US House Redistricting: Arizona

[So the Heroes Fall]

Yeah seems that way. Not sure if Quayle lives in AZ-6 but he won't win AZ-9 obviously. Schweikert might technically live in the new AZ-4 but he might think he has a better chance against Quayle in the primary in the new AZ-6 than against a Yavapai or Mohave Republican in the new AZ-4.

So Quayle is probably gone unless he can spew enough Tea Party idiocy to get them to turn out in droves for him in the primary and AZ-9 is a Dem gain, with a new Republican from outside Maricopa winning AZ-4.

[So the Heroes Fall]

BTW surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet (unless I missed it), but is the Navajo/Hopi split no longer an issue or whatever? Or did the Hopis maybe decide that they'd rather be stuck with the Navajo than represented by someone from the northwest Phoenix suburbs?

[Torie]

BTW surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet (unless I missed it), but is the Navajo/Hopi split no longer an issue or whatever? Or did the Hopis maybe decide that they'd rather be stuck with the Navajo than represented by someone from the northwest Phoenix suburbs?

The Hopi told the Commission this time that being on the other side of the Marginot line from the Navajos was no longer job one for them.

[krazen1211]

I tried to do a better job for the GOP.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/1168/another-arizona-commission-map

[ag]

I've tried sketching the non-Maricopa districts in Dave's application. It's, indeed, a wow! job for the Dems. Never thought that possible, but when you start drawing it almost makes sense. The 4th district is a real piece of art.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I kind of agree with Lewis the 4th makes sense in a very odd way, but it allows for the election of another non-Maricopa Republican, and really non-Maricopa Arizona is "entitled" to more than just the first district and the two Tucson area seats.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair. If there's going to be five districts in Maricopa, 3-2 is certainly more fair than 4-1, or perhaps 3-1-1 as the current AZ-5 is now a legitimate swing district (counting the current AZ-2 as a Maricopa based seat, which it is population-wise even if not geographically. Democrats get over 40% of the votes there consistently so 40% of the seats isn't ridiculous. As for outstate, an R seat, a D seat and two swing seats one leaning R and one leaning D is pretty even too, and it's a pretty evenly split region.

I can see why Republicans aren't happy, but the non-partisan commission did basically acheive its goal if the map ends up giving Republicans 55.55...% of the seats in a state where a favorite son won around 53% of the vote.

BTW what does everyone think of Harry Mitchell trying a comeback in the new AZ-9? It contains Tempe which is his base. I'd be pretty confident he'd go for it if he wasn't already so old, he might just prefer to get a sweet and work-light lobbyist position to pad his retirement fund.

[muon2]

I can see why Republicans aren't happy, but the non-partisan commission did basically acheive its goal if the map ends up giving Republicans 55.55...% of the seats in a state where a favorite son won around 53% of the vote.

I looked at the same feature through the fairness measure used by the Ohio Competition. Each party got a point for a district that was rated for them, except that districts with over 55% of the two-party vote counted 1.5 points, and districts within 51% counted a point for both parties. I used the commission's basket of elections adjusted by 1.5% towards the Dems to compensate for the overweight of the 2010 results (a shift of 2.5% gives the same result).  That gives 8 points R and 7 points D or 53.3% which is very close to the shifted statewide average.

[krazen1211]

Here comes the nuclear option!

http://azstarnet.com/article_52defe34-1fb5-5e96-96e9-290448ba49f6.html

The law empowers the governor to recommend the Senate remove any member of the commission who is not doing her or his job. And Mathis has come under fire from Republicans who charge she sides too much with the Democrats.

[BigSkyBob]

Here comes the nuclear option!

http://azstarnet.com/article_52defe34-1fb5-5e96-96e9-290448ba49f6.html

The law empowers the governor to recommend the Senate remove any member of the commission who is not doing her or his job. And Mathis has come under fire from Republicans who charge she sides too much with the Democrats.

Well, the real reason to remove her are that her husband is active in the Democratic party,  which she did not disclosed when she applied for the "independent" seat, and, that she may have obstructed justice in destroying documents created by the commission.

[Senator Sbane]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

[Senator Napoleon]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

[Senator X]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Of course not, the Supreme Court has a Republican majority

[krazen1211]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Probably. The GOP has a 2/3 majority and could easily kick Mathis off it they chose to, at least unless they draw proper seats.

[Torie]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

You have the gall to so characterize those Pubbie pussies on the Commission? Please!  If I were on the Commission we would be in court already, and have a transcript a hundred pages long, and have had a host of whore experts testifying before the commission about just how lawless they were, and how cooked their numbers were, and hopefully obtained some helpful admissions, and been whining to the press on a daily basis,  and on and on. In a word, I know how to play, and they don't. Period.

Anything else you want to get off your chest sbane?  Think of me as your therapist.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

[Senator Napoleon]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

So spouses having conflicts of interest is more important in redistricting than on the Supreme Court? Wow.

[Senator Sbane]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

You have the gall to so characterize those Pubbie pussies on the Commission? Please!  If I were on the Commission we would be in court already, and have a transcript a hundred pages long, and have had a host of whore experts testifying before the commission about just how lawless they were, and how cooked their numbers were, and hopefully obtained some helpful admissions, and been whining to the press on a daily basis,  and on and on. In a word, I know how to play, and they don't. Period.

Anything else you want to get off your chest sbane?  Think of me as your therapist.

I have been looking at the OH map too much!

[nclib]

According to DKE, every AZ incumbent (including Flake) has at least 60% of his/her own current district in one of the new CDs (though not necessarily their home address). That places most of Schweikert's CD in AZ-9, where he may not win. Perhaps he'll run in another CD. Would any other of the Reps run in a less familiar CD?

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

So spouses having conflicts of interest is more important in redistricting than on the Supreme Court? Wow.

Strawman. Again, if the Supreme Court was mandated to be 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and one Independent, then the exact same standard would apply to Supreme Court justice nominees, and their spouses.  But, Supreme Court nominees are free to have any political positions they please short of advocating the violent overthrow of the government. However, if their spouses had business or financial interests in case likely to come before the court, then that ought to disclosed.

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

[Vasall des Midas]

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out -  but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.

[Vasall des Midas]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

[Torie]

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out -  but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."  And the reason, putting aside the cooked data, that it is "semi "fair," as muon2 with his little formula noted, is precisely that.  Darn it, if that is the law in AZ, it should be the law in MA!  

[BigSkyBob]

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done.

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.