In 2023, We Have to Start Thinking About … 2031?

In 2020 the decennial census was held, and in 2021, states readjusted their legislative and Congressional boundaries. It’s now 2023, and it will be another 8 years before this process is repeated. So, there’s nothing to do about this now, right?

Wrong.

While we won’t yet know the details of 2030’s demographic changes, we need to start now on prepping for this inevitable milestone. Why?

To begin with, those of us who paid close attention to Arizona’s process last time can still remember what went right and what went wrong (mostly). We need to chronicle these points carefully before they are forgotten and publicize them for the record.

And once we chronicle the last redistricting

Given this analysis, we need to chart a path towards a fairer process for next time. Some of this will require strategic decisions, most notably, how the law defining the redistricting process needs to be changed in time for the next cycle. Since this process is actually described in the state constitution, there would need to be an amendment. Not a small thing to plan for, especially if a citizen-initiated measure was to be passed. Work on this for a 2026 or 2028 ballot proposition would need to start very soon. 

Of course, that would be much more straightforward if sympathetic candidates were elected in 2024, so that the legislature could put this issue on the ballot; in that case, a simple majority in both chambers (and the signature of a concurring governor) could change the relevant parts of the state constitution. We need to work on electing better candidates and putting the majority in better hands, for this and many other reasons. I have no doubt that we will put in that effort. But preparing for something years into the future, even if it would have enormous consequences, is harder to get our minds around. That’s just human nature.

In the last go-round, Governor Ducey packed the judicial appointments commission that came up with nominees for the Redistricting Commission, those nominees were chosen to increase the chances for favorable boundaries for their party. What we ended up with, while not as extreme as in some states, still leaned towards their party in significant ways. 

Towards fair and competitive districts

We need to keep our eyes on this particular ball. And that goes for anyone who believes in fairness in our democratic process. 

In a “safe” (uncompetitive) district, whoever wins the primary is almost assured of winning against their opponent in the general election. This tends to encourage extremist legislators, who can appeal to the most engaged (and often, the most extreme) voters. Having more competitive districts will need to be emphasized in law. As it is now, while competitiveness is listed as a key criterion, the wording in the constitution is open to interpretation, and some have used that interpretation to deemphasize it. In 2021 a count of public comments at the open redistricting meetings showed an overwhelming preference for a greater emphasis on competitiveness in the process, but this was not taken seriously by the commission. 

This has to change. And public education on this point can, and should, start now.