---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING
Minutes of Special Joint Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 -- 10:00 a.m.
CoChairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Pierce, CoChairman Representative Weiers J., CoChairman
Senator Biggs Representative Goodale
Members Absent
Senator Meza Representative Pancrazi (excused)
Public Testimony
Rivko Knox, representing self, stated that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) has done a good job and held many public hearings, three of which she attended. Legislators also attended the meetings and made comments, which is the appropriate way for the Legislature to make its voice known. She said she spoke mainly about competitiveness at the three IRC meetings because that is what redistricting is about. Regardless of where someone lives, if there is no chance of the person being elected that someone supports, Arizona residents believe they have no voice. There is enough of a problem with low turnout in elections; if races are non-competitive, people are discouraged from running and from voting.
She added that the issue of community of interest has become very major. The main community of interest she found when she travelled all over the state as part of her job is that everyone wants the same: good jobs, good schools for their children and nice recreational facilities. She said she does not believe there are huge differences that would be impacted by legislative and congressional districts. She remarked that she would like to see more competitive districts. She is shocked when she hears people say the IRC is giving away legislative districts (LD) and congressional districts (CD) to Democrats because she has done the counting.
CoChairman Weiers stated that he appointed the Chairman of the previous IRC 11 years ago and told him it would take about 15 months. Four years later, he apologized about the extended time the process was taking, and again, after nine years. He submitted that there are huge differences within the makeup of people in certain areas of the state, for example, between Payson and Mesa or Phoenix and Show Low.
After a brief discussion about the makeup of Ms. Knox’s district (LD-10) and communities of interest, Ms. Knox stated that she is concerned because the Committee makes it sound like the IRC and people who attended the hearings were biased when the process was as open and honest as possible. Even in areas in which she disagrees with the IRC, she does not believe the commissioners had nefarious reasons; it is a difficult job.
CoChairman Weiers noted that the Committee cannot draw lines or change anything; it is following the process laid out in law for the Legislature during the 30-day comment period.
Mrs. Goodale read a letter from the Mohave County Board of Supervisors expressing concern about the proposed “Congressional River District” (Attachment 1) and Resolution No. 2011-146 passed by the Board on September 23, 2011 (Attachment 2). The Resolution asks the IRC to abide by the constitutionally mandated criteria for legislative and congressional maps, to reject the “Congressional River District” map, and all other proposed maps similar in nature, and to place Mohave County into a compact, contiguous district with communities of similar interest.
CoChairman Pierce provided a letter for the record from James N. Wentworth, Principal, Wentworth Property Company, LLC, expressing concern about the IRC splitting the West Valley from other communities of interest (Attachment 3).
Discussion of Competitiveness
James Huntwork, Chairman, 2001 Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC), addressed the Committee (Attachment 4). He indicated to CoChairman Weiers that an apology is not necessary because he was honored to serve with fellow commissioners through all the events that occurred. He noted that Proposition 106 (now Article IV, Part 2, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution) relegated the redistricting process to five politically and geographically balanced commissioners not otherwise active in politics and set forth six goals to achieve “to the extent practicable”:
He said there are also two negative criteria. The first is that party registration and voting history data may not be considered during the initial phase of the mapping process. Secondly, the places of residence of incumbents or candidates may not be considered at any time.
Mr. Huntwork discussed the work of the 2001 IRC in which those goals were applied three separate times during its ten-year term. He stated that the only correct number of competitive districts is the number that emerges naturally when the IRC honestly and diligently follows the process and rules laid out in Proposition 106. Three provisions in the Arizona Constitution limit the IRC’s ability and duty to “favor competitive districts”:
Mr. Huntwork submitted that the current IRC has not been following the rules. It failed to create a map showing what the state would be like without considering competitiveness in order to make judgments regarding “significant detriment.” As a result, the public has no basis to judge whether the IRC is applying the standards honestly or correctly. He is also concerned about the IRC’s stonewalling of the investigation into possible open meeting law violations. His advice, as a lawyer, would be to cooperate fully so all questions and concerns can be resolved quickly and any violations can be corrected in time to prevent a delay in the 2012 election and beyond.
He indicated that he understands the IRC’s need to hold closed sessions, which the prior IRC resorted to frequently because it was in litigation for eight of the ten years, but the prior IRC followed the law and transcripts were kept of the closed meetings. Maybe the time has come for those transcripts to be made public, which the current IRC has the power to do. It would set a beneficial precedent to remind the current and future commissions that their deliberations may eventually become known. He added that he supports the institution of the IRC, but urged the commissioners to look at the substantive and procedural requirements to which they are subject, particularly the constraints on favoring competitiveness, and to make sure those are adhered to in an open and transparent fashion in order to earn the respect of citizens and strengthen the IRC.
Mr. Huntwork responded to questions concerning the following:
Public Testimony (continued)
Lauren Kuby, representing
self, Tempe, stated that she wants to make a correction.
Mr. Huntwork was speaking about voter registration, which she understands is
not to be used in creating the grid map, but in phase two, the IRC shall
balance all of the constitutional criteria, including competitiveness.
CoChairman Weiers submitted that is what Mr. Huntwork said.
Ms. Kuby conveyed that in 2000, she was one of the citizens that voted for the fair and competitive redistricting commission. In 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that all of the six constitutional criteria should be considered equally. She indicated that she attended many of the IRC meetings, using vacation time. She has heard many arguments that because it is listed last in the bullet points, competitiveness should be considered last, which is absurd.
Senator Biggs interrupted and pointed out that while the Arizona Supreme Court said competitiveness should be considered equally, it also addressed detriment to the other goals.
A lengthy discussion followed about application of competitiveness in the redistricting process, whether competitiveness results in better candidates and better representation and the Arizona Supreme Court ruling regarding competitiveness.
Ms. Kuby stated that in relation
“to the extent practicable,” it is practicable to have highly competitive
districts. For example, she lives in LD-17, which is 36 percent Independents,
34 percent Democrats and 30 percent Republicans, so it is definitely
competitive. It will have slightly more Democrats as the proposed LD-26, but
she said she believes it should be made more competitive and balanced by taking
away some of the Democrats. In legislative districts during the last election,
some Republicans did not even show up for the debate, which would not happen in
a competitive district. She asked the Committee to find out who is behind the
group, FAIR Trust Arizona. The Arizona Capitol Times reported that it
is a super-political action committee funded by the Republican Congressional
delegation. She asserted that it is a shadowy group that has been influencing
the redistricting process.
CoChairman Weiers stated that the vast majority of people who testified talked about communities of interest, specifically rural versus metropolitan. He said he believes the rural districts may not have adequate representation with some of the proposed IRC maps.
Ms. Kuby submitted that communities of interest can have different understandings of geography. For example, CD-9, as currently composed, reinforces the current community of interest, which is the light rail district, Arizona State University downtown and downtown Tempe. Her husband, a geographer, testified at the Chandler IRC meeting that classic geographic theory was applied by the IRC in creating that map.
CoChairman Weiers stated that the Committee will put everything together and present it to the IRC, which is the reason for the 30-day comment period.
Ms. Kuby stated that the voters wanted fair and competitive elections and the six constitutional criteria should be balanced. At least 10 competitive districts are possible, so it seems sad that the net result of this IRC may be an incumbent protection program in the congressional maps and uncompetitive legislative maps.
CoChairman Weiers stated if that is true, the IRC did something that was not expected by the people who voted for Proposition 106.
Ms. Kuby noted that in the public hearings, there was a lot of misuse of the term gerrymandering. She submitted that competitiveness is the antidote for gerrymandering because it gives the option for the voters to turn the legislative balance around. She submitted that the Committee should be very careful not to tread on the will of the voters and not to interfere with the independence of the IRC.
Matthew Lucky, representing self, testified that when it is obvious that the outcome will be for the other party, people do not want to vote because they believe they are not making a difference. It is also true that people do not vote when they know their party is going to win. He submitted that democracy is when people have the will to choose, but people do not have a choice unless districts are set up in a way that allows the true will of the people to be heard. He asked the Committee to urge the IRC to work with competitive districts. If the outcomes for LDs and CDs are set up to be heavily favored in one way or another, it will have a negative affect on statewide races by discouraging people from participating in the system as a whole.
CoChairman Weiers announced that the Committee will meet on Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the same location.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
November 7, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
JLC ON REDISTRICTING
October 26, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------