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.
This article appears in Sep 26 – Oct 2, 2013.
Indeed, only three of Arizona’s Congressional districts are competitive. And THAT is probably the main reason legislative Republicans want to destroy Independent Redistricting. #*&#heads! I wish all except for the Voting Rights Act districts were competitive. Then we’d be getting somewhere.
Now that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been made inoperative by the US Supreme Court, the commission should redo the districts without having to continually refer to that part of the law. Perhaps then the absurdity of including Oro Valley and Marana in the same congressional district as Flagstaff and the Navajo and Apache Reservations can be rectified. There is no community of interest in that district…which is a requirement of the law. Rep. Grijalva’s district (cited in this column) was made the way it is solely because of Section 5, and changes to that district will have a positive domino effect on the rest of the Congressional districts in southern Arizona.
I’d be all for doing away with the notion of minority-majority, or is is majority-minority, districts if we the people were assured there would be no legal or extra-legal roadblocks erected to prevent or discourage minority citizens from exercising their right to vote. i would also elevate competitiveness to first place on the long and somewhat self-contradictory list of requirements the Independent Redistricting Commission must meet in establishing districts. All said, in a state whose demographics and geography resemble those Arizona has always exhibited, the task of creating reasonable electoral districts is beyond difficult, it’s damn near impossible. I for one continue to think the current IRC has done a magnificent job despite the interference of the governor and the legislative majority.