: Jim Barton of the Arizona Attorney General's Office, present to provide legal advice, when necessary.
Professor Paul Bender thanking the members of the panel after his interview.
candidate Ray Bladine during his interview
candidate Colleen Mathis during her interview
candidate Kimber Lanning during her interview
candidate Margarita Silva during her interview
During Kimber Lanning's interview, from left to right: Bennett, Herrera, McNulty, and Lanning. I'm not sure who the man in the corner is; he was photographing the proceeding for an MSM outlet, I think.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Redistricting update: Redistricting Commission scheduled to select fifth member February 24
The four members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) who have been appointed by the leadership of the Ariizona legislature will meet next week to select a fifth member, an Independent, to fill out the membership of the AIRC and to serve as chair.
The agenda was emailed to me by Jim Drake of the Arizona Secretary of State's office. Here's a summary:
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Location: State Library Conference Room, Ste. 200, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix (go to the Old Capitol and ask for directions to the office of the Director of the State Library; it's on the 2nd floor.)
Once the meeting is gavelled to order, Secretary of State Ken Bennett will administer the oath of office to the four members. After that, they will interview the five independent candidates individually. The planned order -
3 - 3:30 p.m. - Kimber Lanning
3:30 - 4 p.m. - Colleen Mathis
4 - 4:30 p.m. - Ray Bladine
4:30 - 5 p.m. - Paul Bender
5 - 5:30 p.m. - Margarita Silva
After the interviews, public comment will be accepted, after which the members will make their selection. An executive session is possible/likely.
If the four members who have already been appointed cannot agree on the selection of a fifth member, the responsibility for that reverts to the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. Given that the current membership is split between two Republicans and two Democrats, that possibility isn't a remote one. However, not personally knowing any of the current appointees, I cannot speculate on the likelihood of that occurrence.
The section of the Arizona Constitution covering this is here.
Later...
The agenda was emailed to me by Jim Drake of the Arizona Secretary of State's office. Here's a summary:
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Location: State Library Conference Room, Ste. 200, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix (go to the Old Capitol and ask for directions to the office of the Director of the State Library; it's on the 2nd floor.)
Once the meeting is gavelled to order, Secretary of State Ken Bennett will administer the oath of office to the four members. After that, they will interview the five independent candidates individually. The planned order -
3 - 3:30 p.m. - Kimber Lanning
3:30 - 4 p.m. - Colleen Mathis
4 - 4:30 p.m. - Ray Bladine
4:30 - 5 p.m. - Paul Bender
5 - 5:30 p.m. - Margarita Silva
After the interviews, public comment will be accepted, after which the members will make their selection. An executive session is possible/likely.
If the four members who have already been appointed cannot agree on the selection of a fifth member, the responsibility for that reverts to the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. Given that the current membership is split between two Republicans and two Democrats, that possibility isn't a remote one. However, not personally knowing any of the current appointees, I cannot speculate on the likelihood of that occurrence.
The section of the Arizona Constitution covering this is here.
Later...
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Redistricting Update: Linda McNulty, lawyer from Tucson, appointed to AIRC
Senator David Schapira, leader of the Democratic caucus in the Arizona Senate, today announced his selection for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) via Facebook -
... I am pleased to announce I have selected Linda McNulty as the final legislative appointment to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Linda is an exceptionally qualified individual, and Arizonans will be well-served by her appointment to the IRC.McNulty's application for the AIRC is here.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Redistricting Update: Pearce names Richard Stertz to Redistricting Commission
From the Arizona Daily Star, written by Rhonda Bodfield -
From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
From Stertz' application for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission -
Oh, and that oath was notarized.
So it seems possible, even likely, that Russell "it's the law!" Pearce has knowingly appointed a perjurer to the AIRC.
Apparently, Pearce expects that only dark-skinned people have to respect the law.
Welcome to Arizona politics.
Senate President Russell Pearce picked Pima County Republican Richard Stertz to serve as the third member of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.The "late taxes" and other "civil litigation" that weren't disclosed by Stertz on his application are just a wee bit more significant than Bodfield's single subordinate clause would indicate.
Stertz, who runs a faith-based organization geared toward getting churches more involved in the community, won out over Benny White, another Tucson Republican. The commission is charged with redrawing political boundaries using new census figures.
Stertz, who had some late taxes and some earlier civil litigation that was not disclosed on his application, was placed into the mix after Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams challenged some members of the initial selection.
From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
A candidate on Senate President Russell Pearce's short list for a committee to redraw Arizona's political boundaries failed to disclose tax liens and court judgments against him, although such disclosure is required.
Rick Stertz, in his application for the Independent Redistricting Commission, indicated that he had paid all taxes when due and that he had no court judgments filed against him.The tax lien records are here, also courtesy the Arizona Republic.
Records in Pima County show otherwise; there are at least four court cases in which judgments were filed against Stertz, as well as two federal tax liens.
From Stertz' application for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission -
10. Have you paid all state, federal, and local taxes when due? Yes (X) No ( ) If your answer is "No," explain by attachment.At the end of the application form, he swore an oath that "the statements contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
Oh, and that oath was notarized.
So it seems possible, even likely, that Russell "it's the law!" Pearce has knowingly appointed a perjurer to the AIRC.
Apparently, Pearce expects that only dark-skinned people have to respect the law.
Welcome to Arizona politics.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Arizona is an "outlier on the low end"? Color me so not shocked.
As the US Census Bureau releases local data to various states for redistricting efforts (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Virginia this week, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland next week), they're holding a number of press conferences.
Wednesday, Dr. Robert M. Groves, Director of the Census Bureau discussed "the upcoming release of state redistricting data products."
The transcript of the presentation is here; a .pdf of the Powerpoint slides is here.
As the data for Arizona hasn't been released yet, I didn't expect much from the presentation other than to provide a little background for when AZ data *is* released. However, my ears perked up when the following slide was presented -
This slide (page 6 of the presentation .pdf) shows how much actual state census counts varied from pre-census estimates based on demographic analysis. The estimates were actually pretty close -
- In 34 of 50 states, the actual counts were within +/- 1% of the estimates, and 46 of 50 states were within +/- 2%.
As you can see from the graph, the margin of error spread was pretty balanced, but the interesting point (for AZ readers, anyway) is that the one state where the actual count was more than 2% less than the estimates was, of course, Arizona (page 9 of the transcript .pdf). In AZ, the actual count was 4% less than the estimates.
When asked by a reporter from the Arizona Republic (Ron Hansen) about the variance, Dr. Groves didn't have an explanation or even speculation, saying only that they're looking into it and that they'll have more information when they have more information, specifically on local level variances and explanations.
However, I'm not a trained statistician (as if you hadn't noticed :) ), so I will be happy to engage in a little speculation.
I think there are three main reasons for the variance - fear, hatred, and economics -
1. SB1070 and the related anti-immigrant hysteria. Many immigrants either have left the state or simply avoid contact with public officials (such as census workers) as much as possible. Even legal immigrants fear the harassment that comes from contact with emergency and public service personnel.
2. The hatred of the federal government that has taken hold of the Arizona GOP and its adherents. Many people simply refused to respond to either the mailed surveys or when actual workers were sent out to "fill in the gaps." They don't hate state or local governments, because in most of AZ, those are run by people who are "good ol' boys," just like them.
While the reasons may have differed, a significant part of AZ's population self-selected themselves for undercounting.
3. The cratering of Arizona's economy seems to have led to an significant outflow of residents. Anybody who canvassed neighborhoods for any candidate in the 2010 election noticed a huge number of empty homes. This may not seem to be purely political, but as more people watch the Republican majority in the legislature and the rest of the state government focus on tea party issues/corporate giveaways while ignoring the state's economic and fiscal crises, it shouldn't be surprising that many have just given up hope of making a good life for themselves and their families.
That trend seems to have been accelerating over the last 18 months or so, and may have skewed the estimates - people that were here when the estimates were formulated weren't when the Census Bureau conducted the physical count.
We'll see what happens when the local level data for AZ is released (personally, I expect an outcry of "we wuz robbed!" from the RW blogosphere).
All local level data will be released by the end of March (a statutory deadline). However, the exact date for the release of Arizona's data hasn't been announced yet.
Each week, the Bureau will announce which states' data will be released the following week. After that, the data will be shipped to the states' leaders (i.e. - the governor and caucus leaders in the legislature). Once the receipt of the data by the leaders is confirmed, the data will be released to the general public and media, generally 24 hours after the state leadership gets it.
Eventually, the data will be available via FTP download here and on the Census Bureau's American FactFinder page here.
A related blog post from the Population Resource Center is here.
Wednesday, Dr. Robert M. Groves, Director of the Census Bureau discussed "the upcoming release of state redistricting data products."
The transcript of the presentation is here; a .pdf of the Powerpoint slides is here.
As the data for Arizona hasn't been released yet, I didn't expect much from the presentation other than to provide a little background for when AZ data *is* released. However, my ears perked up when the following slide was presented -
This slide (page 6 of the presentation .pdf) shows how much actual state census counts varied from pre-census estimates based on demographic analysis. The estimates were actually pretty close -
- In 34 of 50 states, the actual counts were within +/- 1% of the estimates, and 46 of 50 states were within +/- 2%.
As you can see from the graph, the margin of error spread was pretty balanced, but the interesting point (for AZ readers, anyway) is that the one state where the actual count was more than 2% less than the estimates was, of course, Arizona (page 9 of the transcript .pdf). In AZ, the actual count was 4% less than the estimates.
When asked by a reporter from the Arizona Republic (Ron Hansen) about the variance, Dr. Groves didn't have an explanation or even speculation, saying only that they're looking into it and that they'll have more information when they have more information, specifically on local level variances and explanations.
However, I'm not a trained statistician (as if you hadn't noticed :) ), so I will be happy to engage in a little speculation.
I think there are three main reasons for the variance - fear, hatred, and economics -
1. SB1070 and the related anti-immigrant hysteria. Many immigrants either have left the state or simply avoid contact with public officials (such as census workers) as much as possible. Even legal immigrants fear the harassment that comes from contact with emergency and public service personnel.
2. The hatred of the federal government that has taken hold of the Arizona GOP and its adherents. Many people simply refused to respond to either the mailed surveys or when actual workers were sent out to "fill in the gaps." They don't hate state or local governments, because in most of AZ, those are run by people who are "good ol' boys," just like them.
While the reasons may have differed, a significant part of AZ's population self-selected themselves for undercounting.
3. The cratering of Arizona's economy seems to have led to an significant outflow of residents. Anybody who canvassed neighborhoods for any candidate in the 2010 election noticed a huge number of empty homes. This may not seem to be purely political, but as more people watch the Republican majority in the legislature and the rest of the state government focus on tea party issues/corporate giveaways while ignoring the state's economic and fiscal crises, it shouldn't be surprising that many have just given up hope of making a good life for themselves and their families.
That trend seems to have been accelerating over the last 18 months or so, and may have skewed the estimates - people that were here when the estimates were formulated weren't when the Census Bureau conducted the physical count.
We'll see what happens when the local level data for AZ is released (personally, I expect an outcry of "we wuz robbed!" from the RW blogosphere).
All local level data will be released by the end of March (a statutory deadline). However, the exact date for the release of Arizona's data hasn't been announced yet.
Each week, the Bureau will announce which states' data will be released the following week. After that, the data will be shipped to the states' leaders (i.e. - the governor and caucus leaders in the legislature). Once the receipt of the data by the leaders is confirmed, the data will be released to the general public and media, generally 24 hours after the state leadership gets it.
Eventually, the data will be available via FTP download here and on the Census Bureau's American FactFinder page here.
A related blog post from the Population Resource Center is here.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Redistricting Update: Second appointment - Jose Herrera
Earlier today, State Rep. Chad Campbell announced via a Facebook posting, that he has selected Jose Herrera of Maricopa County as his appointment to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Because House Speaker Kirk Adams also selected someone from Maricopa County, both Senate President Russell Pearce and House Democratic Leader David Schapira must select from candidates who reside outside of Maricopa County.
The list of available candidates is here, with an update here.
Pearce has to select either Benny White or Richard Stertz, both of Pima County.
Schapira has seven potential selections - Eric B. Henderson (Navajo County), Linda C. McNulty (Pima County), Lawrence C. Mohrweis (Coconino County), William G. Roe (Pima County), Mark D. Rubin (Pima County), Jimmie D. Smith (Yuma County), and Marshall A. Worden (Pima County).
Both can select a nominee from the pool of Independent candidates, but neither is expected to do so. It should be noted that the "geographical diversity" requirement applies to the first four selections, regardless of partisan affiliation (or non-affiliation). Four of the five Independents are from Maricopa County, while only one is from another county, specifically Pima.
As such, only one Independent nominee could be selected by one of the legislative leaders, even in the unlikely event that one of them was inclined to think "out of the box" with their choice.
The applications of all of the applicants to the AIRC, not just the nominees, can be found here.
Russell Pearce is now on the clock...
Because House Speaker Kirk Adams also selected someone from Maricopa County, both Senate President Russell Pearce and House Democratic Leader David Schapira must select from candidates who reside outside of Maricopa County.
The list of available candidates is here, with an update here.
Pearce has to select either Benny White or Richard Stertz, both of Pima County.
Schapira has seven potential selections - Eric B. Henderson (Navajo County), Linda C. McNulty (Pima County), Lawrence C. Mohrweis (Coconino County), William G. Roe (Pima County), Mark D. Rubin (Pima County), Jimmie D. Smith (Yuma County), and Marshall A. Worden (Pima County).
Both can select a nominee from the pool of Independent candidates, but neither is expected to do so. It should be noted that the "geographical diversity" requirement applies to the first four selections, regardless of partisan affiliation (or non-affiliation). Four of the five Independents are from Maricopa County, while only one is from another county, specifically Pima.
As such, only one Independent nominee could be selected by one of the legislative leaders, even in the unlikely event that one of them was inclined to think "out of the box" with their choice.
The applications of all of the applicants to the AIRC, not just the nominees, can be found here.
Russell Pearce is now on the clock...
Monday, January 31, 2011
First member named to the new Independent Redistricting Commission: Scott Freeman
From an announcment from Kirk Adams, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives -
Freeman's application for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is here.
Now on the clock: House Democratic Leader, Rep. Chad Campbell. After his choice is named, Senate President Russell Pearce and Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira will make their selections.
House Speaker Kirk Adams announced today his selection of Scott Freeman to serve on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
“Mr. Freeman is exceptionally qualified for this important role. I am confident he will execute his responsibilities honestly, fairly and with the input of the public in mind,” Adams said.
Freeman, a Phoenix resident and a director at Fennemore Craig, holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Arizona and a J.D. from Arizona State University. Freeman focuses his practice on litigation matters, including complex products liability, personal injury, and commercial cases. Among other clients, he has represented manufacturers of light truck and passenger tires as well as manufacturers of after-market alternators and starter motors in several state and federal trial and appellate courts. He has appeared in trial courts in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, New York, and Illinois.
“I am honored that Speaker Adams has entrusted me with the great honor of serving on the Independent Redistricting Commission,” Mr. Freeman said. “The work of this commission is vital to our democracy, and I promise to serve the people of Arizona with dedication and fairness in all of my work and decisions. I look forward to working with other members of the commission as we get about this important task.”
Freeman's application for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is here.
Now on the clock: House Democratic Leader, Rep. Chad Campbell. After his choice is named, Senate President Russell Pearce and Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira will make their selections.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Redistricting Update: Two Republican replacement nominees selected
The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments selected Republicans Crystal Russell and Richard Stertz to replace two other Republicans who had been found ineligible for membership on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
The Commission, per its legal duties, had forwarded the names or 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats, and 5 Independent applicants to the AIRC. From that list, the leader of each caucus in each chamber will select one person to serve on the AIRC. The four members so selected will then choose a fifth member from the list of Independents to act as chair of the AIRC (there are other possible variations based on the possiblity that one of the legislators could select someone not of their own party, but most observers consider that to be unlikely).
House Speaker Kirk Adams (R) and Senate President Russell Pearce (R) filed suit over the original list, claiming that three of the 25 names weren't eligible because they held public office. Republicans Stephen Sossaman and Mark Schnepf were/are on irrigation district governing boards and Independent Paul Bender has served as a judge on a couple of tribal courts. Many observers felt that Sossaman and Schnepf were "thrown under the bus" in order to mask the partisan nature of the attack on Bender's qualifications. Bender is a law professor at ASU and a noted progressive. He's also widely considered, even by his detractors, to be brilliant.
The Supreme Court agreed with Pearce and Adams regarding Sossaman and Schnepf, but found that Bender's offices with the courts of sovereign tribal nations didn't qualify as "public offices" under Arizona law.
The meeting went along pretty efficiently. After some brief opening remarks, they immediately and unanimously decided to consider only the five applicants who were interviewed by the Commission but hadn't made it on to the original list of names sent to the leadership of the legislature.
There was concern expressed over the lack of geographic diversity among the nominees, and while the members of the Commission felt that they didn't do anything improper with the formation of the original list, the issue of geographic diversity was clearly on their minds as they proceeded.
After a motion to nominate Russell and Christopher Gleason as the two replacements, the Commission briefly went into executive session to discuss some legal advice.
After that session, the motion was amended to separate the nominations.
Russell was approved unanimously. After discussion over the nature of some of Gleason's political ties, he was nominated. His nomination failed by a 4 - 8 vote.
After that vote, Jeffrey Miller was nominated. His nomination failed, also by a 4 - 8 vote.
The next name considered was Stertz, and his nomination passed by an 11 - 1 vote.
Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch thanked the Commission members for gathering together on such short notice and adjourned the meeting, less than an hour after it began.
Now, let the four-way chess match begin, and a chess match it will be because each selection by a leader of the legislature will constrain the selections that follow.
Later...
The Commission, per its legal duties, had forwarded the names or 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats, and 5 Independent applicants to the AIRC. From that list, the leader of each caucus in each chamber will select one person to serve on the AIRC. The four members so selected will then choose a fifth member from the list of Independents to act as chair of the AIRC (there are other possible variations based on the possiblity that one of the legislators could select someone not of their own party, but most observers consider that to be unlikely).
House Speaker Kirk Adams (R) and Senate President Russell Pearce (R) filed suit over the original list, claiming that three of the 25 names weren't eligible because they held public office. Republicans Stephen Sossaman and Mark Schnepf were/are on irrigation district governing boards and Independent Paul Bender has served as a judge on a couple of tribal courts. Many observers felt that Sossaman and Schnepf were "thrown under the bus" in order to mask the partisan nature of the attack on Bender's qualifications. Bender is a law professor at ASU and a noted progressive. He's also widely considered, even by his detractors, to be brilliant.
The Supreme Court agreed with Pearce and Adams regarding Sossaman and Schnepf, but found that Bender's offices with the courts of sovereign tribal nations didn't qualify as "public offices" under Arizona law.
The meeting went along pretty efficiently. After some brief opening remarks, they immediately and unanimously decided to consider only the five applicants who were interviewed by the Commission but hadn't made it on to the original list of names sent to the leadership of the legislature.
There was concern expressed over the lack of geographic diversity among the nominees, and while the members of the Commission felt that they didn't do anything improper with the formation of the original list, the issue of geographic diversity was clearly on their minds as they proceeded.
After a motion to nominate Russell and Christopher Gleason as the two replacements, the Commission briefly went into executive session to discuss some legal advice.
After that session, the motion was amended to separate the nominations.
Russell was approved unanimously. After discussion over the nature of some of Gleason's political ties, he was nominated. His nomination failed by a 4 - 8 vote.
After that vote, Jeffrey Miller was nominated. His nomination failed, also by a 4 - 8 vote.
The next name considered was Stertz, and his nomination passed by an 11 - 1 vote.
Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch thanked the Commission members for gathering together on such short notice and adjourned the meeting, less than an hour after it began.
Now, let the four-way chess match begin, and a chess match it will be because each selection by a leader of the legislature will constrain the selections that follow.
Later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)