AIRC Update: ASU Professor Jennifer Steen on Arizona Redistricting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Jennifer Steen, a professor at Arizona State University, has testified regulalry at AIRC public hearings. She is a political scientist and a "numbers cruncher" who knows what she is talking about. Her testimony has been some of the most insightful at these public hearings. If you attend the AIRC public hearings over the next few days, you may have the opportunity to meet her and speak with her.

Daily Kos does a redistricitng update. In a recent update, Professor Steen provides this update. David Nir writes at Daily Kos: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest:

Redistricting Roundup:

• AZ Redistricting: Jennifer Steen, a professor at Arizona State University, writes in with an important observation about the "draft" nature of the new Arizona congressional map. While I've been saying (as have many other commentators) that we probably should not expect big changes before we get a final version, the commission's experience in 2001 actually shows quite the opposite. Below, you can compare the draft and final maps from the last round of redistricting:

Pretty different, as you can see. Now, I still happen to think that the commissioners will by and large stick with their current plan. Yes, they're getting an absurd amount of (absolutely unjustified) flack from Republican quarters, but the two Democrats and one independent member of the commission evidently see things the same way, and have shown themselves immune to the GOP's outrageous pressure tactics. So while this trio could have a change of heart, I don't see why they would. The map is good, and exceedingly fair. Let's not forget that there are four safe Republican districts and only two safe Democratic seats. Only in cloud-cuckoo land is this unfair to the GOP.

Blog for Arizona recently received an e-mail from Professor Steen regarding Arizona redistricting:

Hi folks,

Given the heat surrounding coverage of AZ’s draft congressional map I thought some of you might be interested in the view from Tempe.

I have been following Arizona redistricting closely, attending commission meetings, interviewing activists, coding reams of public hearing transcripts, drawing my own lines with Maptitude, etc., and I am having a hard time getting my brain around the spin of the news coverage this week. I’m flummoxed by the headline included in Rick’s roundup (below). The map only “favors” Democrats in that it gives them the possibility of maybe, with a crop of exceptional candidates and a strong Democratic wind at their backs, winning 5 of the 9 seats in Arizona. More likely they’ll hold 3 or 4 and the GOP will hold 5 or 6. The draft map creates two districts safe for Democrats (both majority-Latino), four districts safe for Republicans, and three potentially competitive districts. That’s four safe GOP seats folks. And yet the map “favors” Democrats? I’m just not seeing it. Stuart Rothenberg said, “"It really helps Democrats and screws Republicans. . . . This was just a wholesale redrawing of the state.” Well, yes, it was a wholesale redrawing of the state because that’s exactly what the AZ constitution requires. But it “screws” Republicans? Really? Perhaps it inconveniences a couple of incumbents who now have to decide which district to run in. But “screws Republicans?” No way. This kind of language mischaracterizes the map and undermines the legitimacy of the AIRC. Does the map have issues? Yes! Indeed, at today’s meeting members of the public have raised many reasonable concerns about the draft maps (others have just quoted the more hyperbolic coverage). Have the commissioners themselves made choices that undermined their credibility? Yes! But the notion that this map belongs in the pantheon of pro-Democratic gerrymanders strains credulity.

Jennifer A. Steen
School of Government, Politics and Global Studies
Arizona State University