Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The congressional map under discussion this morning is not yet online, but here is a screen shot. Chair Colleen Mathis wants this map adopted TODAY. Her fellow commissioners want time to study and analyze it.
UPDATE: The map is now online (.pdf file). http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf
Some of the notable changes: the population centers of Cochise County are carved out and thrown in with Eastern Pima County to create District 2, which the Chair describes as "Louisiana."
The rural portion of Cochise County remains in her "super-congressional" District 1 (the only reason being that the Chair insists upon three districts on the border, even though it is contrived purely for political reasons to appease Republicans who insisted upon three border districts).
Mathis' "super-congressional" District 1 takes in all of Eastern and Northern Arizona, and now picks up more of Pinal County including Saddlebrook, and picks up Marana within Pima County. While this ostensibly benefits the Tribal Nations, the reality is a member of Congress is likely to come from the Flagstaff area or from Pinal County. This will actually reduce the influence of the "Borderlands Region" (Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties) on border issues. This rural dogleg in Cochise County will receive little or no attention from its member of Congress who will be elected by voters up North.
Mathis' "super-congressional" District 1 continues West into Mohave County, creating an "island" of sparsely populated Northwest Arizona in proposed District 4.
The proposed VRA District 3 along the Mexican border in Western Pima County and Southern Yuma County now picks up more areas of West Tucson, including the University of Arizona area, maintaining those communities of interest in response to the complaint filed by the Hispanic Coalition for Good Government.
I did not have the opportunity to listen to Chair Colleen Mathis' explanation of the districts in Maricopa County, but Commissioner McNulty commented that she believes this map will reduce the competitiveness of the competitive district she created last week. Keep in mind the Commission's criteria includes creating more competitive districts, not fewer.
Commissioner Herrera had an appointment this morning for which he had to leave. The Commission went into recess at 10:24 a.m. until Commissioner Herrera returns around Noon. No vote was taken on the congressional map to allow time for study and analysis.
No public commentary has been taken on this new proposed map. I am bothered by the Chair's insistence upon a vote for her new map TODAY before the public has had a chance to study it and comment. This is the same error in judgment she demonstated last week in initially forcing a vote on her "working" map prior to any public comment or hearing from the Voting Rights Act stakeholders. It is ass-backwards, and I do not believe procedurally correct.
I hope the other Commissioners will stick to their guns for the "study day" they requested and not rush to a vote on the Chair's new map today.
UPDATE: The AIRC decided to take public comment on the new proposed map after returning from their break. Good! They have heard from several elected officials including Tribal governments and the Hispanic Coalition for Good Government. The comments have generally been positive albeit coupled with a request to tweak the map to address their community of interest. Several speakers requested that the Commission address competitiveness before taking action on the new proposed map.
David Cantelme, lawyer for the GOP front group FAIR Trust, actually agreed with his nemesis, blogger Steve Muratore, that the competitiveness analysis needs to be completed before it goes to Phase III (30 day public comment period). I agree.
Cantelme asserted that the proposed "super-congressional" District 1 is not competitive because it has a nine percent Democratic voter registration advantage. What he failed to acknowledge is that this District 1 is a new coalition Voting Rights Act district designed to benefit the Tribal Nations who have long been disenfranchised in Arizona. Voter performance in this district, historically low, more than offsets any voter registration advantage. In addition, many of the Democrats who live in this rural district are conservative Democrats who have frequently voted Republican.
Several speakers testified that "packing" Democrats into the Hispanic VRA Districts 3 and 7 in the new proposed map makes creating competitive districts in Maricopa County impossible, there are not enough Democrats to make other districts more competitive.
Bill Roe, a Democrat from Pima County, testified that he is concerned that Tucson may effectively have only one member of Congress because of the extent that proposed District 3 extends into Maricopa County. He requested more analysis to ensure that Tucson retains two members of Congress.
Benny White, a Republican from Pima County, objected to the AIRC holding a vote on this new map today as being in violation of the Open Meeting Law because a vote was not noticed on the agenda (and a map was not available to the public prior to the meeting). He further complained that the new map is a "gerrymander" because the proposed District 2 adds Douglas in Cochise County and sheds Saddlebrook in Pinal County (the teabaggers have demanded for weeks they want to be part of this district).
UPDATE: The congressional "draft" map was approved on a vote of 3-1 with the the two Democrats joining Chair Colleen Mathis, and Republican Scott Freeman abstaining.
The Next AIRC public hearing has been posted for Wednesday, again in Tempe:
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Fiesta Resort – Galleria Ballroom
2100 S. Priest Dr.
2:00 p.m.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.