Thread by @redistrictAZ

They are back - and immediately headed into E-Session for guidance on VRA -for the 2nd time in 6 hours. Maybe they really need better legal counsel @BallardSpahrLLP and @SWLawNews. And draft maps do not yet exist -

BACK - Live -- does it look like @ArizonaIRC is pleased?

Dr @ndc_doug ready to talk through CD maps - This is 5.2

United Ak-Chin and Maricopa - Santa Cruz moved into D7; UA moved to D7 fromD6

more hodge lodge movements - all pop balanced

Now 5.1 -- UA moved again; split Santa Cruz; Includes Casa Grande - but not Maricopa - balanced - pop assigned...

Now 5.2 - to connect Maricopa w/ Casa Grande - could not happen in this iteration

5.3 builds of 5.0 - breaks Prescott and moves to D9 -imbalanced as now - but could work @ndc_doug says border messy but could be cleaned up --

Competitive analysis ready --
Com. Lerner - says I have concerns w/ all the maps-- I'd prefer to accept none of these -- some issues pertain to VRA districts; D6; comp. for D2 a great concern; In D6 in all versions is not compact..

Lerner Suggests moving back to 4.0 and continue to make progress
Mehl - not in favor of 5.3
a little skirmish about a motion -- or no motion --
5.3 does negative to D6 - seperating Graham and Greenlee - shockingly 5.1 map has 5 comp districts - don't want to ignore that option

So - Neuberg says "lets have a discussion" cuts of Watchman- Mehl talks and then concludes by saying this is what I will support. And that is fine w/ Neuberg. #NotBalanced #NotIndependent

This map is not moving Com. Lerner - if we are compromising go back to 5.0? She asks --
York - division of Santa Cruz county is natural from a geo standpoint - Watchman wanted to include Gila tribe -

VC Watchman - to look at 5.1 - 5.3; 5.0 is a better map - appreciate incorporating 2 tribes and there are tradeoffs - 4 other tribes inD7 and should be in border district - 5.0 a better starting point
Neuberg -not a fan of going back to4.0 - I doffed that none are ideal

Neuberg I like 5.1 competitiveness; could we find consensus - personally I like 5.1 -all are starting points

they are going to be drawing maps into next week

Mehl - I am committed to 5.1 and we had testimony from Santa Cruz Co that being split would be okay
Neuberg asks for a motion: Lerner moves to start with 5.0 -gives more room to work with and better to make adjustments off off

I feel that 5.0 is a compromise - my other preferences - 5.3 or 4.0 -- so this is a suggested compromise
Watchman seconds
The two Republicans confer and Mehl Votes Yes - York Votes Yes
5.0 VOTE for map 5.0

Neuberg talks about needing to be focused on VRA
Lerner suggests taking a look at D5 - move and keep San Tan Valley whole in D5; know it needs to be adjusted inD2.
Neuberg challenges proposed change uncompetitiveness
Lerner - agree - D5 is not competitive at all

Lerner - perhaps D8 and D? could be made more competitive -don't know how we get there in some districts
Lerner - Make Pinal whole
Neuberg - not a fan of making D5 more extreme

York makes several pop shifts
@ndc_doug hears two ideas
1) D1 New River Anthem goes south to E of I17- D8 pickup D1 territory;
2) lost again

Lerner suggest trying both options
D1 - Is very close keep it as is
Neuberg says "keep it within 4% - then it can help other districts

Neuberg an 8 pt spread is really reasonable ...

Will remind the public that @ArizonaIRC chose two measures of competitiveness and VOTED 5:0 and NOW the Independent Chairperson is making up new rules as they go along.

this is not how you get to #FAirDistricts for AZ

Lerner wonders what would happen to move Prescott --
Mehl - Don't think we can do that w/o changing everything - we just voted not to do that ..
@ndc_doug says D9; D2 then comes into Apache Junction and Mesa

Mehl - small pop adjustments in Yuma - move inn Hispanic out of D7 and Move into D9

Neuberg concerned about isolation of Sun Cities into D8

York says 303 loop connects I10 west -- works (I have to say I agree with him on this !!)..

Dr @ndc_doug talks about rural-ness of D9;
Lerner - D2 andD8 on competitiveness
York suggests tabling this discussion and letting hte mappers get to work on VRA piece

Neuberg asks if they are ready to present anything onLD plan -- @timmonsgroup says we can do that in 10 minutes - ten minutes...

While @ArizonaIRC is on break: Commissioners York and Mehl get points for actually not muscling their first choice in selecting 5.0. They knew the "IC" would follow them either way. This was in fact the first time they in fact compromised. Thank you.

Live Again

6.0 - not yet posted (these are changes that were built off discussion this am)

Lerner asks about changes inD9 in6.0 - very small adjustment
6.1

changes in Option 1

Changes in 6.2 - Tucson changes option 2

D16 from the Colorado River results from combining Oro Valley and Marana together .
Mehl says thank you for your creativity.
So. Az.Leadership Council has submitted a map! Will he tell us that he founded this organization .

Will he take it more appreciatively than the

Latino Coalition maps? Asks to be considered as official 6.3... is this how this is done? SALC - only did Tucson --
#Shameless #Arrogance
I am feeling abused. There are 100+ maps that have been submitted - there have been at least dozens of paper maps and none of them have

been posted. Is this process fair: Send a personal email to a commissioner with whom you have as personal relationship and it becomes official record? How is this fair to every other mapper in the state?

Mehl suggests starting late - legal suggests opening and then recessing; whole idea dropped bec. Com Watchman has a obligation in Tuba City..
8:00 - 3:00 goal for tomorrow
For 6.3 "citizen submission"

Shutting down - reconvening tomorrow at 8:00 am.. Commissioners Mehl and Lerner "with joy" move and second adjourning the meeting.