Thread by @redistrictAZ

Logged in to the meeting - You can join me at this link until 4 or 5 today -azgov.webex.com/azgov/j.php?MT…
Comment link here should be active from 8:15 - 4:00 ish - forms.gle/oZsf7NWG3kcBGh…
and there is the ALWAYS open irc.az.gov/contact-us

Lights! Camera! Action!

Just an odd thought while they go through admin motions - maybe they should take lessons from peace negotiations and sit at a round table - and make the consultants sit at a long table facing them.. as they are sitting now - there is almost no way to make eye contact

Comments are open here: forms.gle/oZsf7NWG3kcBGh…

Commissioners Lerner and Neuberg speak to their appreciation of public comments. GO. Now! forms.gle/oZsf7NWG3kcBGh…

Commissioner Neuberg says it is hard for the mappers to align specific boundaries.

And to the point of VRA districts - Com. Neuberg says can't do VRA first - that would be racial gerrymandering. All six criteria must be considered. VRA likely to be big topic of conversation today.

MarkF from @timmonsgroup points to 86 maps submitted (up from80 (?) last week) .. and more about the frickin' #TimmonsTool They have completely restructured it -- ! This is an expensive distraction -- and would be 100% worth it IF the commissioners actually used it. Do they?

There is the answer: Commissioner Lerner says YES - she thought it was really helpful ind added insight.

Mehl: wants to see certain demographics for each map - any way to set as a default? No really -- but can create a "Save as" ... 2018 AG & Gov races; Dem voters & aggregate

Decided. So be it!

Starting w/ CD maps
CD 3.0 - @PlanScore 6.1%R
Keeps Gila River IR together

Additional tribal lands joined in D6 and adjusted lines in D7 -currently unbalanced - no unassigned pop.. all requests met... says @timmonsgroup

The mapping table ...

Commissioner Neuberg says if they can't agree on any of the others - they'll go back and adopt 3.0

Goal of 3.1 @PlanScore 7.5% was to add all of Mohave county to D2; remove all of Pinal County fromD6 (?); Pinal county pop unassigned.

Southern border of D2 --
EdNote: for all the griping over the last ten years about the current CD 1 - how does D2 solve any of their complaints? Or wait, was the real complaint only that it wasn't universally Republican? #curious

Looking for demographics -- But is sounds like they are really talking about elections - races and wins -- hmmmmm.

. @ndc_doug says this is the easy pdf file - available w/o logging on - available for all maps --

Note says @ndc_doug was not able to balance population creating D2 --

Moving to 3.2 -6.9% Reep advantage via @PlanScore ;; goal to balance all the districts and move LaPaz into D2 ; D6 will include Copper Corridor and Payson; D5 take unassigned Pinal Co;
Pop Balanced

Strange shapes are mostly about Ind. Reservation/Tribal Lands; just a few related to pop balance

PDF os 3.2
Nat Am CVAP is same in this version as previous - pickup La Paz; loses Gila
D3 vote spread is wide -- That is VRA district - Mehl reminds this is the LCFR suggestion..
Neuberg says point spread could relate to packing - and deserves discussion !!!

Now to 3.3 @PlanScore 5.8 % Reep advantage
Move Mohave Co w. Graham and Greenlee and part of Pinal - casa Grande/ Maricopa City ...

All pop assigned; but not balanced (D1 - 11% short); every request fulfilled...

Data for CD 3.3
@ndc_doug says altho pop is not balanced - it is clear how they would be balanced -

Isn't that a truism - of course you can balance --it just means you have to make tradeoffs. Some might be ugly,,

Moving on to V. 3.4 @PlanScore 5.8 adv. Reep
Missed disc. of rational --

rationale - with an e..

Big change for D7 - Latino CVAP - 46% v 45% between two versions - still meets VRA requirements as an effective Latino district

D6 overpopulated - no other comments

NOW V. 3.5 built off 3.4 as a base -- @PlanScore 8.0% adv. Reep
Goal to balance districts 7, 6, and 2
River dividing line S. in Tucson - D6 includes Eloy, some of Casa Grande and ...

. @ndc_doug H-CVAP of C7 is down 2% from3.3. --VR election tracking actually goes up - reflects cross-over voting; Latino preferred candidate does better - despite % decrease..

more from @ndc_doug - split of Casa Grande is to not leave Maricopa (city) floating ...

That's it for the CD presentation
Ch. Neuberg asks for feedback
C.Lerner: Addresses Mohave Co...in D2; doesn't seem effective - names Am Indian pop... and other pops - inc - Hispanic - 3.3 may be more cohesive - w. commonalities -

econ and demographically the things that wrong them together
And is more compact than current CD 1

Mehl - asks for 3.2 or 3.5 - says this is a more coherent district and has a beneficial impact =on all the other districts.
This is the Wendy Rogers goes to Congress map

Mecl-says impact on Native Am Community same either way ..
Neuberg - how not to marginalize any community - talks point spread
Watchman - prefers 3.3 - Mohave Co is different than East border community..

3.3 Watchman says has a better presentation for the state -- mining and dependence on natural resources --
Mehl - If 3.3. or 3.5 -- end up with 2 of 9 rural congressional reps -- If you go with 3.2 there would only be 1 which is better for the state overall

Lerner - it is not just geography, it is COI> Colorado River - I just don't see that alignment in 3.3
No matter what - this will be a BIG district - there is no avoidance
We are trying to avoid a dist. that goes N/S - have a district going E/W doesn't make that any better

BUT Mehl says - w/o including Mohave we are sacrificing the communities in the south who don't want be part of this district -- we'd make it slightly better

So Mehl is falling on his sword for Casa Grande?

Lerner says - no matter which map we choose - some will feel disconnected -- that is the nature of the state - more concerned about over-arching starting point - where do we start philosophically connecting shared communities.. we did not hear the same things in the east as west.

Neuberg asks about 3.5
Mehl says 3.5 is better than 3.3 ; 3.2 still the best - again - the Am Indian Pop will be the same in either
Neuberg - yes - but 3.2 is more Rep advantage -

York likes v. 3.5 because it keeps east valley together
Lerner - big changes either way - but concern about D7 is the intrusion into Tucson - and adjusts competitiveness

Mehl asks for bio break --
Neuberg concurs and says let's come backend talk about rural communities. Big decision do we have 1 or 2 congressional representatives for rural areas...

Back in10 minutes..

Took a look at comments in chat - direction give to make comments at this link: forms.gle/oZsf7NWG3kcBGh….

BACK NOW
Q: on the table - which version will be used moving forward
MFlahan @timmonsgroup says 3.4 does pass integrity tests..

Neuberg asks for more discussion
Mehl wants to make a case for 3.2 -- Every other version has Mohave going deep into Maricopa - and this version "packs" more Republicans into this district.
And moves to adopt. York seconds.
Neuberg - you say this version is

advantageous to the other eight districts - can you explain
Mehl - everything is a moving target
The other districts are reasonable compact - other than D6 and we can adjust that - Casa Grande and Pinal County -- and keeps Mohave out of Maricopa

C. Watchman - I thought one of the. was what is rural -- and musty keep that in consideration - many court cases favor Am Indian as a COI
In West - you have ag and touring; East: ranching, mining and tourism - different - keep them separate 3.3 or 3.5

I think they should overlay the geography layer -- there is hte GRAND canyon, mountains,,, etc,

C. Watchman points out either the east or west district will pull into MarCo-- why is one better than the other...

C. Lerner - we will have to pull one of these into Maricopa Co - either some in D9 (3.3) or in D2 (3.2)
I feel the Am Ind would be disenfranchised in D2 --
And just in general - travel -- we know how difficult it is to go N/S - E/W is nearly impossible to effectively represent

Window Rock, LaPaz, Lake Havasu etc. no easy way to get from point A to B.

Neuberg asks for two options: Mehl asks for a vote on 3.2. W-N; M-Y; Y-Y; L-N; N-N - then says she is drawn to the concept - but her concern is the spread and the fact that is encompasses

50% of the land mass of the state.

Mehl suggests compromise map is 3.5
Lerner agrees 3.5 is compromise -- but for the record -- proposes to approve 3.3 ;Watchman seconds 2:3
W/A; M/N; L/A; Y/N; N/N;

Mehl proposes 3.5; Lerner seconds. Unanimous

C. Lerner asks for deeper review of 3.5 map as starting point for revisions today ...

Conversation
York- Starts with asking D4 move into Scottsdale; has more in common w/ Tempe - camelback road is N boundary (entertainment district)

If we move pop in - have to say where to move pop out...

Hard to follow the specific recommendations -- will just point out 1) there is no organized process - where to start and how to walk through the entire plan.. and 2) York starts where he knows best.

Lerner suggest D4 is well laid out based on what we said --; says other areas are protects as they are - New River, Cave Creek and Carefree; and Fountain Hills
Neuberg - don't see Papago Park as D4 space --

Lerner looks at D7 and D9 and moving into MarCo - we can talk about spread - dismissed D7 bec. goes into Tolleson - in this configuration D9 does that.. Tolleson not growing as much and Latino neighborhoods..

Buckeye hi growth area in rural D9 -- either go back to D7 OR go back to LCFR for alternative
York says more Tolleson to D3 - six sq. mile; closer to D3 - nothing along I10 has anything to do w/ Yuma or Tucson
I10 is about growth
Lerner - Overpopulation & connectiveness

York - Avondale, Tolleson, and Buckeye belong together (center of the pie issues?)
Mehl - D7 can not go farther north - I'd object
Lerner - have to look at D6 and Tucson in general

Lerner - concern that we were quick adjust D7 w/o talking-to LCFR - we accepted D3; but not D7 -- Taking it out of MarCo may move it into an opp. district v. Maj-min.
Mehl - says - no - stay where we are.. they can comment during the 30 day comment period

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH - C. Neuberg says nothing stops us from learning on our own... That is NOT #Transparency Do your workin public meetings -- and "work" includes learning

C. Lerner says Tucson should be better than what it is in this iteration ..
Mehl - says Tucson will be split - 2 m pop. has to be; this is similar toast splits -districts as drawn are sensible
Lerner - D6, 7, and 9 not best configuration

asks @ndc_doug says 3.0 is what you are talking about with your moves..
C. Lerner - if we accept D9 going into MarCo; what not D7?

Lerner asks for VRA analysis of D7 and D3;

And now from the lawyers: Is C. Lerner asking legal analysis or Timmons? If Legal - let's go into E-Session...

Headed into E-Session - which for once makes sense to have this conversation in closed session...

Back from E-Session - going give direction to mappers after getting VRA advice from legal: Then staff updates on public record requests (did she say another e-session?); then lunch.

Neuberg - We'd like to hone in on CD; then LD - asks to get Hvap above 50% - @ndc_doug says D3 already there at 50.1; D7 below 50% but over in the performance category - will that fulfill our obligation?
She said Hisp VAP , but not CVAP ??

York intercedes and says looking at LCFR - Neuberg says both ..
mehl asks for map of his pop. looking for those that are not "in there" -- is this a packing expedition?

What is 50% or more -- Mehl asks - this really feels like packing..

Asks also for Yuma

Lerner asks for Tolleson and Avondale that was part of LCFR D7 = are we shortchanging pop in Phx?

York weighs in on Avondale -- Wondering of one of his offspring want run for office from Avondale??

says @ndc_doug we didn't;t leave it outdoor any reason -- we cannot numbers for LC map (LC=Latino Coalition) - could add that in/ could pull west and get south Tucson area -- Mehl suggests shedding pop. fromSanta Cruz "They have been split in the past"
Sahaurita and Green Valley

Neuberg -consensus is to get to 50% w/o going into MarCo..
Lerner says I am not there -- I want to get to 50% and may want to include part of MarCo..
Watchman - Tolleson said they wanted to be w/ So -could be added to D7 -- Mayor of Tolleson signed LC letter

Tolleson, Mehl says. is not Hispanic. York - says the issue is compactness.. Yuma County??

says @ndc_doug - there is a bit of Hisp pop that could be added; Mehl says those who are not Hisp could be swapped out...
Lerner - says we need to resolve this one issue; unlikely to find the right pop a bit here and there

Lerner cont. - Tolleson said they wanted to be included and feel connected with that district -- it's not arbitrary - it is respectful of the alignment in their community.. which they articulated

Neuberg asks @ndc_doug to create two choices for us to choose
1) take 3.5 and work in Yuma, Santa Cruz, Pinal to bring D7 up to 50% w/o touching West Valley
2) take 3.5 and integrate D7 as proposed by LC
Is that the request?
Lerner - comfortable at looking at both choices

States Hisp pop of both Tolleson and Avondale -- It is completely those rural districts - doing the same thing in D9 as well.

Neuberg says she doesn't want Goodyear and Avondale to get sucked into D7 --
Lerner - just looking at older areas - not new hi-growth
York - says stay E of the river ..

Pic on the right is Avondale/Tolleson - no new pop in Buckeye and Goodyear
Differences between, 3.5 and LC/Fr

More diff between 3.5 and LCFR -
Neuberg asks h/2 fill out this maj-min district
Neuberg: "fine with me if there is consensus for that."

ask: @ndc_doug Scottsdale -
Again: Lerner says - not sure we need major changes to D4 - it does what we said we wanted
Just leave it as is - for the moment

Lerner asks to see where Ak-Chin and Gila River are whole and in one district..
York - they are in D7 -

Ready for mapping break/ some staff work
then Lunch break
Reconvene at 2:00 for more mapping for LD plan
@ArizonaIRC Item 8B - "honoring requests and legal obligations" hmmmm Moving into E-Session for public records update How is this necessary? #Transparent this is NOT!

Back from break a few minutes early. What did we learn this am?
1) Mehl and York are working off a play book that has every comment affecting any district anywhere in the state to a best scenario.
2) Neuberg has her own quirky way of seeing COI and competitiveness.

3) there has not been three minutes of planning spent on how to approach mapping the entire state - York jumps in with changes to D4... why?? so they move on to someplace else. Not clear how this will allow for equal consideration across every nook and cranny in the state.

4) Chairwoman Neuberg has to be thrilled there was a "compromise" starting point selected. Can they keep that up?
5) Am. Indian as a COI is a given ; but not necessarily one COI for the whole state. What does the @ITCAOnline say? How to unite and separate to give full voice?

6) I heard packing - once by Co. Mehl advocating for the N.state district spanning E/W as "it packed more Republicans" in the district which would be good for other districts; and once by C. Neuberg fearing such packing would dilute too many COI....

7)More on packing -- seemed to me they were looking to pack Dem voters into districts to get to a magic 50% --I thought Dr. Handley said that was not a good approach... @ndc_doug did try to suggest effectiveness as a lens --
Day four of mapping - 3.5 more to go...
Stay strong.

They seem to be BACK-- Mehl has another Q: re: Congress; On VRA D7 - 44% hispanic VAP, but 50% minority, and performing great for Latino - does that make a difference -- @ndc_doug refers to legal -- Legal: will have take data points - we will need more analysis

NOW moving into Leg maps - Fewer Branches
LegPlan 3.0 goal: connect Verde Valley w/ Prescott; Flagstaff in different district.. All of Yavapai
Didn't work...

D7 would be over populated; Couldn't get to Prescott -- Then Verde Valley and Prescott/ remainder somewhere else
All Flagstaff in D6 - works - D7 does not

Now 3.1 - Put Navajo and Apache Co together - Hwy 191 - Verde Valley separate from Prescott; Mehl asks about data points 2020 Census give VAP; ACS gives CVAP - This works - pop balanced out of Flagstaff

City of Flagstaff outline

Kyrene School district kept whole - and some pop balancing

York Q on D1 - why is airport in D1 instead of D 11 - @ndc_doug - focus was on border between minority districts along border.. NE corner of D11 - Fwy loop kept together

C. Neuberg asks about Chandler - where she lives - a COI of ONE!
Every commissioner does this... Every. One.

Gilbert in four parts.. A hi growth area... something to consider..

Payson united - all of non-reservation Gila Co is none district

LD plan 3.2
have Prescott w. VV - in D5; challenge is D7 - goes So to include Gila and into Pinal... And San Tan - no where else to go to get pop..

The San Tan Valley -
LD 15 is short; LD 5 is over - could shuffle pop and could be balanced

Closer-up of Maricopa County..

Lerner: Sedona and VV - connecting w/ Flagstaff -- where did that end up?
@ndc_doug VV+ Flagstaff also includes Sedona -- - does not working this version bec. Flag is in D6 --

A little lost of what is where with wherelse -- but the good news is -- these lines will change more..

C. Neuberg asks where does it make the most sense to starts and what about the LC leg maps?

Says @ndc_doug do you want to adopt one of these plans - or go back. LC maps should all be in the system now...
Neuberg asks for review of two option

3.1 or 3.2 -- or go back to 2.0 --
Com.Mehl - lots of work to do moves to start w/ 3.2.. Lerner smiling bec.

I was going suggest 3.1 - bec. it might be a slightly better starting point from a tribal perspective.

@ndc_doug points out Flagstaff is split in 3.1 and pop is picked up inSouth -- Com. Mehl reiterated make my pt. Start w/ 3.2! #relentless

C Watchman -- 3.2 just came out this am - -had more time to look at 3.1
York weighs in in support of 3.2
Lerner - pop deviations greater in 3.2 than in 3.1 ; asks for overlay 3.1 on the bottom - 3.2 on top
hemming and hawing...

Differences - "keep Flagstaff whole" Globe doesn't want to be connected -: Lerner reiterates many said it'd be okay to split Flagstaff... Differences in Phx

Changes between 3.1 and 3.2

diff in number of comp seats - only because of balancing -- both will end up w/ same number of comp districts.
Neuberg - just a starting point -- Mehl repeats his motion - York seconds -- 4:1 - Watchman a no; Com. Lerner in the spirit of compromise votes yes on 3.2

ASK: @ndc_doug Kyrene School district - want that brought into this plan? D12 ok? York - we heard Kyrene School District was a COI and Watchman - ok to be into districts.
Consensus ..

Com. Watchman asks for data
Com. Neuberg asks about the Spread -
@ndc_doug 1 or 2 - to be highly compet. and swing; 4 that are w/in 7 pt spread - and one swing..
Com. Neuberg - yes, those two levels - but a continuum

to paraphrase uncompetitive at 8 points is better than 15 points
Com. Mehl - all of us interested in the number of maj-min districts and meet at least what the last commission did - and then: really important that Marana and Oro Valley are in the same leg distric -
Ed Note: Why?

Is this where Com. Mehl is advocating for HIS district?
@ndc_doug not a simple fix...

suggest by @ndc_doug : create these changes for tomorrow
20 minute break for mappers to stitch together LC LD districts

Latino Coalition suggested districts

Lookin more closely at PHX

Neuberg asks - How do they come to eight? and we have 7.. where are the differences..
@ndc_doug says they have 8 latino districts - plus the Am. Indian district - -
Lerner - in 2011 there were 8 VRA districts and 2 opportunity districts
Open- AZ Latino Coalition Legislative

@ndc_doug

Com. Mehl asks for So AZ impact ..

D7 in the middle--
Com. Mehl sees things we can learn from looking at this map --some good things are combined with what I was looking for

Com. Mehl - says he does not like this part so much...
Com. Lerner -- Douglas...

Com York - Struggling with Pop - 238, 383 ideal pop - some have quite a few more, less
@ndc_doug its a (f) of the quick import...
Com. Lerner - can we have these incorporated into 3.2 -- include Com. Mehl's req. on Marana and Oro Valley

Com Mehl - do one version of everything - and another version of almost everything --
York - they get to eight - we are striving
Com. Neuberg - can go along w/ integrating all ; but wants to know how that fits in with our vision - we've created a vision -
EdNote: Is that true?

What is THAT vision?
@ndc_doug points out that these are effective Latino districts, but only two reach 50% level...
Com. Mehl says we'll hear from our "esteemed" counsel tomorrow..

The @ArizonaIRC has a little bit of Christmas morning joy in looking at the Latino Coalition Latino/VRA/opportunity district plans

But taking a step back to make sure there is not a pony in the yard they are missing...

Q from MFlahan @timmonsgroup - re Tucson district in 3.2
York and Mehl - makes sense -- keeps river as a boundary - a toss-up - D 17
Lerner - Oro Valley and Casa Adobe wanted to be together ..
Changes coming

Com. Neuberg says at some point we can vote to lock things in -- not today -- maybe small bits
ED NOTE: Prob. not tomorrow either ...
Com. Lerner asks about when to bring in RPV --
@ndc_doug we are using that at each iteration

Com Lerner - just getting used to 3.2 - @ndc_doug using benchmark elections integrates all that at the county level --
Legal Counsel says they are meeting w./ experts at 6am for their analysis
Mappers will text @ArizonaIRC when maps are live- yes --

tell: @ndc_doug changes to LD x changes LD X - big ripples --

Closing down for the day..
Rest up - we are doing this all again tomorrow