Supreme Court Gerrymandering Arizona

"A decision by Arizona voters in 2000 could immunize this state from the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday on partisan gerrymandering."

A decision by Arizona voters in 2000 could immunize this state from the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday on partisan gerrymandering.

But a key Democrat state senator told Capitol Media Services he worries that taking federal courts out of the review process, coupled with the recent actions of Gov. Doug Ducey and the Republican-controlled Senate to stack a panel that plays a key role in drawing lines, could effectively give license to the governor and his allies to craft maps that cement GOP control of the Legislature and give the GOP an edge in electing members of Congress.

On paper, redistricting in Arizona is not a partisan exercise.

The initiative approved by voters nearly two decades ago wrested control of the process from state lawmakers who had made a practice of drawing legislative and congressional lines in ways to benefit the majority party, replacing it with an Independent Redistricting Commission.

And the constitutional amendment that created the commission details what factors the panel is required to consider in drawing lines, ranging from protecting communities of interest to creating as many competitive districts as possible.

But Democrat and Republican legislative leaders who get to name four of the five commission members can choose only from a list created by the separate Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.

There is a prohibition against all 15 members coming from the same party. But in his more than five years in office, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who names people to that panel, has replaced all the Democrats. 

So that means that the choices Democrat lawmakers get to make for the IRC are going to be limited to those nominated by Republicans and independents — which technically meets the legal requirements.

All this is crucial because the history of the commission has shown that, despite its official independent status, a few tweaks in the lines here or there can tilt the scales for one party or the other. In fact, that’s something that Republicans accused the commission formed after the 2010 census of doing.

But now, with Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, any bid to give a partisan edge is no longer a concern of — or can be reviewed by — federal courts.

This takes on added significance with the high court’s other ruling that rebuffed a bid by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the decennial census.

With a high percentage of Hispanics in the rapidly growing state, both citizens and otherwise, that increases the chance that more people will fill out the form. 

And that, in turn, boosts the chance that Arizona will be allocated a 10th seat in the U.S. House after 2020, another set of lines that the Independent Redistricting Commission has to draw.

It’s the question of who draws all those lines that has sharp political implications.

Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Glendale, said that’s why he sought earlier this year to block the Senate from confirming Ducey’s four latest appointments to the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, a move that left no Democrats on the panel.

Ducey press aide Patrick Ptak pointed out that two of the four picked by the governor are political independents.

But Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, said that Kathryn Townsend, one of the “independent’’ nominees, had been a Republican precinct committeewoman who made “sizable’’ political donations to GOP candidates. He called her “a Republican passing off as having no party preference or leanings.’’

And Matthew Contorelli, the other independent, is married to the daughter of state Rep. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott. 

Ptak had no immediate answer to the question of when Ducey will fill the two slots — or even whether the governor is considering any Democrats at all.

What’s wrong with that, said Quezada, is it ignores a constitutional requirement that “the governor...shall endeavor to see that the commission reflects the diversity of Arizona’s population.’’ And out of nearly 3.8 million registered voters, nearly 1.2 million are Democrats.

Ptak said Ducey still has two more appointments he can make. But Quezada said Thursday he is not optimistic, particularly now that the Supreme Court has put federal judges out of the redistricting business.

“I don’t think that gives us any hope that Ducey will put any Democrats on the commission,’’ Quezada said. And he said with the new high court ruling “that certainly doesn’t motivate him to address that issue.’’

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.