“Original Intent” of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Constitutional Conservatives like to say they look to the original intent of a constitutional provision (yes, I know they are full of it). Prop. 106 creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000. The persons behind this proposition are all still with us and thus the "original intent" of the proposition is easily discernible — just ask them. Duh!

The Arizona Republic today published a guest opinion by Ann Eschinger, who was president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, Bart Turner who was executive director of the Valley Citizens League, and Dennis Michael Burke who was executive director of Common Cause of Arizona. Eschinger, Turner and Burke: Arizona redistricting is balance in goals (excerpt):

As the co-chairs of the initiative's drafting committee back in 2000, the three of us knew that some of our language would always have to be interpreted afresh to keep pace with a changing Arizona. But we would like to briefly describe our original intent — and we believe the voters' intent — in two important areas:

Our Arizona Constitution now calls for political lines to respect "communities of interest." We were thinking this: A river or a highway might make a very handy political boundary, but if a jog this way or that would keep a historic district, a retirement community, a town or a Native American nation intact, the line should move if possible.

This certainly does not mean an incumbent's most reliable voters, in and of themselves, qualify as a community of interest. In fact, the new process takes pains to exclude data that might serve to protect incumbents.

Another issue that generates discussion is competitiveness. We worried that if we said every district must be competitive, the state could become reverse-gerrymandered, with more-of-the-same, amoeba-shaped districts reaching into urban areas and out to the ranches.

Certainly, a retirement community, for example, deserves representation without such manipulations.

Our expectation was that, if the self-interested pressure of parties, candidates and incumbents can be lessened in the mapping process, the districts will be more competitive. Our faith in that result depends on our faith in the commissioners to do the right thing for Arizona and to resist the inevitable pressures. Make no mistake, the whole reason for writing and passing the reform was to allow a process that will result both in fair representation for communities and more naturally competitive races.

Over time, communities of interest may evolve, reflecting changes in our lives and in our politics. Competitiveness may change, too, as the role of parties, independents and forces yet unseen arrive, fade away and are replaced by yet other forces of political purpose. We believe our Arizona Constitution will adapt to these changes.

But healthy competition will surely always be a strong Arizona value, as will a healthy respect for the many kinds of communities that define our changing lives.

As the commissioners travel the state on their listening tour, they will have an opportunity to see how people live and how their political needs are changing. The commissioners have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wisely serve all of Arizona's people.

Arizona's historic redistricting reform opens what was once a backroom process to daylight and to public scrutiny. Through the Internet and in person, citizens have an opportunity to participate in this effort and make a real improvement in Arizona politics.

This does not mean trumping up wild conspiracy theories of imaginary bias because partisan extremists are afraid they will not be able to dominate and to intimidate this "independent" commission to get their way.