AIRC Update: Prisoners, Students, and Politics

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

During Thursday's AIRC hearing, legal counsel Joe Kanefield and Bruce Adelson made a recommendation for treatment of prison populations. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — mapping discussions continue UPDATED:

They said that the safest option is to count prisoners as living in the physical location of the facility but to not count them in the HVAP (Hispanic Voting Age Population). To show that proposed maps neither intend nor actually cause the voting strength of Arizona Hispanic voters to be diluted, excluding prisoners from HVAP will increase the likelihood of approval by DOJ on the first try.

This solution was reiterated during Friday's AIRC hearing. 3 border congressional districts on table (Arizona Daily Star):

Commissioners, meanwhile, appear to have resolved what to do about the state's prison population, since there was concern that those districts could see artificially inflated minority populations. The plan now is to count the prison populations toward the overall population in each district, while excluding them from any calculations of minority voting strength. [HVAP]

This is probably the best solution available under existing Arizona law. The Arizona legislature should consider addressing this issue in the next session with the Model Legislation offered by the Prison Policy Initiative.

Steve Muratore reports a new "issue" some Tea-Publicans at the AIRC hearings have latched onto: college students. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — transparency, racially polarized voting and smelling blood!:

Tea partier Wes Harris has suggested, in public testimony before the AIRC, on more than one occasion, that temporary residents of college towns in Arizona present the same potential for gerrymandering as prison populations. Harris has also posted to Proud Terri's facebook page suggesting others take his lead and put this concern on the record at as many meetings as it takes to get them to take action. Otherwise, he suggests having it on record that the commission is stonewalling regarding his concern.

Clearly, Harris sees Tempe, Flagstaff and Tucson as more Democratic, in voter registration numbers, than he'd like and if the AIRC can be persuaded to ignore college students, maybe it will make things more favorable to the GOP. But is there any precedent?

A quick, simplistic Google search suggests there is NO precedent for claiming college or university populations conflate redistricting or "inflate the political power of residents in prison [university] districts, and deflates the power of residents everywhere else." This is likely due primarily to contrasting attributes of the two distinct populations. University students do vote, prison populations do not. University students use municipal services and local infrastructure. They also often hold at least part-time jobs in the community.

This is part of a long-standing GOP voter suppression effort since the passage of the 26th Amendment (18 year old vote) in 1971. A 1972 Supreme Court decision, DUNN V. BLUMSTEIN, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), eliminated lengthy state residency requirements that prevented students from voting in their college state. Since then, students who are away at college are eligible to vote in either their home state or in their college state. It was voter suppression three decades ago at Prairie View that spurred the Supreme Court to uphold students’ rights to vote at their college address in SYMM v. U.S :: 439 U.S. 1105 (1979).

This is well-settled law, but Tea-Publicans never let the facts or the law get in the way of their tyrannical dreams. I would encourage those of you testifying at AIRC public hearings and submitting comments online Public Input to remind the Commissioners, and this tool Wes Harris, about the law.

Finally, there is the politicization of the AIRC by Tea-Publican legislators seeking to undermine the AIRC and to reverse Prop. 106 (2000) creating the AIRC. Representative Terri Proud has suggested that Prop. 106 be sent back to voters for repeal so that the Arizona legislature can do redistricting behind closed doors.

There is also the politicization of the AIRC by political opportunist Attorney General Tom Horne. Last week Tom "banned for life by the SEC" filed a petition seeking to compel the testimony of the Democratic and Independent Commisioner on the AIRC. The petition and exhibits filed by AG Tom Horne are available to read at the Arizona Capitol Times website here and here. The rumors of open meetings law violations appear to be based upon the depositions of Republican Commissioners Scott Freeman and Richard Stertz (Jesse Kelly's embed commissioner). Horne releases IRC probe transcripts alleging chairwoman lined-up votes Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

An Arizona Redistricting Commission member told state prosecutors he saw indications that other commissioners made decisions on hiring mapping consultants before the panel’s public vote.

However, Commissioner Rick Stertz, a Republican, also said he didn’t know for sure whether other commissioners settled on a choice in talks among themselves before the commission’s June 29 public vote.

* * *

Both Stertz and fellow Republican Commission Scott Freeman said in their separate interviews that they were unaware of any negotiations.

“I do not know how they deliberated. I do not know if they deliberated alone or together,” he said.

* * *

Contending that Stertz’s statements and other evidence point toward open meeting law violations, Horne’s office Wednesday petitioned for a court order to require the three commissioners who voted to hire Strategic Telemetry to cooperate with the investigation.

An Oct. 3 hearing is scheduled in Maricopa County Superior Court.

* * *

Click here to see the transcript from Stertz’ interview. Click here to see the transcript from Republican Commissioner Scott Freeman’s interview.

Sounds like speculation and conjecture to me. Horne will need more than that to compel testimony (unless he draws a friendly judge). Stertz's credibility as a witness is dubious. Complaint filed against AIRC Commissioner Richard Stertz; More about AIRC Commissioner Richard Stertz.

Steve Muratore reports that Scott Freeman expressed regret for his role in Tom Horne's political witch hunt on Friday. The Arizona Eagletarian: Redistricting — the plot thickens:

[Chair Colleen] Mathis called for a motion to approve what they had discussed in executive session. McNulty and Herrera moved and seconded — to authorize the AIRC to pay for legal counsel to represent Mathis, Herrera and McNulty individually in the legal action Horne filed in court this week. In discussion on the motion, Freeman expressed his regret that the situation has gotten to where it has.

Just as the stress of the verbal attacks made by the bus loads of tea partiers in Tucson at the end of June showed on his face and in his voice, it was clear, not simply by the words he chose, that he genuinely does feel that regret. He also said he supports the three members who are now under the gun, and that he would not oppose the motion. But he decided to abstain from voting anyway. Stertz, on the other hand, simply said that he would abstain from voting on the motion.

The abstention from voting was because the Tea-Publicans would be calling for his head as well if he voted in support of his fellow commissioners.

UPDATE: On Friday, the commission voted 3-0 to authorize the hiring of outside counsel, with the GOP commissioners, Scott Freeman and Richard Stertz, abstaining. But on Monday, the two changed their position and joined in a 5-0 vote. Political Insider.

I fail to understand what the "end game" strategy is for the Tea-Publicans. They seem to believe that if they can successfully undermine the AIRC that Arizona's Tea-Publican dominated legislature and governor will replace the independent chair with an "independent" (sic) who will do as they are told by Tea-Publicans.

Or they believe that the Arizona Tea-Publican dominated legislature will somehow draw the new district lines. WRONG! The AIRC is a voter-approved constitutional government body. Contrary to what some Tea-Publican legislators have said, voter approved initiatives take precedence over simple legislative actions because they are approved by the citizens of Arizona as a "super-legislature."

If the AIRC is prevented from doing its job by Tea-Publican efforts to undermine the commission, the redistricting will default to a panel of federal judges who will draw the new district lines, as the court has been called upon to do in he past. A panel of federal judges is not going to be favorable to the Tea-Publicans who never let the facts or the law get in the way of their tyrannical dreams.