---------- 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 -- 9:00 a.m.
CoChairman Weiers called the meeting to order at 9:06 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)
Discussion of Voting Rights Act
Dr. Lisa Handley, Consultant, gave a presentation on Drawing Redistricting Plans that Comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Attachment 1):
In response to a question, she said there is a procedure to get out from under Section 5 whereby the state must have no voting rights litigation within 20 years. Arizona may not qualify for a while, although individual counties may be able to bail out. Arizona was picked up by the trigger in 1970 because of the Hispanic population.
Dr. Handley explained the process and timeline for submission of redistricting plans to the U.S. DOJ or the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, which takes longer than U.S. DOJ. In response to a question, she indicated that the preclearance procedure requires a defined set of materials to be submitted other than maps. If the submission generates questions, the U.S. DOJ will ask for further information. As part of the review process, the U.S. DOJ will call legislators, particularly minority legislators, and minority groups in the community to obtain opinions on how the maps were drawn.
Dr. Handley related that the burden of proof rests on the jurisdiction to show that the plan does not have a discriminatory purpose or a discriminatory effect, which means it cannot be retrogressive (leading to a decrease in minority voting strength). She reviewed the factors considered by the U.S. DOJ in making its determination.
In response to a question, Dr. Handley indicated that any plans provided to the redistricting commission for consideration must be included as part of the submission, but the U.S. DOJ can also consider plans that minority groups, for example, published in the newspaper but were not submitted to the redistricting commission. The U.S. DOJ will also draw the plans if it is believed that non-retrogressive plans can be drawn. If preclearance is obtained from the U.S. DOJ, the state is not precluded from legal action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by the U.S. DOJ or any minority group.
Dr. Handley stated that 1982
amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act made it clear that a
redistricting plan cannot have a discriminatory effect, regardless of the
intent of the plan, which is referred to as “results test.” In a Voting Rights
Act case in 1982, Thornburg v. Gringles, the Supreme Court ruled that
three preconditions must be met to determine if a
Section 2 violation occurred:
She said a racially polarized voting analysis is essential for a U.S. DOJ submission. It is required to determine if minorities vote cohesively and whites bloc vote to defeat minority-preferred candidates. Three statistical techniques must be used to measure polarized voting. If polarization is legally significant (minorities and whites consistently vote for different candidates) and minority voters are sufficiently concentrated, the state must create districts that provide minority voters an opportunity to elect candidates of choice.
Dr. Handley stated that after doing the racial bloc voting analysis, it is necessary to determine if effective proposed minority districts were created, which can be done by using estimates from the three statistical techniques or by reconfiguring election results from previous elections that included minority-preferred candidates. The analysis is necessary to ensure that the redistricting plan complies with the Voting Rights Act; if it is not done by states in which Section 5 applies, it will be done by the U.S. DOJ.
In response to questions, she said it is possible to satisfy the Voting Rights Act by accident, but if the analysis is not done, it will not be known ahead of time. Many jurisdictions do not have significant minority populations and do not need to do the analysis. States with significant minority populations usually have Legislatures with experience in redistricting, so she does not know of any that are not aware that the analysis is necessary. Ten years ago, when Arizona used the IRC for the first time, she was hired to conduct a racial bloc voting analysis, which was denied by the U.S. DOJ. She found that voting was polarized and minority districts had to be created. The districts were redrawn and precleared by the U.S. DOJ. She indicated that the current IRC hired an expert in the last six weeks, but she does not know if he is doing anything other than determining whether voting is polarized or not, which should take about two months to complete.
Public Testimony
Marianne Ferrari, representing
self, opined that there should be a Voting Rights Act for everyone. She said
it appears the lines the IRC has drawn ensure that only Democrats will be
elected everywhere. The IRC seems to have completely ignored communities of
interest by mixing rural and urban areas and bisecting cities. She would like
to hear justification for including the top half of Yuma with Congressman Trent
Franks’ district in the Phoenix area. Competitiveness is one of the factors to
be considered in every district, but it should not be overbalanced in favor of
any party. Congressmen David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and
Ben Quayle’s districts were changed so they do not have a chance of being
re-elected, while Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressmen Ed Pastor
and Raul Grijalva’s districts are totally protected. As to contiguous areas,
the Flagstaff district goes all the way to the Mexican border; she does not
understand the connection.
Lynne Breyer, representing self, commented that the Voting Rights Act should be thrown out because it is not relevant in this day and age. She opined that the present IRC is clearly partisan and conveyed what she noticed when she attended many of the meetings:
Bill Mitchell, representing self, opined that the referendum establishing the IRC limited its success because it is impossible to remove politics from a political process. The IRC concept needs to be corrected, if not eliminated; if kept, there should be a larger panel, possibly nine people. Additionally, competitiveness is an added condition that has not been defined. He stated that while observing IRC meetings, he saw the Democrat commissioners sometimes prod individuals at the podium as to whom they really represent, while those same commissioners refused to give the Attorney General an interview about the possibility of violating open meeting laws.
Referring to Strategic Telemetry, Mr. Mitchell pointed out that the company’s website contains Democrat statements. In watching the maps unfold, he noticed that Commissioners Stertz and Freeman tried to keep communities and counties whole while the Democrats were creating “designer” districts by cutting Pinal County into thirds and Gila County into a few pieces. As the IRC got closer to selecting the CD map, Chairwoman Mathis worked on that over the weekend. Commissioner Freeman was completely surprised by the new map presented and abstained from the vote because the commissioners had not seen any data.
Mr. Mitchell conveyed that the new CD-1, which includes Flagstaff, borders almost three states plus Mexico. Flagstaff got what it wanted, which strengthened the Democrat hold on the district. The proposed CD-9 includes parts of Ahwatukee, Chandler, Mesa, south Scottsdale, Arcadia, the Biltmore and central and north Phoenix, which is clearly crafted for political reasons. He opined that the IRC edged out communities of interest in favor of competitiveness. He suggested removing competitiveness as one of the criteria in the future or at the very least, have the IRC or a substitute redo the maps.
Wesley Harris, Chairman, North Phoenix Tea Party, representing self, stated that he attended many IRC meetings and commended the Committee for its efforts, albeit too late. He submitted that the Voting Rights Act should be eliminated like Affirmative Action, both of which are reverse discrimination. He related that testimony was given at the IRC meetings from various contingencies around the state. The Yuma people asked to be kept together, which the IRC did not do, and the Native Americans asked to be together. Minority and majority districts were created that have become voting “ghettos” to perpetuate the existence of certain political people like Mary Rose Wilcox and Congressmen Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor.
He talked about the makeup of CD-3, contending that it was gerrymandered to gather adequate population for Congressman Raul Grijalva’s district, disenfranchised the Indian Reservation in the middle and half of Yuma. He said he re-created a CD-3 map that does not include Yuma or the Indian Reservation and picked up minority districts in Maricopa County to offset those losses. He opined that the IRC proposed map will end up in court and the state will be stuck with a map no one likes. It is ironic that Congressmen Schweikert and Quayle are one block out of their districts and a super Republican CD-6 was created. He contended that Proposition 106 needs to be reissued. An independent IRC is needed with more than five, and an even number, of commissioners from all over the state so too much power is not given to one person.
Vera Anderson, representing self, provided a statement from Brad Zinn who could not attend (Attachment 2). She said when she attended the first IRC meeting in April, she immediately noticed that there were problems so she did some research. According to Strategic Telemetry’s website, it works for clients that provide data analysis and targeting to have Progressives elected, but when she went back to the website later, the information was no longer there. She opined that it appears like the work of the IRC is race-driven and not based on population. She was concerned when she learned about Chairwoman Mathis filling out her application as independent and impartial, which is not what she has observed.
A. J. LaFaro, Chairman, Legislative
District 17 Republicans, stated that in less than a week, the Committee has
been able to “pull back the curtain” of corruption the IRC demonstrated. On
Monday, October 26, 2011, when he testified about proposed CD-9, LD-26 and
LD-18, he had not seen the article in the Arizona Capitol Times stating
that the Democrats’ prized piece is
CD-9. The article was very informative and reinforces his and others’
testimony. He thanked the Committee Members for taking on this needed task and
commended Governor Brewer for demanding answers from the IRC about its actions.
Lynne St. Angelo, representing self, discussed the IRC’s hiring of an attorney and mapping consultant, Strategic Telemetry, despite their inexperience, which resulted in additional expense. She submitted that the IRC is trying to make sure Arizona has many districts in which the minority group constitutes more than 50 percent of the voting age population. There are now eight districts over 50 percent minority and one Native American district when before there were only four districts over 50 percent minority and one Native American district. For the next ten years, those are protected and cannot retrogress, which is a concern.
Maureen Morarity, representing self, said she is concerned about equal representation. She attended many IRC meetings and often heard the Hispanic Coalition and Hispanic Majority speak, but nothing from other groups. She stated that the weekend prior to the map being presented that Chairwoman Mathis worked on over the weekend, she sat for hours watching Strategic Telemetry redo the map with Commissioner McNulty indicating where she wanted lines to be drawn. Ms. Morarity said she does not believe the commissioners are interested in the best interest of the citizens in the state. She is glad the Committee is listening, and hopefully, will be able to do the right thing.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:08 a.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
November 9, 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 27, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------