Read Write Your Pima Supervisor: We Want Fair Districts for Local Justices now from Blog for Arizona for Politics from a Liberal Viewpoint

“We want fair and equal representation in redistricting,” said Bonnie, Heidler, new Chair of PCDP. “Option 1 is the best map.”

The Pima County Supervisors will vote on redistricting for the county’s 10 Justices of the Peace on Tuesday, September 21. They will select 1 of 3 maps. Redistricting re-balances the population of districts by redrawing the maps of JP districts.

“Pima County expects fairness from our Justices in Justice Court. We want fair and equal representation in redistricting. It is time to contact the Supervisors to support Option 1 in redrawing the districts,” said Bonnie Heidler, chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.

Justices of the Peace (JPs) are elected partisan positions. They serve four-year terms in Pima Justice Court. Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction over civil lawsuits when the disputed amount is $10,000 or less, landlord-tenant disputes, small claims cases, DUIs, Orders of Protection, and Injunctions Against Harassment requests.

There are 10 Justices of the Peace: 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans. The courtrooms are at 240 N. Stone Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701

The Republicans are Justice Vince Roberts, Douglas Taylor, and Adam Watters. Raymond Carroll in Green Valley is a Republican.
Democratic Justices are Charlene Pesquiera, Alexander Ball, Kendrick Wilson, Susan Bacal, and Erica Cornejo. John Peck in Ajo is a Democrat.

Democratic members of the Pima County Supervisors.

Arguments to Use in your Email:

Start with: “Dear Supervisor, I support Option 1 for JP maps because_____. Please vote for equal districts.”
Equal Representation should be at the heart of redistricting. Only Option 1 meets this criterion by creating a nearly equal population in each district. Option 2 has a 14,000-30,000 population differences between districts. Option 3 -has 25,000-50,000 population differences between districts.
Geographic compactness – Option 2 fails this by adding a large population & big geographic area to protect JP District 1, covering Oro Valley to Vail. We oppose protecting JP 1 or any district. Option 2 looks like gerrymandering and is vulnerable to criticism and legal challenge.
Minority representation is protected by the Voting Rights Act which prohibits diluting minority districts. Option 1 has the best minority protection for all 3 minority districts.
Option 1 is the best map for Justice, reducing JP 8’s huge workload for Susan Bacal.
Option 1 creates a fair map that meets all the criteria of redistricting. This makes it “bullet-proof” for criticism or legal challenge.
Option 2 & 3 attempt to rectify a problem with the Constable workload. We strongly oppose using redistricting to resolve policy issues. Let constables “consolidate” and share the workload equally.
Conclusion: Option 1 is the best map: it equalizes population in the districts, is the best map for Justice, and has geographic integrity. It is the only option that conveys fairness to the public. And, it is less vulnerable to criticism or legal challenge.