Call the Wahhmbulance! Robert Robb whines the AIRC is unfair to Tea-Publicans

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted last week about the coordinated media assault on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) by FAIR Trust (the Arizona Republican Caucus), whining that the congressional "draft map" is unfair to Republicans because it creates only four "safe" GOP districts, two majority-minority Voting Rights Act districts that favor democrats, and three competitive districts. AIRC Update: FAIR Trust defines 'fair and nonpartisan' as 'permanent Republican majority'. Ack! We can't have that!

Those of you who have been attending AIRC hearings know that Tea-Publican activists have objected ad nauseum from FAIR Trust talking points to competitive districts — they want seven safe GOP congressional districts. Tea-Publicans don't believe in competitiveness, nor democracy for that matter. They're entitled, damnit! It's God's will.

This over-the-top media assault on the AIRC brought well-deserved derision from Arizona's political reporters over this Tea-Publican whine-fest about the unfairness of it all. From the Arizona Daily Star's Political notebook: Redistricting critics get tad carried away:

Notebook's in-box was deluged all week with GOPer's blasting the state redistricting commission for malfeasance, saying the process was biased and flawed in favor of the Democrats.

Perhaps a deep breath might be in order.

Under the new maps, there are two solid Democrat districts, just as there are now – more or less the same ones held by U.S. Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor. No doubt Grijalva got a good deal. He would shed the less-friendly parts of northern Yuma, and he'd get back some of the midtown areas (read progressive) that were taken away in earlier versions of the maps.

But the new maps have four solid Republican districts. For those keeping score, that's a 2-1 advantage.

There would be three competitive districts – which technically, wouldn't be that far off from where we are right now, given that the 2008 elections swept five Democrats into the eight congressional seats. And that in 2010, five Republicans were swept in instead.

Still, Notebook had to snort a bit at some analysis from folks saying part of the reason for the GOP's heartburn was because Flagstaff-based Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar's sprawling rural district got a bunch of Democratic-leaning Tucson suburbs dumped into it.

Note to media not from around here: Tucson is a Democratic stronghold, but let's not get carried away.

Gosar would pick up Marana, which has about 7,700 registered Republicans to its fewer than 5,000 Democrats. Oro Valley? About 12,000 Republicans to 7,000 Democrats.

He's also getting SaddleBrooke, where, although registration numbers weren't immediately available, rumor has it Democrats are subject to 30 days in a public pillory and a $500 fine if they stop on their way through town.

From the Arizona Republic's Political Insider today:

Ready, aim, fire! . . . It was the e-mail version of a firing squad: Complaints about the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission's draft congressional map arrived in quick succession in media in-baskets.

As if we needed further proof the GOP response was choreographed, an e-mail shows the first charge came from the Brew Crew.

Ryan Serote of the state's D.C. office released a copy of Gov. Jan Brewer's condemnation of the commission's work to Arizona's GOP delegation.

"We've got the rest of our AZ Republicans sending something out and continue to feel that a united front from our state Republicans will be best for all of us," Serote wrote. The e-mail was from his state account, which triggered a cascade of complaints.

That might be a no-no for a rank-and-file state employee, the governor's staff (among many others) is exempt from a state law barring political activity on state time.

Matthew Benson, the governor's spokesman, shrugged off the use of taxpayer resources for a partisan purpose. After all, he noted, the governor is the titular head of the state Republican Party. Speaking of which, the state GOP is about the only group that didn't send a condemning news release – unless they're still working on it.

Maybe the news reporting side of the Arizona Republic should have a frank discussion with the editorial side of the Arizona Republic, in particular with its über-conservative whiner-in-chief Robert Robb.

This crybaby repeats all the FAIR Trust talking points I have heard at AIRC hearings in his political notebook today. New map sets up political shootout: 

Republicans are claiming that the new congressional map preliminarily adopted by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is designed to improve Democratic prospects. They have a case.

There is, first of all, the circumstantial evidence. All of the major decisions of the commission have been partisan. The two Democratic commissioners have been consistently joined by Chairwoman Colleen Mathis, who has been independent in name only. As a mapping consultant, they chose not an independent demographer but a Democratic campaign consultant.

And then there is the map itself.

* * *

This is clearly gerrymandering for competitiveness, since it runs roughshod over many communities of interest and political boundaries.

* * *

Drawing these maps is a tough business, and some breaking of eggs is necessary. But dividing up three suburban cities to create an artificially competitive district is a bit much.

The question, of course, is: What can Republicans do about it?

Republican legal eagles think the map is legally vulnerable because it doesn't result from adjustments made to the grid map, which is supposed to be the starting point.

[Note: The Republic's whiner-in-chief Robert Robb is wrong. The "grid map" is based solely on equal distribution of population. It does not take into account the other five factors the AIRC is constitutionally mandated to consider (including communities of interest), and the "grid map" is only a starting point for the multiple public hearings which have been held over many weeks to develop the "draft map," which is the "starting point" for Round Two of public hearings. The Republican "legal eagles" to whom he refers are the expensive lawyer-lobbyists for FAIR Trust.]

But here's an interesting question: Would the commission's map be referable to a vote of the people? If it were still being done by the Legislature, the map would be referable. Did voters give up that right by giving the job to the commission instead?

So now this whiner wants to refer the map to the voters? This is something which has never occurred in Arizona. Robb's just grasping at straws now.

Based upon his political notebook today, Robb has indentified himself as the author of this equally whiny editorial opinion in the Arizona Republic on Friday which appears to be taken directly from the FAIR Trust talking points without attribution. Shared interests should count (excerpts):

One of the six goals that the redistricting commission is required to follow is to respect communities of interest "to the extent practicable" and to keep districts contiguous and compact.

This map flunks out.

* * *

The odd configuration in this draft map is supposed to create more competitive districts, where Republicans and Democrats each have a genuine shot at winning. We strongly support increased competition. [Note: They say it, but they don't really mean it.] That was a key reason voters approved a constitutional amendment putting redistricting into the hands of an independent commission, rather than letting legislators continue to do the job in the bowels of the Capitol.

But competition cannot come at the cost of logic and local connections. While competition is one of the six legal goals of redistricting, the Arizona Constitution explicitly prevents it from overriding the others: "To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals."

* * *

Republicans, with Gov. Jan Brewer in the lead, have launched a full-scale attack on the map, arguing that it's drawn to favor Democrats. Democrats contend the GOP has four strong districts, while they have just two – and that three of the nine districts are competitive.

The heat of rhetoric has led to some confusion over the process.

Competitiveness, as the constitution states, isn't the overriding aim.

Nor can the commission take the current district map and simply tweak it, as Brewer suggested in her Wednesday press release. The constitution requires starting fresh every time: The base is a grid map dividing the state into areas with equal population.

* * *

The focus now, however, should be practical, changing the map to respect communities with common interests.

You know, it must be a sweet deal for the Arizona Republican Party when it has Gannett Co. and The Arizona Republic at its disposal to serve as its media arm. Really, shouldn't this count as an in-kind contribution for campaign finance reporting purposes?

The editorial side of the Arizona Republic frequently brings discredit and disrepute to the newspaper at the expense of the news reporting side of the Arizona Republic which, with some rare exceptions, does a fine job. It's too bad the credibility and reputation of the Arizona Republic has to be diminished by the partisan editors hacks who manage the newspaper.