Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Our Very Own Solyndra? | Main | Atlas Shrugs »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Greg, weren't you a law student at one time? Aren't you a lawyer now? Your argument that competitiveness is the least-important criterion contradicts AZ State Supreme Court ruling.

In 2009, they ruled that competitiveness has equal standing with all other non-federal requirements listed. I refer to Tony Sissons argument at http://azredistricting.com/uncategorized/the-redistricting-folder-competitive-districts/

I don't know about court rulings, but I do know a little about contracts. A-E say "shall" while F says "should". So I have to agree with Greg.

Actually, the court opinion cited by Tony Sessions agrees with Greg. I quote, from the page at the link you listed, what the opinion actually says:

"The Constitutional language means what it says: The Commission should favor creating more competitive districts to the extent practicable [and here's the important piece] when doing so does not cause significant detriment to the other goals."

Therefore, Greg is right. Anti-Gerrymandering IS the purpose of the other goals, and the current districts ARE Gerrymanddered for political purpose, therefore the "competitiveness" clause cannot apply because to do so WOULD cause significant detriment to the anti-Gerrymandering requirements.

Of course, they could always redraw the districts in a way that accomplishes all six of the goals.... but it doesn't seem likely with the current makeup of the committee.

This is what happens when a democratic process (Ballot Amendment) overtakes the republican one (Representatives draw boundaries). Add cynicism to the mix and you have the mess we have now.

...then again we could all gather 'round the kitchen table and have a handful of officials do it, just like the good ol' days when there was "consensus" in AZ politics.

Get out the popcorn, this is going to get interesting!

This is a no brainer, the whole exercise has become a farce. Replace them all and start again.

The proposed map clearly violates the original intent of the State Constitution and the entire process has obviously been hijacked for Democrat partisan concerns.

The Left will of course scream bloody murder for a week, but let them, it's not worth Arizona dealing with this map for the next decade just to placate Montini and Sinema.

After a week, everyone will move on and AZ residents will have Congressional districts that make sense.

So what is the whip count in the Senate? Anybody know?

Lisa Hauser disagrees with you Greg. Get over it.

http://www.ndcresearch.com/downloads/ndc_loc_v1.pdf

Redistricting is a Legislative Act
Legislative Immunity
Judicial review limited to determining constitutionality
“Reasonable Commission” Standard
Commission not required to adopt definitions of constitutional terms
Do not map using incumbent locations
No objective findings of significant detriment
Communities of Interest – may be respected by grouping or separation
Competitiveness goal as important as the other goals
Balancing redistricting goals is within Commission’s discretion
Advertise a draft map that incorporates all constitutional goals

What a bunch of whiners. Since the Democrats are also unhappy with the new boundaries, I assume the committee did just fine.

Based on the law, the ONLY thing the IRC got correct was equal population. They failed on everything else. Sorry, justthefactsplease, it's not whining, it's about obeying the law, living up to your oath, and being held responsible for your actions. It's called integrity.

"If there's not time for the new IRC Commissioners to draw new maps, then let the courts draw the 2012 maps and the new IRC will draw the 2014 maps."

Can't depend on the courts to uphold the rule of law, and you want them to draw election maps? Really?

Keep the courts as far away from the process as possible.

It's a long-shot argument Greg, but might be a very interesting long-shot argument to watch play out. One thing that is important to remember is that all these need to be first precleared by DOJ - and this is the first time since AZ has been a covered jurisdiction that a Democratic administration is overseeing the process.

I think that means that (1) the public input record becomes that much more important when the final IRC-drawn maps are determined and (2) the issues your post highlights make it politically tougher for them to approve outright. DOJ would very likely not block the maps simply because of open-meeting violations or the choice of mapping consultants alone, but the specter of a removal fight (and whatever else Horne possibly find) would hopefully force a rejection of the IRC's maps.


Yeah, let's keep it away from the courts. They may be fair and impartial. God forbid!

Competitiveness is the antidote for gerrymandering.

Why are Rs so afraid of competitiveness? Could it be that they fear their supermajority would vanish and that the 2/3 of Arizonans, represented by Independents and Democrats, might actually have a say in Arizona politics?

If you look at the maps--they are the definition of gerrymandering.
ikuby: you asssume all the independents are going to vote Democrat? What have you been smoking?
Competitiveness is the least required item of the six criteria and used only if it doesn't conflict with any of the first five. What part of that do you not understand?

The comments to this entry are closed.