US House Redistricting: Arizona

[minionofmidas]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

[minionofmidas]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

They don't? Oh. So I'm misremembering that detail. *shrugs* Who did?

[minionofmidas]

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."

Effectively it does. Since it presents all the other criteria, which contradict each other to an extent, more or less as one blur, and "communities of interest" and "geographical features" are undefined and unmeasurable anyways, it effectively comes down to "pass the map that satisfies these criteria that has the most competitive districts".

Yeah... bring that law to Massachusetts and you're forced to draw a winnable district for Republicans. Since it can be done without doing too much violence to the map (not nearly as much as the current intra-democratic incumbent-protection-mander does, for instance).

[minionofmidas]

judicial deference to administrative discretion absent clear error.

That's a pretty big one, though - that was pretty much all the court bothered to point out in squashing last time's lawsuit.

I forget who was suing then, probably not one major party as a bloc though.

[minionofmidas]

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

[minionofmidas]

You know, I hope the Republicans still win some minor amendments to the map. And for that it would probably have been useful to step the rhetoric down rather than up.

(The first district really, really, really needs to retreat out of either Pima or Cochise, preferrably Pima. The boundary there makes no sense whatsoever and serves no purpose except gerrying, so is probably strictly speaking against the Commission's rules even as I and the Dems interprete them. I'd also like to see some alterations around the 4th to 6th and 6th to 9th boundaries... which I'm not sure would have much of a partisan effect.)

[minionofmidas]

They have been pushing the nuke button with just as much fervor as the Pubbies. It is as if both sides are actually really enjoying this cafeteria food fight. Maybe everyone is on PCP.

Maybe everyone has decided that the other side is not capable of compromise and adult discussion.
Maybe everyone is right.

[minionofmidas]

The basic problem is that the most meaningful criteria (community of interest stuff, including the VRA issues) tend to be hard to quantify exactly, and thus open to abuse if one party has de facto control over the process - or even if both parties agree on bipartisan gerrying. Indeed, a certain degree of bipartisan gerrying - nothing like the last Illinois map, of course - is implied in the principle.
You can draw up quantifiable rules about splitting counties and compact shapes and stuff - even about competitive districts - but you have no guarantee that the end results will actually make sense on the ground.

[minionofmidas]

Why don't you draw up an outline of the criteria Muon2, and then Lewis and I can take pot shots at it, and list all the ways that it can be gamed?   I still like the idea that if there is deadlock, each side submits their map, and some independent third party picks the one that best comports with the law, based on expert testimony and the like where necessary.

The problem is that both sides will, first, pick an expert they hope is more sympathetic to them than the other side, and then find inside info on the other side's map, and then just submit a map that's not clearly worse than the other side's.

This is (in practice. Nominally it's a committee with one independent to break ties) how they draw lines in New Joisey.

[minionofmidas]

Legislative maps are out. Not quite as egregious.

They did split the white liberal population of Tucson in half and connected both to suburbs in order to grab an extra district.

How do you do that? Sure the district grabbed isn't one of the Hispanic districts? (Previous map was two Hispanic districts, one White Democratic district, one White Republican district. Unless I totally misremember. And the Hispanic shares were, IIRC, not so very high... so maybe they figured now that they absolutely need 51.0% VAP and can't do that anymore. Hence my idea of what might conceivably be what's happened here.)

[minionofmidas]

The Flagstaff/Sedona/Holbrook/Payson thingy is safe GOP? I find that hard to believe.
Also, the color scheme is ridiculous. That district is a quite similar shade to its neighbor in Northeast Maricopa... and not too dissimilar from the Navajo/Apache district.
I notice the old Hispanic-influence district in rural Pinal (which fell to the GOP in 2010) has been bifurcated, and I guess both parts lean GOP quite clearly. Though I'm not entirely sure about the eastern one.

[minionofmidas]

The Flagstaff/Sedona/Holbrook/Payson thingy is safe GOP? I find that hard to believe.

You're forgetting the Snowflake/Taylor/Show Low part of that district, which is uber Mormon and uber GOP.

Counted that under "Holbrook". (Winslow is a much more marginally Republican town, with a Native minority presence, but it rightly got put in the Dine district.)

[minionofmidas]

Mathis was chosen unanimously by the other four commissioners, from a shortlist of five suitable independents picked by a different commission (that has other, earlier tasks.) I've no idea what would happen if a member resigned or was removed; the case is not covered in this legal overview.
I do not know if Mathis was asked about her husband's political links, or whether she lied about them. I do know that they are not, in and of itself, disqualifying her from serving as the commission's independent member.
As to the last question... it is too late to start from scratch (and be on the safe side re federal laws etc). That's beyond doubt. It's barely not yet too late to do a major redraw sort-of based on the current map though, for, like, another week.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, here it is.
"THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS OR ITS DESIGNEE [so, the same people who made the shortlist] SHALL NOMINATE A POOL OF THREE CANDIDATES WITHIN THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE VACANCY OCCURS. THE NOMINEES SHALL BE OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY OR STATUS AS WAS THE MEMBER WHO VACATED THE OFFICE AT THE TIME OF HIS OR HER APPOINTMENT, AND THE APPOINTMENT OTHER THAN THE CHAIR SHALL BE MADE BY THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE OFFICE DESIGNATED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT. THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW CHAIR SHALL BE MADE BY THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS. IF THE APPOINTMENT OF A REPLACEMENT COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR IS NOT MADE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE NOMINEES, THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS OR ITS DESIGNEE SHALL MAKE THE APPOINTMENT, STRIVING FOR POLITICAL BALANCE AND FAIRNESS."

Also, if Mathis is removed before the commission draws a final map or finalizes the current one (they have hearings scheduled up to november 5th) strictly they only have an earliest date to do so, not a latest (except what's set by filing deadlines etc pp), so they would presumably have to wait in doing that until the replacement is chosen.

[minionofmidas]

Wow, the Republicans sure do hate the rule of law. Cheating the system implemented by the people so they can gerrymander away the people's right to democratic representation. Shameful.

Well, if Mathis stated that her husband doesn't have political links either, and the appelate whatever commission wouldn't have shortlisted if she told the truth, then Republicans do have something of a case.

[minionofmidas]

Mathis was chosen unanimously by the other four commissioners, from a shortlist of five suitable independents picked by a different commission (that has other, earlier tasks.) I've no idea what would happen if a member resigned or was removed; the case is not covered in this legal overview.
I do not know if Mathis was asked about her husband's political links, or whether she lied about them.

There is this thing called "research." The fact that you haven't bothered may very well be motivated by a desire to not want to know what is a very unpleasant fact for you.

Not really. More a case of not wanting to wade into this stuff deeply unless absolutely forced to, and the fact that anything smacking of Arizona Tea Party fails the LAPD test.

I have done a bit of that wading now, I'm still not ready to do as much as it probably requires, and yeah she apparently has "omitted" info on a questionnaire applicants needed to fill out, about her husband's lawyer work for political officeholders... of both parties, btw. (The man actually was a Republican congressional aide once, more than a decade ago)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they are.
[/quote]Not under the laws of Arizona. The requirements are pretty clear: have been a registered independent for the past x years, not personally stood for office or worked professionally for a campaign the past y years, not a registered lobbyist.

Whether she would or should have been shortlisted may be quite another matter, though. They are supposed to pick the most qualified five from the applicants after all, and the Arizona Supreme Court made its case law in that earlier decision where it forced alterations of the shortlist.

[minionofmidas]

Oh yeah, that Republican who abstained on that map? He's totally siding with Mathis.

[minionofmidas]

The AZ state Senate voted last night to bounce Mathis. Mathis is going to the AZ Supreme Court to object to her removal.

Yep.

So if the Court says it's fine, the Senate can impeach and remove (rolled into one) on any grounds they want without holding any semblance of an impeachment trial, it's their legislative prerogative to interprete the facts that way, then yeah, we'll not get a final map until after Mathis' successor is chosen.
Republicans shouldn't, of course, hold their breath on the outcome. I certainly don't see any sort of path towards a rebooted process, complete with new grid, new first round of hearings etc pp.

[minionofmidas]

The existing map doesn't officially exist yet. Once the parties don't agree to a replacement, the people who drew the shortlist pick one.
And unless they changed its composition in the interim... Republicans don't like the people who draw the shortlist either.

[minionofmidas]

The existing map doesn't officially exist yet. Once the parties don't agree to a replacement, the people who drew the shortlist pick one.
And unless they changed its composition in the interim... Republicans don't like the people who draw the shortlist either.

Who picks the commission on appellate appointments?  I guess a new shortlist is drawn up with Mathis gone if it holds.

Yes. Just read the allcaps post above, that's the relevant clause in the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nah, they had an overriding objective to keep a particular individual out, and appeared to be ready to accept anybody else. So Dems probably got their second pick.

But Republicans (successfully, though on what seemed mighty feeble grounds - an indication of the state Supreme Court's leanings, I presume?) sued to have the shortlist changed (and then put someone they successfully got onto the shortlist that way onto the Commission.)

[minionofmidas]

"For more than 30 years Arizona citizens have benefited from a judicial merit selection and retention system. Merit selection is a way of choosing judges that uses nonpartisan commissions to investigate and evaluate applicants for judgeships. The commissions then submit the names of at least three highly qualified applicants to the Governor. The Governor appoints appellate court judges statewide and trial court judges in Maricopa and Pima counties from lists of nominees submitted by the judicial nominating commissions.

We invite you to attend our meetings to see Arizona’s merit selection system at work. Our mission is to nominate candidates with outstanding qualifications who reflect, to the extent possible, the diversity of our communities.

Public members make up the majority of every judicial nominating commission. There are three nominating commissions - one for appellate court appointments, and two local commissions on trial court appointments in Maricopa and Pima counties. Each commission is composed of ten public members and five attorney members, and is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Our members come from diverse geographic areas. A wide range of experience and perspectives are brought together to choose the most highly qualified candidates for appointment to judicial office.

Merit selection is not a system that grants lifetime judgeships. In Arizona, after an initial two-year term of office and every few years thereafter, judges appointed under merit selection are evaluated by the voters in an uncontested retention election. Voters have the power to remove or retain judges during the retention elections.

How can Arizona citizens participate in selecting, reviewing and voting on judges?

• Encourage highly qualified people to apply to serve as a judge.

• Volunteer to serve on a judicial nominating commission. Applications are available from the Governor's Office when volunteers are needed. [...]"

Also:
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/75/Membership%20Lists/Appellate%20Commission%20Public.pdf

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which Commission?  It must be the redistricting commission, since you referred to someone on the shortlist being put on the "Commission." If the redistricting commission, I presume it was not Mathis that the Pubbies got on. But the shortlist is just for the 5th vote no?  I am just so confused.  

Oh no. There is a shortlist of 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 5 Independents. Not sure if parties are actually required to pick from their own subpool or it's merely understood, but anyways house and senate minority and majority leaders pick four commissioners, and then those four pick the fifth who's also the chair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(emphasis added)

And that is the thing. Competitiveness is subordinated to the other parameters.

That interpretation of the law was explicitly ruled to be false by the AZ SC in 2002 (or 1 or 3 or whatever), fwiw.

Anyways, I presume Mathis is removed for good now, the SC has agreed? IIRC "impeachment" (which implies an actual trial) is a misleading word, and it's actually a power of the Governor and 2/3 of the Senate to remove Commissioners (presumably written with the expectation that 2/3 of the Senate should be unachievable without really serious violations).

[minionofmidas]

(After googling) Apparently the court has not ruled yet.

Worth pointing out that Brewer wanted to remove the two Democratic members as well... but failed to get 20 votes (from 21 Republican members) behind that... as here she didn't even offer the paltry wrongdoings of Mathis', but was quite clear she wanted them removed because they weren't drawing a Republican map. And, one may speculate, so the Commission would not have a quorum. Right now they can still hold meetings, public hearings, and even adopt their own compromise map.

[minionofmidas]

 

BTW, is there actually any relationship between the grid plan and the final map?  Or was that something to sell the commission in the first place?

Maybe in the legislative maps. Certainly not in either the 2000 or 2010 Congressional map, at least not in places where the boundary might not very well have ended up at that point anyways.
I think the grid plan was written into the bill to provide pork for companies like Telemetric. It serves no real purpose except maybe the first time round, and there only if the last non-commission map was a TX/MD-style gerrymander.

[minionofmidas]

Would the US Supreme Court have had the power to undo Bill Clinton's impeachment on the grounds that the charges weren't sufficient?  If not, what makes this different?  

It's a completely different procedure that just had the same name stuck on it by lazy lawmakers.