Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Arizona Daily Star Has an Odd Definition of "Insurmountable"

Posted By on Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

While I generally agree with the morning daily's point that GOP legislative leaders are barking up the wrong tree—and wasting taxpayer dollars—in their latest attack on the Independent Redistricting Commission, I can't help but scratch my head about this assertion in today's Star editorial:

While districts can never be completely equal, the redistricting commission has done a good job of balancing the requirements it must work under (see box). A quick look at the latest Arizona voter registration report, which notes voters’ party affiliation, shows no district has an insurmountable advantage for either party.

Looking at congressional races since the commission was established, the balance of power has fluctuated between Republicans and Democrats. These shifts are as it should be. There should be no “safe district” for any party if we hope to have lawmakers compromise for the good of all.

No district has an insurmountable edge? That must have been a very quick look at the latest voter registration counts. How about Congressman Raul Grijalva's district, where 123,000 voters are Democrats and 61,000 are Republicans? Or Congressman Paul Gosar's district, where 155,000 voters are Republicans and 78,000 are Democrats? Or Pima County's Legislative District 3, where 42,000 voters are Democrats and just 14,600 voters are Republicans?

The competitive districts remain a rarity in Arizona, despite independent redistricting. Only three of the nine congressional districts are competitive (and they were all close races in 2012). And here's a breakdown of competitiveness viewed in various ways developed by the Independent Redistricting Commission itself, which clearly shows only a handful of the 30 legislative districts are competitive. There are reasons for that, based on geography, communities of interest, and other factors, but let's face it: If every district were competitive, our legislative races would be a lot more interesting. Arguing that there are no "safe districts" suggests a laugh-out-loud misunderstanding of the basics of Arizona's political landscape.


Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

More by Jim Nintzel

Today | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat
DO(OM) Yoga

DO(OM) Yoga @ Floor Polish

Sundays, 8-9 p.m.

All of today's events | Staff Picks

Staff Pick

James G. Davis (1931-2016): Down at the Tower Bar, A Retrospective

Celebrating the career of Tucson artist James G. Davis with a selection of paintings and prints made… More

@ Etherton Gallery Sat., Sept. 9, 7-10 p.m. and Tuesdays-Saturdays, 11 a.m.-5 p.m. Continues through Nov. 11 135 S. Sixth Ave.

» More Picks

Submit an Event Listing

Popular Content

  1. 9th Annual Pink Hard Hat Campaign (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  2. TSO Presents 007-themed Show Next Weekend (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  3. Better Late Than Never: 1968 Film Makes World Premiere (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  4. Wyatt Earp Needs a Home (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)
  5. The Best Way To Get Results-Based Funding Is To Be Well-Off and White (The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch)

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation